Qualification for Europe

First topic message reminder :

Looking at the pro12 table and seeing how close the teams are for European qualification, isn't it about time where we award the top 7 with qualification regardless of nationality? Right now its an exciting league where every game means something in terms of the playoffs or Europe yet one team will miss out as an Italian team will automatically get an undeserving spot!

They haven't earned the right to be in the the top European tournament nor have they shown they can compete so wouldn't the second tier be more their level.

I understand there's an argument where playing better teams improves players but no one can prove that based on the Italian teams.

Just to be clear if I say the welsh I mean the WRU and the folk who Run the regions, not the fans. in all my visits to various welsh rugby clubs I have never had a bad experience, and got on well with all the supporters.
I will admit that in trying to make a point I may have allowed it to seem I was heaping all blame on the welsh, that was not my intention.
Hope that's cleared that up

Kingshu wrote:

So your saying Munster owning money to the IRFU is disadvantaging Ulster, Leinster and Connacht and this is damaging the League and Welsh rugby?

Ulster, Leinster and Connacht seam to be doing well in the league, can't see how it effects the regions?

a) its an unequal playing field
b) it provides additional finance to a team that shouldn't have it
c) all four are underpinned by a finance house independent of their own effort
d) that finance house receives huge income independent of its own contribution

I'm sure that you can see that the efforts of the teams competing in a league are affected by third party interference.

TJ wrote:And the SRU took the decision to pay off their debts quickly - this cost them in the short term but now the debt is down we have more money to play with

Its now the irish fault that the WRU took on huge debt?

No. Why did you ask such a dumb question?

Griff wrote:I have to say, I haven't seen Phil blame anyone for anything. The claim is often made on here that the Welsh regions have underachieved because they receive the same as the provinces but have not achieved as much with that same level of funding. Phil, from my reading, seems to just be pointing out that this is untrue. The regions are not funded to the same tune. Where is this blame thing coming in? So many accusations of blame on this site. I was once accused of blaming the Irish for our low attendances when I was pointing out what social/economic factors might cause differences! Ridiculous! The 'blame' thing seems to be like the race card. Pull it out to try to end a argument. Not cool.

Indeed. You've worked them out.

All I've done is highlighted the reality of the situation so, rather than face that, the diversion tactics come out with ludicrous claims of "blame", "moaning", "conspiracy theories" et al.

Phil who will be in your super league?

TJ wrote:Phill is clearly stating that the Welsh regions are disadvantaged and effectively calling the others cheats.  Why its the SRU and the IRUs fault that the WRU cannot organise a boozeup in a brewery I do not know.  The Welsh have more money but achieve less with it?  Look to the WRU and the regions for why  don't blame others as he is doing

And IIRC Glasgow have one of the lowest playing budgets in the Pro 12 but still won it.  around 5 million IIRC.

Glasgow have over 30 internationals on their books.

The SRU spent £22.7m on international and professional rugby according to their annual report.

£5m? Give over.

As for the me calling others cheats? That's the interpretation of a moron.

TJ wrote:Griff - the WRU have MORE money.  Phill has repeatedly called other cheats

I'll say it again - Glasgow won with one of the lowest playing budgets  Put your own house in order, stop claiming that you are disadvantaged when you are not.  The WRU has MORE money that the IRU

Where have I 'called others cheats'? Link, please.

Or retract.

carpet baboon wrote:This British league you speak off whos in it and who gets left out?

Up to the broadcasters.

TJ wrote:I found a figure of 4.2 million for last year - but as I said its unclear how that compares as we don't know what that pays for I think thats the total budget for staff not just players but am not at all sure

Nothing in the annual report allows us to find out for sure

Apparently that means they are concealing something

Griff wrote: The region's are still operating on a salary cap of £3.5m. They announced a few months ago that the cap would rise to £4.5m for next season

The £3.5m cap was for European squads and there was no change of approach announced with the increase

carpet baboon wrote:
Griff he claims us being in the league devalues it.
Devalues the league.
He says any success we have had is not our own doing but the IRFUs, thus belittling any of our progress, while hideing behind his clubs failure.
We devalue the league by being good.
He calls it gerrymandering
We call it hard work
He calls it bad for competition
We call it working to maximise what we have.

The league, as a competition, is clearly devalued by IRFU stated policy of putting their emphasis on international rugby. One organisation controlling and owning 4 entrants obviously devalues the league as a competition of teams fending for themselves and delivering their success on the back of only their own efforts.

Leinster fans must look at the existing set up and see how they are subsiding the other three

Kingshu wrote:
When he's saying the SRU and IRFU bought the titles.

Well, yes, they have. This is pro sport, so good on them for doing so.

The Great Aukster wrote:
Your assertion is that Irish provinces devalue the current league because they are IRFU owned. Therefore they would similarly devalue any other league unless the way Irish rugby is administered is completely changed. That isn't going to happen so why would you want an Irish element that 'devalues' the league?

With regard to a British League of say England Scotland and Wales. Why would BT want it?

I don't know why they would, you're right. I'd hope that they wouldn't.

PhilBB wrote:

Kingshu wrote:

So your saying Munster owning money to the IRFU is disadvantaging Ulster, Leinster and Connacht and this is damaging the League and Welsh rugby?

Ulster, Leinster and Connacht seam to be doing well in the league, can't see how it effects the regions?

a) its an unequal playing field
b) it provides additional finance to a team that shouldn't have it
c) all four are underpinned by a finance house independent of their own effort
d) that finance house receives huge income independent of its own contribution

I'm sure that you can see that the efforts of the teams competing in a league are affected by third party interference.

Unequal according to you
Again this is according to you, its a loan which most businesses take out at some point in their life
Its no different than Wales and the NDC, the regions are taking advantage of funds that don't belong to them
That finance house receives prize money that it is entitled to directly related to its success as all nations in the 6Ns receive

The Great Aukster wrote:
BT have already bought access to the vast majority of subscribers with their AP deal so why on earth would they or anyone else spend roughly double what they spend now to reach a market that has minimal "sponsorship potential"?

Perhaps the new League could be sited in cloud cuckoo land where it would maximise it's chance of success?

Because the product would gain more penetration in England with the added 'international' element to it.

Your final question makes me wonder, fair play.

TJ wrote:
NO - just internet facts :-)  

As I thought. No research.

Well done, TJ

TJ wrote:

The fact the WRU does not fund the regions is not the fault of the IRU / SRU  When Phill complains its not a level playing field he is looking in the wrong direction.  Its the WRU he needs to be looking to not the IRU / SRU - and anyway I don't think the disparity in spending is that much.

No, no. The level playing field can only be brought about by there being no Union ownership of league entrants

LeinsterFan4life wrote:
Go on the Leinster forum and ask because I couldn't give a fiddlers what they pay. The Royal Dublin society alone finally decided to upgrade an almost century old stand and diabolical toilet facilities that was an embarrassment to an establishment that holds multiple different sporting and social events throughout the year. It's only one stand that is being upgraded and half of it is being funded by a stadium sponsor anyway.

There you go. Why should you care what they pay? after all, it doesn't affect the product you see on the pitch.

Thanks for highlighting the issue. Perfectly.

TJ wrote:its only from memory so could be wrong.  also in the 3.5 million are the central contracts included?  Academy players? etc Thats part of the problem - its not comparing like with like

- I think the 5 million is the total staff budget not just the players - lets have a google and see if I can find anything.  Glasgow have lost a lot of good players this season and certainly cannot recruit stars

Look at the SRU annual report and educate yourself

Munchkin wrote:
Last year I had a discussion with someone on the Scarlets forum about the amounts the IRFU and WRU pay the Provinces and Regions. I looked at the accounts of both and the difference was very slight. Not much in it at all. In fact the Regions received more competition monies than the Provinces.
It might be that the Provinces can themselves fund each of their Provinces more effectively than the supposedly independent Regions, using finance raised by themselves, and through local businesses, and that would certainly be true of Ulster, and why Ulster can invest in the world class talent that we have just signed.
The claim that it is the IRFU buying in this talent is nonsense, from the usual hysterical sources, as the Provinces do generate finance themselves. In fact it is a main aim of IRFU that each Province is self sustaining.

Show us your conclusions as I've seen suggestions of quite the opposite

marty2086 wrote:

TJ wrote:I found a figure of 4.2 million for last year - but as I said its unclear how that compares as we don't know what that pays for I think thats the total budget for staff not just players but am not at all sure

Nothing in the annual report allows us to find out for sure

Apparently that means they are concealing something

Griff wrote: The region's are still operating on a salary cap of £3.5m. They announced a few months ago that the cap would rise to £4.5m for next season

The £3.5m cap was for European squads and there was no change of approach announced with the increase

Those outside the 43 man European squad wouldn't earn much.

The SRU are concealing the spends on Glasgow & Edinburgh, yes.

marty2086 wrote:

Unequal according to you
Again this is according to you, its a loan which most businesses take out at some point in their life
Its no different than Wales and the NDC, the regions are taking advantage of funds that don't belong to them
That finance house receives prize money that it is entitled to directly related to its success as all nations in the 6Ns receive

I'm no fan of the NDC but it is the only mechanism that allows for the deficit in the market rate for player access to be made up under the existing Barclays covenants.

That finance house takes out 6 times more REGARDLESS OF SUCCESS than it puts in. That's a bail out.

PhilBB wrote:

TJ wrote:

The fact the WRU does not fund the regions is not the fault of the IRU / SRU  When Phill complains its not a level playing field he is looking in the wrong direction.  Its the WRU he needs to be looking to not the IRU / SRU - and anyway I don't think the disparity in spending is that much.

No, no. The level playing field can only be brought about by there being no Union ownership of league entrants

It all makes sense now. Your one of the Craig men aint you?
No union involved with professional rugby. Leave that to the business men, union just there for the grass roots.

Well as you have clearly swollowed all that Mr Bruce gave to you no point in continuing.
You keep dreaming of that invite from over the boarder, as its never going to happen.
I will continue to enjoy the league and watch it's growth

carpet baboon wrote:
It all makes sense now. Your one of the Craig men aint you?
No union involved with professional rugby. Leave that to the business men, union just there for the grass roots.

Well as you have clearly swollowed all that Mr Bruce gave to you no point in continuing.
You keep dreaming of that invite from over the boarder, as its never going to happen.
I will continue to enjoy the league and watch it's growth

What growth? Other than that, you're right. And I agree with Simon Halliday.

PhilBB wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:
Go on the Leinster forum and ask because I couldn't give a fiddlers what they pay. The Royal Dublin society alone finally decided to upgrade an almost century old stand and diabolical toilet facilities that was an embarrassment to an establishment that holds multiple different sporting and social events throughout the year. It's only one stand that is being upgraded and half of it is being funded by a stadium sponsor anyway.

There you go. Why should you care what they pay? after all, it doesn't affect the product you see on the pitch.

Thanks for highlighting the issue. Perfectly.

What issue is that exactly?

LeinsterFan4life wrote:
What issue is that exactly?

That you don't care / know where the money comes from or goes

Growth in the PRO 12 - thats the increasing gates, the increase in TV moneies

I'll just engage once more on budgets.  The Scottish teams budgets include ALL costs - so the 5 million or so ( last hard figures we have are 4.2 million a year or two ago) include the cost of the grounds, all the coaching and backroom staff the travel costs etc as well as players wages.  The welsh 3.5 million is just the players wages and the central contracts are on top of this are they not

The 21 million the SRU spent on professional an international rugby includes all the costs around the national squad - including the directer of rugby, the international coach, all the international backroom staff, the cost of running murrayfeild and paying back the debt on it, the 7s team, the womens team, the under 20s, the youth teams, the academies etc, the costs of travel for all teams

So from what figures we have then yes - all unions have the same revenue streams with similar amounts of income.  All the teams have similar budgets.  

A few years back the scots teams were outspent by everyone bar one of the italian teams

TJ wrote:Growth in the PRO 12 - thats the increasing gates, the increase in TV moneies

So far, at RDS, Leinster's crowds are down 6% from last year

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Unequal according to you
Again this is according to you, its a loan which most businesses take out at some point in their life
Its no different than Wales and the NDC, the regions are taking advantage of funds that don't belong to them
That finance house receives prize money that it is entitled to directly related to its success as all nations in the 6Ns receive

I'm no fan of the NDC but it is the only mechanism that allows for the deficit in the market rate for player access to be made up under the existing Barclays covenants.

That finance house takes out 6 times more REGARDLESS OF SUCCESS than it puts in. That's a bail out.

No its not the only mechanism its the chosen mechanism theres a difference, you can forgive the WRU helping to sustain the regions but not the IRFU pumping money into the provinces. Its just bitterness and jealousy from an angry little man

TJ wrote:The Scottish teams budgets include ALL costs - so the 5 million or so ( last hard figures we have are 4.2 million a year or two ago) include the cost of the grounds, all the coaching and backroom staff the travel costs etc as well as players wages.  The welsh 3.5 million is just the players wages and the central contracts are on top of this are they not

The 21 million the SRU spent on professional an international rugby includes all the costs around the national squad - including the directer of rugby, the international coach, all the international backroom staff, the cost of running murrayfeild and paying back the debt on it, the 7s team, the womens team, the under 20s, the youth teams, the academies etc, the costs of travel for all teams

So from what figures we have then yes - all unions have the same revenue streams with similar amounts of income.  All the teams have similar budgets.  

A few years back the scots teams were outspent by everyone bar one of the italian teams

You have provided no hard figures, just supposition without even linking to the article.

The £21m doesn't include paying back debt or running the stadium. You're writing incoherent drivel. Read page 55 of the SRU Annual Report.

marty2086 wrote:
No its not the only mechanism its the chosen mechanism theres a difference, you can forgive the WRU helping to sustain the regions but not the IRFU pumping money into the provinces. Its just bitterness and jealousy from an angry little man

Ok, explain what other mechanism can be used. I'd be interested in reading that.

And the rest of your post is equally ignorant. The WRU should pay for player access, a contribution towards academy costs and a fee for limiting the number of non-Welsh qualified players. They should follow the model (As they do) of the English and French Unions.

None of that is about 'sustaining the regions'.

Now, let's read what other mechanism can be used. Please do educate us all.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
No its not the only mechanism its the chosen mechanism theres a difference, you can forgive the WRU helping to sustain the regions but not the IRFU pumping money into the provinces. Its just bitterness and jealousy from an angry little man

Ok, explain what other mechanism can be used. I'd be interested in reading that.

And the rest of your post is equally ignorant. The WRU should pay for player access, a contribution towards academy costs and a fee for limiting the number of non-Welsh qualified players. They should follow the model (As they do) of the English and French Unions.

None of that is about 'sustaining the regions'.

Now, let's read what other mechanism can be used. Please do educate us all.

I like the change of emphasis from you, I never said it was about sustaining the regions I said it is. The NDCs are negotiated as a collaborative effort between the regions and WRU, if that wasn't the case the regions would not have the same negotiating power as it currently does if they worked independently of each other.

As the regions are privately owned they have other sources of income available to them like Saracens, Bath and Toulon have done but the WRU is the most sensible and logical source for all parties

So you believe the WRU should pay for limiting the NWQ players yet were you not pointing out that teams are ignoring those rules?

marty2086 wrote:

I like the change of emphasis from you, I never said it was about sustaining the regions I said it is. The NDCs are negotiated as a collaborative effort between the regions and WRU, if that wasn't the case the regions would not have the same negotiating power as it currently does if they worked independently of each other.

As the regions are privately owned they have other sources of income available to them like Saracens, Bath and Toulon have done but the WRU is the most sensible and logical source for all parties

So you believe the WRU should pay for limiting the NWQ players yet were you not pointing out that teams are ignoring those rules?

There has been no change of emphasis.

Your second sentence is rather confusing. Please could you explain it? The Pro Teams are using income streams available to them other than the WRU, so your middle paragraph is equally as confusing.

And, yes, the Os are breaking the rules. I believe the payment for nWq limits is a sliding scale.

You've run from explaining the alternative mechanisms available. Why is that? Please do answer that question. Be brave now.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

I like the change of emphasis from you, I never said it was about sustaining the regions I said it is. The NDCs are negotiated as a collaborative effort between the regions and WRU, if that wasn't the case the regions would not have the same negotiating power as it currently does if they worked independently of each other.

As the regions are privately owned they have other sources of income available to them like Saracens, Bath and Toulon have done but the WRU is the most sensible and logical source for all parties

So you believe the WRU should pay for limiting the NWQ players yet were you not pointing out that teams are ignoring those rules?

There has been no change of emphasis.

Your second sentence is rather confusing. Please could you explain it? The Pro Teams are using income streams available to them other than the WRU, so your middle paragraph is equally as confusing.

And, yes, the Os are breaking the rules. I believe the payment for nWq limits is a sliding scale.

You've run from explaining the alternative mechanisms available. Why is that? Please do answer that question. Be brave now.

Sorry my second sentence was a little confusing on reflection, I meant the system isn't specifically designed to sustain the regions but it is a result of it and yes there was a change of emphasis from you

I'm not running from anything as I said the regions could rely on their owners to fund the players wages but they chose not to, that's just one of a number of options available to them as they have numerous other ways of generating capital like every other business.

Maybe one day you'll be brave and in doing so be less arrogant and patronising and open up to the possibility that you don't know everything and that you may be wrong on occasions

They 'chose' not to go rogue and face the potential outcome of having no-one to play against. That was a significant possibility because of the way the rugby world is set up. Not much of a choice really.

PhilBB wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:
What issue is that exactly?

That you don't care / know where the money comes from or goes

And what fan does?   You think you know where everything comes from and goes in the regions???

marty2086 wrote:

I'm not running from anything as I said the regions could rely on their owners to fund the players wages but they chose not to, that's just one of a number of options available to them as they have numerous other ways of generating capital like every other business.

Maybe one day you'll be brave and in doing so be less arrogant and patronising and open up to the possibility that you don't know everything and that you may be wrong on occasions

WTF are you on about?

The businesses fund the player wages. They are not 'all paid by the WRU'.

This discussion was about the NDC. I pointed out that this is the only mechanism the WRU has to get near to the market rate for player access that is allowed by the covenants. You claimed that there was another way. You've yet to describe it.

I know why you've yet to describe it - because there is no other way.

After I've unravelled so many of your utterly false claims on the financing of rugby in both Wales and Ireland, that final sentence is one of the most pitifully arrogant sentences I've ever read.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:
And what fan does?   You think you know where everything comes from and goes in the regions???

On a macro level, yes, I do. Why? Because it's transparent and in the public domain.

Welcome to rugby outside of the cosseted Blazer ruined nonsense that you have to put up with.

The Great Aukster wrote:
BT have already bought access to the vast majority of subscribers with their AP deal so why on earth would they or anyone else spend roughly double what they spend now to reach a market that has minimal "sponsorship potential"?

Perhaps the new League could be sited in cloud cuckoo land where it would maximise it's chance of success?

Confirmed again this weekend that BT Sport are pushing for this. The plan is for a conference set up with the 6N pushed to the end of the season.

Guess which Union(s) is holding it up?

All of them

carpet baboon wrote:All of them

Nope.

So you have this info from a high ranking BT executive then?

carpet baboon wrote:So you have this info from a high ranking BT executive then?

Never reveal your source.

Unsubstantiated gosip and wishfull thinking then

BT have confirmed they're pushing for a B&I league?

carpet baboon wrote:Unsubstantiated gosip and wishfull thinking then

Of course, Champ.

No 7&1/2 wrote:BT have confirmed they're pushing for a B&I league?

No

Would be strange if they did.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Would be strange if they did.

Why?

Has there been confirmation?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Has there been confirmation?

Of course not, nothing is agreed.

Why would it be odd for BT Sport to want to broadcast more professional rugby union?