The Pro12, how do we move forward ?

First topic message reminder :

I am posting this so that we can talk about rugby, yes I will use links from the media to create a discussion, and whether you agree with them or not, it is not me saying them. 

So, the Pro12, how could it move forward, for me there are one or two bones of contention for me, and that is the refereeing situation we find ourselves in, and the two Italian sides, firstly I will speak about the Italian sides, they have been here for a few years now and they are getting worse, now whether that is because of the fall out with the CC or not, the simple fact is they are not adding much to the league other than a banker five points when they travel and the odd banana skin when teams travel to play them. I would not like to see the Italians cut adrift, but at the same time they seriously need to up their game, at the moment they look as if they do not want to be here and are just waiting for the season to end, recent results have reflected this. I also think, that at the moment a place in the top tier of Europe is a waste for them, they will never win that competition with the state they are in at the moment and I think it would be far more beneficial for them to play in the second tier where they would have a better chance of picking up results and giving them more confidence. Jonathan Davies was pretty scathing about them on Scrum V on Sunday night:-

http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/36068740

Now I do not agree with him when it comes to ditching the Italians, but he does make a good point. Something needs to be seriously looked at when we are considering the two Italian teams, what would you suggest ?

Secondly I will talk about our refereeing situation, I am very uncomfortable with the status quo we find ourselves in at the moment when it comes to the referees, I am not comfortable that we are in a situation where the unions employ the referees AND the players. This leads to calls of potential bias, and the union controlled teams bringing their own refs with them, I think the referees should be employed by a central organisation, not the unions, and I think that the central organisation should be the league itself, the money the unions pay the refs should be payed to the league and then the league should have direct control over the referees. The league should then have a remit of how the refs should perform, and all the refs should be singing from the same hymn sheet, not that of their respective unions. Only when something like this happens will we see an improvement.

I would also like to talk about an article I read on WOL that Jeremy Guscott scratched upon, and states that we should be improving our brand of rugby to be able to compete with the French and English, also he has pointed out that because our CC players are restricted to the amount of games they can play, they hamper the teams involved, this I agree with, and I would rather we rested our players for Europe and played them more in the league. Guscott says that because there is no relegation from the Pro12 then there should be no excuses for us not playing a better brand of rugby. Anyway here's the link if anyone is interested:-

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/england-legend-tells-welsh-regions-11202285

Do you agree with Jeremy Guscott ?

PhilBB wrote:

Sin é wrote:

John Lacey or George Clancy never get to ref Munster games.

Anyway, I was referring to the amateur referees which Munster develop (John Lacey is employed by Munster Rugby to do that).

Munster is part of the IRFU. Like their Chief Exec is employed by the IRFU. Lacey and Clancy are IRFU employees, like the players they officiate.

Its interesting to note that Munster are part of the IRFU when it comes to staff, competition, corrupt officials etc., yet Munster have a huge debt to the IRFU even though they are owned by the IRFU supposedly

Sin é wrote:
Its interesting to note that Munster are part of the IRFU when it comes to staff, competition, corrupt officials etc., yet Munster have a huge debt to the IRFU even though they are owned by the IRFU supposedly

Which, of course, means that Munster are gerrymandered and owe the rest of the game in Ireland the money.

PhilBB wrote:

Sin é wrote:
Its interesting to note that Munster are part of the IRFU when it comes to staff, competition, corrupt officials etc., yet Munster have a huge debt to the IRFU even though they are owned by the IRFU supposedly

Which, of course, means that Munster are gerrymandered and owe the rest of the game in Ireland the money.

Munster owe nothing to anyone else. Lets not forget all those european KO games which earned the IRFU lots in merit payments, not to mention the cut from the gate money for those games.

Sin é wrote:
Munster owe nothing to anyone else.

It's about €10m and climbing.

Don't forget all those free players Munster have had for years. Well paid free players.

PhilBB wrote:

Sin é wrote:
Munster owe nothing to anyone else.

It's about €10m and climbing.

Don't forget all those free players Munster have had for years. Well paid free players.

Actually its decreasing as you well know but feel free to keep making things up

marty2086 wrote:
Actually its decreasing as you well know but feel free to keep making things up

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/rugby/irfu-chief-warns-there-will-be-no-more-munster-bailouts-399288.html

"an expected loss of €2.3m this season"

Who is paying that?

Maybe instead of changing the subject you can tell us how the loan is increasing like you said?

marty2086 wrote:Maybe instead of changing the subject you can tell us how the loan is increasing like you said?

I didn't change the subject. I wrote about the sum owed to the rest of Irish rugby.

If you're not adding in the financial losses then please explain to me who else is paying them, meaning that I was wrong to point out the IRFU will be covering them.

No you did, since the loan was for the redevelopment of Thomond the two are separate issues

So again please tell us how the loan is increasing

marty2086 wrote:No you did, since the loan was for the redevelopment of Thomond the two are separate issues

So again please tell us how the loan is increasing

"Munster owe nothing to anyone else.

It's about €10m and climbing. "

I didn't write about the loan.

You've been caught out again.

Again.

The loan should be going down at the rate of €100,000 a year, after the refinancing deal.

Will you people quit answering questions put to you by Phil!

It's Phil's best bit.  He's an artist.  It starts out where a question is put to him and within three replies he's back on the offensive, wanting answers to his three questions!

The topic is Pro12, moving forward.

The problem is Welsh Regions being owned by Warren Gatland and not taking the Pro12 serious.  
They went through this year in 2nd gear - waiting for their big England International game on the very weekend of the Pro12 final - and waiting for their clash with New Zealand.  
Whatever true form the Welsh players have this season, it's been delayed for that shot at New Zealand.

So that's the only question in town - and it's directed at the most frequent Welsh man to this thread - Phil.

What are the Welsh Regions going to do to help Pro12 move forward?  What are they going to do to take back ownership of themselves from Warren Gatland, WRU Overlord and Master of Regional Strategy?

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:No you did, since the loan was for the redevelopment of Thomond the two are separate issues

So again please tell us how the loan is increasing

"Munster owe nothing to anyone else.

It's about €10m and climbing. "

I didn't write about the loan.

You've been caught out again.

Again.

The loan should be going down at the rate of €100,000 a year, after the refinancing deal.

Awk shucks you caught me out silly me so you pick a figure close to the loan amount and they owe absolutely no other money other than that?

Sin é wrote:yet Munster have a huge debt to the IRFU even though they are owned by the IRFU supposedly

PhilBB wrote:Which, of course, means that Munster are gerrymandered and owe the rest of the game in Ireland the money.

While you did not use the word loan, you were talking about it, so the answer is you've been caught out

And still waiting on hearing how its climbing

marty2086 wrote:
Awk shucks you caught me out silly me so you pick a figure close to the loan amount and they owe absolutely no other money other than that?

Close to it, but not it. If I wanted to write the loan amount then I'd have used the words 'loan' in the figure and taken €100,000 off the amount noted in the IRFU Annual Report 2014/15.

So, yes, you jumped in again with both feet and succeeded only in putting them into your mouth.

marty2086 wrote:And still waiting on hearing how its climbing

By the €2.3m figure I linked to above, Genius.

PhilBB wrote:
The loan should be going down at the rate of €100,000 a year, after the refinancing deal.

Oh and Munster were due to repay 200k this year, the 100k was just last year with 4.2m to be repaid next year

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
Awk shucks you caught me out silly me so you pick a figure close to the loan amount and they owe absolutely no other money other than that?

Close to it, but not it. If I wanted to write the loan amount then I'd have used the words 'loan' in the figure and taken €100,000 off the amount noted in the IRFU Annual Report 2014/15.

So, yes, you jumped in again with both feet and succeeded only in putting them into your mouth.

But we both know you were talking about the loan as I showed above

marty2086 wrote:

Oh and Munster were due to repay 200k this year, the 100k was just last year with 4.2m to be repaid next year

You're right.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:And still waiting on hearing how its climbing

By the €2.3m figure I linked to above, Genius.

So that's all creditors then genius? Because that figure alone is meaningless

marty2086 wrote:
But we both know you were talking about the loan as I showed above

No, we don't. That's your false interpretation about it. If I was solely on about the loan then I'd have used a specific figure.

Now, who is covering the €2.3m, champ?

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
But we both know you were talking about the loan as I showed above

No, we don't. That's your false interpretation about it. If I was solely on about the loan then I'd have used a specific figure.

Now, who is covering the €2.3m, champ?

What is the 2.3m made up of?

Care to tell us that?

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
But we both know you were talking about the loan as I showed above

No, we don't. That's your false interpretation about it. If I was solely on about the loan then I'd have used a specific figure.

Now, who is covering the €2.3m, champ?

What is the 2.3m made up of?

Care to tell us that?

No idea. But it's a financial loss. So who is underwriting it? No worries if you don't know or won't write 'the IRFU'.

marty2086 wrote:
So that's all creditors then genius? Because that figure alone is meaningless

Erm, no. That's the annual loss, not creditors.

Oh dear, how embarrassing. You don't know the difference between the two.

Why would I say don't know or IRFU when the IRFU have said it won't be them plus

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/european-cup/munster-make-move-to-sell-thomond-park-naming-rights-1.2497317

http://www.munsterrugby.ie/news/22578.php#.V02BLKQm6M8

And as you weren't talking about the loan care to tell us what you were talking about?

As you don't know what the 2.3m was about, you really are just guessing as to it as it could a wide range of things

marty2086 wrote:Why would I say don't know or IRFU when the IRFU have said it won't be them plus

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/european-cup/munster-make-move-to-sell-thomond-park-naming-rights-1.2497317

http://www.munsterrugby.ie/news/22578.php#.V02BLKQm6M8

And as you weren't talking about the loan care to tell us what you were talking about?

As you don't know what the 2.3m was about, you really are just guessing as to it as it could a wide range of things

It is only one thing - a financial loss. Somebody has to underwrite that. Confusing it with creditors shows that you don't understand the topic.

You've shown two links as to how any loss for next financial year might be mitigated or avoided. You've shown nothing as to how this year's loss will be underwritten.

You clearly don't understand the concept of an annual loss.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
So that's all creditors then genius? Because that figure alone is meaningless

Erm, no. That's the annual loss, not creditors.

Oh dear, how embarrassing. You don't know the difference between the two.

I actually do know the difference hence the question

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Why would I say don't know or IRFU when the IRFU have said it won't be them plus

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/european-cup/munster-make-move-to-sell-thomond-park-naming-rights-1.2497317

http://www.munsterrugby.ie/news/22578.php#.V02BLKQm6M8

And as you weren't talking about the loan care to tell us what you were talking about?

As you don't know what the 2.3m was about, you really are just guessing as to it as it could a wide range of things

It is only one thing - a financial loss. Somebody has to underwrite that. Confusing it with creditors shows that you don't understand the topic.

You've shown two links as to how any loss for next financial year might be mitigated or avoided. You've shown nothing as to how this year's loss will be underwritten.

You clearly don't understand the concept of an annual loss.

If you say so, so that figure is from the P&L rather than the full accounts?

marty2086 wrote:

If you say so, so that figure is from the P&L rather than the full accounts?

You asking this question shows that you were fibbing in your previous post.

So, who is covering this €2.3m loss? The loss made by "Munster Branch IRFU" to give it its full name. There may be a clue there. Maybe the IRFU employed Chief Executive of Munster Branch IRFU gives us another clue.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

If you say so, so that figure is from the P&L rather than the full accounts?

You asking this question shows that you were fibbing in your previous post.

So, who is covering this €2.3m loss? The loss made by "Munster Branch IRFU" to give it its full name. There may be a clue there. Maybe the IRFU employed Chief Executive of Munster Branch IRFU gives us another clue.

Or maybe the CEO of the IRFU saying they won't be bailing out Munster is a bigger clue though why the IRFU would need to bail itself out I do not know

marty2086 wrote:
Or maybe the CEO of the IRFU saying they won't be bailing out Munster is a bigger clue though why the IRFU would need to bail itself out I do not know

What is it a bigger clue to? Or are you trying to kid yourself that 'IRFU Munster Branch' isn't IRFU owned?

I can see that you can't tell me who is covering the loss. That speaks volumes.

marty2086 wrote:
Or maybe the CEO of the IRFU saying they won't be bailing out Munster is a bigger clue though why the IRFU would need to bail itself out I do not know

3.1 of the Bye Laws. Please explain it to me.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
Or maybe the CEO of the IRFU saying they won't be bailing out Munster is a bigger clue though why the IRFU would need to bail itself out I do not know

What is it a bigger clue to? Or are you trying to kid yourself that 'IRFU Munster Branch' isn't IRFU owned?

I can see that you can't tell me who is covering the loss. That speaks volumes.

It seems you are arguing two different and contradictory points to try and get to the end goal of being able to say you were right at the end of it

The big question is what does it have to do with moving the Pro 12 forward?

What I'd like to know is, why the fascination with Irish rugby finances.

profitius wrote:What I'd like to know is, why the fascination with Irish rugby finances.

They even have a sticky thread dedicated to 'Irish Rugby Wage Levels' on GWLAD. All seems a bit odd to me o0

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
Or maybe the CEO of the IRFU saying they won't be bailing out Munster is a bigger clue though why the IRFU would need to bail itself out I do not know

What is it a bigger clue to? Or are you trying to kid yourself that 'IRFU Munster Branch' isn't IRFU owned?

I can see that you can't tell me who is covering the loss. That speaks volumes.

It seems you are arguing two different and contradictory points to try and get to the end goal of being able to say you were right at the end of it

The big question is what does it have to do with moving the Pro 12 forward?

So, you can't tell me who is covering the losses, you can't explain 3.1, you don't understand the difference between creditors and a loss and you can't tell me who owns IRFU Munster Branch.

You know your stuff, don't you?

The next question is when will you learn the lesson in order to stop embarrassing yourself by trying to take me on. Each time you fail. Miserably.

Learn the lesson.

Munchkin wrote:

profitius wrote:What I'd like to know is, why the fascination with Irish rugby finances.

They even have a sticky thread dedicated to 'Irish Rugby Wage Levels' on GWLAD. All seems a bit odd to me o0

That was there to disprove the narrative in Wales that PRW should be outperforming the Irish.

It even got to the point where ill informed idiots like Andy Howell were claiming that the Irish wage bills weren't that much higher than the then £3.5m cap in Wales. This was part of the narrative in support of Roger Lewis.

Therefore, of course, it was easily disproven and Howell and his ilk were easily discredited, again.

When you have a narrative in Wales that is anti-PRW, it is necessary to point to the differences in budgets between PRW teams and their opponents. Budgets, of course, being the base point of professional sport.

On top of that, the next most important thing in professional sport is transparency and honesty. We don't have that in our league, of course.

So now it shouldn't seems odd to you at all.

You have done wages to death

How do we move forward?

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
Or maybe the CEO of the IRFU saying they won't be bailing out Munster is a bigger clue though why the IRFU would need to bail itself out I do not know

What is it a bigger clue to? Or are you trying to kid yourself that 'IRFU Munster Branch' isn't IRFU owned?

I can see that you can't tell me who is covering the loss. That speaks volumes.

It seems you are arguing two different and contradictory points to try and get to the end goal of being able to say you were right at the end of it

The big question is what does it have to do with moving the Pro 12 forward?

So, you can't tell me who is covering the losses, you can't explain 3.1, you don't understand the difference between creditors and a loss and you can't tell me who owns IRFU Munster Branch.

You know your stuff, don't you?

The next question is when will you learn the lesson in order to stop embarrassing yourself by trying to take me on. Each time you fail. Miserably.

Learn the lesson.

Well Phillip lets break this down for you

What does the loss refer to? The article you posted says loss for the season, now can you explain what that is? It doesn't say year it says season, so did Munster lose money for their rugby operations? Was it the financial year? Was on the P&L or balance sheet?

Your arrogance really is astounding

marty2086 wrote:

Well Phillip lets break this down for you

What does the loss refer to? The article you posted says loss for the season, now can you explain what that is? It doesn't say year it says season, so did Munster lose money for their rugby operations? Was it the financial year? Was on the P&L or balance sheet?

Your arrogance really is astounding

So no answers to the questions, Martyn. This doesn't surprise me.

Where do you think an annual loss is shown on the reports presented to an Annual General Meeting, Martyn?

It's pretty difficult to not be arrogant when dealing with you. Your MO is to try to catch me out yet you've never once done so, you've never admitted to an error and you can't answer straight questions. Nor can you add up.

You're a fraud. You've been exposed. You really should let it go to save yourself further embarrassment.

Allty wrote:You have done wages to death

How do we move forward?

We cannot. That's the point. The PrO'12 is fundamentally flawed.

It cannot generate a sufficient TV contract, it has little appeal in Wales, the Italians are constantly at the bottom and the Union owned teams are playthings of the international game.

It is not a sustainable league.

Ok so you are arguing Munster owe the IRFU and the rest of Irish money rugby while arguing they are the same entity, yeah I need to catch you out

You unbridled arrogance means you don't admit when you are wrong, not that you've never been caught out. Remind me again of the article you say is out there that can't be found but I have read?

You are talking bye laws yet don't elaborate whose bye laws yet expect people to answer. You talk AGMs yet the figure didn't come from an AGM. You don't tell us what the figure relates to when asked.

Now do you want to keep saying people don't answer vague questions while you refuse to avoid a direct one

I'm still waiting to hear how this moves the Pro 12 forward too

marty2086 wrote:Ok so you are arguing Munster owe the IRFU and the rest of Irish money rugby while arguing they are the same entity, yeah I need to catch you out

Dumb comment.

Think of it like a family. You borrow money from the family, you owe it back to the whole family. It's a pretty simple concept that you're failing to grasp.

marty2086 wrote:
You unbridled arrogance means you don't admit when you are wrong, not that you've never been caught out. Remind me again of the article you say is out there that can't be found but I have read?

Do you really want me to produce an article that notes Heaslip's involvement with Jo'Burger? After all, you've acknowledged yourself that the involvement exists.

marty2086 wrote:
You are talking bye laws yet don't elaborate whose bye laws yet expect people to answer. You talk AGMs yet the figure didn't come from an AGM. You don't tell us what the figure relates to when asked.

Now do you want to keep saying people don't answer vague questions while you refuse to avoid a direct one

I'm still waiting to hear how this moves the Pro 12 forward too

I've provided a link to what the figure relates to. It's an annual loss. The AGM is upcoming. Annual losses get reported at AGMs. This is basic, basic stuff. This is like Key Stage 1 stuff of business.

However, it's clearly all above your head (still chuckling at your thought of Ulster Rugby ltd getting the cash for Ravenhill, so that should have been a huge clue as to how out of your depth you are). Will you admit that? No. You just prefer to embarrass yourself further.

You're right on one thing, though: I do refuse to avoid a direct one.

The Bye Laws? Munster Branch bye laws. You know, the context being about Munster.

Highlighting your lack of basic business knowledge won't move the PrO'12 forward but it might move some threads forward once you realise that your interjections are mostly naive nonsense that shouldn't be typed in the first place.

Now, I'm still looking forward to you answering the questions.

Still not answering questions, want to give it a go

If Munster is the IRFU it would be more like moving money between your own accounts rather than giving it to a family member.

As for Heaslip, what does his private investment have to do with his IRFU contract? Can you make that link?

marty2086 wrote:Still not answering questions, want to give it a go

If Munster is the IRFU it would be more like moving money between your own accounts rather than giving it to a family member.

As for Heaslip, what does his private investment have to do with his IRFU contract? Can you make that link?

The second sentence is illuminating. By moving 'money between your accounts' you're preventing it from being spent elsewhere. Understand now? That's why the money is owed by Munster to the rest of the game because the c.€10m they are short could be being spent elsewhere. It's called opportunity cost, if you want to Google it.

I didn't make the link between his IRFU contract and his private investment. You did. Falsely. And you're still making it despite it having been explained to you.

I've not avoided one question. I leave that stuff up to you who thinks an annual loss is a creditor sum. Chuckle.

PhilBB wrote:I've provided a link to what the figure relates to. It's an annual loss. The AGM is upcoming. Annual losses get reported at AGMs. This is basic, basic stuff. This is like Key Stage 1 stuff of business.

However, it's clearly all above your head (still chuckling at your thought of Ulster Rugby ltd getting the cash for Ravenhill, so that should have been a huge clue as to how out of your depth you are). Will you admit that? No. You just prefer to embarrass yourself further.

You're right on one thing, though: I do refuse to avoid a direct one.

The Bye Laws? Munster Branch bye laws. You know, the context being about Munster.

Highlighting your lack of basic business knowledge won't move the PrO'12 forward but it might move some threads forward once you realise that your interjections are mostly naive nonsense that shouldn't be typed in the first place.

Now, I'm still looking forward to you answering the questions.

Do you have provided a link saying Munster made a loss for the season not the year hence the question.

Since its basic stuff maybe you can explain how the IRFU are covering the loss despite saying they won't be and maybe you can tell us the difference between a P&L and balance sheet?

As for the Munster bye laws are you talking about the one talking about being a member of the IRFU? Yet you think that means they are owned by the IRFU? Does the mean the unions are owned by World Rugby?

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Still not answering questions, want to give it a go

If Munster is the IRFU it would be more like moving money between your own accounts rather than giving it to a family member.

As for Heaslip, what does his private investment have to do with his IRFU contract? Can you make that link?

The second sentence is illuminating. By moving 'money between your accounts' you're preventing it from being spent elsewhere. Understand now? That's why the money is owed by Munster to the rest of the game because the c.€10m they are short could be being spent elsewhere. It's called opportunity cost, if you want to Google it.

I didn't make the link between his IRFU contract and his private investment. You did. Falsely. And you're still making it despite it having been explained to you.

I've not avoided one question. I leave that stuff up to you who thinks an annual loss is a creditor sum. Chuckle.

So talking about private investment to keep players in Ireland, you bring up Jo'burger and it was unrelated? Makes sense, that's why you are so vague then, to keep the waters muddied so you can say you weren't wrong

marty2086 wrote:

Do you have provided a link saying Munster made a loss for the season not the year hence the question.

Since its basic stuff maybe you can explain how the IRFU are covering the loss despite saying they won't be and maybe you can tell us the difference between a P&L and balance sheet?

As for the Munster bye laws are you talking about the one talking about being a member of the IRFU? Yet you think that means they are owned by the IRFU? Does the mean the unions are owned by World Rugby?

Oh dear. It's an ANNUAL General Meeting. Annual. The period of the 'annual' is irrelevant as long as it is constant. Season / Year is irrelevant. It's a €2.3m loss (to be announced).

I don't need to explain the difference between a P&L and a balance sheet, ffs. Anybody can Google that in a minute. It has no relevance to the loss Munster are making.

I asked you who is covering it. You haven't answered. Funny that.

I gave specific mention to the Bye Law. That's the one you should be addressing. You can even write out the wording here if you want to, whilst you are avoiding answering those questions.

marty2086 wrote:
So talking about private investment to keep players in Ireland, you bring up Jo'burger and it was unrelated? Makes sense, that's why you are so vague then, to keep the waters muddied so you can say you weren't wrong

It was unrelated to his present contract as, and another poster picked up on this, this kind of thing has been happening since year dot. That's why I answered the question from you on how long this has been going on for.

Remember?

You should question your little mind as to why another poster comprehended the simple point, and expanded upon it, but you couldn't.