A validation-first alternative to cutting Welsh professional rugby to three clubs.
This page is the shortest route into the public case. It explains why the proposal exists, what it is asking readers to endorse, and why the financial and governance case should be validated rather than simply asserted.
Core signals
The summary needs to work for delegates and public readers without hiding the caveats.
7 pillars
System-wide structure
This is a whole-system case, not a single-issue note.
3 tracks
Audience routes
Delegates, supporters, and stakeholders need different entry points.
10 years
Model horizon
The argument looks beyond immediate crisis management.
Validate first
Publication posture
Irreversible action should follow disclosure and review.
What this page is really asking
The alternative case is narrower than a manifesto and stronger for that reason. It starts from five live problems in Welsh rugby: finance and commercial resilience, performance and player welfare, pathway and participation decline, governance and trust, and weak decision clarity.
The paper argues that those pressures are real, but contraction should not be treated as the only serious response before the workings are published and the trade-offs have been tested.
The public ask is to retain four regional identities, publish the assumptions and source data gaps openly, and move the discussion into a comparative decision framework rather than a one-direction sales pitch.
What the summary asks readers to support
The public case is about disciplined comparison, not blind optimism.
Retain four regions
Preserve four destinations as strategic assets while tightening the wider system around them.
Validate before irreversible action
Treat affordability and governance as things to prove openly, not as settled claims.
Publish the workings
Separate verified facts, assumptions, and stretch targets so readers can judge the real trade-offs.
What still blocks a final endorsement
Final ownership and capital structures are not yet published as decision-grade material.
Lender covenants, security packages, and the full refinancing mechanics still need clearer disclosure.
The four-region affordability path remains a comparative model, not a signed funding agreement.
Some implementation mechanisms still need later drafting, negotiation, and legal process before adoption.