Can someone explain how Saracens fill Wembley yet are £41m in debt?

On the one hand we see that Saracens fill Wembley whenever they play there. Begs the question why not play there all the time? I mean that put's them at the number sports club in the country for attendances.

Then we sere this article quoting Wray :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-3025947/Saracens-chairman-Nigel-Wray-describes-rugby-s-salary-caps-farce-documents-club-s-mounting-debts-reached-40m-rugby-history.html

I guess it depends on how much of the takings Sarries get for filling Wembley.

Havent they just put alot of money into their new stadium?

That will be a big investment and its going to be a longer term return.

According to my Sarries season ticket holding mate, the cost of hiring Wembley and putting on everything they do when they play there; they actually make a loss when they play their games there he reckons. And I was there last week, it definitely wasn't filled!

JDizzle wrote:According to my Sarries season ticket holding mate, the cost of hiring Wembley and putting on everything they do when they play there; they actually make a loss when they play their games there he reckons. And I was there last week, it definitely wasn't filled!

i suppose its done for exposure then, in the hope that they will recruit new fans that will then spend at their home ground

How are they allowed to continue running with these debts and increasing player's value with money they basically don't have is the real question.

nathan wrote:

JDizzle wrote:According to my Sarries season ticket holding mate, the cost of hiring Wembley and putting on everything they do when they play there; they actually make a loss when they play their games there he reckons. And I was there last week, it definitely wasn't filled!

i suppose its done for exposure then, in the hope that they will recruit new fans that will then spend at their home ground

Would be my assumption. Plus they get some decent publicity out of it, to try and attract new fans that way, world record crowds etc.

I guess it depends on how much they charge for tickets - if they sell them cheap or give them away they may not cover the costs.

Pretty sure they also giveaway a lot of tickets to schools etc.

nathan wrote:

JDizzle wrote:According to my Sarries season ticket holding mate, the cost of hiring Wembley and putting on everything they do when they play there; they actually make a loss when they play their games there he reckons. And I was there last week, it definitely wasn't filled!

i suppose its done for exposure then, in the hope that they will recruit new fans that will then spend at their home ground

84,000 is still mighty impressive.

Wray makes an interesting comment about changing people's culture and the soccer clubs in the big cities.

Is he ploughing this money in to try and usurp soccer? If this is his aim, surely he would be better off doing that at grassroots level.

TG wrote:

nathan wrote:

JDizzle wrote:According to my Sarries season ticket holding mate, the cost of hiring Wembley and putting on everything they do when they play there; they actually make a loss when they play their games there he reckons. And I was there last week, it definitely wasn't filled!

i suppose its done for exposure then, in the hope that they will recruit new fans that will then spend at their home ground

84,000 is still mighty impressive.

Wray makes an interesting comment about changing people's culture and the soccer clubs in the big cities.

Is he ploughing this money in to try and usurp soccer? If this is his aim, surely he would be better off doing that at grassroots level.

i would doubt it, 1 single club wont make that happen and im sure he's not that stupid to think so.

The 84,000 includes a lot of free tickets they give away and I also got told that that total
includes all the dancers/band etc. Not sure how true that is, but the stands didn't look 84,000 full. Still an impressive day out, well put together event and even if it is short of world record full; there is still an awful lot of people there which can only be good.

I was there, you could easily take away 8-9k off that number due to that huge choir and all the kids groups they got in

Short term loss to make long term future billions

Create product through loans and building up debt - then feel the tide turn as the product catches public attention and slowly begins to pay for itself.

In other words, Wray and his South African investors are gambling.  Train the horse and hopefully he might give pay back in wins and/or stud fees later down the line.

They do need to get that debt figure under control sooner rather than later. They have invested huge amounts in the "brand", as well as the stadium, pitch and playing resources, but rugby does not want to go down the same road as football (I say that as a Rangers and Everton fan, two clubs who have had/continue to have huge problems with unserviceable debts), and a spend what you earn regime with a debt cap ought to be the correct direction of travel.

Based upon the game at the weekend, would any of the 84,000 actually pay to watch them play?

A number of years ago I ridiculed the notion that they would fill Wembley, but they deserve a huge amount of credit for what they have achieved. However, the bigger question for me is how can they attract 84,000 for Wembley yet rarely get over 8,000 for games at Allianz Park?

Free tickets, reduced prices, choirs etc.

The vast majority of people who go to the games at Wembley are just there for the day out.

The rugby isn't that important really. This is made implicitly clear when the mexican waves appear.

Saracens have struggled to turn people who goes to these games into fans. I guess they are playing the long game - you generally start supporting a team if you go with your family.

Allianz Park was a significant investment - the pitch itself is arguably the best in European rugby.

I do think Saracens can be more efficient. I know there are many things can improve upon.

Though saying that I think Saracens do some things better than any other club in the AP.

When I went to see Racing Metro vs Saracens - I saw how further down the line Saracens are compared to Racing Metro.

What were the findings on this story?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/11305609/Saracens-and-Bath-under-investigation-for-alleged-salary-cap-breach.html

maestegmafia wrote:What were the findings on this story?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/11305609/Saracens-and-Bath-under-investigation-for-alleged-salary-cap-breach.html

Most likely the findings involved a brush and a carpet, or a tin of white paint.

beshocked wrote:Free tickets, reduced prices, choirs etc.

The vast majority of people who go to the games at Wembley are just there for the day out.

The rugby isn't that important really. This is made implicitly clear when the mexican waves appear.

Saracens have struggled to turn people who goes to these games into fans. I guess they are playing the long game - you generally start supporting a team if you go with your family.

Allianz Park was a significant investment - the pitch itself is arguably the best in European rugby.

I do think Saracens can be more efficient. I know there are many things can improve upon.

Though saying that I think Saracens do some things better than any other club in the AP.

When I went to see Racing Metro vs Saracens - I saw how further down the line Saracens are compared to Racing Metro.

Second Best

VinceWLB wrote:How are they allowed to continue running with these debts and increasing player's value with money they basically don't have is the real question.

They should seek advice from Bath, who have been operating well above the salary cap for years.

VinceWLB wrote:How are they allowed to continue running with these debts and increasing player's value with money they basically don't have is the real question.

Munster are heavily in debt. Nobody seems to criticise them for this.

In all honesty the whole stadium set up cant have been cheap.

Its a long term project...but judging by some of the kids coming through their academy set up its going to work.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

VinceWLB wrote:How are they allowed to continue running with these debts and increasing player's value with money they basically don't have is the real question.

Munster are heavily in debt. Nobody seems to criticise them for this.

Well they should. Debt in of itself is not always a bad thing, some consider it an essential tool for growth and ambition. On a personal level there are not many of us, other than a few champagne socialist Nats in Scotland, who can afford to live and acquire a property without debt. Still, there's debt and then there's debt. I have witnessed first hand at Rangers what can happen when debt gets out of control.

Jimpy wrote:

VinceWLB wrote:How are they allowed to continue running with these debts and increasing player's value with money they basically don't have is the real question.

They should seek advice from Bath, who have been operating well above the salary cap for years.

I didn't realise that this was the case. What is your evidence for this, I'd be really interested to read it for myself.

Bathite wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

VinceWLB wrote:How are they allowed to continue running with these debts and increasing player's value with money they basically don't have is the real question.

They should seek advice from Bath, who have been operating well above the salary cap for years.

I didn't realise that this was the case. What is your evidence for this, I'd be really interested to read it for myself.

A deafening silence!

FES I agree but it depends how you acquire the debt.

It also depends how much a team can afford.

As it stands Saracens have the financial backing of the likes of Johann Rupert and Nigel Wray.

For Johann Rupert who is reportedly worth $7.3 billion. £40 million is not much.

Though saying that I have never seen Johann Rupert at a game.


For all we know perhaps Edward Griffiths was let go because he allowed the salaries of staff grow out of control?


The financial situation of the UK in my opinion is more precarious than that of Saracens!

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Bathite wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

VinceWLB wrote:How are they allowed to continue running with these debts and increasing player's value with money they basically don't have is the real question.

They should seek advice from Bath, who have been operating well above the salary cap for years.

I didn't realise that this was the case. What is your evidence for this, I'd be really interested to read it for myself.

A deafening silence!

No, not really. Got a day job see.

Well anyway, lets face it, there's normally no smoke without fire. There are no doubt a few clubs operating above the salary cap. But the point is there wont be definitive proof (as the thoroughly touched nerves of Bathite would like) until a thorough investigation has been undertaken.

But, we all know, there are clubs in breach of the rules (however creative their accountants have been) and one day, they'll be caught red handed. We, those of us who follow rugby, also know that there are some clubs most definitely in the frame.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-2881134/Saracens-Bath-face-heavy-fines-point-deductions-alleged-breaches-salary-cap-regulations.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/11305609/Saracens-and-Bath-under-investigation-for-alleged-salary-cap-breach.html

http://en.espn.co.uk/premiership-2014-15/rugby/story/251425.html

I could add half a hundred more.

beshocked wrote:FES I agree but it depends how you acquire the debt.

It also depends how much a team can afford.

As it stands Saracens have the financial backing of the likes of Johann Rupert and Nigel Wray.

For Johann Rupert who is reportedly worth $7.3 billion. £40 million is not much.

Though saying that I have never seen Johann Rupert at a game.

For all we know perhaps Edward Griffiths was let go because he allowed the salaries of staff grow out of control?

The financial situation of the UK in my opinion is more precarious than that of Saracens!

Do be careful though when relying on "financial backing". Interest free loans are not gifts, and if/when an individual loses interest, or needs to recall the call due to unforeseen personal circumstances, suddenly things don't look quite so secure.

You're comment on the overall financial situation in the UK is correct, however I would not use that as a yardstick as to acceptable levels of debt!

Jimpy wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Bathite wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

VinceWLB wrote:How are they allowed to continue running with these debts and increasing player's value with money they basically don't have is the real question.

They should seek advice from Bath, who have been operating well above the salary cap for years.

I didn't realise that this was the case. What is your evidence for this, I'd be really interested to read it for myself.

A deafening silence!

No, not really. Got a day job see.

Well anyway, lets face it, there's normally no smoke without fire.

As a lawyer I'm afraid I have to disagree with that statement as a foundation for guilt!!

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Bathite wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

VinceWLB wrote:How are they allowed to continue running with these debts and increasing player's value with money they basically don't have is the real question.

They should seek advice from Bath, who have been operating well above the salary cap for years.

I didn't realise that this was the case. What is your evidence for this, I'd be really interested to read it for myself.

A deafening silence!

No, not really. Got a day job see.

Well anyway, lets face it, there's normally no smoke without fire.

As a lawyer I'm afraid I have to disagree with that statement as a foundation for guilt!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2VxpTMAbas

The investigations will, I'm sure, eventually bear fruit (or maybe not, I can just imagine the evidence getting flushed down the toilets at both teams' headquarters as we speak).

Bathite wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

VinceWLB wrote:How are they allowed to continue running with these debts and increasing player's value with money they basically don't have is the real question.

They should seek advice from Bath, who have been operating well above the salary cap for years.

I didn't realise that this was the case. What is your evidence for this, I'd be really interested to read it for myself.

There's this in the Mail, but I thought the information provided (speculation/assumptions aside) was fairly common knowledge?



Saracens chairman Nigel Wray describes rugby's salary caps as a farce as documents show club's mounting debts have reached £40m... the most in rugby history

Documents show club’s wage bill soared by another £1million last season

That's despite remaining the subject of a salary cap investigation

Saracens chairman Nigel Wray says rugby’s salary caps rules as ‘a farce’

The Mail on Sunday can reveal Saracens’ mounting debt has topped £40m

Saracens chairman Nigel Wray has dismissed rugby’s salary caps rules as ‘a farce’ in financial documents seen by The Mail on Sunday that show his club’s wage bill soared by another £1million last season alone — even as they remain the subject of a salary cap investigation.
A fortnight after the shock departure of chief executive Edward Griffiths and three months since the revelation that the north London club are being investigated by Premier Rugby for alleged salary cap breaches, The Mail on Sunday can reveal Saracens’ mounting debt has topped £40m — the most in rugby history. The rising costs facing the club are also a concern, with the wage bill leaping more than 50 per cent in three years.
Saracens now owe £41.6m, according to new filings at Companies House, much of it funded by an unsecured loan from long-standing benefactor Wray and a consortium of South African business associates.


The employee wage bill ballooned to £9.1m last year and, with Wray admitting further losses lie ahead, there are growing concerns about the club’s financial health. A move by Saracens last December to scrap the salary cap — which is currently £5m but was £4.5m in the period covered by the new figures — drew no public support from other Premiership clubs.
With discussions ongoing over the viability of ring-fencing the top flight, or at least restricting promotion and relegation, Wray has restated that the salary cap must be scrapped. ‘We need to change the farce whereby we are all operating under different rules,’ wrote Wray in a chairman’s statement in the club’s annual accounts seen by The Mail on Sunday. ‘We have one wage cap, the Irish provinces have no wage cap, the French clubs a wage cap twice ours, all of which makes no sense whatsoever. It needs to be changed.
‘In financial terms, it was another difficult year [2013-14]. Having been involved in professional rugby now for 20 years, I’m constantly amazed how hard it is to break into people’s culture.


‘The big cities have that soccer culture but built over 100 years. Allianz Park [the purchase of] is a vast step forward and gives us a permanent home but we still have much to do. We could, of course, cut costs very considerably — for example a top French club has a medical staff of three, far smaller than ours. But we really don’t see how you can aspire to be one of the best club sides in Europe if you don’t have a fantastic support system for the players.’
The club have lost on average just over £5m per year over the past four years, more than doubling its debt burden in that period.
Annual accounts for 2013-14 show the club’s parent company carry no legal obligation to service the debt, meaning they could technically walk away at any time and leave the club insolvent.
Of most interest to their Premiership rivals will be the dramatic hike in salaries paid to employees, which rose from just over £8.1m to more than £9.1m last year


The club took on 24 new staff in that time, nine of them players and coaches, but with the salary cap set at just £4.5m last season — not allowing for one ‘marquee player’ who theoretically could earn an unlimited salary but in reality will not get more than £500,000 — questions persist over the club’s salary structure. Even allowing for the unlikely scenario of a £1m budget for coaching staff, that would leave more than £3m in staff costs for 54 administrative staff — an average salary of more than £55,000.
A Premier Rugby spokesman said: ‘Saracens have recently moved into a new purpose-built stadium, Allianz Park — which is a huge asset to the local community — with a number of new staff added.
‘The club are in an investment phase and, given the strength of the shareholding base, this is something they can manage.’




I had read that Bath were also mounting up a heavy debt. Thought it was also included in this piece (has it been edited out?), but will have a look later, to see if I can find it elsewhere.

Jimpy wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Bathite wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

VinceWLB wrote:How are they allowed to continue running with these debts and increasing player's value with money they basically don't have is the real question.

They should seek advice from Bath, who have been operating well above the salary cap for years.

I didn't realise that this was the case. What is your evidence for this, I'd be really interested to read it for myself.

A deafening silence!

No, not really. Got a day job see.

Well anyway, lets face it, there's normally no smoke without fire.

As a lawyer I'm afraid I have to disagree with that statement as a foundation for guilt!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2VxpTMAbas

The investigations will, I'm sure, eventually bear fruit (or maybe not, I can just imagine the evidence getting flushed down the toilets at both teams' headquarters as we speak).

See my comments above re: a brush and carpet, or a tin on white paint. I suspect the investigations will be "inconclusive" and recommend all involved just "move on".

I have said from day one, the clubs in England will not stop with the European comp, the next thing will be to emulate what they are doin across the channel, they have already signed a new tele contract worth millions, the next thing they will start to try and hoover up all the talent from around the world with their mega bucks.

I said this at the start of the season and I was tarred and feathered on here, I do not look too wrong now do I ? The next thing will be the 6N, trust me, the rich clubs France and England will want change in the 6N to suit their own schedules, they will either force the competition into a no win scenario, and we will see a change of date or what ever, or they will start demanding extra monies for their players and if they do not get what they want they will take legal action. We ha already seen the owner of Toulon complaining about his players in the rugby championship. Trust me, none of this will end good for European rugby, they just have too much power, and they will feel the need to wield it.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

VinceWLB wrote:How are they allowed to continue running with these debts and increasing player's value with money they basically don't have is the real question.

Munster are heavily in debt. Nobody seems to criticise them for this.

Because their debt is not unsustainable. Not Saracens levels anyway. 9m Euro I think. And that is due to having redeveloped a 26K Stadium that cost 48M to redevelop (and has the best natural pitch in Europe.

Münster also redeveoped their 2nd stadium as well (which is about the size of Saracen's only one!).

The losing £5m on average each of the past four years would be a concern. The debt being £41m. That tends to be the sensationalist journo line. What assets are there? If Allianz is worth £50m then the debt being such a large figure isn't an issue.

Wembley is a curious one. There was an anecdotal line for when the IRFU and FAI had to hire Croke Park for rugby and soccer from the GAA. The GAA were cute hoors you see and wanted their pound of flesh (and rightly so it was their stadium). The unofficial line at the time was that to cover renting a third party stadium (with c80k capacity), covering ambulance, security, stewards, police around the venue, etc. etc. you needed to sell c.27,000 tickets at proper prices. It was only after that point in time that you were pulling in cash to cover your team, entertainment and full your coffers.

If you are up in 60-70k attendance, you have to either be giving away half to two thirds of the tickets for free, or getting fleeced on the rent. And somehow I don't think Wray is the kind of fella to get fleeced on the rent.

You'd also wonder what inflows from the likes of Wembley might be recognised in other legal entities? And what business arrangements and cash outflows might also be recorded elsewhere. If you make the salary figure in that company super big you might hope to distract people into focusing on that, when breaches could (theoretically) be structured through other channels. (think I put enough mights/maybes into that)

LordDowlais wrote:I have said from day one, the clubs in England will not stop with the European comp, the next thing will be to emulate what they are doin across the channel, they have already signed a new tele contract worth millions, the next thing they will start to try and hoover up all the talent from around the world with their mega bucks.

I said this at the start of the season and I was tarred and feathered on here, I do not look too wrong now do I ? The next thing will be the 6N, trust me, the rich clubs France and England will want change in the 6N to suit their own schedules, they will either force the competition into a no win scenario, and we will see a change of date or what ever, or they will start demanding extra monies for their players and if they do not get what they want they will take legal action. We ha already seen the owner of Toulon complaining about his players in the rugby championship. Trust me, none of this will end good for European rugby, they just have too much power, and they will feel the need to wield it.

Saracens would not be allowed to operate in France with the level of debt that they have in England. It appears that they have no contract with their backer either. He could pull out (with his consortium) at any time.

Saracens are irresponsible. They are trying to drag rugby into the same sugar daddy culture of English football.

Sin é wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I have said from day one, the clubs in England will not stop with the European comp, the next thing will be to emulate what they are doin across the channel, they have already signed a new tele contract worth millions, the next thing they will start to try and hoover up all the talent from around the world with their mega bucks.

I said this at the start of the season and I was tarred and feathered on here, I do not look too wrong now do I ? The next thing will be the 6N, trust me, the rich clubs France and England will want change in the 6N to suit their own schedules, they will either force the competition into a no win scenario, and we will see a change of date or what ever, or they will start demanding extra monies for their players and if they do not get what they want they will take legal action. We ha already seen the owner of Toulon complaining about his players in the rugby championship. Trust me, none of this will end good for European rugby, they just have too much power, and they will feel the need to wield it.

Saracens would not be allowed to operate in France with the level of debt that they have in England. It appears that they have no contract with their backer either. He could pull out (with his consortium) at any time.

Saracens are irresponsible. They are trying to drag rugby into the same sugar daddy culture of English football.

It would be interesting to see what the other top twenty English clubs financial situations are by comparison.

Is the premiership really the elite model for the professional game that so many supporters on here brag that it is?

Going by Saracens financial model even premiership strugglers London Welsh could turn their cards if they were allowed to be run at such a massive loss.

No touched nerves, I have the same concerns and intrigue as to whether we actually are or not. I have my suspicions, but I have no facts. I've not seen anything concrete that suggests we are, so I was surprised how someone could be certain that it has been 'happening for years'.

We just posted a 1.4m loss, which was actually our smallest loss in a long time. A lot of our losses have come from buying land for the new stadium, buying a new training facility, upgrading the stadium. Obviously, if there was a salary cap breach, it wouldn't be identifiable from a P&L.

LordDowlais wrote:I have said from day one, the clubs in England will not stop with the European comp, the next thing will be to emulate what they are doin across the channel, they have already signed a new tele contract worth millions, the next thing they will start to try and hoover up all the talent from around the world with their mega bucks.

I said this at the start of the season and I was tarred and feathered on here, I do not look too wrong now do I ? The next thing will be the 6N, trust me, the rich clubs France and England will want change in the 6N to suit their own schedules, they will either force the competition into a no win scenario, and we will see a change of date or what ever, or they will start demanding extra monies for their players and if they do not get what they want they will take legal action. We ha already seen the owner of Toulon complaining about his players in the rugby championship. Trust me, none of this will end good for European rugby, they just have too much power, and they will feel the need to wield it.

I fear you are right with this statement.  Already in Wales we are seeing increased competition for welsh talent from English clubs sides.  It was always clear that the now over half the pro 12 sides cannot offer top level European rugby players are heading away to sides that can or away for the money.  That's not to say its the only factor but it certainly hasn't helped.  

The real issue though is that I believe the Top 14 financial power they yielded in the last few years resulted in more English players coming through the system than they would have if more spots had been filled with top overseas signings.  If they come away from this to follow the French model they will no doubt be more dominant in Europe but it's probably going to cost them internationally speaking given how French rugby has faired.  I appreciate with the amount of competition for top English players they need to bring imports in to stop an over inflation of English capped players but unlike the French they are placing a greater emphasis on getting players EQ through residency and are targeting top talent which are uncapped by various nations.  

I do think the only way Ireland, Wales and Scotland can tackle the threat of player exodus is to cap more rookies and tie them to the countries.  Only way I see that possible is if they put on extra matches against improving national sides (Georgia, Russia, Japan etc) in order get those players are not available to turn out for England instead.  That would at least stem the tide of interest because English clubs still have to work under a 70% EQ basis in order to qualify for the RFU funding.

The longer term problem for the RFU is what happens to any such deal when the clubs turn out enough money without needing RFU funds.  I fear at that stage we will see a end to the EQ system as we know it and it become a open house for imports much like the footie is today.  That in terms of English international rugby could be the beginning of the end.

England have a greater emphasis on getting players EQ through residency?

Sorry if that wasn't clear. In France they will just sign the best players regardless of caps.

Currently though English sides cant do that to the extent of say a team like Toulon. Partly because they have to remain 70% EQ hence why targeted players tend to be without caps. My understanding is 2/3 of every English clubs have to be able to turn out for England (even if they have no intention of doing so) based on residency. If you actually looked at Aviva squads based on place of birth you will find more than 50% of all players are not actually English born. There is a lot of wealth of multi nationals playing there already but all who have long since become residents. I'm not saying this is a bad thing. I'm just stating a observation. It's only dangerous for the English national side if the PRL did eventually remove/ignore the 70% EQ rule for extra funding.

Ah fair enough. Theres not many that spring out though as projects though. Vunipolas etc or Botha. Think the former are genuine youngsters brought by families and the latter players come good. I d agree that those players are targetted as theyre cheaper. Hope the clubs still see the prestige of a youth international.

Welshmushroom wrote:If you actually looked at Aviva squads based on place of birth you will find more than 50% of all players are not actually English born. 

Not true


Saints 32 English born (incl George North), 10 non (incly Corbs and Hartley)
Sarries 23/21 (admittedly a lot of Non English born nationals)
Bath 40/11
Leicester 26/20 ( more than I expected to be honest)
Exeter 25/16
Wasps 25/16
Sale 21/18
Quins 37/6
Glaws 29/14

Welshmushroom wrote:Sorry if that wasn't clear.  In France they will just sign the best players regardless of caps.  

Currently though English sides cant do that to the extent of say a team like Toulon.  Partly because they have to remain 70% EQ hence why targeted players tend to be without caps.  My understanding is 2/3 of every English clubs have to be able to turn out for England (even if they have no intention of doing so) based on residency.  If you actually looked at Aviva squads based on place of birth you will find more than 50% of all players are not actually English born.  There is a lot of wealth of multi nationals playing there already but all who have long since become residents.  I'm not saying this is a bad thing.  I'm just stating a observation.  It's only dangerous for the English national side if the PRL did eventually remove/ignore the 70% EQ rule for extra funding.  

As LT mentions, it's a common mistake that pro12 supporters seem to make that the Avila is full of players not born in England.

Also MM, I'm not sure who has been banging on about the financials position of the English clubs? There are a fair few who make a profit every year, I suspect there will be more next year after the increased funding from the television rights

nathan wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:Sorry if that wasn't clear.  In France they will just sign the best players regardless of caps.  

Currently though English sides cant do that to the extent of say a team like Toulon.  Partly because they have to remain 70% EQ hence why targeted players tend to be without caps.  My understanding is 2/3 of every English clubs have to be able to turn out for England (even if they have no intention of doing so) based on residency.  If you actually looked at Aviva squads based on place of birth you will find more than 50% of all players are not actually English born.  There is a lot of wealth of multi nationals playing there already but all who have long since become residents.  I'm not saying this is a bad thing.  I'm just stating a observation.  It's only dangerous for the English national side if the PRL did eventually remove/ignore the 70% EQ rule for extra funding.  

As LT mentions,  it's a common mistake that pro12 supporters seem to make that the Avila is full of players not born in England.

Also MM, I'm not sure who has been banging on about the financials position of the English clubs?  There are a fair few who make a profit every year, I suspect there will be more next year after the increased funding from the television rights

Doesn't really matter so long as they're eligible. What I don't think mushroom has alluded to is the blatantly obvious; that the clubs are out for themselves. If they can nick an international player from Wales to strengthen their team then so be it. It's worked for Northampton and Gloucester with their signing of North and Hibbard. Most English teams have a good academy set-up so I don't see there being much to worry about.

What worries me though is Bristol... Seem to be going after every Welsh player be he retired, U20s, capped or uncapped.

nathan wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:Sorry if that wasn't clear.  In France they will just sign the best players regardless of caps.  

Currently though English sides cant do that to the extent of say a team like Toulon.  Partly because they have to remain 70% EQ hence why targeted players tend to be without caps.  My understanding is 2/3 of every English clubs have to be able to turn out for England (even if they have no intention of doing so) based on residency.  If you actually looked at Aviva squads based on place of birth you will find more than 50% of all players are not actually English born.  There is a lot of wealth of multi nationals playing there already but all who have long since become residents.  I'm not saying this is a bad thing.  I'm just stating a observation.  It's only dangerous for the English national side if the PRL did eventually remove/ignore the 70% EQ rule for extra funding.  

As LT mentions,  it's a common mistake that pro12 supporters seem to make that the Avila is full of players not born in England.

Also MM, I'm not sure who has been banging on about the financials position of the English clubs?  There are a fair few who make a profit every year, I suspect there will be more next year after the increased funding from the television rights

Hey Nathan, is there a risk that some of the clubs have just started to spend that extra tv revenue in advance of actually receiving it? Any idea what the TV pot will be? I remember seeing the big figure when the original deals were announced but that seemed to be a total figure based on Jeff and fully exclusive European club game rights, did it ever get clarified how much was Jeff related and how much was Euro specific? And then also, with SkySports still having skin in the game for the Euro side of things, did BT reduce down what they're going to pay for their reduced exclusivity? It would be great to have some transparency around all that (now that the dust has settled).

Does anyone know what the deal is with the TV cash?

Basically the Wembley days out are a loss leader/ego boost for Saracens - the tickets are sold at a highly discounted rate (Family ticket for four was £40), loads of tickets are given away to clubs, the choir and dancing girls. etc. although they are not entirely stupid - the kids get free tickets but the parents have to pay - so when little Johnny and Jenny of Old Crustionians RFC minis are asked to take part in the Unity Parade before the game, they get a free ticket but mum and dad have to pay to accompany them.
The main vibe of the Wembley days is about having a day out and hopefully attracting a few fans on the way - hence the pop star, the choir and dancing girls, etc. in fairness the Mexican Wave only started when there was a long break in the play and petered out once the game restarted.
As per usual Sarries being Sarries counldn't help themselves though and did a nice reversion to the 1970's when the match ball was brought onto the pitch by four young ladies in bikinis wearing sashes emblazoned with the Saracens "core values" of Work Rate, Honesty, Discipline and Humility, unfortunately the one with "Women are not objects" must have been in the wash that Saturday. A fine lesson for all the rugby playing girls who were there and for the Saracens Womens team about their place at the club.

You didn't see beshocked on the pitch in his mankini then? Plenty for the ladies too!