On October 18th John Dickson, the chairman of the All Ireland Senior Rugby Clubs' Association, wrote to Pádraig Power, the IRFU's director of commerce and marketing, fully three days after the opening round of matches in this season's AIL.

On behalf of AISCRA, who represent all 48 clubs, Dickson raised "a number of important issues which need immediate clarification", most pertinently why some clubs had still not received the new AIB logo, which had been designed and distributed in haste owing to the new five-year sponsorship deal with AIB being concluded just a couple of weeks before the league started.

The letter also pointed out that the new logo "does not reverse well" and asked if there was an alternative version while also inquiring about AIB's perimeter advertising. Dickson's missive on behalf of AISCRA raised several more issues, including the general perception among clubs that the union's media workshops had not answered concerns as to how the proposed "media partnerships" - a vague concept that remains a source of angst for clubs - were actually going to work.

AISCRA also asked whether any other deals had been made with the AIB and raised issues regarding the community rugby programme, the AIB League working party, the launching of the AIB All Ireland Cup and The Way Forward, in which it was claimed: "In November 2004 I wrote to Pat Fitzgerald and yourself (Power) to offer the assistance of AISCRA's Promotion and Marketing Committee's resources and experience, (but) this offer was simply ignored. We have a number of leading and award-winning professionals within our association who have considerable experience in design, media and public relations, marketing and sponsorship negotiations. These men give of their time on a voluntary basis, and do so for the good of rugby football in Ireland. I would respectfully suggest that in future, when help or assistance is offered, it is embraced with open arms - we must work together to make the league and cup a big success."

The AISCRA letter was forwarded to the union representatives on the working party and the four provincial CEOs. In response, Dickson received an email two days later stating: "The points which you have outlined in your letter are duly noted and the clarifications which you are seeking will be communicated in due course through the normal branch network."

Although AISCRA have up to eight representatives on the league working party, which meets about four times a season, this is not the first time enquiries beyond that forum have been referred to the age-old and somewhat laborious "normal branch network".

There are conflicting messages from the IRFU as to whether it is a deliberate policy to not respond in writing directly to AISCRA, instead referring them to the "normal branch network", and the union point out they have given AISCRA €2,000 toward each of the three divisions in AISCRA and include them in the working-party forum.

Nevertheless, executive members of the AISCRA don't for a second doubt that such a policy exists. In any event further correspondence between Dickson and Power, in which the latter reiterated "my correspondence was to be communicated from your branch to your club", led the AISCRA chairman to conclude, in writing: "This clearly demonstrates the failure of the communication structure of the IRFU through the branches to the clubs; you might as well use two tin cans and a piece of string - it is ridiculous and totally unacceptable."

Dickson also claimed it had been agreed at the working party of November 25th that any correspondence between AISCRA and the IRFU would be responded to directly. This was disputed by Der Healey, chairman of the working party, who maintained there had been no such agreement, though Dickson subsequently cited his association's minutes in disputing this.

That at least some of the IRFU hierarchy cling to the "normal branch network" at the very least comes across as being discourteous to AISCRA. It also seems rather petty, and somewhat ironic, given that communications directly to AISCRA might have helped to expedite the issue of the AIB/IRFU partnership logos, among other things, and thereby help the marketing of the league.

The normal branch network "doesn't work", according to Dickson, who argues it is too ponderous, too subservient to the IRFU, and too divided along provincial lines to speak coherently for the clubs - not to mention that the branches also consist of schools, refereeing and junior lobbies, and have many other issues to deal with.

Dickson acknowledges there have been some positive moves by the union toward the club game, not least in their five-year partnership with AIB, the concept of an international for non-contracted club players against their Scottish counterparts, and the All Ireland Cup, albeit first mooted by AISCRA themselves.

However, there remains an underlying fear within the AISCRA executive that the IRFU are intent on diluting the clubs and downgrading the league, evidenced in the reduction of ticket allocations and financial support to them, the apparent desire to keep AISCRA in their box and the proposal to impose a limit of three contracted players per club.

A union spokesperson denies this is so, stating the proposal regarding a cap on contracted players was discussed and effectively rejected at working-party level, and they didn't take up AISCRA's offer of their own marketing resources because they were in negotiations with AIB at the time.

Nevertheless, Dickson's sense of frustration on the clubs' behalf is acute.

"We want this whole thing to work and we want to work with the union but they have been autocratic and discourteous to us," he says.

"It's time for the union to wake up and smell the coffee. Times have changed and they're not keeping up with the changing times."