B&I Ownership models

Patriarchal:
Not every Union was blessed like Ireland at the cusp of professionalism to have an established Principality model to fall back on and they have thrived by dint of it not being able to get much worse at the time. But instead through central contracts and central ownership of the sides (not to mention the happy fortune of a crop of extremely talented players) they have created a force to be reckoned with. But that is not to deny that the model works as the husbandry of the players is forever directed at European and national success. But unique to one nation (equally blessed by the decision to remain united whist politically rent in the 1920s).

Clubs:
Well not really clubs like down the local park - Professional sides owned (largely) by their members. Precious few to my knowledge in a top league anywhere let alone B&I. I know of only Exeter and you-know-who.

Sugar Daddies:
Great whilst they have each and every one of these qualities:
Huge big megabucks
Long-term commitment
Love the club enough to lose money year on year
Remain eternally alive

I'd be particularly interested to hear from fans of Newcastle (ex John Hall), Glaws (how is Tom Walkinshaw's estate managing?) and Wasps (wanna buy a club mate?).

Portnoy wrote:Patriarchal:
Not every Union was blessed like Ireland at the cusp of professionalism to have an established Principality model to fall back on

Not being picky here, Portnoy, but you are confusing the Principality model (surely Welsh) with the Provincial model - Irish.

Ireland was never a Principality - always a Kingdom (until 1801).

KiaRose wrote:

Portnoy wrote:Patriarchal:
Not every Union was blessed like Ireland at the cusp of professionalism to have an established Principality model to fall back on

Not being picky here, Portnoy, but you are confusing the Principality model (surely Welsh) with the Provincial model - Irish.

Ireland was never a Principality - always a Kingdom (until 1801).

Mea Culpa, Kia. Sorry.

I knew that. A fine piece of serendipity all the same - just as the partition of Ulster's UK six counties made no difference to Irish rugby organisationally.

Portnoy, I'm not sure the situation was quite as simple as you describe in Scotland at the advent of professionalism - like Ireland, we had the 4 districts as a well-established model (hence 1872 cup) between clubs and the national team, but we didn't go down the centrally contracted route. Financially the switch could not have come at a worse time in terms of the decision to upgrade Murrayfield, something from which the SRU is still recovering - in contrast Ireland went (sensibly imo) for success on the field before making the financial commitment to rebuild Lansdowne Road

The Exeter Chiefs appear to have a very solid foundation on which to build. I was very impressed by what I saw at Sandy Park.

Asbo - its sounds as though Scotland could have very easily have had what Ireland had. 4 separate entities that people were long used to but simply mismanaged due to bad planning. Would you say the long term plan is to pay off Murrayfield and start from scratch aiming to get all 4 teams up and running.

Staggy, been lying in bed thinking some more about this one, and wondering about Ireland's "success" in the professional era - was it down to structures and how they approached the set up of the game, or was it down to luck, a crop of exceptionally talented players that just happened along at the same time. In the amateur era, Scotland had a marginally better record than Ireland, and in the 80s as professionalism approached, Scotland won two grand slams (84 and 90), so were arguably in better shape. However, with a brief period in the late 90s aside, we've not really had the quality of players that we once had, whereas arguably, Ireland's story is almost the reverse (if my ageing memory serves me right?).

I think the next ten years could be an even more fascinating period - for the first time in the last decade I feel that Scotland have some real talent coming thru (and that's clearly with my thistly goggles fully on). As Ireland pursue their centrally contracted model even more (ie recent NIE regulations), Scotland are moving further away from that in the sense of almost encouraging some senior, experienced players to move abroad to give youngster a chance to come thru quickly (partly as a result of our limited opportunities with just two pro-teams) and giving the two pro-districts more freedom to manage their own affairs.

So we've seen the first true generation of players pass thru in the pro era, it will be interesting to see what happens in the next 10-15 years of the second generation - perhaps that will give us a better guide as to the merits/demerits of various structures?

red_stag wrote:The Exeter Chiefs appear to have a very solid foundation on which to build. I was very impressed by what I saw at Sandy Park.

Exe's is an unusual set-up indeed, fully member owned with no sugar daddy, and certainly not a common one at the top end of the English club game (Tigers and one or two others aside). I think the key has been to grow the off-field and on-field elements apace, and much of the credit for that must go to the current Board and Exec Comm led by Tony Rowe - he is a self-made, highly successful businessman in his own right, but instead of ploughing in his wealth to the club, it is his drive and experience of running a business that have really made the difference at Exeter. If things go according to plan, we will develop a 20,000-strong stadium, with success on the field too, still majority-member owned (altho there are plans to float a minority stake on the stock market to fund the development) and a conference-facility-based business off the field running alongside to help meet the financial needs of an expanding club. And all this with the hindrance of an inequitable division of 'P' shares which leaves Exe not receiving an even share of the millions of £ (I believe) distributed by the pro game in England to the top clubs.

This is a very intresting article, at least turned out to be. covering 2 main points.

I didn't know about the model Exe's were following, and it sounds really intresting, it will be intresting to compare them with the Rugby Lions in future, as both I believe have very different ownership models.

On the Scottish/Irish rugby front, I always thought it was intresting to compare.
At the start each had 4 teams, and needed to rebuild the Stadium. Scotland were actually in a better position than Ireland having finished above them in the 97, 98 Five nations, and winning it in 99 (Ireland were bottom in the 2 years and second last in 99).Scotland had the likes of Townsend, White, Weir and overall were the better team.

Scotland decided to rebuild Murryfield, while Ireland left LR to concentate on the Provinces.

Irish policy ment that they could bring players like Woods back (for only a year but others stayed) etc, and were lucky in the early days for BOD to come through. The Provinces and the players coming through flourished and after they were gaining good attendances, winning, producing young players then did the IRFU decide to redevelop LR.

The SRU went the opposite way and decided to develop Murrayfield (prob in the hope a bigger newer stadium would generate enough money to pay for itself, and generate funds to promote the pro sides). However this failed 4 four sides were merged into 2, later expanded back to 3. However they were in more debt than planed and not paying it back quick enough. Edinburgh were Privatised, but they fell out so it was bought back. To save money Boarders were folded to leave 2 teams again. And that brings us back up to today, were it looks like the SRU can afford now to put more money into the 2 teams but are a way of from bringing back a third never mind forth.

I always wonder that if Scotland had put off Murrayfield and concentrated on the Pro sides, would they have seen the populatlty of Rugby explode as it has in Ireland? They were both always going to be difficult markets to crack, but I believe having your best players, playing at home helps increase crowds, a successful National side is a must, and if Scotland concentrated on the Pro sides would the National team have been better?

All if and buts, but I belive Scotland orginally wanted to be like Ireland 4 teams and Central contracts, however I believe that this has now changed to two semi development teams, (players come through and move on to let the next batch through, but keep some players for experience), I believe now they are trying to keep more and better experienced players than before, which is a way of improving imo. It should be about keeping the best players in Scotland, and if there isn't enough room for the best and developing youngsters, a 3rd team needs to be introduced.

At the minute its about finding a balance of keeping the best but still developing youngsters, IMO the two sides are moving from beging semi development teams to quarter development teams, hopefully soon they will not be development teams and then a 3rd side can be started. Also the pro sides are gaining more independace from the SRU, (think they were alway under more control from the SRU than the Proviences the IRFU, altough bot are owned by their Union) and in turn we'll see if this helps them create there own identity.

Kingshu wrote:I always wonder that if Scotland had put off Murrayfield and concentrated on the Pro sides, would they have seen the populatlty of Rugby explode as it has in Ireland? They were both always going to be difficult markets to crack, but I believe having your best players, playing at home helps increase crowds, a successful National side is a must, and if Scotland concentrated on the Pro sides would the National team have been better?

All if and buts, but I belive Scotland orginally wanted to be like Ireland 4 teams and Central contracts, however I believe that this has now changed to two semi development teams, (players come through and move on to let the next batch through, but keep some players for experience), I believe now they are trying to keep more and better experienced players than before, which is a way of improving imo. It should be about keeping the best players in Scotland, and if there isn't enough room for the best and developing youngsters, a 3rd team needs to be introduced.

At the minute its about finding a balance of keeping the best but still developing youngsters, IMO the two sides are moving from beging semi development teams to quarter development teams, hopefully soon they will not be development teams and then a 3rd side can be started. Also the pro sides are gaining more independace from the SRU, (think they were alway under more control from the SRU than the Proviences the IRFU, altough bot are owned by their Union) and in turn we'll see if this helps them create there own identity.

Are the Scottish districts centuries old? I as this only as a plain question. I'd have guessed that they were of more of 19/20th administrative origin equating to roughly (my imaginary definitions) - Highlands an Islands, West Central Lowlands, East Central Lowlands, and the Borders.

Are the Scottish franchises owned by the SRU or do they have private ownership?

Anyhow, I hope that the new crop of new talent will force the sides and Nation forward in the mid-term, but I have the feeling that there will be a repeat of the usual pattern Five or six extremely talented players, five or six capable players and the rest padded with interchangeable journeymen.

A bit like England really - except their playing numbers allow for a better quality of journeymen.

Portnoy wrote:

Are the Scottish districts centuries old? I as this only as a plain question. I'd have guessed that they were of more of 19/20th administrative origin equating to roughly (my imaginary definitions) - Highlands an Islands, West Central Lowlands, East Central Lowlands, and the Borders.

Are the Scottish franchises owned by the SRU or do they have private ownership?

Anyhow, I hope that the new crop of new talent will force the sides and Nation forward in the mid-term, but I have the feeling that there will be a repeat of the usual pattern Five or six extremely talented players, five or six capable players and the rest padded with interchangeable journeymen.

A bit like England really - except their playing numbers allow for a better quality of journeymen.

Yes, they are, Portnoy, hence the 1872 Cup match (the clue is in the date) - Glasgow, Edinburgh, South (the Borders), North & Midlands (the top, Caledonia in pro-name speak). The franchises are currently owned by the SRU, but as Kingshu and I have noted, are increasingly being run as independent entities. Hope you're wrong about the need for Scottish journeymen

So do I As.

Ten years ago I used to bemoan a lost Welsh side. Now I miss the Scots (apart from their regular annual performance against the English )

To be honest As, every international side has journeymen by its own standards - it just depends on the quality of the artisans/craftsmen/apprentices available.

very true, Portnoy. I commend this book to you: Southern Comfort - the Story of Borders Rugby , which Santa kindly dropped in my stocking this year. An excellent read, but you'll notice the distinctive maroon and white shirts of the South of Scotland pictured playing Campese-era Australia

What I was never sure of was did Glasgow, Edinburgh, South, North & Midlands play regurally, as the provinces have a fountation date and played the inter pros, and touring sides quite often.

Glasgow, Edinburgh, South and North & Midlands don't seam to have the same history I don't think they played touring sides, don't know if they had an inter district tourament.
.
As far as I can tell they were formed in 1996, to represent Glasgow, Edinburgh, North and South but they weren't teams that always existed.

If a union formed a team in 1872 to represent Glasgow and again in 1996 to represent Glasgow, can this be considered the same team? As its formed by the same govering body to represent players from the same area
Seams like Glasgow do with founded 1872, but Edinburgh don't with founded 1996.

For Caledonia Reds the district still exists: it does not field a side in the Celtic League, but it does have competitive age grade teams in Inter-District Championships.

I suppose for me it comes down to if before 1996, if there was a Inter-District competition played by Glasgow, Edinburgh, South and North & Midlands districts. If so the teams are the same as the Provinces.

If they didn't play regulary then I'd think of them like Scarlets or Cardiff Blues, new identies founded in 1996, buit can trace there history back!

Kingshu, note my book recommendation to Portnoy above regarding pre-1996. All 4 regions certainly existed long before that - with Glasgow, I played against the other 3 at various age group levels in the early 80s. The following wiki entry suggests that the South were certainly playing international games in the early 1900s, which points to inter-district competition in the late 1800s

Cheers 100, that was a good link never seen it before.

I'd say the districts are alot more like the Provinces, and Scotalnd and Irish rugby at the beginging was very even.

Its a pity the SRU had to get into debt, as it'll be very hard on them now to catch up on the provinces

Kingshu wrote:Cheers 100, that was a good link never seen it before.

I'd say the districts are alot more like the Provinces, and Scotalnd and Irish rugby at the beginging was very even.

Its a pity the SRU had to get into debt, as it'll be very hard on them now to catch up on the provinces

Very true, Kingshu Altho i do also think that the Irish got lucky with the pool of players they had to choose from in their first 10-15 years - ah, but you make yer own luck!

thats true players like BOD and POC make it easy to attract fans to each province, Keith Wood would have been a big draw. But Scotland had a future marketing player in Grey its a pity he's leaving, as he will be one of teh biggest fans to market Scottish rugby, the Lamot brothers return is good though, its slowly turning for Scotland, and while they should soon be out of Debt and able to contentrate on the pro sides, the Provinces will still be paying for NLR, giving Scotland the chance to make up ground.

also intresting

On 19 December 2011 former Scottish internationalist Keith Robertson gave an interview to The Herald newspaper. Robertson claimed that he was in contact with "people in the Borders who are interested in getting involved in funding a professional team". However the interested parties are said to be unwilling to afford any direct shareholding to the SRU. Robertson went on to claim that if the project came to fruition the team would feature many "Borderers" an attribute he felt the defunct Border Reivers lacked

I think the Welsh one actually works pretty good, we don't have the economy of England, Scotland or Ireland so if we want to hang on to our better players we NEED outside investment, the relationship isn't always an easy one, but it is productive and does keep our best players in Wales.

We tend to have periods where we will lose 4-5 players to France or England and start to panic, but few players go in the end and all return when they lose their Welsh places.
Normally it's backs who tend to leave Wales as our forwards are generally pretty poor, however Wales produces a lot of quality backs and an equally good player soon replaces him at regional level and soon for Wales.

Wales loose Nicky Robinson and James Hook abroad, no problem we have Jason Tovey, Gavin Henson, Dan Biggar, Matthew Morgan and Rhys Priestland at home to play 10.

Dwayne Peel, and Mike Phillips leave the Scarlets, no problem they simply bring through Tavis Knoyle and Rhodri Williams to back him up.

I'd be happy not to have the economy of Ireland.

The conversation has concentrated on the form of club ownership and the central (or non-central) form of organisation of the professional clubs.

However, I believe that this misses out on the central role of the fan base. There are clubs in England which have it - Tigers and Glaws are long-standing examples of this (I would include Bath in this but a lot of Bath fans I know seem to be somewhat disillusioned and have no longer bought season tickets).

Very early in the pro era, the Munster Rugby Supporters Club (MRSC) started. Whereever Munster went to play in Europe the fans followed and created a camaraderie amongst themselevs which has become, in a very short space of time, legendary. Declan Kidney told a story of how they were in the south of France for a match on one occasion and he espied a Honda 50 with a Limerick registration. He reckoned that took real dedication to following your team to ride one of those all the way.

In a particular way the MRSC connected the fans with the team so that the players were not only playing for themselves and their teammates but also for guys who were prepared to follow them to the four corners of Europe. I believe it made a significant contribution to the success of Munster, pushed Leinster to endeavour to make a similar impression on European rugby and thus enabled the national team to develop a genuine sense of professionalism and a winning mentality.

In the 90's Ireland were worse than Italy. The majority of Irish people didn't play or watch rugby and didn't intend to. The IRFU got one thing right. They decided to go down the route of central contracts and keeping Irish players in Ireland. I think they've tried to model the Irish setup on the New Zealand one. Everything else landed on their lap. The four provinces already existed, with strong identity that went beyond rugby. Ulster won the Heineken Cup. A superb bunch of forwards and half backs turned up at Munster and simultaneously a superb bunch of backs turned up at Leinster at just the right time.

Thanks to these players the Irish team had it's best decade probably ever. We also had in BOD, one of the greatest of his generation, which raised rugby's profile. Munsters epic Heineken Cup journey grew loads of support. Their Heineken Cup wins followed by Leinsters resulted in an explosion of popularity. Sometimes I think the IRFU believe that they're geniuses and it's all been down to them. But they really just made one good decision and the rest was luck and convenient timing.

KiaRose wrote:The conversation has concentrated on the form of club ownership and the central (or non-central) form of organisation of the professional clubs.

However, I believe that this misses out on the central role of the fan base. There are clubs in England which have it - Tigers and Glaws are long-standing examples of this (I would include Bath in this but a lot of Bath fans I know seem to be somewhat disillusioned and have no longer bought season tickets).

Very early in the pro era, the Munster Rugby Supporters Club (MRSC) started. Whereever Munster went to play in Europe the fans followed and created a camaraderie amongst themselevs which has become, in a very short space of time, legendary. Declan Kidney told a story of how they were in the south of France for a match on one occasion and he espied a Honda 50 with a Limerick registration. He reckoned that took real dedication to following your team to ride one of those all the way.

In a particular way the MRSC connected the fans with the team so that the players were not only playing for themselves and their teammates but also for guys who were prepared to follow them to the four corners of Europe. I believe it made a significant contribution to the success of Munster, pushed Leinster to endeavour to make a similar impression on European rugby and thus enabled the national team to develop a genuine sense of professionalism and a winning mentality.

Brilliant synopsis.

Follow your team, across Europe, on a Honda 50. I think that just about gets to the kernel of it all. Commitment and belief, against all the odds, by the fans. And the team dare not let that belief down. And sow it grows.

The rest - is Irish Rugby History.

Who needs Sugar-Daddies? Make it so.

Imagine what that guy could have generated on a Honda 175?

"Imagine what that guy could have generated on a Honda 175? "

No story with a 175 Gibbo.

Some of the stories from the early days of the MRSC - when fans lost their wallets, or their passports or tickets home - the MRSC stepped up to help them out and so a legend was born ...

It's interesting that nobody from the sides owned by sweet and sour saccharin-daddies care to comment.

In England alone there must be a number of clubs with misgivings:

Newcastle in perpetual decline since John Hall left and have become the ultimate selling club with a successful academy.

Wasps. You can buy them if you want for about a tenner.

Bath who have invested heavily in NEQs who don't perform.

Glaws who have to rely upon the estate of the late-lamented Tom Walkinshaw.

Bedford after Frank Warren's swift, cynical attempt to cash in on Pro rugby.

Rugby with fantastical 'sugar daddies' (or speculative mirky Canadian ones)

Richmond and London Scottish who were denuded of their ed[very] pro existence in the pro era.

London South Africans - Jeff champions who can't raise a home crowd that even a Welsh or Scottish region could be happy with.

And that's not to mention the plethora of solid English clubs like Coventry, Moseley, Solihull, Roundhey, Wakefield etc. who just happened to be in the wrong place at the end of amateurism...

Portnoy, I can give you a flavour of the London Scottish experience - simply a disasterously mis-managed transition from amateur to professional status. Thankfully a new management team was put in place, supported by a very broad group of financial backers, and things have gone well - X promotions in Y years, and now back in the Championship and looking to consolidate there. Not much more to say than that