SRU debt free ??

First topic message reminder :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-2628637/BT-set-land-Murrayfield-naming-rights-20m-deal-write-SRU-debt-offer-boost-Edinburgh-Glasgow-clubs.html

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:How? You do realise that 9 of Munster's 11 semi finals were away! Two finals in Dublin in 20 years! Yea right. Then the Sporting Tax exemption which will not be available from Switzerland which was worth approx. 3m every year to the ERC partners (and why all rugby business is based in Ireland). Far more likely that the reason is that there were no Directors fees available from the ERC (a condition to get the sporting tax exemption - the directors cannot benefit from the company).

So working for a company that get's millions from said company doesn't count? Only direct payments? That's a nice loophole.

Not sure what you are getting at here, but its not a tax loophole. Sporting organisations are treated like charitities and our Governement don't tax charities either. The fact that there are no directors fees means (only expenses) paid perhaps attracts the better intentioned running sports in Ireland who are definately not in it to feather their own nests.

The added attraction of this is that they have very high accounting compliance standards if they want to keep getting the Sporting Tax Exemption.

Notch wrote:BT have also approached the provinces about sponsorship opportunities, and I would be supremely unsurprised if they go on to outbid other sponsors for shirt deals or even look at naming rights for Ravenhill or Thomond Park if the provinces choose to go down that road.

I'm against that for practical reasons. If every stadium is called the BT Stadium it will become very confusing.

Nah it won't, BT Ravenhill, BT CAP, BT Dave Parade, piece of urine mun   

Sin é, you say the Directors can't benefit from the company for Sporting Tax Exemption, but they're representatives of the unions and clubs that get significant amounts of money from the ERC...so surely they are benefiting. But if it's directly benefiting then it's a bit of a loop hole, rather than the ERC giving money to...say the SRU...who then give money to the guy they sent to be the director. I'm sure it's all 'legal', but look at Gary Barlow.

What I'm saying is that the ERC does/did not pay Directors Fees to Board Members.

Its up to the individual Unions if they want to pay them (other than expenses). All sporting organisations operate like this in Ireland - none of the IRFU Board (Chairman, Treasurer etc) are paid, whereas in Wales for instance, the Chairman of the WRU gets about 30K a year.

This encourages people to hang on in there for the money rather than working for the sport!

The GAA's President is a fulltime job which he isn't paid for. Generally, they are on leave of absence of their job for 2 years. The employer continues to pay the President and the GAA compensates the company for his salary.

I'm sure they pick up a few little backhanders here and there!

I'm sooooo happy ERC will soon be history and that BT have given the sport a new lease of live that was so badly needed. Great to see so many unions and clubs benefiting from their involvement.

Scrumpy wrote:I'm sure they pick up a few little backhanders here and there!

Backhanders from whom? I'd be pretty sure that all involved (especially the permanent emloyees) would not like to risk losing this tax advantage income.

I'm sooooo happy ERC will soon be history and that BT have given the sport a new lease of live that was so badly needed. Great to see so many unions and clubs benefiting from their involvement.

How long will they be benefiting for though. Hard to imagine Sky putting in a competitive bid in for a competitition that is broadcast from mostly BT stadiums with teams with BT splashed across their jerseys.

Looks like BT are doing exactly what they said they were going to do - buy rugby.

Sin é wrote:What I'm saying is that the ERC does/did not pay Directors Fees to Board Members.

Its up to the individual Unions if they want to pay them (other than expenses). All sporting organisations operate like this in Ireland - none of the IRFU Board (Chairman, Treasurer etc) are paid, whereas in Wales for instance, the Chairman of the WRU gets about 30K a year.

This encourages people to hang on in there for the money rather than working for the sport!

The GAA's President is a fulltime job which he isn't paid for. Generally, they are on leave of absence of their job for 2 years. The employer continues to pay the President and the GAA compensates the company for his salary.

Cool Hold on. That last bit. So the GAA don't pay the President, as if they did they wouldn't be eligible for the Sporting Tax Exemption. Then another company, who also employ the President, pays him and the GAA pay this company compensation for it? And you don't see that as a loop hole?

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:What I'm saying is that the ERC does/did not pay Directors Fees to Board Members.

Its up to the individual Unions if they want to pay them (other than expenses). All sporting organisations operate like this in Ireland - none of the IRFU Board (Chairman, Treasurer etc) are paid, whereas in Wales for instance, the Chairman of the WRU gets about 30K a year.

This encourages people to hang on in there for the money rather than working for the sport!

The GAA's President is a fulltime job which he isn't paid for. Generally, they are on leave of absence of their job for 2 years. The employer continues to pay the President and the GAA compensates the company for his salary.

Cool  Hold on.  That last bit.  So the GAA don't pay the President, as if they did they wouldn't be eligible for the Sporting Tax Exemption.  Then another company, who also employ the President, pays him and the GAA pay this company compensation for it? And you don't see that as a loop hole?

Whatever it is, its not a loophole. If the President of the GAA is a postman, that is what the company will get compensated for. Its to cover the cost of his replacement so that the company (and the President) isn't out of pocket or out of their general work. Neither are going to make a killing either.

It also means that people who are not independently wealthy can do the job.

Funny how BT is now throwing money at Welsh and Scottish sides.

BT: "Thanks lads!"

'Funny' as in 'Good' ?

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:What I'm saying is that the ERC does/did not pay Directors Fees to Board Members.

Its up to the individual Unions if they want to pay them (other than expenses). All sporting organisations operate like this in Ireland - none of the IRFU Board (Chairman, Treasurer etc) are paid, whereas in Wales for instance, the Chairman of the WRU gets about 30K a year.

This encourages people to hang on in there for the money rather than working for the sport!

The GAA's President is a fulltime job which he isn't paid for. Generally, they are on leave of absence of their job for 2 years. The employer continues to pay the President and the GAA compensates the company for his salary.

Cool  Hold on.  That last bit.  So the GAA don't pay the President, as if they did they wouldn't be eligible for the Sporting Tax Exemption.  Then another company, who also employ the President, pays him and the GAA pay this company compensation for it? And you don't see that as a loop hole?

Whatever it is, its not a loophole. If the President of the GAA is a postman, that is what the company will get compensated for. Its to cover the cost of his replacement so that the company (and the President) isn't out of pocket or out of their general work. Neither are going to make a killing either.

It also means that people who are not independently wealthy can do the job.

Ok, that makes sense.

Still not sure why this is bad business.  The SRU pays off the stadium and would have more money to invest in the top two clubs and the grass roots.  More cash to actually grow Rugby in Scotland, which many of us believe is important for Rugby in general.  

We all know the history of the Eurpoean Rugby negotiations and have different impressions about how it all unfolded, various sides motives, tactics, demonising the other sides, and so on.  This deal still seems good for Rugby in Scotland - to be in position to invest in the game.  Why would they not want to take advantage of that opportunity?  Why is this bad for Scotland?

doctor_grey wrote:Still not sure why this is bad business.  The SRU pays off the stadium and would have more money to invest in the top two clubs and the grass roots.  More cash to actually grow Rugby in Scotland, which many of us believe is important for Rugby in general.  

We all know the history of the Eurpoean Rugby negotiations and have different impressions about how it all unfolded, various sides motives, tactics, demonising the other sides, and so on.  This deal still seems good for Rugby in Scotland - to be in position to invest in the game.  Why would they not want to take advantage of that opportunity?  Why is this bad for Scotland?

of course its bad, It's money from BT......

nathan wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Still not sure why this is bad business.  The SRU pays off the stadium and would have more money to invest in the top two clubs and the grass roots.  More cash to actually grow Rugby in Scotland, which many of us believe is important for Rugby in general.  

We all know the history of the Eurpoean Rugby negotiations and have different impressions about how it all unfolded, various sides motives, tactics, demonising the other sides, and so on.  This deal still seems good for Rugby in Scotland - to be in position to invest in the game.  Why would they not want to take advantage of that opportunity?  Why is this bad for Scotland?

of course its bad, It's money from BT......

And no response from anyone else. Hmmmmm............

Not sure why anyone would be against this, more revenue streams coming into Scottish rugby the better.

Hitler also provide poor broadband FACT ! END OF !

reallybored wrote:Not sure why anyone would be against this, more revenue streams coming into Scottish rugby the better.

You still won't have enough now that Wray & Craig are running rugby. They are already on about changing the season to accommodate SA in 6Ns, reducing the 6 Nations by a week and possibly dropping Scotland & Italy out of it as they are not competitive enough to accommodate SA  

Its all about the money now you see.

Sin é wrote:

reallybored wrote:Not sure why anyone would be against this, more revenue streams coming into Scottish rugby the better.

You still won't have enough now that Wray & Craig are running rugby. They are already on about changing the season to accommodate SA in 6Ns, reducing the 6 Nations by a week and possibly dropping Scotland & Italy out of it as they are not competitive enough to accommodate SA  

Its all about the money now you see.

You got a source for that?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/southafrica/10835325/It-is-inevitable-that-South-Africa-will-eventually-join-Six-Nations-because-of-TV-and-time-zones-says-Saracens-chief.html

http://www.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/story/225977.html

You forgot the one with them dropping Scotland and Italy.

Cutting out one of the free weekends from the 6 nations is hardly heresy and seems sensible. Blocking the tours into one (we go there for three weeks, they come here for three weeks) is plausible but the TV people like things spread out so you keep your TV contracts.

Of course it doesn't mean a damn as these guys don't control rugby...do they? They govern the club games within the framework given them by the unions.

Player welfare is why they need a break during the Six Nations.

There are several articles doing the rounds with different quotes. One of them was from Craig (I think) about having a 2 Tier 6 Nations bringing in SA so that you could have relegation as the competition needs to be competitive.

I don't think they will get their way on this one though. The FFR needs the cash from the 6Nations.

That was suggested by a journalist after the 6 nations. Haven't seen Craig's.

So players can't potentially play 5 games in 6 weekends? The IRB are bastards over the World Cup them aren't they forcing the winners to play 7 in 7.

HammerofThunor wrote:That was suggested by a journalist after the 6 nations. Haven't seen Craig's.

So players can't potentially play 5 games in 6 weekends? The IRB are bastards over the World Cup them aren't they forcing the winners to play 7 in 7.

Oh, maybe thats why they think having Georgia & Romania in the 6Nations would be a good idea. They could rotate their squad and rest their players for those games.

A bitch though if you get them at the start of the Tournament.

This still doesn't explain why this is a bad deal for Scotland.

Sorry, my google-fu is weak. Was it Craig and Wray suggesting Georgia and Romania? That would extend the IW so can't see them wanting that.

doctor_grey wrote:This still doesn't explain why this is a bad deal for Scotland.

Because at the moment the main/only money maker for the SRU is the Six Nations - if they get knocked out of that, without the revenue they will be finished. As you well know, the new philosophy for rugby is that its all about the money, media etc. It won't be long until the media people declare they have no interest in televising also rans like Italy and Scotland. They only tolerate the Irish & Welsh because they are competitive.

Also, I think you will find the the other Unions will now also take the attitude towards themselves & Italy that it is survival of the fittest. Next negotiations for the Pro12 will see Wales and Ireland looking for their fair share (double SRU's share) because they have double the number of teams.

Any media mogle that doesnt think Eng Vs Scotland is worth coverage due to no interest clearly doesnt have a scooby about the subject and would promptly be fired from their post and possibly fired out a cannon also!

tigertattie wrote:Any media mogle that doesnt think Eng Vs Scotland is worth coverage due to no interest clearly doesnt have a scooby about the subject and would promptly be fired from their post and possibly fired out a cannon also!

Only in Scotland & England though. And Scotland has a small population (viewers prepared to pay for it) in comparison to South Africa.

Ah but we have the BBC (for now anyway)

The BBC are duty bound to screen what we want them to screen.  We want them to screen Scotland playing England at rugby! (and Ireland, Wales, SA, etc)

Isn't the 6 Nations a 'protected television right' so it CAN'T be on paid for TV ?

Only in Ireland, France and Wales I think. Its not protected in England. Indeed, the RFU sold its own coverage to Sky a couple of years back and the other Unions threatened to boycott them (not for selling to Sky, but because of how the tournament was sold as a package).

I'm sure it would be the 'UK' rather than just Wales as it would be something enforced by the government ?

munkian wrote:I'm sure it would be the 'UK' rather than just Wales as it would be something enforced by the government ?  

No, the Welsh Assembly can nominate FTA programmes (just games involving Wales). Rugby is Wales' national sport supposedly, where as soccer is Englands.

all on bbc now right?

Amazing that Sky had England games for a while.... but didn't think it was worth it for the rest.

I don't believe that the 6N collectively wouldn't have preferred a bigger financial package from Sky against free for all rights to the BBC, probably for very little.

In terms of Wales' national sport I think thats highly contestable.... I reckon football is probably just as popular. Check out match day attendances for instance.

Fairy nuff.

Load of bumpf on it here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofcom_Code_on_Sports_and_Other_Listed_and_Designated_Events

fa0019 wrote:all on bbc now right?

Amazing that Sky had England games for a while.... but didn't think it was worth it for the rest.

I don't believe that the 6N collectively wouldn't have preferred a bigger financial package from Sky against free for all rights to the BBC, probably for very little.

In terms of Wales' national sport I think thats highly contestable.... I reckon football is probably just as popular. Check out match day attendances for instance.

Club football - yes, International -Nope

fa0019 wrote:all on bbc now right?

Amazing that Sky had England games for a while.... but didn't think it was worth it for the rest.

I don't believe that the 6N collectively wouldn't have preferred a bigger financial package from Sky against free for all rights to the BBC, probably for very little.

In terms of Wales' national sport I think thats highly contestable.... I reckon football is probably just as popular. Check out match day attendances for instance.

The 6Ns might have liked to have put the 6Ns on Sky, but under EU legislation, Governments can choose to insist on certain sporting events being on FTA TV. Sky are not interested then because it means they don't get exclusive rights which is what they generally want.

Other sporting events which have to be on FTA (are world cups (soccer & rugby) and Olympics. They generally cover only your countries games and the final.

France are pretty hot on it and insist on a certain number of Heineken Cup games/Top 14 being on FTA tv.

Sin é wrote:

munkian wrote:I'm sure it would be the 'UK' rather than just Wales as it would be something enforced by the government ?  

No, the Welsh Assembly can nominate FTA programmes (just games involving Wales). Rugby is Wales' national sport supposedly, where as soccer is Englands.

No, I don't think they can. The Welsh home games in the 6 nations are protected as free to air for the UK. The only other protected rugby is the World Cup. A 6 nations highlights package is also protected.

Actually, if you could back up the claim that the Assembly can and have protected these games it would be awesome because it's been claimed by others and they never backed it up. And I've looked and never been able o find anything about it. You're usually on the ball with this things so it would be appreciated.

I haven't a clue where I'd find that information now. When there was a huge debate here in Ireland about the Irish Gov. going to list the Heineken Cup as FTA, it came up.

There is a difference within the various countries in the UK. As far as I can recall, the Welsh Autumn Internationals are on FTA, whereas the England internationals are on pay tv.

There could be a slightly more altruistic explaination in that it's dawned in BT that without reasonably strong (but possibly not so strong to overly upset the top Jeff sides) Welsh and Scottish sides competing in Europe they don't have much of a product to sell.
If there's no real competition in the ERCC other than waiting to see which of the richest sides from England and France get to the finals then the viewing figures may not match their expectation and therefore reduce the advertising income.
Also it may have been noticed that a company that is still commonly referred to as "British" Telecom may want to have a presence outside England.

Also that Sky will be showing a load of Rabbo games