Munster Debts

First topic message reminder :

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/irfu-chief-does-not-believe-munster-can-make-debt-repayments-1.2723985

Clearly Philip Browne didn't read the thread on here in which I was told the debts would be repaid without an issue.

He shrugs his shoulders with Bryan Habana, Leigh 1/2 and a few others, so why not Giteau?

Dai Llewod wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:No idea of exact dates and amount but Mourad himself stated he had pumped money in to take them to the top but was creating a business model so the club was self sustaining, the cafes, shops etc built around the brand.

For all that I loathe about him he cant be faulted for that and its something most in the game could learn from

What on earth could you loathe about him? He's the best thing to happen to rugby in years.

For your point to hold water, you'd need to know how much he spent and when he spent it.

http://www.punditarena.com/rugby/cmalone/toulon-threaten-giteau-wage-cuts/

Sounds reasonable enough to me. 8 matches missing.

In what world would an employer just shrug his shoulders at losing one of his prized assets for that amount of crucial time?

His contract doesn't state he only gets paid when hes not away with the Wallabies so its not reasonable to expect the guy not to get paid what hes contractually entitled to

marty2086 wrote:

His contract doesn't state he only gets paid when hes not away with the Wallabies so its not reasonable to expect the guy not to get paid what hes contractually entitled to

Have you got a copy of his contract?

How many matches a season do you think it's ok for him to miss before Mourad intervenes and states it's not cricket? 15? 20? 30?

Dai Llewod wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

His contract doesn't state he only gets paid when hes not away with the Wallabies so its not reasonable to expect the guy not to get paid what hes contractually entitled to

Have you got a copy of his contract?

How many matches a season do you think it's ok for him to miss before Mourad intervenes and states it's not cricket? 15? 20? 30?

I don't need a copy its against World Rugbys laws

Going by your argument he can deduct pay for injuries too then? What about after the seasons over? Or if they just aren't picked?

marty2086 wrote:

Dai Llewod wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

His contract doesn't state he only gets paid when hes not away with the Wallabies so its not reasonable to expect the guy not to get paid what hes contractually entitled to

Have you got a copy of his contract?

How many matches a season do you think it's ok for him to miss before Mourad intervenes and states it's not cricket? 15? 20? 30?

I don't need a copy its against World Rugbys laws

Going by your argument he can deduct pay for injuries too then? What about after the seasons over? Or if they just aren't picked?

Contracts have been nullifed due to injuries so yes.

I'd love to see this go to court and see who wins. Employee doesn't turn up for work for 8 weeks as he's working for someone else all of a sudden and employer is, unsurprisingly a tad miffed. Wonder if that would stand up to scrutiny.

See this is the problem with the Mourad haters. They don't see the common sense / fairness he brings to the table. They just look at him as being a big bad nasty baddie threatening to sack people and take money from players. All he's doing is trying to make the structures fairer.

Dai Llewod wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

His contract doesn't state he only gets paid when hes not away with the Wallabies so its not reasonable to expect the guy not to get paid what hes contractually entitled to

Have you got a copy of his contract?

How many matches a season do you think it's ok for him to miss before Mourad intervenes and states it's not cricket? 15? 20? 30?

World Rugby say that all players have to be released for approved international games which there is a limit on. For NH players for example, that would be Six Nations games (5), Summer Tours (3) and autumn internationals (3) = 11. They also have to be released for World Cups.

The 4th international in the autumn that Wales/England play is not included in this ruling. Any club can stop their players playing in this.

Sin é wrote:

Dai Llewod wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

His contract doesn't state he only gets paid when hes not away with the Wallabies so its not reasonable to expect the guy not to get paid what hes contractually entitled to

Have you got a copy of his contract?

How many matches a season do you think it's ok for him to miss before Mourad intervenes and states it's not cricket? 15? 20? 30?

World Rugby say that all players have to be released for approved international games which there is a limit on. For NH players for example, that would be Six Nations games (5), Summer Tours (3) and autumn internationals (3) = 11. They also have to be released for World Cups.

The 4th international in the autumn that Wales/England play is not included in this ruling. Any club can stop their players playing in this.

We all know the test windows. But the point still remains.........if players can just up sticks and leave for the first 8 matches, then the employer should have every right to activate certain clauses in the contracts of those players. That's why it should go to court. The regulation that enforces this is perhaps not strictly legal in terms of employment law, and that's why Mourad challenging it is good for the game.

Moving on, there's bound to be a response along the lines of "well he knew the risks, so why sign players like that in the first place". Which is a ridiculous thing to expect : the best clubs in the world not signing the best players in the world even though they can afford them is a loser all round.

While Giteau probably can afford to take the pay cut, before cheering Mourad on think of the Georgians, Fijians, Samoans and others who are bullied out of representing their countries because the likes of Mourad can do it.

Dai Llewod wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Dai Llewod wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

His contract doesn't state he only gets paid when hes not away with the Wallabies so its not reasonable to expect the guy not to get paid what hes contractually entitled to

Have you got a copy of his contract?

How many matches a season do you think it's ok for him to miss before Mourad intervenes and states it's not cricket? 15? 20? 30?

I don't need a copy its against World Rugbys laws

Going by your argument he can deduct pay for injuries too then? What about after the seasons over? Or if they just aren't picked?

Contracts have been nullifed due to injuries so yes.

I'd love to see this go to court and see who wins. Employee doesn't turn up for work for 8 weeks as he's working for someone else all of a sudden and employer is, unsurprisingly a tad miffed. Wonder if that would stand up to scrutiny.

See this is the problem with the Mourad haters. They don't see the common sense / fairness he brings to the table. They just look at him as being a big bad nasty baddie threatening to sack people and take money from players. All he's doing is trying to make the structures fairer.

No they haven't, contracts have been ended but theres financial compensation involved that is agreed by both parties depending on circumstances. You cant just fire someone because they are ill/injured its illegal in most countries.

World Rugby state you can't pay someone differently depending on whether they play Test rugby or not, its a issue that plagues the PI teams as many of their players are unavailable at certain times because they are paid extra to be.

marty2086 wrote:

No they haven't, contracts have been ended but theres financial compensation involved that is agreed by both parties depending on circumstances. You cant just fire someone because they are ill/injured its illegal in most countries.

You sure?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/my_club/llanelli_scarlets/7973024.stm

World Rugby state you can't pay someone differently depending on whether they play Test rugby or not, its a issue that plagues the PI teams as many of their players are unavailable at certain times because they are paid extra to be.

'Paying someone differently' in this case probably means taking legal action not just taking him off the payroll. In any case, it is the continued airing of it in public which Mourad does deliberately in order to raise awareness of the regulation.

'The 26-week injury clause is standard within professional rugby contracts'

Read what you are putting up, it was part of their contract so they weren't tearing up a contract they were adhering to it. If the clause wasn't there, they couldn't tear up a contract or pay them less. Something Mourad wanted to do with Halfpenny.

What Mourad wants to do isn't part of the contract and is illegal.

So in a matter of minutes, you've gone from:

marty2086 wrote:You cant just fire someone because they are ill/injured its illegal in most countries.

to:

marty2086 wrote: it was part of their contract so they weren't tearing up a contract they were adhering to it.

I can see where this is going.

Dai Llewod wrote:So in a matter of minutes, you've gone from:

marty2086 wrote:You cant just fire someone because they are ill/injured its illegal in most countries.

to:

marty2086 wrote: it was part of their contract so they weren't tearing up a contract they were adhering to it.

I can see where this is going.

Really? Because I've no idea what you are getting at.

You do realise that those players were probably compensated financially to some level for the rest of their contract?

marty2086 wrote:.

You do realise that those players were probably compensated financially to some level for the rest of their contract?

No they weren't.

Dai Llewod wrote:

marty2086 wrote:.

You do realise that those players were probably compensated financially to some level for the rest of their contract?

No they weren't.

Got a copy of their P45s have you?

Don't know the full ins and outs but a professional players contract should include some clauses about payment during injury periods, who is responsible for paying for any treatment outside the clubs own physios - e.g operations, medical specialists, mental health support/sports psychologists, special treatments (e.g cryo chambers, trips to injury clinics in US.), who picks up the bill for injuries in international games, etc. and what happens in the event of a career ending injury in terms of contract termination.
Also the player and employer would normally have specialist sports insurance to cover a lot of these and to protect the player financially in the event of injury enforced retirement.
Any player who doesn't have this in their contract is very badly advised.

marty2086 wrote:

Dai Llewod wrote:

marty2086 wrote:.

You do realise that those players were probably compensated financially to some level for the rest of their contract?

No they weren't.

Got a copy of their P45s have you?

One of them tried to take it to court for the reasons you describe (loss of earnings for the rest of the contract that was terminated) but dropped the case as it was deemed a non starter. It has also happenned to several rugby league players and none of them have ever won a case against the team.

You really need to read up on a subject before you start trying to prove you know all about it.

Dai Llewod wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Dai Llewod wrote:

marty2086 wrote:.

You do realise that those players were probably compensated financially to some level for the rest of their contract?

No they weren't.

Got a copy of their P45s have you?

One of them tried to take it to court for the reasons you describe (loss of earnings for the rest of the contract that was terminated) but dropped the case as it was deemed a non starter. It has also happenned to several rugby league players and none of them have ever won a case against the team.

You really need to read up on a subject before you start trying to prove you know all about it.

I don't, he lost the case because he had signed a contract saying the club could terminate the contract. There would be financial compensation involved just not the full contract worth, hence loss of earnings. Its the same with any termination.

marty2086 wrote:

Dai Llewod wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Dai Llewod wrote:

marty2086 wrote:.

You do realise that those players were probably compensated financially to some level for the rest of their contract?

No they weren't.

Got a copy of their P45s have you?

One of them tried to take it to court for the reasons you describe (loss of earnings for the rest of the contract that was terminated) but dropped the case as it was deemed a non starter. It has also happenned to several rugby league players and none of them have ever won a case against the team.

You really need to read up on a subject before you start trying to prove you know all about it.

I don't, he lost the case because he had signed a contract saying the club could terminate the contract. There would be financial compensation involved just not the full contract worth, hence loss of earnings. Its the same with any termination.

Keep digging yourself that hole. You haven't a clue what you're talking about. As this thread shows.

Point being: A team CAN just terminate the contract of a player due to injury, proving your claims untrue. As I just proved.

Mourad seems to be willing to challenge the bigwigs if there is an ounce of unbalance in favour of test teams. That can only be a good thing, I think.

Dai Llewod wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Dai Llewod wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Dai Llewod wrote:

marty2086 wrote:.

You do realise that those players were probably compensated financially to some level for the rest of their contract?

No they weren't.

Got a copy of their P45s have you?

One of them tried to take it to court for the reasons you describe (loss of earnings for the rest of the contract that was terminated) but dropped the case as it was deemed a non starter. It has also happenned to several rugby league players and none of them have ever won a case against the team.

You really need to read up on a subject before you start trying to prove you know all about it.

I don't, he lost the case because he had signed a contract saying the club could terminate the contract. There would be financial compensation involved just not the full contract worth, hence loss of earnings. Its the same with any termination.

Keep digging yourself that hole. You haven't a clue what you're talking about. As this thread shows.

Point being: A team CAN just terminate the contract of a player due to injury, proving your claims untrue.  As I just proved.

Mourad seems to be willing to challenge the bigwigs if there is an ounce of unbalance in favour of test teams. That can only be a good thing, I think.

Except I do, the team didn't just terminate it, he signed up to a clause saying the team had the choice. If they just fired him for being injured without the clause its breach of contract which would be the case if Mourad tried to not pay Gitaeu his full salary

If Mourad wants to avoid these situations he can have higher appearance based fees over a lower base salary, not complicated

Dai Llewod wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Dai Llewod wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

His contract doesn't state he only gets paid when hes not away with the Wallabies so its not reasonable to expect the guy not to get paid what hes contractually entitled to

Have you got a copy of his contract?

How many matches a season do you think it's ok for him to miss before Mourad intervenes and states it's not cricket? 15? 20? 30?

I don't need a copy its against World Rugbys laws

Going by your argument he can deduct pay for injuries too then? What about after the seasons over? Or if they just aren't picked?

Contracts have been nullifed due to injuries so yes.

I'd love to see this go to court and see who wins. Employee doesn't turn up for work for 8 weeks as he's working for someone else all of a sudden and employer is, unsurprisingly a tad miffed. Wonder if that would stand up to scrutiny.

See this is the problem with the Mourad haters. They don't see the common sense / fairness he brings to the table. They just look at him as being a big bad nasty baddie threatening to sack people and take money from players. All he's doing is trying to make the structures fairer.

Umm Dai this is rugby mate, not your office. Teams are (well some are) prepared for worst case scenario's such as injuries, etc. Perhaps the Top14 should reduce it's number of games? Perhaps the season structure should change?

As for Mourad then it's probably best to ask some employees of his, past and present. Quade Cooper is one that springs to mind .

Dai Llewod wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Dai Llewod wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

His contract doesn't state he only gets paid when hes not away with the Wallabies so its not reasonable to expect the guy not to get paid what hes contractually entitled to

Have you got a copy of his contract?

How many matches a season do you think it's ok for him to miss before Mourad intervenes and states it's not cricket? 15? 20? 30?

World Rugby say that all players have to be released for approved international games which there is a limit on. For NH players for example, that would be Six Nations games (5), Summer Tours (3) and autumn internationals (3) = 11. They also have to be released for World Cups.

The 4th international in the autumn that Wales/England play is not included in this ruling. Any club can stop their players playing in this.

We all know the test windows. But the point still remains.........if players can just up sticks and leave for the first 8 matches, then the employer should have every right to activate certain clauses in the contracts of those players. That's why it should go to court. The regulation that enforces this is perhaps not strictly legal in terms of employment law, and that's why Mourad challenging it is good for the game.

Moving on, there's bound to be a response along the lines of "well he knew the risks, so why sign players like that in the first place". Which is a ridiculous thing to expect : the best clubs in the world not signing the best players in the world even though they can afford them is a loser all round.

Maurad is well aware of the rule that players have to be released for international duty. He just assumed that Australian players wouldn't be called up. From what I've seen, French law will favour the player/employee in matters like this. For instance, it is a legal requirement that players get a month off every year (and which means that Racing and Toulon can only have about 2 weeks preseason this year (and which might explain why teams who reach the final of competitions usually have very poor form the following season).

Apart from anything else, I'd imagine Mourad would probably have difficulty getting a licence to operate as a club from FFR/World Rugby if he was objecting to releasing players for international duty.

How long will it be before Chunky gets banned again, I wonder?

marty2086 wrote:

His contract doesn't state he only gets paid when hes not away with the Wallabies so its not reasonable to expect the guy not to get paid what hes contractually entitled to

Still sure about this?

HE gave up $250,000 last year to play in the World Cup, and now Matt Giteau will forego another six-figure sum to help the Wallabies end their 13-year Bledisloe Cup misery.

The star playmaker was finally given a release by French club Toulon to join Australia’s camp, but again will receive none of his huge salary while playing for the Wallabies

http://www.news.com.au/sport/rugby/bledisloe-cup-matt-giteau-could-give-up-20000-in-lost-earnings-as-he-returns-to-wallaby-squad/news-story/59da535b824a72d4c62de2752d131e42

Yes still sure as the only way he could get the release was the pay cut, actually meant to include that earlier on

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:
Boo hoo. Sure who cares about a level playing field? It's all about the money. Long live the Toulons of the Rugby Union world.

Anyway, just lobby the Regions owners to cough up more money. You can't really expect WRU to pay for private businesses they don't own, although I do remember the WRU (The Regions Bank) having to bail the Regions out with a loan. What were the terms of that loan?

Toulon raises its own income. You seem to have missed that crucial point here.

The terms of the WRU loan is that it has to be paid back over the term of the RSA. It also doesn't total over €9m to each team.

You're also forgetting that the WRU is a customer of PRW and a customer that underpays for the services it uses.

Toulon are able to raise their own income to sustain their success because of the large investment from Mourad, without that they wouldn't be able to do what they are doing.

Not really raising "income", rather raising debt on favourable terms from their owner. Still, Toulon is one of only two profitable teams in the T14 (the other is Brive). Quite how that profit relates to the scale of its debts I don't know (and I presume the terms from Mourad are favourable in the extreme, probably interest free). The debt across the T14 stood at EURO38 million last season. Racing, Castres and Stade account for most of that.

I personally think the T14 model is not sustainable and exactly the model to avoid. The French national side is in a dire state and it's only a matter of time before one or two of these T14 sides file for bankruptcy. As Sin E points out, debt isn't always a bad thing if you spend the money wisely, particularly on an infrastructure that can yield an income in the future, but blowing vast sums of money on transfer fees (or settlement fees to buy-out contracts) and wages should only be done from real income (i.e. sponsorship, ticket sales, merchandise, TV revenue and prize money etc.).

fEs I think you are misreading what I said, Mourads investments over the years included an expanded business structure. They have cafes, shops etc using the clubs branding that generates more income for the club.

That's how they are sustaining themselves

marty2086 wrote:fEs I think you are misreading what I said, Mourads investments over the years included an expanded business structure. They have cafes, shops etc using the clubs branding that generates more income for the club.

That's how they are sustaining themselves

It depends on what you mean by sustaining. Yes, they now operate at a profit (one of only two teams in the T14 to do so), but how much money is owed to Mourad? Did he gift all that money to the club so that it could build these shops, cafes etc. or did he loan the money? If he walks away and recalls the loans, could the club repay him (and on what terms)?

Toulon are the great commercial success story of the T14 by all accounts. A shining light and an otherwise dire picture. But even with Toulon I'd question whether it's real. Could it be replicated without a wealthy backer with deep pockets, but through arms-length commercial borrowing? He seems to have invested well in the sense that the club now runs a profit, but what does the return on the amount invested actually look like? Who owns the assets and has he taken security over them?

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/35400355

"The losses will be funded by parent company Premier Team Holdings Limited, although their written intention to do so is not legally binding."

These are not clubs on a solid footing, and the message sent is that in order to succeed, you have to be financially unsustainable. The fact that Toulon are widely trumpeted as a financial success story is worrying. The debt levels in the T14 should set alarm bells going, and Sarries are following the same model. It will end in tears.

I tried finding the interview he gave about it all but no luck, I do believe he gifted them most if not all of the money he put him and said that if he walked away the club could look after itself as he no longer has to fund anything to do with the club

That could have been a bit of a smokescreen though as he likes to talk about Toulon being under the salary cap though he doesn't include the money the holding company for the Mayol pays them, though he readily admits to that part.

marty2086 wrote:I tried finding the interview he gave about it all but no luck, I do believe he gifted them most if not all of the money he put him and said that if he walked away the club could look after itself as he no longer has to fund anything to do with the club

That could have been a bit of a smokescreen though as he likes to talk about Toulon being under the salary cap though he doesn't include the money the holding company for the Mayol pays them, though he readily admits to that part.

I do believe that he doesn't need to fund the club anymore, but that's different from outstanding balances to potentially be repaid.

The salary cap point is true (in the sense that they comply with the letter of the rules), and I admire his transparency, but in truth the total remuneration received by Toulon players for playing for Toulon is vastly in excess of the salary cap. He gets around it by streaming commercial revenue generated by player related merchandise directly to the players (so they had a "10" product range which directly contributed to revenue received by Jonny Wilkinson). They also let players keep 100% of personal endorsements etc. He argues that this isn't "salary" of course (and by the letter of the French rules he is correct), and is quite honest about it.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

marty2086 wrote:I tried finding the interview he gave about it all but no luck, I do believe he gifted them most if not all of the money he put him and said that if he walked away the club could look after itself as he no longer has to fund anything to do with the club

That could have been a bit of a smokescreen though as he likes to talk about Toulon being under the salary cap though he doesn't include the money the holding company for the Mayol pays them, though he readily admits to that part.

I do believe that he doesn't need to fund the club anymore, but that's different from outstanding balances to potentially be repaid.

The salary cap point is true (in the sense that they comply with the letter of the rules), and I admire his transparency, but in truth the total remuneration received by Toulon players for playing for Toulon is vastly in excess of the salary cap. He gets around it by streaming commercial revenue generated by player related merchandise directly to the players (so they had a "10" product range which directly contributed to revenue received by Jonny Wilkinson). They also let players keep 100% of personal endorsements etc. He argues that this isn't "salary" of course (and by the letter of the French rules he is correct), and is quite honest about it.

Do they do this in other countries too? Ones which have Union owned teams?

funnyExiledScot wrote:

marty2086 wrote:I tried finding the interview he gave about it all but no luck, I do believe he gifted them most if not all of the money he put him and said that if he walked away the club could look after itself as he no longer has to fund anything to do with the club

That could have been a bit of a smokescreen though as he likes to talk about Toulon being under the salary cap though he doesn't include the money the holding company for the Mayol pays them, though he readily admits to that part.

I do believe that he doesn't need to fund the club anymore, but that's different from outstanding balances to potentially be repaid.

The salary cap point is true (in the sense that they comply with the letter of the rules), and I admire his transparency, but in truth the total remuneration received by Toulon players for playing for Toulon is vastly in excess of the salary cap. He gets around it by streaming commercial revenue generated by player related merchandise directly to the players (so they had a "10" product range which directly contributed to revenue received by Jonny Wilkinson). They also let players keep 100% of personal endorsements etc. He argues that this isn't "salary" of course (and by the letter of the French rules he is correct), and is quite honest about it.

And the bonuses weren't included until last season which he threw a strop about too, though it was partly understandable as it wasn't announced until the eve of the season with contracts already in place for the season.

He did say that if Toulon won anything they'd be breaking the rules, strange how they never won anything last season

Dai Llewod wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

marty2086 wrote:I tried finding the interview he gave about it all but no luck, I do believe he gifted them most if not all of the money he put him and said that if he walked away the club could look after itself as he no longer has to fund anything to do with the club

That could have been a bit of a smokescreen though as he likes to talk about Toulon being under the salary cap though he doesn't include the money the holding company for the Mayol pays them, though he readily admits to that part.

I do believe that he doesn't need to fund the club anymore, but that's different from outstanding balances to potentially be repaid.

The salary cap point is true (in the sense that they comply with the letter of the rules), and I admire his transparency, but in truth the total remuneration received by Toulon players for playing for Toulon is vastly in excess of the salary cap. He gets around it by streaming commercial revenue generated by player related merchandise directly to the players (so they had a "10" product range which directly contributed to revenue received by Jonny Wilkinson). They also let players keep 100% of personal endorsements etc. He argues that this isn't "salary" of course (and by the letter of the French rules he is correct), and is quite honest about it.

Do they do this in other countries too? Ones which have Union owned teams?

I don't know. Rumours have been spread around Bath and Sarries, with players given "relocation" allowances (i.e. a house and a car) and that sort of thing, not being treated as salary (I certainly use my salary to pay for such things....), but I've yet to see/hear any proof.

This is the view Brian Moore gave some time ago, when the clubs agreed to keep details behind closed doors:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/premiership/11982510/Premiership-rugby-salary-cap-cover-up-is-a-scandal-which-cheats-fans.html

"Financial doping"!

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Dai Llewod wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

marty2086 wrote:I tried finding the interview he gave about it all but no luck, I do believe he gifted them most if not all of the money he put him and said that if he walked away the club could look after itself as he no longer has to fund anything to do with the club

That could have been a bit of a smokescreen though as he likes to talk about Toulon being under the salary cap though he doesn't include the money the holding company for the Mayol pays them, though he readily admits to that part.

I do believe that he doesn't need to fund the club anymore, but that's different from outstanding balances to potentially be repaid.

The salary cap point is true (in the sense that they comply with the letter of the rules), and I admire his transparency, but in truth the total remuneration received by Toulon players for playing for Toulon is vastly in excess of the salary cap. He gets around it by streaming commercial revenue generated by player related merchandise directly to the players (so they had a "10" product range which directly contributed to revenue received by Jonny Wilkinson). They also let players keep 100% of personal endorsements etc. He argues that this isn't "salary" of course (and by the letter of the French rules he is correct), and is quite honest about it.

Do they do this in other countries too? Ones which have Union owned teams?

I don't know. Rumours have been spread around Bath and Sarries, with players given "relocation" allowances (i.e. a house and a car) and that sort of thing, not being treated as salary (I certainly use my salary to pay for such things....), but I've yet to see/hear any proof.

This is the view Brian Moore gave some time ago, when the clubs agreed to keep details behind closed doors:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/premiership/11982510/Premiership-rugby-salary-cap-cover-up-is-a-scandal-which-cheats-fans.html

"Financial doping"!

The answer is yes they do.

Dai Llewod wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Dai Llewod wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

marty2086 wrote:I tried finding the interview he gave about it all but no luck, I do believe he gifted them most if not all of the money he put him and said that if he walked away the club could look after itself as he no longer has to fund anything to do with the club

That could have been a bit of a smokescreen though as he likes to talk about Toulon being under the salary cap though he doesn't include the money the holding company for the Mayol pays them, though he readily admits to that part.

I do believe that he doesn't need to fund the club anymore, but that's different from outstanding balances to potentially be repaid.

The salary cap point is true (in the sense that they comply with the letter of the rules), and I admire his transparency, but in truth the total remuneration received by Toulon players for playing for Toulon is vastly in excess of the salary cap. He gets around it by streaming commercial revenue generated by player related merchandise directly to the players (so they had a "10" product range which directly contributed to revenue received by Jonny Wilkinson). They also let players keep 100% of personal endorsements etc. He argues that this isn't "salary" of course (and by the letter of the French rules he is correct), and is quite honest about it.

Do they do this in other countries too? Ones which have Union owned teams?

I don't know. Rumours have been spread around Bath and Sarries, with players given "relocation" allowances (i.e. a house and a car) and that sort of thing, not being treated as salary (I certainly use my salary to pay for such things....), but I've yet to see/hear any proof.

This is the view Brian Moore gave some time ago, when the clubs agreed to keep details behind closed doors:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/premiership/11982510/Premiership-rugby-salary-cap-cover-up-is-a-scandal-which-cheats-fans.html

"Financial doping"!

The answer is yes they do.

Such as?

PhilBB wrote:http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/irfu-chief-does-not-believe-munster-can-make-debt-repayments-1.2723985

Clearly Philip Browne didn't read the thread on here in which I was told the debts would be repaid without an issue.

Obviously Philip Browne isn't too concerned - I'd imagine Razzie and Jacques Nienaber didn't come cheap. It seems Munster still has some decent pulling power as well!

Sin é wrote: It seems Munster still has some decent pulling power as well!

That's because they are able to operate as per normal despite being 9 million Euros in debt, a level of aid that other teams in the league are not afforded, but which is seen as fine by Irish rugby supporters. However, when Saracens or Manchester City do it, it seems it's a terrible stain on the game. Huge double standards.

Dai Llewod wrote:

Sin é wrote: It seems Munster still has some decent pulling power as well!

That's because they are able to operate as per normal despite being 9 million Euros in debt, a level of aid that other teams in the league are not afforded, but which is seen as fine by Irish rugby supporters. However, when Saracens or Manchester City do it, it seems it's a terrible stain on the game. Huge double standards.

Manchester City is a privately owned soccer club in England.  Who's been using them as a comparison?

Munster are not being allowed to operate as normal.  Erasmus & Co are IRFU employees imposed by the Union because the local coaching team was deemed not good enough.  Foreign signings are being restricted squad size reduced with a focus on academy instead.  

I don't think it's fine for a rugby club to be behind in its debt repayments on an asset it co-owns with its parent union. But some of the other clubs in the league are not the same.  They may have private backers who use their debts as tax writeoffs for other businesses.  A facility/benefit that "other teams in the league are not afforded".

And I recall that you agreed that Munster should be given additional time to make the repayments since they are bearing interest.    

The NZ Maori match and the upcoming debenture ticket sales are the next two big tranches of non-league income they have to generate.  I suspect naming rights for Thomond will likely be added to the list even though the timing may not be the best in terms of team performance and brand strength.

Hale don't forget Celtic and Inter Milan played at Thomand over the weekend in a live televised game which brings in income.

Dai, most teams have debt, most businesses have debt. Manchester United have over £300m in debt. The debt itself isn't the issue, its the businesses ability to finance the debt which is where Munster are struggling, they took on the debt when the figures suggested they could meet their deadlines but a number of factors mean that their finances aren't as healthy.

marty2086 wrote:Dai, most teams have debt, most businesses have debt. Manchester United have over £300m in debt. The debt itself isn't the issue, its the businesses ability to finance the debt which is where Munster are struggling, they took on the debt when the figures suggested they could meet their deadlines but a number of factors mean that their finances aren't as healthy.

Difference is manageable debt. Yes most clubs are in debt but they can afford and keep up with the repayments. If a business cannot repay the debt, al la Munster, then they are wound up. The most recent big one was Rangers FC. They went into administration and had to start again.

How aren't Munster being put into administration ?

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Dai, most teams have debt, most businesses have debt. Manchester United have over £300m in debt. The debt itself isn't the issue, its the businesses ability to finance the debt which is where Munster are struggling, they took on the debt when the figures suggested they could meet their deadlines but a number of factors mean that their finances aren't as healthy.

Difference is manageable debt. Yes most clubs are in debt but they can afford and keep up with the repayments. If a business cannot repay the debt, al la Munster, then they are wound up. The most recent big one was Rangers FC. They went into administration and had to start again.

How aren't Munster being put into administration ?

You are a business owner yet don't know how administration works?

Rangers debt was manageable, they had an idiot in charge who disputed what they owed to HMRC and that went to court and they lost so were wound up as they didn't have the cash to meet the debt.

Man City, Saracens etc can't manage their debts, they are growing but those they owe the money to aren't asking for it back just like in Munsters case so no need for administration. They owe money to the IRFU who have no desire to wind them up.

marty2086 wrote:You are a business owner yet don't know how administration works? picard

Yes I know, which is why I am asking the question. So please stop trying to be clever. Your'e not.

marty2086 wrote:Rangers debt was manageable, they had an idiot in charge who disputed what they owed to HMRC and that went to court and they lost so were wound up as they didn't have the cash to meet the debt.

Rangers were not able to manage their debt. As you have already said on bold.

marty2086 wrote:Man City, Saracens etc can't manage their debts, they are growing but those they owe the money to aren't asking for it back just like in Munsters case so no need for administration. They owe money to the IRFU who have no desire to wind them up.

Man City and Saracens are not in debt. Their owners have put their own money into the club. How can a club be in debt to the person who owns it ? Is this the same case for Munster, they are not in debt to the people who own them ? The IRFU. Or do they owe money to other organisations ?

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Dai, most teams have debt, most businesses have debt. Manchester United have over £300m in debt. The debt itself isn't the issue, its the businesses ability to finance the debt which is where Munster are struggling, they took on the debt when the figures suggested they could meet their deadlines but a number of factors mean that their finances aren't as healthy.

Difference is manageable debt. Yes most clubs are in debt but they can afford and keep up with the repayments. If a business cannot repay the debt, al la Munster, then they are wound up. The most recent big one was Rangers FC. They went into administration and had to start again.

How aren't Munster being put into administration ?

Rangers have operating losses of 18m over the last 2 years maybe.

The only thing wrong with Munster is that they tried to pay back the 15m they borrowed too quickly. Who in their right minds pays off their mortgage within 10 years? The WRU is still owe money on the Mellenium Stadium (or they did up to recently), 16 years after it was built. Thomond Park is only 8 years old.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:You are a business owner yet don't know how administration works? picard

Yes I know, which is why I am asking the question. So please stop trying to be clever. Your'e not.

It's you're not you're

'How aren't Munster being put into administration ?'

If you know how it works then why ask that question?

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Rangers debt was manageable, they had an idiot in charge who disputed what they owed to HMRC and that went to court and they lost so were wound up as they didn't have the cash to meet the debt.

Rangers were not able to manage their debt. As you have already said on bold.

Why are you telling me what I've said?

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Man City, Saracens etc can't manage their debts, they are growing but those they owe the money to aren't asking for it back just like in Munsters case so no need for administration. They owe money to the IRFU who have no desire to wind them up.

Man City and Saracens are not in debt. Their owners have put their own money into the club. How can a club be in debt to the person who owns it ? Is this the same case for Munster, they are not in debt to the people who own them ? The IRFU. Or do they owe money to other organisations ?

Yes they are in debt, the money going into them isn't for keeps, Saracens are over £40m in debt to their owners

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/35400355

Man City is even higher

If Im not mistaken, failure to pay the money owed to the IRFU sees the deeds to Thomond revert to the IRFU

LordDowlais wrote:

Man City and Saracens are not in debt. Their owners have put their own money into the club. How can a club be in debt to the person who owns it ? Is this the same case for Munster, they are not in debt to the people who own them ? The IRFU. Or do they owe money to other organisations ?

I seem to recall reading that Saracens owners have not given a written guarantee and could withdraw their support if they wanted to. Saracens built a 10,000 stadium and are in debt to the tune of about 40m. Munster built a 26K stadium and are in debt for it to the tune of 9m.

Sin é wrote:The only thing wrong with Munster is that they tried to pay back the 15m they borrowed too quickly. Who in their right minds pays off their mortgage within 10 years? The WRU is still owe money on the Mellenium Stadium (or they did up to recently), 16 years after it was built. Thomond Park is only 8 years old.

That's payed off now with a lot of hard work. The only thing is, New Zealand want to have a share of the profits after all the hard work has been done.

Anyway, Munster bit off more than they could chew, that's their fault. If they cannot pay their debts, they should be wound up. Although, I would hate to see that happen.

On the other hand, are Munster in debt ? If they owe it to the IRFU, then is that really a debt ? They are owned by the IRFU, so how can they be in debt to them ? Surely the IRFU could just write off the debt, unless the money is owed to somebody else, and even then it's the IRFU's debt, surely ?

marty2086 wrote:If Im not mistaken, failure to pay the money owed to the IRFU sees the deeds to Thomond revert to the IRFU

So Munster are not in debt then ? Surely it's all the IRFU's money in the end ?

Thomond Park is owned by a management company with shareholding split 50/50 between IRFU and Munster Branch.  All income associated with the stadium goes into that company.  IRFU has a lien on the Branch's share as a guarantee against the stadium loan.  

Munster agreeing to pay back the loan in a short time period was risky.   However, as soon as it is paid back they can buy out the IRFU's share in the company on an agreed date. It's in the Union's interest to agree revised loan terms - for the present. Let's see what occurs in the next two seasons.

marty2086 wrote:Hale don't forget Celtic and Inter Milan played at Thomand over the weekend in a live televised game which brings in income.

I wasn't aware of that Marty.  Rental income is always good if the operating costs are being met by the two teams.  

Munster need a good few full houses this season in the league, and a European knockout match.  Having all four provinces humming is a good thing for Irish rugby and a good knock-on effect for the league.  

Looking forward to the pre-season matches this month.