WHEN on November 17th the officers of the IRFU met the representatives of Ireland's senior clubs, the meeting had before it a document from the IRFU. It was comprehensive and the product of considerable research and several meetings of the committee of the union as well the meeting that had taken place between representatives of the first division clubs and the officers of the union.

At the meeting on November 17th a majority of the clubs voted down any change in the structure of the Insurance Corporation League for this and next season. That was their right, democracy in action. The vote was 28-20 with five of the 14 first division clubs voting against any change and every club in the second division doing likewise. Eight of the 11 third division clubs supported the no change proposition and eight of the 10 division four clubs voted for a change. So an alliance between the majority of the first and a majority of the fourth division clubs but for different reasons.

The first division clubs who voted for amendment did so because they believe the first division is too big at 14 clubs. If the proposed new structure had been passed the division would have been reduced to 12 clubs and that in my view is still too many. Those in the fourth division who wanted change did so because under the proposed new format they would have seen their division increased from 10 to 13 clubs and consequently would have got more matches.

One of the interesting elements to emerge was that all the clubs who have been ever present in the first division since its inauguration six years ago voted against the current structure and for change. They are Cork Constitution, Garryowen, Shannon, and St Mary's College. They were supported by Blackrock College, Old Crescent, Terenure College, Lansdowne and Old Wesley. Both Terenure College and Old Crescent will be competing in the first division for the initial time this season and despite that, and to their great credit, they voted for change.

AT THE November 17th meeting the IRFU president, Bobby Deacy, correctly stated that it was at the clubs' request that the structure of the league was being examined and that the proposals came as direct result of consultation at club and branch levels. The introduction to the document presented to the clubs put the issues in perspective. It stated: "The introduction of the open game has created a particularly challenging environment for all within rugby." No argument with that. It went on: "It is critical that all of us in the rugby community should examine in detail the structures which effect us, consider their relevance to the current situation and changes which may be required to grow and strengthen the game of rugby in Ireland."

I would make it very clear that the first division clubs who voted for amendment to the current structure were not by their votes supporting a 12 clubs first division as proposed in the amended structure for next season. They were voting in favour of amending the league as and from next season but not necessarily in support of a 12 club division. The same applies to other clubs in other divisions. In voting against the current structure they were not supporting the proposed amendments to the league.

That is a very important distinction. Some of the first division clubs hold the view that the first division should be eight clubs and a maximum of, 10 and I would give that view total support. It is truly remarkable that now there are more clubs in the first division of the AIL than in the first divisions of the English League and the first division in Wales and also more second division clubs in Ireland than in the English league.

I am at a loss to understand what that will do to lift the standard of the game in this country. Nor do I see it as an incentive for Irish players now based in England to return to this country. Not that I believe several of the Irish players went to England to improve their game. Money was the primary incentive for some if not for all.

It is a stated objective of the IRFU that, to attract players back from England, a well structured competitive season at national, provincial and club levels are vital. I do not believe that the AIL is currently structured to the best advantage of Irish rugby.

The structure of the season, the contracting of players and the proposed professional set up at provincial level will be discussed at another special meeting of the IRFU next weekend. That meeting will precede the usual monthly meeting of the union.

IT seems apparent that the current plan is that each province will appoint a director of rugby whose primary responsibility will be with the provincial team but whose duties and responsibilities will embrace more than just the senior side. The development of players will be among the responsibilities of rugby directors. Those people will also work closely with a committee of management in each province and of course with the national team manager. That is certainly a step in the right direction.

Sometimes I wonder, and at times despair, about the way the game in this country is marketed by clubs and provinces in this highly competitive era. Much is made of the importance of university rugby and in some cases lip service is paid to that. University rugby has suffered greatly in recent years for a variety of reasons. But it is still important in the development of players and a player getting his colour is still a worthy achievement and objective. The bursary given to young players by the IRFU is also a worthy initiative.

But the universities must also help themselves and that brings me back to the Colour Match last Friday between Trinity and UCD. The Trinity club was the host club for this match, their organisation was dreadful, the programme they produced was truly appalling. No numbers were listed for either team, no replacements listed for UCD, a wrong name in the UCD team and absolutely no attempt to inform the public in identifying players or the replacements of which there were three.

The name of the referee was not even listed. Time was when a Colours programme was a worthy publication. Much is made of the fact that the match has graced the scene for the better part of 50 years, yet the programme did not even give the results of the previous matches. There was generous sponsorship for the event. If marketing the game is now supposed to be of great importance, surely a programme giving accurate information is a fundamental element of that.