4 Jeff clubs actually managed to make money last year!

http://www.espnscrum.com/premiership-2011-12/rugby/story/164350.html

Tigers , Exeter, Glawster and Saints

Total league losses £16.2 million (taking sales and wasps figures form the previous year), of which nearly a third is from everyones favourite club Saracens. At least they arewere winning stuff unlike Bath.


Mention at the bottom of the article about the salary cap. Despite this being an improvement on the losses from 2009/10 its still obvious why the majority of clubs dont want the cap increased, they cant afford to meet the bills they have already. Wages represent a massive drain on the games resources even with a lot of high profile players having gone to france or back to sanzar.

It's good to see that some of the Jeff clubs are doing well financially (especially Saints ), although i'm surprised at how much Saracens have lost.

would Tigers new stand have altered the finances for that year?

It's interesting that Sarecens spend 72.9% of their turnover on staff compared to the Tigers 41%. That't nearly double! anyone know if they have a lot of back room staff?

nathan wrote:would Tigers new stand have altered the finances for that year?

It's interesting that Sarecens spend 72.9% of their turnover on staff compared to the Tigers 41%. That't nearly double! anyone know if they have a lot of back room staff?

It's more down to get 4 figure home attendances and giving away tickets for free to music concerts at Wembley!

This show the sport does need sugar daddies and that the idea of having turnover linked salary caps would render the league highly uncompetitive to all bar pretty much one side!

nathan wrote:would Tigers new stand have altered the finances for that year?

It's interesting that Sarecens spend 72.9% of their turnover on staff compared to the Tigers 41%. That't nearly double! anyone know if they have a lot of back room staff?

Actually it is worse than that. ESPN reporter must have got their numbers wrong. The actual story in the Rugby Paper (which they quote as the source) showed that 89.5% of turnover was spent on staff costs.

Tigers had the highest staff costs, £8m, (with Bath second at £7m and Sarries on £6.8m) but with the highest turnover it meant they had the lowest percentage. Staff costs of course do not just include wages within the salary cap, but also Employers NI, Insurance, Pension contributions, Management, Coaching, Catering, Stewards etc, etc. Obviously Sarries make huge savings on the last two

I just don't understand how these clubs keep making losses and still remain.

Surely unless there is a business man trying to "create" losses for tax write offs, this isn't healthy?

Biltong - it happens because the clubs have owners/benefactors/sugar daddies who fund the clubs.

No it i snot healthy that so many are making a loss - though the losses are reducing so some positive news.

It's interesting that Sarecens spend 72.9% of their turnover on staff compared to the Tigers 41%. That't nearly double! anyone know if they have a lot of back room staff?

Figure is probably quite similar it's just that Sarries have a smaller turnover due to not having their own stadium (yet) and having small crowds at Watford.

No it is not healthy that so many are making a loss - though the losses are reducing so some positive news.

The push towards sustability is a good thing, the sooner clubs don't have to rely on sugar daddies the better.

Anyone else noticed the correlation between club-owned grounds and comparative profitability?

And the inverse proportion of clubs' turnover to caption area?

That turnover figure for Saracens is rubbish.

The new ground is most definitely needed.

So many benefits. Being back in North London is also huge.

Is it a shared ground 'shocked?

No thank god!

beshocked wrote:That turnover figure for Saracens is rubbish.

It is the turnover that Sarries reported to companies house (for accounts filed 31/3/11 I think).

If it is rubbish it is because Sarries filed rubbish accounts.

beshocked wrote:No thank god!

Thank heavens for that.

How long will it be before the club outgrows the site? Is the max ground capacity going to be increased beyond 12k? (Not a nark - a genuine query.)

My understanding is that a certain amount of flexibility/growth has been built in to the designs.

However the first thing will be to regularly get 10k plus crowds.

The capacity is currently 10k but I am sure there is potential for expansion.

Filling 10k first and foremost consistently is where Saracens want to be.

After that then expansion plans will come into play.

No point having a yawning gap of empty seats as is the case at Wembley and VR.

Better to have a full stadium of 10k in our own stadium than 6k in a 18k football stadium.

I am not quite sure how the stadium is going to look yet though.

Obviously 10k still isn't enough to be sustainable in the short term but it will certainly raise the turnover and lessen the financial losses.

Edit: agree with that London Tiger.

Having a packed and swinging 10k stadium will raise the profile of the club far more than having a large stadium will. On the tv the Sarries stadium looks desolate and empty which does not really promote it for an away day. Gloucester have a pretty small stadium which is always packed and noisy which does put into the mind that it would be a good away day (I actually had a cracking time). A full stadium is good PR, worry about extending it when you get there but filling it and creating that feeling of something worth watching (from the PR viewpoint rather than the actual rugby one) is the first thing on the list.

I read that there was a temporary stand allowance to take it up to 12000.
The Rec has survived for years (decades?) on 'temporary stand.

WR has equally has them at the clubhouse end.

I wonder if Barnet will get a permanent temporary stand.

Please don't think I'm trying to put on Sarries here, but I am not sure they can expand the capacity of Copthall past 10,000. I followed the plans for the stadium a bit because I like what they are doing by making it a place for the community. I believe there has been resistance from some areas of the local community about the traffic the stadium is going to cause. It's nothing concrete, but I got the impression from some of the things I've read that it would be very difficult for Sarries to get permission for more seating.

Agree with that Sam.

Portnoy not sure at the moment but I am sure that avenue will be explored.

Cumbrian I can understand that but the tough bit is out of the way: getting permission in the first place.

I am sure that Saracens will think of something.

One hilarious thing is that one of Saracen's biggest opposition to the plans - Brian Coleman was given a huge kicking in the local election.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17957307

They ought to enter into a groundshare with the Ospreys somewhere, they might half fill a stadium that way...

On another note I think it's great that Exeter made a profit. They are really doing a great job staying sustainable.

They've been patiently building up their facilities in the Championship and now they are in the AP are reaping the rewards.

The HC should also do wonders for them.

beshocked wrote:On another note I think it's great that Exeter made a profit. They are really doing a great job staying sustainable.

They've been patiently building up their facilities in the Championship and now they are in the AP are reaping the rewards.

The HC should also do wonders for them.

as well as bring in some extra money. They really are a blue print on how to run a club.

Nathan I would say that Leicester,Toulouse,Munster and Leinster are also pretty good blueprints!

Nathan I would say that Leicester,Toulouse,Munster and Leinster are also pretty good blueprints!

Tolouse are under pinned by rich owners, Munster and Leinster get a good chunk of cash and their top players centrally contracted by the IRFU and Leicester moved very swiftly to secure their club at the start of professionalism. Be tough for a smaller club to copy any of those clubs where as I think Nathan was getting at Championship or lower league clubs looking at how the Chiefs have achieved success and going the same way. Stable growth from a solid sustainable financial base, good team ethos and excellent community relations.

nathan wrote:

beshocked wrote:On another note I think it's great that Exeter made a profit. They are really doing a great job staying sustainable.

They've been patiently building up their facilities in the Championship and now they are in the AP are reaping the rewards.

The HC should also do wonders for them.

as well as bring in some extra money. They really are a blue print on how to run a club.

Expect another, slightly smaller profit for Exe in season 2011/2012

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

nathan wrote:

beshocked wrote:On another note I think it's great that Exeter made a profit. They are really doing a great job staying sustainable.

They've been patiently building up their facilities in the Championship and now they are in the AP are reaping the rewards.

The HC should also do wonders for them.

as well as bring in some extra money. They really are a blue print on how to run a club.

Expect another, slightly smaller profit for Exe in season 2011/2012

Expect a dip for the Tigers as well. I suspect that they will be have been squirrelling odd coppers and spare tanners under their mattress to pay for a new sofa they promised to the IRB

Expect a dip for the Tigers as well. I suspect that they will be have been squirrelling odd coppers and spare tanners under their mattress to pay for a new sofa they promised to the IRB

If by 'new sofa' you mean Crumbie and adjoining carpark redevelopment and by coppers you mean 'release of loan notes and profits from new deals with Canterbury and kit retailer' then yes. The Crumbie development should pay for itself long term so taking a small hit next year for long term income is not necessarily a bad thing. The car park is supposed to be being leased out for a million pounds a year, then there's the hotel and student flats that are supposed to be going in as well.

Id be interested to know how much of the losses could be written off if the RFU asked Rob Andrew for the last 5 years pay back

That is actually quite promising news. I'm delighted to see that, after the hysteria following disappointing European results, the salary cap is to stay the same after-all.

In an debate on ESPNscrum,

Spoiler:

regarding the much-discussed (here) wage cap issue the two extremes were put (albeit not as cogently as by some on v2), but the issue of profitability was raised. My view, as many will know, is not an absolute value, but a percentage of turnover to help prevent the likes of the Wasps falling into administration.

It's all about balance obviously.

Portnoy the problem with that is that would lead to a large advantage for a select amount of clubs. Also it would punish Exeter whose turnover is low but made a small profit. No surprise why you want it though.

The salary cap is a very contentious issue. Both sides for raising and keeping it all square both have their merits.

On one hand there is sustainability and keeping a level playing field in the AP. On the other there is how do we compete with the financial muscle of the French clubs and the advantages the Pro12 clubs have in the HC?

How do we achieve the perfect balance?

I know 'shocked. There are a lot of variables, but for the most successful sides, it must be like treading treacle.

beshocked wrote:It's all about balance obviously.

Portnoy the problem with that is that would lead to a large advantage for a select amount of clubs. Also it would punish Exeter whose turnover is low but made a small profit. No surprise why you want it though.

The salary cap is a very contentious issue. Both sides for raising and keeping it all square both have their merits.

On one hand there is sustainability and keeping a level playing field in the AP. On the other there is how do we compete with the financial muscle of the French clubs and the advantages the Pro12 clubs have in the HC?

How do we achieve the perfect balance?

Are we actually that far off it now? Running a sports club is not a commercial prospect. How many teams in any sport actually turn a profit? Very few. The simple fact is that clubs require benefactors of some sort.

Wasps are the only side to have been close to administration since the inception of the salary cap and that is down purely to the dreadful mis-management of the club. Whilst operating a system linked to turnover makes complete sense, in sport it simply doesn't! Looking at the figures quoted in TRP Leicester would be the only side that could continue operating in a similar manner if the cap were linked to turnover and the rest would have to shred the number of players and no doubt the academies would suffer and the long term stability of the sport would decline. Rugby is a very fortunate sport in that it seems to attract the more affluent supporter, therefore, the sugar daddy concept whilst risky is the best route to stability.

HKC we are no longer being that successful in the HC.

The French have the big advantage of a cap double ours meaning they can attract the best foreign talent and now our own players in their prime.

The Pro12 have the advantages of auto HC qualification every season and playing understrength teams for significant periods making it easier for rotation.

A structure reshift is certainly needed. I would aim to put up the salary cap to £6m at least in 5 years time.

beshocked wrote: The Pro12 have the advantages of auto HC qualification every season and playing understrength teams for significant periods making it easier for rotation.

Leaving aside the debate as how true this actually is how does it provide a beneficial financial model ?

I think chucking money at this will cause far more problems than solve them. The cap is at an acceptable level, but to increase it effectively 50% would cause chaos with team who try to keep up. Furthermore, as the French have shown money doesn't guarantee success - the reality is that in recent years the competition has been dominated by the Irish - as France have as many wins as England in the last 7 years.

The Rabo is geared towards the HC, whereas the Jeff and T14 are geared towards their own leagues. If we want success in Europe there needs to be changes to the league structure, which would keep financial stability.

beshocked wrote:
The Pro12 have the advantages of auto HC qualification every season and playing understrength teams for significant periods making it easier for rotation.

I don't know why people still can't grasp this. The Rabo teams do not have automatic qualification to the HEC. The Scottish and Italian teams do because their no of pro teams is equal to the places allocated to those unions. Ireland and Wales do not.

The top 22 Irish players are contracted to the IRFU and along with any other players selected for Ireland duty can only play a restricted no of games per season so the provinces have no option but to rotate. Leinster and to a lesser extent Munster have huge squads and have the luxuary of rotating but Ulster have played their strongest available side pretty much every game bar 2 or 3 games.

The top NIQ players like Pienaar, Muller, Afoa, Nacewa, Botha etc. will play pretty much every week because they are exempt from the player welfare scheme, that is designed to help the national side, not the provinces.

Where the Irish teams have an advantage is that the money generated from the National side is being used to bolster the provinces.

Those figures do look worrying for the English sides.

How does what provide a beneficial financial model?

To explain the Pro12 auto qualification thing: Connacht are virtually no threat to Ulster,Munster and Leinster. If one team wins an European competition they all qualify anyway. Dragons are generally the bottom Welsh club. The 4 Scottish and Italian clubs are cast iron guaranteed.

10 is the bare minimum amount of Rabo clubs in the HC.

Pro12 sides play understrength sides significantly for two reasons - either international call ups - more Pro12 sides' players are on international duty than that of the Top 14 and AP which lowers the quality significantly.

The AP and Top 14 cater one international side. The Pro12 caters 4.

The other is purposely resting players to keep them fresh for the HC - such as Leinster's Ireland stars and Edinburgh throwing away Pro12 games in order to progress further in the HC.

beshocked wrote:How does what provide a beneficial financial model?

To explain the Pro12 auto qualification thing: Connacht are virtually no threat to Ulster,Munster and Leinster. If one team wins an European competition they all qualify anyway. Dragons are generally the bottom Welsh club. The 4 Scottish and Italian clubs are cast iron guaranteed.

10 is the bare minimum amount of Rabo clubs in the HC.

Pro12 sides play understrength sides significantly for two reasons - either international call ups - more Pro12 sides' players are on international duty than that of the Top 14 and AP which lowers the quality significantly.

The AP and Top 14 cater one international side. The Pro12 caters 4.

The other is purposely resting players to keep them fresh for the HC - such as Leinster's Ireland stars and Edinburgh throwing away Pro12 games in order to progress further in the HC.

In a rare display of unity, I agree.

To say that the Welsh and Irish sides do not automatically qualify, whilst technically correct, is something of a joke. Only one Welsh Region and one Irish province are not guarenteed qualifiaction, which invariably means that Connacht and Dragons have to qualify 'by other means', which lets face it, isn't hard for Connacht with Leinster so dominant in Europe.

geoff998rugby wrote:

beshocked wrote: The Pro12 have the advantages of auto HC qualification every season and playing understrength teams for significant periods making it easier for rotation.

Leaving aside the debate as how true this actually is how does it provide a beneficial financial model ?

It doesn't Geoff. Not at all. Compare the Welsh and Irish in the Rabo at side level one has a centrally-funded mechanism with central contracts which can apply its power in whatever way it wishes (nothing wrong with that) and the other has little success at European level due to a comparatively tiny footfall and has decided to introduce wage caps because the WRU cannot fund everything out of International games.

And this is not a snipe in any way - just trying to précis the facts as I see them in a few words.

beshocked wrote:HKC we are no longer being that successful in the HC.

The French have the big advantage of a cap double ours meaning they can attract the best foreign talent and now our own players in their prime.

The Pro12 have the advantages of auto HC qualification every season and playing understrength teams for significant periods making it easier for rotation.

A structure reshift is certainly needed. I would aim to put up the salary cap to £6m at least in 5 years time.

beshocked, I can't be arsed to go into the HC qualification debate all over again, so I'm just going to focus on your salary cap comment - I wouldn't mind seeing it raised, but realisitically I'd like to see greater links to # of academy players coming thru into senior squad and distribution of EPS payments more closely tied to clubs that are providing those players

beshocked wrote:How does what provide a beneficial financial model?

To explain the Pro12 auto qualification thing: Connacht are virtually no threat to Ulster,Munster and Leinster. If one team wins an European competition they all qualify anyway. Dragons are generally the bottom Welsh club. The 4 Scottish and Italian clubs are cast iron guaranteed.

10 is the bare minimum amount of Rabo clubs in the HC.

Pro12 sides play understrength sides significantly for two reasons - either international call ups - more Pro12 sides' players are on international duty than that of the Top 14 and AP which lowers the quality significantly.

The AP and Top 14 cater one international side. The Pro12 caters 4.

The other is purposely resting players to keep them fresh for the HC - such as Leinster's Ireland stars and Edinburgh throwing away Pro12 games in order to progress further in the HC.

10 into 12 is not auto qualification. The RFU have 6 places, twice as many as Ireland. The English clubs want 12 places in the AP for financial reasons, so they have 6 into 12. That is their choice, not the ERC's, not the IRFUs, the RABO leagues or anyone elses ... they want to have their cake and eat it too and then complain about it when they fall short in the HEC.

Leinster, like Munster, Connacht and Ulster, do not have a say with regards resting Ireland stars. These guys belong to the IRFU and must play a restricted no of games. Leinster have developed a squad, mainly through their academy to compete on two fronts.

Now if you want to take swipes at the rabo go ahead but can you please stick to the facts?

Very true Equo Troiano and Portnoy.

I know what I says seems like a clear pop at the Pro12 but you should accept you have advantages instead of pretending you don't. It's because of the structure of the Pro12 - that's a good thing.

The dilemma is how do English clubs consistently beat the two best of their respective structures - Leinster and Clermont?

Leinster with their rotation,central contracts etc.

Clermont with their star studded squad because of their massive salary cap.

Restructure needed?

That's a pretty good idea aslongasbut100.

I am trying to get to grips with keeping the AP a level playing field with English clubs but also making sure English teams are on a level playing field with other European clubs. As it stands the former is true, the latter isn't.

Rodders ok 10 from 12 is not strictly auto qualification but as explained for the top 3 Irish regions it virtually is. For the Italian and Scots it is strictly auto qualification.

Another point is that the IRFU significantly helps it's regions. In comparison the RFU shares the pot with all 12.

It is harder for the top English clubs in the HC than it is for the Irish regions.

They have to contend with giving the bulk of players to the England squad with no significant compensation. They have to take on full strength opposition squads all year long meaning they cannot rotate their players as much. They also need to make sure they qualify for the HC every season. The top sides in England also have to contend with fresh Pro12 sides focussing on the HC and French sides with double the salary cap.

beshocked wrote:
I know what I says seems like a clear pop at the Pro12 but you should accept you have advantages instead of pretending you don't. It's because of the structure of the Pro12 - that's a good thing.

I'm not denying we, Ireland, have advantages but those advantages are mainly down to the structures put in place by the IRFU. The central contracts, the funding of the provinces by the IRFU.

However there are disadvantages too. The provinces are not fully autonamous. We have restrictions on foreign imports and only have Irish players for a very restricted no of games. Occaisionally we have to play players out of position to suit the national side.

The structures we have are not there for the provinces but the national side. Each province has to find a way to be successful within those structures, in both the League and HEC and right now Leinster with their academy structures, coaching infrastructure are doing the best job.

The Irish success is not just down to the Rabo like you suggest but the domestic infrastructure that our union has put in place and the way our teams have adapted to it.

The Rabo is not a conspiracy to make Celtic/Italian teams succeed in the HEC as some make out, otherwise the Welsh and Scottish teams would be much more successful in Europe than they have been. Our teams have been very successful in both competitions over the past decade so credit should go where it's due - the IRFU and the provinces themselves.

My team - Ulster - do not roll over in the Rabo or anywhere else. My players, whoever pulls on the jersey, and coaches bust their b*lls and put their bodies on the line every week and I take issue with any one who says otherwise.

Rant over .

Rodders not saying the Irish don't deserve their time in the sun. I think the Irish have built themselves well. I probably do generalise too much when it comes to Pro12 clubs.

You can't deny it is an advantage if you are in the HC virtually every season. It means more revenue, more attractive for recruiting players and taking on the best of Europe every season.

I personally don't feel that the Scottish and Italians have been exploiting this enough. Edinburgh did this season though. Most people forget Glasgow did pretty well this season in the Pro12 - they were hugely overshadowed by Edinburgh.

My point is that us English clubs need to look at how we can improve our structure to compete better.

I do feel that our top clubs are hamstrung in Europe. How do we fix this though?

Just because people don't use advantages to their full potential don't mean they don't exist.

beshocked wrote:Rodders not saying the Irish don't deserve their time in the sun. I think the Irish have built themselves well. I probably do generalise too much when it comes to Pro12 clubs.

You can't deny it is an advantage if you are in the HC virtually every season. It means more revenue, more attractive for recruiting players and taking on the best of Europe every season.

Sorry Beshocked I'm grumpy today . Its too hot outside and its baltic in here with the air con.....

Yes we have certain advantages, I don't deny, but we work hard too and there is a lot of generalising around. I can't speak for the Italian, Welsh and Scottish teams but I believe what the Irish teams have achieved has been on merit.

rodders wrote:My team - Ulster - do not roll over in the Rabo or anywhere else. My players, whoever pulls on the jersey, and coaches bust their b*lls and put their bodies on the line every week and I take issue with any one who says otherwise.

Rant over .

Apart from in the HC Final, where they were manshamed by Leinster...