The executive committee of the IRFU met yesterday for a meeting which had been specially arranged to discuss Irish rugby, with specific reference to the structure of the game in this country. In the current climate, it was certainly a timely gathering. The agenda was likely to have been widened to embrace the resignation of Brian Ashton as Ireland coach, although the meeting had been scheduled before Ashton resigned.

There are some very important lessons to be learned in relation to that particular issue, the manner of the resignation and its timing and the reasons for it. There is another ironic twist in that the meeting yesterday followed a crucial meeting on Thursday of the IRFU contracts sub-committee. The issue of contracts and who got them has been bandied about in recent times in relation to Ashton and his alleged disenchantment.

The specific reason for Ashton's resignation has not been given, either by Ashton or the IRFU. The coach conveyed his resignation by letter to the IRFU president, Niall Brophy. So why did he resign? Many reasons will and have been given. The only man who can explain is Brian Ashton and he is not talking, at least not on the record. In seeking answers, perhaps we should bear in mind that Ashton is the fifth national coach to leave his post within the last six months. Ashton was preceded by Carel du Plessis (South Africa), Greg Smith (Australia), Jack Rowell (England) and Richie Dixon (Scotland). Not one of those four went voluntarily, Ashton did. But the fall out does tell us something about the incredible strain and responsibilities now on national coaches and, as we have seen, on club coaches.

South Africa, for instance, have had no fewer than six coaches in seven years, three in the last 12 months. Australia are now on their third in the space of three years. So is the system of appointment unwieldy and unworkable? Were all of these coaches entrapped in a web of administration and union politics?

Frankly, the public are not interested in systems, they are interested in results and coaches stand or fall on the results they get. In a word, they are as good as the players they select. That area gives a very specific clue to Ashton's resignation.

Did he feel entrapped in an unwieldy system? How big a factor was his relationship with Pat Whelan? Did he feel he was not getting the necessary level of support at union level and, may I say, player level? Ashton has very specific ideas about how the game should be played and they are admirable. The problem is that such an approach was outside the compass of the talent he had available. Irish rugby has its own peculiarities and one of them is what one might call "Irishness" or as former Ireland coach Mick Doyle called it "the Paddy factor". I do not think Brian Ashton fully understood it. Yet at the first training session he took with the Ireland team in Limerick prior to Ireland's match against France last season, he was specific in referring to it.

His disappointment after the Scotland match was immense. I spoke to him after that match, it was obvious, after what had happened, that he was sadly disillusioned with what his players had produced. Prior to the conversation, he had given very specific clues in interviews about what he was thinking when he referred to the game plan in the last 10 minutes. "I do not know whose game plan that was, it certainly was not mine," he said, and then added: "That Scotland showed the greater desire to win when it mattered was very evident". There can be only one interpretation of those words and that is an indictment of the players.

He put his faith in the English-based players to a very large extent - and they did not deliver. He knows that and his decision not to attend AIB League matches was, at best, a bad public relations exercise, at worst, a mistake. Ashton had lost faith in his players' ability to play the game his way. He then got ill with a debilitating complaint, shingles, and no doubt decided, given the circumstances, that he had enough. Scotland was the bottom line.

Accusations are made that he was inhibited by the system which operates within the IRFU - but such accusations must be substantiated. In what way was he inhibited by the system that exists here of a manager, a coach and selector? Other countries operate very similar systems. In fact, the system in Ireland underwent radical reform 12 months ago. The selection committee was reduced from five to three, the first such change in over 100 years. When Ashton was appointed and given a six-year contract 12 months ago, the decision to appoint a man with such a great coaching pedigree at Bath was greeted with great enthusiasm. When he was appointed, Ashton went on record to say he totally supported the system under which he would operate. His exact words were: "I do not envisage any problems and am very happy to work within it, it is not a job for one man". Ashton fully supported Donal Lenihan's appointment to the three-man selection committee He, his management colleagues and the players were given a back-up team without precedent. So if he was inhibited, where was he inhibited? There was plenty of publicity surrounding his alleged disagreements with the manager, but no one has come forward, including Ashton himself, and been specific about the nature of those disagreements. Of what does Whelan stand accused?

There is one other thing. Ashton will not dispute nor has he ever done so that he was given the teams he wanted. The argument that the manager should be a full-time official does have substance. Whether it would have made any difference in this instance is open to debate.

Warren Gatland now steps in and knows exactly the system under which he will operate. He has the advantage of having been part of Ashton's coaching team, knows the players and, most importantly, knows and understands Irish rugby. His contribution to it, with Galwegians and Connacht has already been impressive. Note his words on Wednesday: "I want to restore the Irishness to the side". In securing Philip Danaher as his backs coach, Gatland has made a prudent choice.

The contracts issue is crucial to Irish rugby and that mistakes were made in that area is beyond doubt. There is an awareness of that. The contracts sub-committee has met with the provincial coaches and chairmen. The situation is now in place for provincial contracts to be offered. Around 30 players from each province will be contracted, with most receiving basic pay in the region of £18,000 to £20,000, bonus payments and appearance fees will be in addition. Obviously there is an inter-relationship between the provincial and national contracts. The final touches have now been put to the issue.