Welsh clubs back Anglo-French tournament

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/24632135

Didn't see that coming, though I haven't been following this particularly closely.

Heaf wrote:Didn't the government pay roughly half the building cost of the Aviva stadium?

Yes they did. The IRFU had to come up with about 80m (which it did) as the cost of the stadium is split between the FAI & IRFU.

By the way, the IRFU get ground rental for the stadium as well of about 1m per annum from the stadium company as they actually own the grounds.

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

gimme a break secretfly. if club strength and performance and national team performance are so intricately entwined how come wales and ireland are equally opposite counterexamples?

that boat dont float. and your national team performance only affects your finances via ticket sales. thats it.

Coach is the answer to your first point.  Oh the boat floats okay..and you know I'm right about the forward thinking PRL/LNR guys.  
I'm not dumb
- you're not dumb
and they're not dumb.  

Far too much of this debate revolves around us all pretending we think the other guy is dumb.  But we all know the score.  The new project is planned to work on many different levels - thus the complexity because behind the scenes all execs at the table know the underlying compulsions of market driven private club owners.

On your other point .  National team performance only affects our finances via ticket sales?  Yeah - that's the very point.  You think that kind of activity or lack of it doesn't factor in to a 4.5 million loss?  Is that your point?  Why did RFU make a loss of that 6.3 million last year?

TBH SF i havent actually looked at the RFU numbers, as PRL and LNR club numbers seemed the relevant ones for this discussion. will have a look at the annual reports in the morning and see if i can find some good excuses for the 6.3m loss number.

we all know everyone is doing what they think is best within their given mandate. prl/rfu is a bit more complex to analyse than irfu because you have two separate agents working with different objectives vs a single vision from irfu (or sru, fir). so if you meant what i think you meant above re "new project planned to work on many different levels", then i agree. as with all these things though, only time will tell, and even then, youth/school participation, coaching and alternatives for kids, will all be big factors in determining national team success...

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Sin é wrote:If its based on meritocracy, what will happen to the 4 Welsh Regions. Who do they compete with to win their place on merit?

If the Irish, Scots & Italians decide to join in and it is based on meritocracy (the top 6 in the Rabbo which would probably  be 3 Irish, 1 Scot 2 Welsh), how are the finances of the 2 non-top 6 Welsh teams going to survive? Are they going to be dependent on the kindness of the Os & Scarlets?

They'll get equal participation shares, which you know full well unless you've kept yourself deliberately ignorant for the last 15 or so months.

That's not the point, though. How will the Union fatcats maintain their gravy train - that's the blockage.

Well, the Scots, Italian & Irish own their teams, so they will still be getting their hands on the funds.

The WRU won't need to fund the regions, so they will save themselves that money.

By the way, a Union (IRFU) that has paid off its brand new stadium in 4 years and has reserves of €60m is a well run union. Unlike most of the privately owned clubs in England and France.

Yawn. the IRFU is losing 4.5m per annum and that scares your treasurer, but you're not going to present all the financials now are you Sin e. anyway, we've been around this a few times. what say we all call it a truce until they come out with whatever they are going to come out with tomorrow.

will be lots to fight about then i am sure!

Eh? The IRFU had a surplus of €7.8m in 2011. LOL.
The IRFU had a surplus of €14.9m last April. This was due to a once-off compensation payment from Puma of 11.5m which means the surplus was €3.4m.

If you check out page 41 of the IRFU's annual report you will see that the IRFU have reserves of 59,861,000 (i.e., cash in hand to sustain it for a couple of years without Heineken Cup Rugby).

Without Heineken Cup Rugby, I'd imagine that that international games would sell-out a lot quicker - and maybe the IRFU would be able to flog some of those 10 year seats that they didn't sell recently.

Now, would you ever stop peddling this line that the IRFU are in financial difficulties. They are prudent managers of their funds - hardly surprising that they are when they have Tom Grace (formerly head of PriceWaterhouseCoopers Insolvency Dept) that they are going to be run conservatively.

the only line i am peddling is directly from the Treasurer's report of the IRFU 2012-2013 annual report. i've quoted it several times here. will do so again. if you dont understand the difference between cash in the bank and an operating loss as a reflection of the ongoing health of a business, dont come crying to me for explanation.

you only read the first few lines. i have attached the next few which are key..

"This year the Union achieved its highest ever surplus of e14.9m
but this includes an exceptional item amounting to some e11.5m
which relates to a settlement reached with one of our former
sponsors.
When this once-off item is removed from the income and
expenditure account it can be seen that the Union’s surplus for the
year was e3.4m, some way down on the e7.8m achieved last year
but ahead of the e2m surplus that was budgeted. When non-cash
items are stripped out the Union actually suffered an operating
cash deficit of some e4.5m."

and then there is much more in your good friend tom grace's report which you conveniently ignore:

"However the future outlook has in my opinion disimproved
significantly. I mentioned in my report last year the importance
of a successful renewal of our ten year tickets and at that time
it would have been anticipated that this would raise over e40m.
Clearly we are some way short of this and even when this year’s
exceptional result is factored in the Union has had to adjust its
long-term financial plan. Put simply because the Union spends
more than the cash revenue it generates in each year, if the Union
wish to maintain current expenditure levels then it will have to
borrow more money in the future to fund its operations and repay
this borrowing from a successful renewal of premium tickets in
2020/21."

"In my Report last year I referred to two of the key risks facing
the Union as being uncertainty surrounding general economic
conditions and the future of competitions in which Irish teams
compete. Both of these issues continue to be at the forefront of
our thinking. "

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Sin é wrote:If its based on meritocracy, what will happen to the 4 Welsh Regions. Who do they compete with to win their place on merit?

If the Irish, Scots & Italians decide to join in and it is based on meritocracy (the top 6 in the Rabbo which would probably  be 3 Irish, 1 Scot 2 Welsh), how are the finances of the 2 non-top 6 Welsh teams going to survive? Are they going to be dependent on the kindness of the Os & Scarlets?

They'll get equal participation shares, which you know full well unless you've kept yourself deliberately ignorant for the last 15 or so months.

That's not the point, though. How will the Union fatcats maintain their gravy train - that's the blockage.

Well, the Scots, Italian & Irish own their teams, so they will still be getting their hands on the funds.

The WRU won't need to fund the regions, so they will save themselves that money.

By the way, a Union (IRFU) that has paid off its brand new stadium in 4 years and has reserves of €60m is a well run union. Unlike most of the privately owned clubs in England and France.

Yawn. the IRFU is losing 4.5m per annum and that scares your treasurer, but you're not going to present all the financials now are you Sin e. anyway, we've been around this a few times. what say we all call it a truce until they come out with whatever they are going to come out with tomorrow.

will be lots to fight about then i am sure!

Eh? The IRFU had a surplus of €7.8m in 2011. LOL.
The IRFU had a surplus of €14.9m last April. This was due to a once-off compensation payment from Puma of 11.5m which means the surplus was €3.4m.

If you check out page 41 of the IRFU's annual report you will see that the IRFU have reserves of 59,861,000 (i.e., cash in hand to sustain it for a couple of years without Heineken Cup Rugby).

Without Heineken Cup Rugby, I'd imagine that that international games would sell-out a lot quicker - and maybe the IRFU would be able to flog some of those 10 year seats that they didn't sell recently.

Now, would you ever stop peddling this line that the IRFU are in financial difficulties. They are prudent managers of their funds - hardly surprising that they are when they have Tom Grace (formerly head of PriceWaterhouseCoopers Insolvency Dept) that they are going to be run conservatively.

the only line i am peddling is directly from the Treasurer's report of the IRFU 2012-2013 annual report. i've quoted it several times here. will do so again. if you dont understand the difference between cash in the bank and an operating loss as a reflection of the ongoing health of a business, dont come crying to me for explanation.

you only read the first few lines. i have attached the next few which are key..

"This year the Union achieved its highest ever surplus of e14.9m
but this includes an exceptional item amounting to some e11.5m
which relates to a settlement reached with one of our former
sponsors.

When this once-off item is removed from the income and
expenditure account it can be seen that the Union’s surplus for the
year was e3.4m, some way down on the e7.8m achieved last year
but ahead of the e2m surplus that was budgeted. When non-cash
items are stripped out the Union actually suffered an operating
cash deficit of some e4.5m."

and then there is much more in your good friend tom grace's report which you conveniently ignore:

"However the future outlook has in my opinion disimproved
significantly. I mentioned in my report last year the importance
of a successful renewal of our ten year tickets and at that time
it would have been anticipated that this would raise over e40m.
Clearly we are some way short of this and even when this year’s
exceptional result is factored in the Union has had to adjust its
long-term financial plan. Put simply because the Union spends
more than the cash revenue it generates in each year, if the Union
wish to maintain current expenditure levels then it will have to
borrow more money in the future to fund its operations and repay
this borrowing from a successful renewal of premium tickets in
2020/21."

"In my Report last year I referred to two of the key risks facing
the Union as being uncertainty surrounding general economic
conditions and the future of competitions in which Irish teams
compete. Both of these issues continue to be at the forefront of
our thinking. "

I don't think that says anything different to what I quoted to you! Note the bolded parts and you will see they are similar to what I've posted.

Did you check out page 41 of the last annual report to find out what reserves the IRFU has?

i hate myself for saying it sin e, but what you have bolded shows you may not have all that much experience interpreting financial statements. nothing wrong with that not being your dayjob. but it is mine. and one-off sales and cash reserves are fairly irrelevant compared to the cash operating profit (or loss in this case) when evaluating a business as a going concern.

sorry to get all accounting-speak on you chap, but i cant have you highlighting irrelevancies and passing them off as the most important facts.

Can you point out to me where it says in the accounts that the IRFU are losing 4.5m per annum? How many times have they lost 4.5m per annum?

Also, as an accountant can you explain what a 'Reserve' is?

PS - the IRFU is a not-for-profit organisation and run slightly differently to 'for profit' companies like the English prem clubs.

quinsforever wrote:i hate myself for saying it sin e, but what you have bolded shows you may not have all that much experience interpreting financial statements. nothing wrong with that not being your dayjob. but it is mine. and one-off sales and cash reserves are fairly irrelevant compared to the cash operating profit (or loss in this case) when evaluating a business as a going concern.

sorry to get all accounting-speak on you chap, but i cant have you highlighting irrelevancies and passing them off as the most important facts.

Quinns, You do realise that its Sin e that your talking to?

Sin e. you need to listen to quinsforever on this point. You obviously don't understand financial accounting.

wrfc1980 wrote:Sin e. you need to listen to quinsforever on this point. You obviously don't understand financial accounting.

I've just asked for quins to explain what a 'Reserve' is. I'm doing my best to understand  

You will see from the Annual report that the IRFU had a consolidated surplus before exceptional items of €6,997,804 for the year ended 30th April 2013 (€10,759,306 for the year ended 30th April 2012 and €6,865,761 for the year ended 30th April 2011. In 2013 the Union also had an exceptional gain of €11,500,000.

The Union had a net cash inflow from operations of €12,891,577 for the year ended 30th April 2013 and had net funds of €5,548,694 as at that date.

As at 30th April 2013 the Union had reserves of €59,861,787.

If anyone can claim that is a Union in bad shape they are in clod cuckoo land

Apparently the WRU offered the RRW central contracts for their best players on Monday. This allegedly would be until a deal on European competition has been reached. Certain condition apply, but no information on what those conditions are.
The WRU moving in to take over the regions?

Surplus is profit right? I haven't a baldy notion about finance (that's the wife's department) but it seems the IRFU is making money. I know they we're trying to take the hit on the poor sales of 10 year tickets in one year but I don't know how that affects anything

I really don't know how to feel about all this. As cack-handed as the WRU can be at times, my gut instinct is to be uneasy about any tournament that's governed by clubs rather than the unions. The national unions have a responsibility to the wider game; the clubs have no such considerations and are possibly / probably more likely to take decisions that could have adverse effects on the game at lower levels and indeed on the international game (I'm thinking salary caps, player quotas and the like). Since the PwC report (it can't hurt to introduce another acronym to the debate), the Dragons have been balancing the books nicely. We live within our means. If we get into a situation where we're trying to compete with sides who all have much bigger budgets than us, there must be a temptation to spend money we don't have in the hope of being successful and in the process running the risk of doing a Leeds United.

Basically, I'd be much more comfortable if the unions had greater control of any new competition, even if it's only slightly more control than the clubs / regions have.

The hole in 10 year ticket sales seems to be a fairly big concern, based on the quote you've provided. No idea how big, but it suggests that next year's accounts could be far less pretty.

By the way, Sin e, you do realise that Quins, Saints, Wasps and Glaws have all spent time in the Amlin in the last few years? I think only Tigers have qualified for the HEC every year. Which is fine, because that place has been earned every year.

SecretFly wrote:Why did RFU make a loss of that 6.3 million last year?

Wasn't it because the world cup meant we didn't host any autumn games, worth millions each?

I'm a bit late on this debate, but my understanding is that the regions agreed to join the RCC because there would be no other European tournament to play in. They are just being practical about things.

So that's 29 teams for the new competion and 9 who will have no European competition next season.

M. Boudjellal spat out his dummy when LNR said that squads for the new competition must have 55% French qualified players. Toulon are nowhere near that.

I can't believe some people are applauding him. He is the last one to actually care about his union.

Oh, and the RFUs £6.3m loss was in the financial year that included the 2011 RWC, when there was no revenue from AIs. All the NH unions were in the same situation and most expected to lose money that year.

Ah, thomh has already pointed out that last bit.

Hound of Harrow wrote:I'm a bit late on this debate, but my understanding is that the regions agreed to join the RCC because there would be no other European tournament to play in. They are just being practical about things.

So that's 29 teams for the new competion and 9 who will have no European competition next season.

M. Boudjellal spat out his dummy when LNR said that squads for the new competition must have 55% French qualified players. Toulon are nowhere near that.

I can't believe some people are applauding him. He is the last one to actually care about his union.

Oh, and the RFUs £6.3m loss was in the financial year that included the 2011 RWC, when there was no revenue from AIs. All the NH unions were in the same situation and most expected to lose money that year.

That's how I was looking at it, and hoping that it was true too.

Hound of Harrow wrote:I'm a bit late on this debate, but my understanding is that the regions agreed to join the RCC because there would be no other European tournament to play in. They are just being practical about things.

.

But they are being short sighted. They will be ok in the short term but worse off in the longer term.

This whole power struggle, which at heart is what it is, will result in a fundamental shift in power and resources to France and England and if it is successful it will accelerate the departure of players from Wales.

The only way this could be prevented is the full integration of the Welsh teams into the Aviva, otherwise it is turkeys voting for Christmas.

Hound of Harrow wrote:I'm a bit late on this debate, but my understanding is that the regions agreed to join the RCC because there would be no other European tournament to play in. They are just being practical about things.

So that's 29 teams for the new competion and 9 who will have no European competition next season.

M. Boudjellal spat out his dummy when LNR said that squads for the new competition must have 55% French qualified players. Toulon are nowhere near that.

I can't believe some people are applauding him. He is the last one to actually care about his union.

Oh, and the RFUs £6.3m loss was in the financial year that included the 2011 RWC, when there was no revenue from AIs. All the NH unions were in the same situation and most expected to lose money that year.

The IRFU had a surplus of €7.8m in 2011 despite no AIs (surely the world cup warm-up games would have helped there)?

I don't think anyone is applauding Boudjellal for what he is has done - just a perfectly timed warning as to who you are getting into bed with.

I don't know where people are getting this 'player poaching' by the French and English.
With LNR's 55% French qualified proposal, and the existingEQP scheme of 65% English qualified rule it is less likely to happen.

Besides, players have been playing outside of their own countries for years. 12 of the current Scottish squad play outside Scotland.

I really think you are just scaremongering.

Hound - if the English and french clubs have a lot more money relative to the rest then the price of players will be inflated as they compete for players adn the rest will not be able to compete in the transfer market. couple this with players not wanting to play for teams who have no chance of meaningful european rugby and you end up wih the smaller unions teams not being able to be competative. also if your players play outside your country you cannot manage and prepare them for internationals so well.
this already happens now. It will get worse under the PRL proposals

Poorfour wrote:The hole in 10 year ticket sales seems to be a fairly big concern, based on the quote you've provided. No idea how big, but it suggests that next year's accounts could be far less pretty.

By the way, Sin e, you do realise that Quins, Saints, Wasps and Glaws have all spent time in the Amlin in the last few years? I think only Tigers have qualified for the HEC every year. Which is fine, because that place has been earned every year.

Just saw this now.

It was the non-sale of about 50% of the 5 & 10 year tickets (about 2K) was the issue. However, that is not a loss. Those tickets are available for sale from game to game and for instance, the ABs game is sold out for the autumn internationals.

Argubably, Quin's earned a lifetime ban after its antics in the Heineken Cup.

Hound of Harrow wrote:I don't know where people are getting this 'player poaching' by the French and English.
With LNR's 55% French qualified proposal, and the existingEQP scheme of 65% English qualified rule it is less likely to happen.

Besides, players have been playing outside of their own countries for years. 12 of the current Scottish squad play outside Scotland.

I really think you are just scaremongering.

And how is Scottish rugby doing?

Hound of Harrow wrote:I don't know where people are getting this 'player poaching' by the French and English.
With LNR's 55% French qualified proposal, and the existingEQP scheme of 65% English qualified rule it is less likely to happen.

Besides, players have been playing outside of their own countries for years. 12 of the current Scottish squad play outside Scotland.

I really think you are just scaremongering.

The trickle from Wales is increasing - if the English and French increase their finances relative to the Celts it will become a torrent

Scottish rugby is about the same as it has been for over 15 years, Sin, irrespective of where their players ply their trade..

Where you play shouldn't matter; how you play does.

TJ - every team should get more money in the propsed new world. Do you really think an extra €800,000 is going to make a big difference to the, already big spending, French clubs. They , and the English clubs are more likely to sign a big name from the SH.

If players want to move clubs blame them for not having the baws to help their club up to the top level competition.

1) the scots would barely get the same probably less - and would lose sponsership and gate money
2) its not a mere £800 000 more for the english and french Its several millions more per team

Unless of course you are not reffering to the PRL proposals but something else

Sin é wrote:

Poorfour wrote:The hole in 10 year ticket sales seems to be a fairly big concern, based on the quote you've provided. No idea how big, but it suggests that next year's accounts could be far less pretty.

By the way, Sin e, you do realise that Quins, Saints, Wasps and Glaws have all spent time in the Amlin in the last few years? I think only Tigers have qualified for the HEC every year. Which is fine, because that place has been earned every year.

Just saw this now.

It was the non-sale of about 50% of the 5 & 10 year tickets (about 2K) was the issue. However, that is not a loss. Those tickets are available for sale from game to game and for instance, the ABs game is sold out for the autumn internationals.

Argubably, Quin's earned a lifetime ban after its antics in the Heineken Cup.

I never said it was. The quote that you supplied stated that the IRFU itself is expecting a sharp downturn in revenue as a result of failing to sell the 5 & 10 year tickets. I imagine they work like RFU debentures - you pay a ton of cash for the right to buy a ticket, and the IRFU account for the up front cash over the life of the ticket. While they may be able to sell the seats on a game by game basis, the loss of 50% of planned annuity revenue would hit any business hard. That's my interpretation and I might not be quite right , but the fact that the IRFU flagged it as a concern in their annual report means that it is a material issue for them.

And you respond to a serious point about the fact that the English (and French) accept qualification for the top tier as a necessary part of the competition with a cheap crack? Classy.

How about actually responding to the point: the big English clubs accept the possibility of competing in the second tier (or even being relegated) as a necessary part of being competitive. Most fans and clubs would tell you the competition is all the better for it. Why does it hold so much fear for the IRFU? Don't say money (there will be no less available, and the Rabo can determine how to share it, so it needn't be linked to competition). And don't witter on about how much the Irish team bring to the tournament. Yes, they're going through a purple patch right now, but that's partially due to a playing field tilted in their favour.

There is nothing wrong in playing in the second tier so long as you have decent chance of getting to the top tier. 6 teams from 4 countries does not provide this 8 would. sounds only a slight difference but atually its critical.

How would you like it if told you could only have 3 english teams in the top tier?

TJ wrote:1) the scots would barely get the same probably less - and would lose sponsership and gate money
2) its not a mere £800 000 more for the english and french  Its several millions more per team

Unless of course you are not reffering to the PRL proposals but something else

TJ, unless you've got another source for this, the only financial detail I've seen posted on v2 stated that the PRL proposal was for the PRL and LNR to get c£10m extra each, bringing them into line with what the Rabo collectively get. On a per team basis, that's about £800k each (£10m/12). Even if you assume that all the extra goes to theams qualifying for the top tier [1], it's only £1.6m each.

The two key points there are a) it's not millions, and b) it's only enough to mean that each team can earn the same amount across all the participating leagues

[1] which it won't, because the volatility in revenue and disparity between top and bottom teams would destroy the competitiveness of the leagues.

Poorfour wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Poorfour wrote:The hole in 10 year ticket sales seems to be a fairly big concern, based on the quote you've provided. No idea how big, but it suggests that next year's accounts could be far less pretty.

By the way, Sin e, you do realise that Quins, Saints, Wasps and Glaws have all spent time in the Amlin in the last few years? I think only Tigers have qualified for the HEC every year. Which is fine, because that place has been earned every year.

Just saw this now.

It was the non-sale of about 50% of the 5 & 10 year tickets (about 2K) was the issue. However, that is not a loss. Those tickets are available for sale from game to game and for instance, the ABs game is sold out for the autumn internationals.

Argubably, Quin's earned a lifetime ban after its antics in the Heineken Cup.

I never said it was. The quote that you supplied stated that the IRFU itself is expecting a sharp downturn in revenue as a result of failing to sell the 5 & 10 year tickets. I imagine they work like RFU debentures - you pay a ton of cash for the right to buy a ticket, and the IRFU account for the up front cash over the life of the ticket. While they may be able to sell the seats on a game by game basis, the loss of 50% of planned annuity revenue would hit any business hard. That's my interpretation and I might not be quite right , but the fact that the IRFU flagged it as a concern in their annual report means that it is a material issue for them.

And you respond to a serious point about the fact that the English (and French) accept qualification for the top tier as a necessary part of the competition with a cheap crack? Classy.

How about actually responding to the point: the big English clubs accept the possibility of competing in the second tier (or even being relegated) as a necessary part of being competitive. Most fans and clubs would tell you the competition is all the better for it. Why does it hold so much fear for the IRFU? Don't say money (there will be no less available, and the Rabo can determine how to share it, so it needn't be linked to competition). And don't witter on about how much the Irish team bring to the tournament. Yes, they're going through a purple patch right now, but that's partially due to a playing field tilted in their favour.

Irish teams purple patch has now stretched back 7 years. That's some patch in fairness. How on earth is he playing field tilted in our favour? Simply because we have 3 of the top team in Europe?

TJ wrote:There is nothing wrong in playing in the second tier so long as you have  decent chance of getting to the top tier.  6 teams from 4 countries does not provide this  8 would.  sounds only a slight difference but atually its critical.

How would you like it if told you could only have 3 english teams in the top tier?

Yeah, that would work. Not. 25% of English sides qualifying vs 75% of Irish sides guaranteed qualification.

8 teams in effect means no meaningful change. The top 3 provinces and top 3 regions are still more or less guaranteed a slot, along with at least one Scottish side. Top side from each country plus next best 2 guarantees representation by country and sets up meaningful competition. Everyone has a decent chance of getting to the top tier - all they have to do is be the best from their own union or better than the second best of everyone else.

We cannot have a situation in the Rabo where the potential winner doesn't qualify for the top tier of euro competition. That would be a farce

The IRFU's Treasurer, Tom Grace is an insolvency expert and is very conservative/prudent with IRFU financial management. Grace is a member of the same club as Jonathan Sexton and apparently a club member offered to top up the difference in Sexton's salary to keep him in Leinster and Grace wouldn't allow it.

Grace will not let the IRFU or the Provinces live beyond their means.

With Reserves of nearly €60m, it would appear that the IRFU will be well able to weather the lack of forward sales of the 5 & 10 Year tickets (they did manage to sell half of them, and if there are no HC games (i.e., fewer top class games), they will sell out all the International games.

Its a relevant crack, bearing in mind that Quins was trying to cheat Leinster who didn't earn its place according to you in the competition.

And the Irish teams have no fear of having to qualify as generally 3 of the Irish provinces makes the playoffs most years.

It may have passed you by, but Leinster won the Amlin last season. Connacht made the Heineken Cup this year because Leinster won it.

Why not twitter on about how much the Irish team's bring to the competition. Without them (and the rest of the Celts) it won't be a European Competition.

Standulstermen wrote:Irish teams purple patch has now stretched back 7 years. That's some patch in fairness. How on earth is he playing field tilted in our favour? Simply because we have 3 of the top team in Europe?

Ireland have had a golden generation of players. But you really believe that they've won so many times just because of that? That they are really that much better than Toulouse, Clermont, Leicester and the like?

I am not denying that they are very good sides, but there are several small advantages. If that adds up to say, a 2-3% advantage in any given game, it makes a big difference over the long run:
1) They qualify automatically every year
2) The seeding model rewards qualification, so they automatically have an advantage in seeding
3) Not needing to qualify (or avoid relegation) allows full focus on the HEC
4) The disparity in revenue is also a factor. French teams in particular earn less from the HEC than from their other competitions. At some level that must have affected their motivation.

Enough for you?

Seeding is a real issue - its been done badly in the past.  Edinburgh cup run two years ago was in part due to a weak group.  No issues with that.

Pourfour.  8 teams would mean a meaningful chance of qualification for all.  I think most are agreed each union needs one slot. ( after all England gets 6)  so with only 6 teams from 4 unions only 2 places up for grabs.  So only 2 places for 8 teams from 4 unions to fight over.  too many teams from too many countries miss out.

Unless of course you go for no guaranteed place in which case its an end to Pro rugby in Scotland and Italy.

No one has ever made a case for why 40% of the representation from 4 countries must go but 2 countries lose no representation. the argument you give for this reduction equally applies to AP and top14 teams

And qualification would be relevant if any of the top three provinces finished outside the top 6 in the Rabo. Leinster were the best team Europe has ever seen. To win the title 3 time in 4 years. I could be wrong but they also got to the final of the Rabo in those same years. Ulster were 3rd seed a few seasons back but have been rewarded for performances like emerging from a group with Clermont and Leicester to reach the final. That's why they are now in the top tier.

Revenue, seriously? You are trying to say that the Irish have a revenue advantage? Well we just went to Montpellier and scalped them with 2 foreign players and one soon to be qualified so the fact is we are producing our own talent.

Poor four it really is the thinnest argument ever.

Hound of Harrow wrote:Scottish rugby is about the same as it has been for over 15 years,

15 years ago they were winning the 5N.........

Great to see some discussion of accounts back on the v2 again.

Can't have too much of that stuff on here.

Now I've heard it all the Irish have an unfair revenue advantage over the French  

Poorfour wrote:
4) The disparity in revenue is also a factor. French teams in particular earn less from the HEC than from their other competitions. At some level that must have affected their motivation.

Don't the French split the money between all their professional teams? (Top 14 & Pro D2). Similar with the EPL who split their HC money between all teams.

Why don't you take the money back from them rather than the Italians & Scots?

I thought I would have a look at what qualification would be from the Pro12 under various rules.  top 6, one from each union +2, One from each union +4  last 3 years
2010-2011
top 6
Munster  Leinster   Ulster   Ospreys   Scarlets  Cardiff Blues
One each +2 (+4)
Munster Ospreys Edinburgh   Benetton Treviso + Leinster  Cardiff Blues (Scarlets Ulster)

2011-2012
top 6
 Leinster  Ospreys   Munster  Glasgow   Scarlets  Ulster
One each +2 (+4)
Leinster Ospreys Glasgow Benetton Treviso + Munster Scarlets (Cardiff Blues Connacht)

2012 – 2013
Ulster Leinster Glasgow Scarlets Ospreys Munster
One each +2 (+4) Ulster Glasgow Scarlets Benetton Treviso + Leinster Ospreys (Munster Connacht)

Makes for interesting reading  I am adamant that 4+4 is the only way this is reasonable.  otherwise you get a european cup missing some good teams and missing diversity

geoff999rugby wrote:You will see from the Annual report that the IRFU had a consolidated surplus before exceptional items of €6,997,804 for the year ended 30th April 2013 (€10,759,306 for the year ended 30th April 2012 and €6,865,761 for the year ended 30th April 2011. In 2013 the Union also had an exceptional gain of €11,500,000.

The Union had a net cash inflow from operations of €12,891,577 for the year ended 30th April 2013 and had net funds of €5,548,694 as at that date.

As at 30th April 2013 the Union had reserves of €59,861,787.

If anyone can claim that is a Union in bad shape they are in clod cuckoo land

i will try to put as little opinion into this as possible. from your treasurer's report "When non-cash items are stripped out the Union actually suffered an operating cash deficit of some e4.5m"

lets just take a really simple hypothetical example. if the union has 60m in reserves (cash and deposits lets say). and lets say the union is (rounding for simplicity of maths) losing 5m per annum in the ordinary course of its operations. [this excludes the cash received for selling a 10 year ticket as that cannot be sold next year. only 1/10th of the cash from that 10 year ticket would be recognised in this fiscal year][and it also excludes the one-off cash payment from cancelled sponsor contract].

if nothing changes, on this course, the union would run out of "reserves" in 12 years (60m/5m per annum).

the treasurer explicitly mentions a change to the european club competition formats as one of his two biggest fears. it's easy to see why. i cant get a precise figure from the accounts or online but my best guess is that in 2012-2013 IRFU received about EUR7-8m from ERC (out of total ERC distribn of EUR44.3m...13.25% + merit payments). So without a european club competition, and without home game revenues for about 10-12 matches in HC (10x 15,000 x EUR20per ticket) would cost at least another EUR3m of lost revenue.

adding that up, on top of an operating loss run rate of 4.5m, a further EUR10m foregone from HC if there is no replacement, would lead to an operating loss of EUR14.5m per annum. that would only take 4 years to wipe out all the reserves (60m). and if the IRFU wanted anyone to lend to them to continue their operations, they would either have to securitise future revenues from ticket sales (doable but just pushes problem a bit further out) or work to narrow the cash operating loss gap.

i'm not saying the IRFU is particularly vulnerable relative to everyone else - TBH the only other accounts i looked at were the Scots and they are equally reliant on HC funding even if they are not currently running a cash operating loss.

but i do wish IRFU "surplus" and "reserve" numbers wouldnt keep getting quoted as if they somehow show the vibrant health of an organisation whose treasurer is himself concerned.

TJ wrote:I thought I would have a look at what qualification would be from the Pro12 under various rules.  top 6, one from each union +2, One from each union +4  last 3 years
2010-2011
top 6
Munster  Leinster   Ulster   Ospreys   Scarlets  Cardiff Blues
One each +2 (+4)
Munster Ospreys Edinburgh   Benetton Treviso + Leinster  Cardiff Blues (Scarlets Ulster)

2011-2012
top 6
 Leinster  Ospreys   Munster  Glasgow   Scarlets  Ulster
One each +2 (+4)
Leinster Ospreys Glasgow Benetton Treviso + Munster Scarlets (Cardiff Blues Connacht)

2012 – 2013
Ulster Leinster Glasgow Scarlets Ospreys Munster
One each +2 (+4) Ulster Glasgow Scarlets Benetton Treviso + Leinster Ospreys (Munster Connacht)

Makes for interesting reading  I am adamant that 4+4 is the only way this is reasonable.  otherwise you get a european cup missing some good teams and missing diversity

it does. but of course i would argue that if the qualification rules had been different back then you would have likely had a different finishing order in the rabo. so hard to use past outcomes under different qualification rules for prediction.

Only if you believe the nonsense about teams not trying in the league which those of us who follow the Pro12 know is nonsense. I agree its only an academic supposition but I very much doubt anything would have been different

Can we pause from IRFU accounts briefly to explore the issue of 'meritocratic qualification'? The PRL/LNR believe that those two words mean qualification on a league basis, whereas the oppo (Celtic League) believe that it should be on a union basis - the compromise is clearly somewhere in the middle. But actually, are things as clear cut as they seem? Why should league qualification be any more valid than union qualification? What if the 7th placed T14 team is clearly better (and hence more qualified) than the 6th placed AP team, for arguments sake? Why is the fact that the Celtic league unions have a smaller professional playing base, and hence a smaller number of professional teams each, forcing them to come together to form a single league, of greater relevance? Should the ideal not either be an agreed European-wide system of ranking, or instead be all pro teams into a hat with draws for a knockout competition from the get-go? Thoughts?

Indeed asbo - why should the AP get 6 places as of right despite not doing well and the Irish get none or one despite doing well?

I did suggest a wider system of playoffs. Say 3 english and french as of right, 1 each Irish, scots, Welsh, Italian and then the rest of the teams have to playoff for places in some format.

the playoff games would then mean even teams missing out would have some meaningfull games to play.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Can we pause from IRFU accounts.....

No! I'd like to hear more from quins. Specifically, what accounting qualifications he holds and what 'finance' employer lets him spend all day on here???

Quinns you are making a rather large assumption that the IRFU are not going to do anything about any deficit. There has been major cost cutting for the provinces (i.e., Munster lost their scrum coach and moving to one training centre rather than having two bases). Then you have Doug Howlett & ROG retiring. And that is just in Munster. Leinster have lost Sexton & Nacewa and will lose O'Driscoll next year.

But the major item is that the IRFU don't owe any money on its brand new stadium.

quinsforever wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:You will see from the Annual report that the IRFU had a consolidated surplus before exceptional items of €6,997,804 for the year ended 30th April 2013 (€10,759,306 for the year ended 30th April 2012 and €6,865,761 for the year ended 30th April 2011. In 2013 the Union also had an exceptional gain of €11,500,000.

The Union had a net cash inflow from operations of €12,891,577 for the year ended 30th April 2013 and had net funds of €5,548,694 as at that date.

As at 30th April 2013 the Union had reserves of €59,861,787.

If anyone can claim that is a Union in bad shape they are in clod cuckoo land

i will try to put as little opinion into this as possible. from your treasurer's report "When non-cash items are stripped out the Union actually suffered an operating cash deficit of some e4.5m"

lets just take a really simple hypothetical example. if the union has 60m in reserves (cash and deposits lets say). and lets say the union is (rounding for simplicity of maths) losing 5m per annum in the ordinary course of its operations. [this excludes the cash received for selling a 10 year ticket as that cannot be sold next year. only 1/10th of the cash from that 10 year ticket would be recognised in this fiscal year][and it also excludes the one-off cash payment from cancelled sponsor contract].

if nothing changes, on this course, the union would run out of "reserves" in 12 years (60m/5m per annum).

the treasurer explicitly mentions a change to the european club competition formats as one of his two biggest fears. it's easy to see why. i cant get a precise figure from the accounts or online but my best guess is that in 2012-2013 IRFU received about EUR7-8m from ERC (out of total ERC distribn of EUR44.3m...13.25% + merit payments).  So without a european club competition, and without home game revenues for about 10-12 matches in HC (10x 15,000 x EUR20per ticket) would cost at least another EUR3m of lost revenue.

adding that up, on top of an operating loss run rate of 4.5m, a further EUR10m foregone from HC if there is no replacement, would lead to an operating loss of EUR14.5m per annum. that would only take 4 years to wipe out all the reserves (60m). and if the IRFU wanted anyone to lend to them to continue their operations, they would either have to securitise future revenues from ticket sales (doable but just pushes problem a bit further out) or work to narrow the cash operating loss gap.

i'm not saying the IRFU is particularly vulnerable relative to everyone else - TBH the only other accounts i looked at were the Scots and they are equally reliant on HC funding even if they are not currently running a cash operating loss.

but i do wish IRFU "surplus" and "reserve" numbers wouldnt keep getting quoted as if they somehow show the vibrant health of an organisation whose treasurer is himself concerned.

:snore: WTF is this? Accountancy monthly? I never signed up for this! Harder to stay awake through than some of our long winded posters best efforts.