Calls for the Welsh Rugby Union board to stand down have intensified in recent weeks, as opposition mounts to its plans to reduce the number of Wales' professional rugby clubs from four to three. The proposed cuts have provoked a fierce backlash, with Go.Compare founder Hayley Parsons and Wales great Jonathan “Jiffy” Davies among those calling for a change of leadership.
But what would it actually take to remove the WRU board? And, crucially, is there any way to stop the union from pressing ahead with its plans to reduce the professional game to three teams?
External Pressure Gets to the Board
The most straightforward outcome would be for the current board to resign under the mounting pressure from senior figures in Welsh rugby, the media and potentially the Welsh Government. Such a move would represent a dramatic escalation in the battle over the future structure of professional rugby in Wales, particularly if the board concluded that it no longer had sufficient support to push through its proposed reduction from four professional teams to three.
But the prospect of the entire board walking away of its own accord appears slim. They have weathered the criticism so far and, if anything, have demonstrated a resilience that some of their opponents may have underestimated. Look at the backgrounds of some of the directors. Andrew Williams did not rise to become chief executive of a FTSE 100 company without developing a thick skin. The same could be said of Jennifer Mathias, whose career includes senior experience at Rathbones. If the pressure is to force the board out, therefore, it may take considerably more than a barrage of criticism from rugby figures, the media and politicians.
EGM: The Most Likely Route
By far the most likely way to force the board out and, by extension, halt the three-team plan, would be through an extraordinary general meeting (EGM). That would provide the clearest mechanism for those opposed to the WRU's proposals to try to wrest control of the situation from the board and force a vote on its future.
As exclusively revealed by WalesOnline last weekend, the self-styled “Coalition of the Willing” believes it has enough support among Wales' community clubs to force an extraordinary general meeting (EGM). The WRU's annual general meeting in November could also have provided an opportunity to table a motion of no confidence in the entire board. But the deadline for submitting such a motion has now passed, leaving an EGM as the most obvious route for those seeking to challenge the leadership.
If an EGM is held this autumn, it would be the second such meeting called by the WRU this year; at a potential cost of around £120,000 to Welsh rugby. For the EGM to be held, it would first need the backing of 10% of the 282 member clubs. If the threshold is achieved, the union would have 21 days to formally acknowledge the request and schedule the meeting. Under Section 62 of the WRU's Articles of Association, a resolution of no confidence would require a simple majority of the clubs voting at the EGM to pass. The meeting itself would need 95 members in attendance to be quorate, while clubs would also be permitted to vote by proxy or through remote electronic voting.
If at an EGM a vote of no confidence goes against the WRU, the whole board would have to stand down with immediate effect, although CEO Abi Tierney would remain in place unless she chose to resign. A temporary board would then be put in place, although what could also be passed at an EGM is a motion to change the articles of association to ensure external members could be appointed from the outset. This would require 75% of member clubs to vote in its favour.
Impact of Removing the Board
If the board were to lose a vote of no confidence, the three-team proposal would surely have to be paused, at the very least, while the future of the union's leadership was determined. But removing the board would not, in itself, resolve the financial problem at the heart of the dispute. The current leadership has remained adamant that Welsh rugby cannot afford to sustain four professional teams alongside the investment required to improve the pathway. In other words, a change at the top could halt the immediate plans, but it would not make the underlying financial pressures disappear. If a new board wanted to retain four professional teams, the onus would be on them to find the money to make it financially viable.
That would leave any incoming leadership facing the same fundamental question as the current board: where would the additional funding come from to sustain a fourth team while also delivering the investment needed to improve the professional pathway?
Legal Challenges and URC Hurdles
There is every chance the future structure of Welsh professional rugby will ultimately be decided in the courts. The WRU is already embroiled in a legal dispute with Swansea Council, which is fighting to ensure the Ospreys survive and are able to play at a redeveloped St Helen's. That may go some way to explaining why the WRU has yet to set out in detail how it intends to reduce the number of professional teams from four to three.
The union has repeatedly said it wants the change to be achieved by consensus, which would appear to suggest that a merger between the Ospreys and Scarlets is its preferred solution. But if the WRU attempts to remove either club from the professional game, it is unlikely to happen without a fight. The existing owners would have every incentive to challenge the decision and could be expected to deploy every legal avenue available to them. Whether such a challenge could ultimately save the club facing the axe remains to be seen. But even the prospect of legal action could make the WRU's task considerably more difficult. The union will need to ensure the process is beyond reproach, with every decision made transparently and fairly, if it is to withstand the potential legal challenges that lie ahead.
The United Rugby Championship could yet prove to be the biggest obstacle to the WRU's plans. From the outset, the union has made clear that reducing Wales' representation from four professional teams to three is, at least in part, dependent on the URC finding a replacement for whichever Welsh side is cut. The WRU initially wanted to bring a team from the United States into the competition, only for those plans to be blocked by the South African Rugby Union, which is now a full shareholder in the URC. Other possibilities have since been discussed, including London Irish and Ealing Trailfinders. But either would require the approval of the Rugby Football Union, as well as the backing of every shareholder in the URC.
Georgia's Black Lion could be another option, while a second South African side, such as the Cheetahs, has also been mooted. In theory, the WRU could press ahead with reducing Wales to three teams and accept a substantial financial penalty for breaching its obligations to the competition. But this is where the situation becomes particularly significant. For such a fundamental change to be sanctioned, every URC shareholder would have to vote in favour. That means the WRU does not have complete control over its own three-team plan and one dissenting shareholder could yet throw another obstacle in its path.
