Revealed! The world's best paid rugby players whose salaries dwarf those even of Leigh Halfpenny and Jamie Roberts

First topic message reminder :

Christ on a bike, there's some money to be earned in France, and Japan by the looks of things. How are Wasps going to stay under the salary cap if they are going to pay Pocock £1.4 million+ a season ? 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/11300999/Rugbys-rich-list-the-highest-paid-players-in-the-world.html?frame=3576484


the IRFU are paying Sexton and Puitua 500k each a year, that's massive money. I reckon the salary caps in Europe will disappear in time, where is all this money coming from.

Wasps got a brilliant deal with their stadium they've got all sorts of commercial deals with it and some kind of shopping mall if I remember correctly. And they have the money coming in from Coventry. Essentially they've gone from being a pro club playing for their stadium to a club being paid for their Stadium. There was an article fairly recently that said they were the richest club in rugby.

exile jack wrote:That's why I don't think the thing is sustainable.

Look at the value to French companies of corporate sponsorship (tax value) of sporting teams. See why the likes of Michelin are involved, CAP Gemini, the Optician bloke just up the road.

Then consider the huge TV contract.

It's all sustainable on that basis alone, before you consider the merchandise, ticket sales, council assistance that is documented in the DNACG report that I linked to above.

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:
Just checked it myself, even if it was Wiki, and you're right. It appears that the stadium is owned by IRFU, but then the IRFU is a cross-border organisation.

No, it isn't a cross border organisation. The assets are held by a solely Dublin based organisation.

It is a cross-border organisation. So what if it's based in Dublin?

Seems the Pocock rumour was just a rumour, and nothing more. Dai Young has denied claims that Wasps have talked with, or offered a contract to, Pocock.

Munchkin wrote:
It is a cross-border organisation. So what if it's based in Dublin?

It isn't a cross border organisation in the sense that all of the finances flow through Dublin. Everything is controlled via Dublin. Ravenhill is an asset belonging to a Dublin company.

That's all.

Aye, just you keep re-defining what you originally meant, moving goalposts, and whatever else it takes to dig yourself out. It's a cross border organisation, full stop.

Munchkin wrote:Seems the Pocock rumour was just a rumour, and nothing more. Dai Young has denied claims that Wasps have talked with, or offered a contract to, Pocock.

Shame as hes a top quality player.

Munchkin wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:And what's your issue with that?

So we can be clear, is your question:

What's the issue with UK money being spent on an asset owned by an independent company in a different country?

What different country? Kingspan is owned by Ulster Rugby, and Ulster Rugby is based in the UK.

Yeah, cross border.

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:And what's your issue with that?

So we can be clear, is your question:

What's the issue with UK money being spent on an asset owned by an independent company in a different country?

What different country? Kingspan is owned by Ulster Rugby, and Ulster Rugby is based in the UK.

Yeah, cross border.

What's that little snipe supposed to prove, other than you're behaving like a child?

Munchkin wrote:
What's that little snipe supposed to prove, other than you're behaving like a child?

That a) you commented from a position of lack of knowledge & b) you have a very different understanding of 'cross border' from mine.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Seems the Pocock rumour was just a rumour, and nothing more. Dai Young has denied claims that Wasps have talked with, or offered a contract to, Pocock.

Shame as hes a top quality player.

Fantastic player. There was talk that he might be heading to Ulster, but not happening. So long as we get Piutau back from Wasps, I don't care who they sign

Yeah he's also fantastic.

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:
What's that little snipe supposed to prove, other than you're behaving like a child?

That a) you commented from a position of lack of knowledge & b) you have a very different understanding of 'cross border' from mine.

You're lack of comprehension is telling. First, I have already admitted I got that wrong (something you would never do. you would simply run away) Second, my understanding of cross border is just the same as yours. I just don't re-define it to in some futile effort to escape being proven wrong.

LordDowlais wrote:Some of these clubs MUST be living beyond their means, how can Wasps afford to pay 1.4 million+ for a single player ? 

How are the French paying so much ?

How are the provinces paying players half a million per season ?

Things will go jubblies up sooner or later.

People have been saying that about soccer for years.

Munchkin wrote:
You're lack of comprehension is telling. First, I have already admitted I got that wrong (something you would never do. you would simply run away) Second, my understanding of cross border is just the same as yours. I just don't re-define it to in some futile effort to escape being proven wrong.

Sorry, what have I 'run away' from?

And, no, your understanding of cross border differs from mine. Quite clearly differs.

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:
You're lack of comprehension is telling. First, I have already admitted I got that wrong (something you would never do. you would simply run away) Second, my understanding of cross border is just the same as yours. I just don't re-define it to in some futile effort to escape being proven wrong.

Sorry, what have I 'run away' from?

And, no, your understanding of cross border differs from mine. Quite clearly differs.

An argument we had an age ago. I'm not trawling back to find it. How does my understanding differ from yours?

Phill why are you angry that the UK gave funds to an organisation that isn't based in the UK but employs people in the UK, who will contribute through tax,brings tourist to the UK who n turn increase revenue for the UK, securing jobs in the UK, and giving the people of the UK top class multi use venue while raising the profile of the UK and doing lots of work with UK schools?

Can you answer me that please?

PhilBB wrote:

Notch wrote:

Ulster have one of the most valuable kit sponsorship deals in Europe. We benefit from Kukri concentrating so much of their resources on one team as opposed to the big kit suppliers who tend to spread themselves over a huge number of different teams and sports. 1 million over two years would be a small fraction of that. Also, we've been restricted in terms of what we've been allowed to spend by the IRFU in the last few years- and still very much are restricted- so we're very much deep in the black thank you. It does seem like sense has prevailed and they aren't going to restrict us from spending what we earn so long as we remain within budget, which will allow us to remain at the level of some of the English clubs. Competing with the French clubs is fantasy. Toulon have a handful of Piutaus. Giteau alone is worth twice as much.

Also, unlike English and French clubs, it's not a whole rake of players on these deals. You're talking one or two marquee players at Ulster and the rest earn a lot less. Many of our other big-name, big-salary players are paid for by central contracts which frees up money. For instance, you talk about Sexton- he's not paid for by Leinster. He's on a central contract.

As far as I know Leinster and Munster don't have any players on that kind of wage. Connacht certainly don't.

If £1m is a small fraction of the Kukri deal, please could you expand on that? For example, how much are Kukri paying and over what term?

Also, do you have any kind of link to the financial status of Ulster Rugby? Obviously it doesn't exist outside of the IRFU but, as a Branch, what kind of figures are you thinking of? It's interesting to know that Ulster rugby is cash rich after the UK Government gifted a Dublin company £14.7m to upgrade the stadium.

The English salary spend will be about £7m, or about €9m. The French cap being €10m.

As for the number of national contract players, only Trimble and Best have those yet you wrote that 'many ' have these.

Thanks in advance.

Some things that really aren't my concern to educate anybody about and some profound misunderstandings.

1) No, do your own research

2) No, do your own research

3)) The UK government did not gift anything. The Northern Ireland Executive invested in the stadium and several other projects with money which was earmarked for a national stadium to help stimulate the NI economy. Whether that works or is a good thing for a local government to do, you can have your own opinions on sure but carping on about cross-border stuff... if you want to accuse the NI Executive of frivolous, ineffective spending or economic illiteracy you might find that that is a view many in Northern Ireland themselves share! Just seems to be totally missing the point.

The Northern Ireland Executive is comprised of Irish Politicians and British politicians and administers a region inhabited by Irish citizens and British citizens; we are as Irish as we are British and as we have a consociational system there is a responsibility on both governments of both countries to collaborate in the best interests of the people living here- and so there is investment in cross-border projects from both the Irish tax payer and the British tax-payer. Do you know how much the Irish government has also invested in Northern Ireland in terms of infrastructure? For instance, the electricity grid of Ireland is an ill-island grid- the state-sponsored body EirGrid plc. was set up to manage it and the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources of the Irish government is the majority shareholder in that body. The Electricity Supply Board- which is 95% owned by the Irish State- bought Northern Ireland Electricity. There were many more cases of investment from the Irish government in Northern Ireland before the financial crisis for reasons which should be obvious, but honestly 14.7million is small beans in comparison to other investments made by both governments on the other side of the border.

But even more tellingly, the stadium is NOT a cross-border project! The IRFU and the GAA are not publicly owned companies, but they are organisations with quasi-independent branches in Northern Ireland and it's those branches who are receiving h funding. Ulster Rugby Plc. is the organisation responsible for administering the business side of our operations in the UK- due to UK tax law we pay taxes to HMRC as for sports teams its where the ground is located that counts. The money given to Ulster Rugby Plc. is conditional, and one of those conditions is that all of the money is spent on an agreed project within Northern Ireland. That money, unlike other investments, does not actually travel across the border. The ability of Ulster to attract an event like the Pro12 final to Belfast or to have a better rugby team with a larger support base stimulates the Northern Irish economy and gives our politicians the opportunity have many photos of them holding different shaped balls taken, which is what they like to do instead of efficiently running the country. There are also social targets that have been agreed with the Executive such as broadening access to rugby union and increasing grassroots participation- all very much in the interests of Ulster Rugby anyway. But the social and economic benefits of the investment are local, so ownership really isn't relevant. Does it benefit the IRFU? Yeah, of course as they do not have to invest in doing anything with the Stadium themselves. But this is not the intention of the investment.

4) Three players; Best, Bowe, Trimble- all on high amounts. Had we to pay them separately you'd be looking at maybe not being able to afford Piutau. Because ultimately that takes the three highest earning internationals off our books and onto the IRFUs. You're looking at quite high salaries for all three.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

The two are one and the same, but the IRFU are owners through their subsidiary who are Ulster and are based and operate out of the UK as Ulster Rugby Ltd

Wrong.

Ulster Rugby ltd doesn't 'operate' in that fashion. It's turnover is so small that it posts abbreviated accounts.

One does not equal the other, a subsidiary just has to be at least half owned by another company. Thats Ulster!

Also just looking at the IRFU accounts it seems Thomond and Aviva are listed on the accounts and the naming rights for the Aviva yet no mention of Musgrave or Ravenhill, maybe they were given away for free

Wow. Those salaries are pretty hefty. I was worried for a moment that one of those blokes might make more than me.

PhilBB wrote:

exile jack wrote:That's why I don't think the thing is sustainable.

Look at the value to French companies of corporate sponsorship (tax value) of sporting teams. See why the likes of Michelin are involved, CAP Gemini, the Optician bloke just up the road.

Then consider the huge TV contract.

It's all sustainable on that basis alone, before you consider the merchandise, ticket sales, council assistance that is documented in the DNACG report that I linked to above.

Phil,the fact that something is funded does not make that something sustainable.The financial instruments that led t the 2008 global crisis were both legal and meant to be sustainable.Sustainable they were not.The fact that half the French Top14 feel the rich half are distorting competition is not sustainable.The fact that the FFR are concerned about the impact of imports on French professional rugby doesn't suggest sustainability to me.In fact the FFR have announced quite onerous conditions on the percentage of imports in squads and match day 23's.Hardly the sign of sustainability.

The IRFU is all Ireland so what's the problem. There's always going to be give and take with these complex matters. I presume most or all of the IRFUs Aviva stadium grants came from the republic, which benefited rugby fans north and south.


It's a bit of a stretch to say the IRFU have benefited from the ravenhill grant. The IRFU will indirectly benefit if it helps Ulster to grow the game and produce new players and but that's long term and £14m isn't a lot of money if you're looking at the long term.


On another note, Id say wage levels might settle down now for a while but we'll see an increase in the money being offered to the world's top players. That's bad news for the Aussies and kiwis.

carpet baboon wrote:Phill why are you angry that the UK gave funds to an organisation that isn't based in the UK but employs people in the UK, who will contribute through tax,brings tourist to the UK who n turn increase revenue for the UK, securing jobs in the UK, and giving the people of the UK top class multi use venue while raising the profile of the UK and doing lots of work with UK schools?

Can you answer me that please?

Because £14.7m can be better spent elsewhere, whilst still achieving all of that

Notch wrote:

Some things that really aren't my concern to educate anybody about and some profound misunderstandings.

1) No, do your own research

2) No, do your own research

3)) The UK government did not gift anything. The Northern Ireland Executive invested in the stadium and several other projects with money which was earmarked for a national stadium to help stimulate the NI economy. Whether that works or is a good thing for a local government to do, you can have your own opinions on sure but carping on about cross-border stuff... if you want to accuse the NI Executive of frivolous, ineffective spending or economic illiteracy you might find that that is a view many in Northern Ireland themselves share! Just seems to be totally missing the point.

The Northern Ireland Executive is comprised of Irish Politicians and British politicians and administers a region inhabited by Irish citizens and British citizens; we are as Irish as we are British and as we have a consociational system there is a responsibility on both governments of both countries to collaborate in the best interests of the people living here- and so there is investment in cross-border projects from both the Irish tax payer and the British tax-payer. Do you know how much the Irish government has also invested in Northern Ireland in terms of infrastructure? For instance, the electricity grid of Ireland is an ill-island grid- the state-sponsored body EirGrid plc. was set up to manage it and the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources of the Irish government is the majority shareholder in that body. The Electricity Supply Board- which is 95% owned by the Irish State- bought Northern Ireland Electricity. There were many more cases of investment from the Irish government in Northern Ireland before the financial crisis for reasons which should be obvious, but honestly 14.7million is small beans in comparison to other investments made by both governments on the other side of the border.

But even more tellingly, the stadium is NOT a cross-border project! The IRFU and the GAA are not publicly owned companies, but they are organisations with quasi-independent branches in Northern Ireland and it's those branches who are receiving h funding. Ulster Rugby Plc. is the organisation responsible for administering the business side of our operations in the UK- due to UK tax law we pay taxes to HMRC as for sports teams its where the ground is located that counts. The money given to Ulster Rugby Plc. is conditional, and one of those conditions is that all of the money is spent on an agreed project within Northern Ireland. That money, unlike other investments, does not actually travel across the border. The ability of Ulster to attract an event like the Pro12 final to Belfast or to have a better rugby team with a larger support base stimulates the Northern Irish economy and gives our politicians the opportunity have many photos of them holding different shaped balls taken, which is what they like to do instead of efficiently running the country. There are also social targets that have been agreed with the Executive such as broadening access to rugby union and increasing grassroots participation- all very much in the interests of Ulster Rugby anyway. But the social and economic benefits of the investment are local, so ownership really isn't relevant. Does it benefit the IRFU? Yeah, of course as they do not have to invest in doing anything with the Stadium themselves. But this is not the intention of the investment.

4) Three players; Best, Bowe, Trimble- all on high amounts. Had we to pay them separately you'd be looking at maybe not being able to afford Piutau. Because ultimately that takes the three highest earning internationals off our books and onto the IRFUs. You're looking at quite high salaries for all three.

1. So you can't answer.
2. So you can't answer.
3. There is no such company called Ulster Rugby plc (which is ironic after you telling me to do some research).As I've already noted, Ulster Rugby Ltd produces only abbreviated accounts. It doesn't pay taxes to the UK. It's company number is NI032360, if you'd like to check. The £14m from UK taxpayers obvioulsy brought a huge benefit to Ulster, that's not in doubt, and nor is its intention. But the result is that an asset of a company in another country is improved.
4. Three isn't "many", as per your claim. Sure, the three will cost £1m a year but you were boasting of cash reserves (which you can't prove and you thought were held by a non-existent company called Ulster Rugby plc).

So I asked 4 questions: 2 you can't answer, 1 you got the basics of it fundamentally wrong and the fourth undermines your previous claims.

marty2086 wrote:

One does not equal the other, a subsidiary just has to be at least half owned by another company. Thats Ulster!

Also just looking at the IRFU accounts it seems Thomond and Aviva are listed on the accounts and the naming rights for the Aviva yet no mention of Musgrave or Ravenhill, maybe they were given away for free

Ulster is fully owned by the IRFU. Hence your analogy with the NGD is wholly wrong.

Is your attempt at sarcasm a claim that the IRFU do not own Ravenhill? I'd be delighted to find out that they don't and I'm often trying to find that they don't. Do you have any evidence?

exile jack wrote:

Phil,the fact that something is funded does not make that something sustainable.The financial instruments that led t the 2008 global crisis were both legal and meant to be sustainable.Sustainable they were not.The fact that half the French Top14 feel the rich half are distorting competition is not sustainable.The fact that the FFR are concerned about the impact of imports on French professional rugby doesn't suggest sustainability to me.In fact the FFR have announced quite onerous conditions on the percentage of imports in squads and match day 23's.Hardly the sign of sustainability.

Why are you conflating imports with sustainability? They are two separate issues. JIFF is no measure of being able to pay players.

Munchkin wrote:

An argument we had an age ago. I'm not trawling back to find it. How does my understanding differ from yours?

So you can't tell me what you think I ran from? That's funny.

My understanding is that all the money flows from Ravenhill into the IRFU.

PhilBB wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:Phill why are you angry that the UK gave funds to an organisation that isn't based in the UK but employs people in the UK, who will contribute through tax,brings tourist to the UK who n turn increase revenue for the UK, securing jobs in the UK, and giving the people of the UK top class multi use venue while raising the profile of the UK and doing lots of work with UK schools?

Can you answer me that please?

Because £14.7m can be better spent elsewhere, whilst still achieving all of that

It was raised for a specific stadium project costing £140 million which fell through and needed to be spent on sports infrastructure. Would that money be approved in todays climate? Almost certainly not, despite the obvious benefits to the local construction industry a major project like that would bring. But I think spending that money on smaller projects has more benefit- Ulster Rugby deserve credit as the only party to emerge from this omnishambles by actually spending the money effectively. If you want to talk about wastefulness go and look at the state of what the GAA and the IFA have done with this opportunity! (i.e. nothing).

While this is all obviously hugely beneficial to Ulster Rugby, I'm quite curious to learn the specifics of how it differs from the roles Swansea Council played in the construction of the Liberty Stadium and Carmathenshire Council played in the construction of Parc Y Scarlets. This is a genuine question. According to the BBC; "Parc y Scarlets and related facilities cost £25.4m to build, and £18.3m was provided in differing forms by Carmarthenshire council."

Phill if you want to get angry with the government for "wasting" millions may I suggest you get actively involved in politics and have a good look at what they are spending money on and where it ends up.
Or just admit it's not about where the money came from. It's another it's not fair IRFU wha wha wha, woe is me,I'm so hard done by dig at the Irish.

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

An argument we had an age ago. I'm not trawling back to find it. How does my understanding differ from yours?

So you can't tell me what you think I ran from? That's funny.

My understanding is that all the money flows from Ravenhill into the IRFU.

Well thats a misunderstanding. The money flows the other way, from the IRFU central branch into the provinces (in this case Ulster Rugby). They subsidise us, we don't subsidise them. The advantage to the IRFU is they have one less thing to subsidise and it moves one province closer to financial independence strengthening rugby in Ireland; but it's not making them money, its saving them money.

Of course it just doesn't work as simply as that- we develop players for the national team, we get people interested in rugby who grow the overall market for the game in Ireland etc. It's a symbiotic relationship. Its not a zero-sum game for anyone invoked. The only contestation is about whether the Northern Ireland Executive is getting value from its investment; economically, socially etc. Thats subjective, and I don't care to do enough research to make a strong argument one way or there other- especially as social benefits are much harder to quantify. I would say that they are getting the most value out of Ravenhill out of any of the projects funded by far though.

Notch wrote:
While this is all obviously hugely beneficial to Ulster Rugby, I'm quite curious to learn the specifics of how it differs from the roles Swansea Council played in the construction of the Liberty Stadium and Carmathenshire Council played in the construction of Parc Y Scarlets. This is a genuine question. According to the BBC; "Parc y Scarlets and related facilities cost £25.4m to build, and £18.3m was provided in differing forms by Carmarthenshire council."

Those are council owned assets that are leased, with the value of the spend remaining in the country in which the income was raised.

carpet baboon wrote:Phill if you want to get angry with the government for "wasting" millions may I suggest you get actively involved in politics and have a good look at what they are spending money on and where it ends up.
Or just admit it's not about where the money came from. It's another it's not fair IRFU wha wha wha, woe is me,I'm so hard done by dig at the Irish.

It's about both.

Still, at least I've educated a number of previously unaware Ulster followers on what they are actually following.

Notch wrote:

Well thats a misunderstanding. The money flows the other way, from the IRFU central branch into the provinces (in this case Ulster Rugby). They subsidise us, we don't subsidise them. The advantage to the IRFU is they have one less thing to subsidise and it moves one province closer to financial independence strengthening rugby in Ireland; but it's not making them money, its saving them money.

Of course it just doesn't work as simply as that- we develop players for the national team, we get people interested in rugby who grow the overall market for the game in Ireland etc. It's a symbiotic relationship. Its not a zero-sum game for anyone invoked. The only contestation is about whether the Northern Ireland Executive is getting value from its investment; economically, socially etc. Thats subjective, and I don't care to do enough research to make a strong argument one way or there other- especially as social benefits are much harder to quantify. I would say that they are getting the most value out of Ravenhill out of any of the projects funded by far though.

It's not a misunderstanding.

Remember your unfounded Kukri claim? Guess you Kukri pay? The IRFU. In Dublin. Guess where the ticket money goes? To Dublin.

Notch wrote:
Ulster have one of the most valuable kit sponsorship deals in Europe. We benefit from Kukri concentrating so much of their resources on one team as opposed to the big kit suppliers who tend to spread themselves over a huge number of different teams and sports. 1 million over two years would be a small fraction of that.

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/sport/rugby-news/ulster-rugby-and-kukri-sign-off-on-record-breaking-deal-1-5479865

Fiona Hampton, Head of Sales and Marketing for Ulster Rugby said: “The kit partnership is one of the most vital within the club in terms of provision of top class performance sportswear and also financial income. The deal with Kukri represents the largest sponsorship deal ever done by the club and takes us to the top 4 club kit deals within our sport in the UK and Ireland.”

Your claim seems somewhat unfounded, Notch.

PhilBB wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:Phill if you want to get angry with the government for "wasting" millions may I suggest you get actively involved in politics and have a good look at what they are spending money on and where it ends up.
Or just admit it's not about where the money came from. It's another it's not fair IRFU wha wha wha, woe is me,I'm so hard done by dig at the Irish.

It's about both.

Still, at least I've educated a number of previously unaware Ulster followers on what they are actually following.

Well at least you have admitted your issues, it's the first step in finding help

carpet baboon wrote:
Well at least you have admitted your issues, it's the first step in finding help

I don't need to find help to understand that Union ownership of teams leads to gerrymandering, mixed priorities and, therefore, a nigh on worthless league, Champ.

And I see you havnt answered notch's questions about stadiums in Wales?
Champ.... Your funny.

And nice use of gerrymandering.

PhilBB wrote:

exile jack wrote:

Phil,the fact that something is funded does not make that something sustainable.The financial instruments that led t the 2008 global crisis were both legal and meant to be sustainable.Sustainable they were not.The fact that half the French Top14 feel the rich half are distorting competition is not sustainable.The fact that the FFR are concerned about the impact of imports on French professional rugby doesn't suggest sustainability to me.In fact the FFR have announced quite onerous conditions on the percentage of imports in squads and match day 23's.Hardly the sign of sustainability.

Why are you conflating imports with sustainability? They are two separate issues. JIFF is no measure of being able to pay players.

Phil,i'm not conflating anything but merely trying to address the elephant in the room.Several French and English clubs are willing to pay significant salaries to players often because player salaries are embedded into wider and more complex commercial and financial structures.Nothing necessarily illegal about that but debt,however defined,does have to be paid or written off eventually.
The imports,who are not there for development,have several impacts on the game in the countries that import them:
-they can distort competition between the better and less well off clubs;
-they can make salary inflation endemic in club,across clubs and across geographical boundaries;
-they can prevent development of non-import players,and of teams both at club and international level.

If clubs are prepared to pay what imported players and their agents feel is the going rate that is perfectly fine at one level and good luck to the players but there are consequences for the game.

I'm not sure that i'd want to go down the draft pick route of the NFL but if salary inflation is essentially limiting competition success to just a handful of clubs that can't be good for the game can it?

Hot off the presses.

Centrally contracted players from 2016/17: Rob Kearney (2018), Andrew Trimble (2017), Tommy Bowe (2018), Keith Earls (2019), Robbie Henshaw (2019), Johnny Sexton (2019), Conor Murray (2019), Cian Healy (2019), Rory Best (2018), Devin Toner (2017), Donnacha Ryan (2017), Peter O'Mahony (2018), Sean O'Brien (2019), Jamie Heaslip (2017). Jared Payne (2018) TBC.

PhilBB wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:Phill why are you angry that the UK gave funds to an organisation that isn't based in the UK but employs people in the UK, who will contribute through tax,brings tourist to the UK who n turn increase revenue for the UK, securing jobs in the UK, and giving the people of the UK top class multi use venue while raising the profile of the UK and doing lots of work with UK schools?

Can you answer me that please?

Because £14.7m can be better spent elsewhere, whilst still achieving all of that

You will be hopping mad then at the £65m that the GAA (HQ Dublin) have got from the NI Executive to develop Casement Park in Belfast (though the difference here is that GAA HQ are also funding the Ulster GAA 15m towards the development costs.

The long and the short of it is that the British Government have invested very little money in sporting facilities in NI and are now making up for their lack of investment. You seem to forget that the IRFU (and GAA) are Not-for-Profit organisations so that everything that is generated will be remain in the sport. There will also be agreements that sport has to be played at Ravenhill, otherwise the money will have to be returned.

Other ROI based companies that would be in receipt of funding from NI Executive are the owners of the Titanic Centre, Harcourt Development which is a Dublin based company.

PhilBB wrote:Because £14.7m can be better spent elsewhere, whilst still achieving all of that in my opinion

Fixed that for you Prof Phil from the Friedman School of Economics, as others clearly disagree as there are many tangible and intangible benefits to the redevelopment

PhilBB wrote:Ulster is fully owned by the IRFU. Hence your analogy with the NGD is wholly wrong.

Its not wholly wrong just partially or muddying the waters slightly as both are under the definition a subsidiary

PhilBB wrote:Is your attempt at sarcasm a claim that the IRFU do not own Ravenhill? I'd be delighted to find out that they don't and I'm often trying to find that they don't. Do you have any evidence?

I've previously clearly stated that the IRFU own Ravenhill and as theres no mention of the IRFU receiving money to redevelop it or for the naming rights from Kingspan so this would point to Ulster Rugby being in control of it just as it would seem to be the case with Musgrave Park

PhilBB wrote:

Notch wrote:
Ulster have one of the most valuable kit sponsorship deals in Europe. We benefit from Kukri concentrating so much of their resources on one team as opposed to the big kit suppliers who tend to spread themselves over a huge number of different teams and sports. 1 million over two years would be a small fraction of that.

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/sport/rugby-news/ulster-rugby-and-kukri-sign-off-on-record-breaking-deal-1-5479865

Fiona Hampton, Head of Sales and Marketing for Ulster Rugby said: “The kit partnership is one of the most vital within the club in terms of provision of top class performance sportswear and also financial income. The deal with Kukri represents the largest sponsorship deal ever done by the club and takes us to the top 4 club kit deals within our sport in the UK and Ireland.”

Your claim seems somewhat unfounded, Notch.

Maybe its still early but that quote seems to at least partly back up what he said

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Notch wrote:
Ulster have one of the most valuable kit sponsorship deals in Europe. We benefit from Kukri concentrating so much of their resources on one team as opposed to the big kit suppliers who tend to spread themselves over a huge number of different teams and sports. 1 million over two years would be a small fraction of that.

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/sport/rugby-news/ulster-rugby-and-kukri-sign-off-on-record-breaking-deal-1-5479865

Fiona Hampton, Head of Sales and Marketing for Ulster Rugby said: “The kit partnership is one of the most vital within the club in terms of provision of top class performance sportswear and also financial income. The deal with Kukri represents the largest sponsorship deal ever done by the club and takes us to the top 4 club kit deals within our sport in the UK and Ireland.”

Your claim seems somewhat unfounded, Notch.

Maybe its still early but that quote seems to at least partly back up what he said

Indeed, can't see how that contradicts what Notch says, it validates it.

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

An argument we had an age ago. I'm not trawling back to find it. How does my understanding differ from yours?

So you can't tell me what you think I ran from? That's funny.

My understanding is that all the money flows from Ravenhill into the IRFU.

I could if I could be bothered searching through discussions, but can't be bothered. From memory, it was around the argument of you claiming to criticise the Regions, posting me a few of your blogs, and there not actually being anything in your blogs that criticise the Regions.

Not all money flows from Ravenhill to the IRFU. The IRFU doesn't get all ticket money, hospitality monies, and so on. The IRFU want the Provinces to be self-sustaining.

You guys are banging your heads against the wall whilst flogging a dead horse in engaging with these perpetual whinges.
It's funny how deluded and misinformed they are though.

True, Pete. It's the usual A grade b*ll*cks from a serial whinger, and I shouldn't really, but it does have entertainment value.

carpet baboon wrote:And I see you havnt answered notch's questions about stadiums in Wales?
Champ.... Your funny.

Erm, yes I did

carpet baboon wrote:And nice use of gerrymandering.

It's true, however. The four branches aren't allowed to employ who they want to.

exile jack wrote:

Phil,i'm not conflating anything but merely trying to address the elephant in the room.Several French and English clubs are willing to pay significant salaries to players often because player salaries are embedded into wider and more complex commercial and financial structures.Nothing necessarily illegal about that but debt,however defined,does have to be paid or written off eventually.
The imports,who are not there for development,have several impacts on the game in the countries that import them:
-they can distort competition between the better and less well off clubs;
-they can make salary inflation endemic in club,across clubs and across geographical boundaries;
-they can prevent development of non-import players,and of teams both at club and international level.

If clubs are prepared to pay what imported players and their agents feel is the going rate that is perfectly fine at one level and good luck to the players but there are consequences for the game.

I'm not sure that i'd want to go down the draft pick route of the NFL but if salary inflation is essentially limiting competition success to just a handful of clubs that can't be good for the game can it?

Sustainability is about being able to continue trading and paying wages. JIFF is about French raised players. They are separate issues.

You've assumed that the 'imports' will be getting paid more than the 'locals'. I'd suggest that isn't true, but rather the better players are just better paid.

Yes, limited competition success to a handful of clubs is good for the game as it incentivises the non-successful clubs to improve. That is the very definition of sport.