ProRugbyWales not wanted in the PrO12.

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/37216786

"The difference comes in the very wealthy backers over-funding," Anayi added.

"We don't really want a model that copies [the English and French], because we want to be here in 10 or 20 years time.

"I don't think it is sustainable. You look at Biarritz and clubs who have overspent in France regardless of whether they have a 98 million euro deal from Canal Plus," Anayi continued.

"That wealthy benefactor model is only as good as that wealthy benefactor wanting to be there and carry on spending."


So that means that he doesn't want the four Welsh teams in the PrO12. Let's hope that this is good news for all parties.

Munchkin wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I think the Pro12 would be screwed without the Welsh teams.

We would. Anayi is very aware of this, and that's why Phils claim is nonsensical.

So why is Anayi pushing the Irish model on to American teams and criticising the model of half the teams in his league?

Anayi is just playing to his paymasters.

Irish Londoner wrote:
But the WRU are plainly paying the market rate, because that's what they pay after negotiations with RRW, that's how business works isn't it ? If the clubs are not happy shouldn't they be looking to change the deal ?

They are paying significantly less than the RFU, IRFU, SRU and FFR.

So please do explain to me how they are paying the market rate.

Thanks.

LordDowlais wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Who thinks otherwise?

Well, according to Phil, Martin Anayi.

FFS, the level of comprehension on this board is awful.

Anayi is doing the public bidding of his paymasters. They want the Union owned model. He has been quite explicit in this article and the article about expanding into America with regards to the model they want.

That model is not what half of the PrO'12 use. This is a blazer moment where they are pushing for control. Hopefully, it will see the PrO'12 collapse.

marty2086 wrote:

What assets have Saracens sold recently?

None, as they haven't overspent.

Again, remarkably poor comprehension from you.

Recwatcher16 wrote:Curious, the majority appear to believe that a Union controlled club system is the best way forward for the Pro12

What majority?

Munchkin wrote:

Wrong. We can't compete with the AP/T14 market that allows you big broadcasting deals. We don't have the chimney pots, as Anayi made clear.

How much debt have these successful, privately owned, big spenders accrued? Is it sustainable? Ultimately, I don't think so.

This is the 20th year of sustainability and the income into those clubs is growing year on year. All of the signs show that it is sustainable. There are no signs to suggest otherwise.

If we don't have the chimney pots, we join with them to make sure we all have more chimney pots. It's not rocket science.

Munchkin wrote:

I see your friend Chunky has posted the same thing on another site. You two working in tandem? Chunky disappears, you appear.

I've never met the bloke. Sorry.

He can do as he pleases, but his interpretation of this article and Anayi's time on the Radio last night, is spot on.

Pot Hale wrote:
Leicester's Richard Cockerill made similar comments a few weeks ago about where the increased revenues were going - on higher salaries, and that little remained for capital investment in grounds and facilities.  Anayi is not alone in making a critical assessment of the current financial model for English clubs.

If the Welsh regions and their bennys decide to start spending (never mind over-spending) to the same levels as their English and French counterparts on salary bills, then we can start to be worried.  Until then....

Cockerill said that? Really? Was he standing in the much altered Welford Road when he said it? Or maybe at Wasps new training ground? Or Saracens new ground? Or the new pitch at Worcester? Or Bristol's new stand at Ashton Gate?

If Cockers did say that, he's arguing against clear fact. His own club have made good profits and turned them all back into their asset.

The issue here isn't the spend. It is the competing models. Union owned versus privately owned. That is the battle ground for 2020.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

You're never clear as you always seem to change your mind when questioned. So you disagree that a club like Saracens are being funded above the level they could spend without their owner and investors?

You mean just like Munster are?

Hopefully you'll now begin to understand the point. I've not changed my mind, it's just you're struggling to understand the point.

No it's not like Munster at all as they are backed by their Union. Keep up.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

You're never clear as you always seem to change your mind when questioned. So you disagree that a club like Saracens are being funded above the level they could spend without their owner and investors?

You mean just like Munster are?

Hopefully you'll now begin to understand the point. I've not changed my mind, it's just you're struggling to understand the point.

No it's not like Munster at all as they are backed by their Union. Keep up.

Munster are backed up their owners. Just as Saracens are. That's the bloody point I'm trying to get you to understand.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

What assets have Saracens sold recently?

None, as they haven't overspent.

Again, remarkably poor comprehension from you.

lol.

lol?

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

What assets have Saracens sold recently?

None, as they haven't overspent.

Again, remarkably poor comprehension from you.

So Munster owing the IRFU 9m on a 39m loan is overspending but Saracens having a debt of 45m and growing isn't?

Again you are applying differing standards to suit your argument

Why?

Yeah, you think that Saracens don't overspend. They're number one on the list!

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

You're never clear as you always seem to change your mind when questioned. So you disagree that a club like Saracens are being funded above the level they could spend without their owner and investors?

You mean just like Munster are?

Hopefully you'll now begin to understand the point. I've not changed my mind, it's just you're struggling to understand the point.

No it's not like Munster at all as they are backed by their Union. Keep up.

Munster are backed up their owners. Just as Saracens are. That's the bloody point I'm trying to get you to understand.

So they aren't backed by the irish Union then? Thought they were and it was a different model in Ireland. I live and learn.

marty2086 wrote:

So Munster owing the IRFU 9m on a 39m loan is overspending but Saracens having a debt of 45m and growing isn't?

Again you are applying differing standards to suit your argument

Why?

There's no different standard, ffs. Saracens can afford their overspend. Were Munster, as it should be, independent of the IRFU then it would have to fund its debts itself. If they could, good on them.

But Munster, in itself, overspent. It relied on a third party for support. It is not carrying the liability itself.

Hence, there is no differing standards. Please just ask for clarification on points you clearly don't understand as jumping to false conclusions makes you look dumb.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah, you think that Saracens don't overspend. They're number one on the list!

You can't overspend if you can afford it.

Please don't be another victim of misunderstanding the difference between the UK tax set up and the breaks for corporate sponsorship in France. It makes this kind of discussion pretty tedious.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
So they aren't backed by the irish Union then? Thought they were and it was a different model in Ireland. I live and learn.

Oh dear. You're entering 'stupid sarcasm mode' before 10am. You must be rattled.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

So Munster owing the IRFU 9m on a 39m loan is overspending but Saracens having a debt of 45m and growing isn't?

Again you are applying differing standards to suit your argument

Why?

There's no different standard, ffs. Saracens can afford their overspend. Were Munster, as it should be, independent of the IRFU then it would have to fund its debts itself. If they could, good on them.

But Munster, in itself, overspent. It relied on a third party for support. It is not carrying the liability itself.

Hence, there is no differing standards. Please just ask for clarification on points you clearly don't understand as jumping to false conclusions makes you look dumb.

Saracens are relying on their backers to fund the overspend as are Munster, if Saracens were independent of their current backers they couldn't afford it. So you are applying different standards

marty2086 wrote:
Saracens are relying on their backers to fund the overspend as are Munster, if Saracens were independent of their current backers they couldn't afford it. So you are applying different standards

FFS.

Saracens carry the liability for their debt.

Munster carry none for theirs.

I hope that you can now see the obvious difference that has so far escaped you.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah, you think that Saracens don't overspend. They're number one on the list!

You can't overspend if you can afford it.

Please don't be another victim of misunderstanding the difference between the UK tax set up and the breaks for corporate sponsorship in France. It makes this kind of discussion pretty tedious.

What do you consider over spend then as I think this is what Anayi meant and I certainly would consider it overspending (ie more than is generated by the club itself).

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
So they aren't backed by the irish Union then? Thought they were and it was a different model in Ireland. I live and learn.

Oh dear. You're entering 'stupid sarcasm mode' before 10am. You must be rattled.

It's not the same model between these 2, sorry thought you knew.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
It's not the same model between these 2, sorry thought you knew.

Mate, you're writing drivel now. Let it go.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

What do you consider over spend then as I think this is what Anayi meant and I certainly would consider it overspending (ie more than is generated by the club itself).

A club can generate income itself through loans. They are an important part of business. Those loans carry liability.

Overspending is not being able to meet your debts, not being able to meet the repayment on the loans that you have. You know, like Munster.

Don't ignore the question though Phil. As pointed out by Anayi the benefactor model is only as good as them not up and leaving. So no Munster and Saracens are not comparable.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
Saracens are relying on their backers to fund the overspend as are Munster, if Saracens were independent of their current backers they couldn't afford it. So you are applying different standards

FFS.

Saracens carry the liability for their debt.

Munster carry none for theirs.

I hope that you can now see the obvious difference that has so far escaped you.

'The Union advanced funds to the Munster Branch in order to assist with the development of Thomond Park. The amounts advanced
are secured on the Branch’s share in Thomond Park Stadium Company Limited and on the loan advanced by the Branch to that
company. Interest is chargeable on the loan to the Branch based on the effective cost of funds to the Union.'

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

What do you consider over spend then as I think this is what Anayi meant and I certainly would consider it overspending (ie more than is generated by the club itself).

A club can generate income itself through loans. They are an important part of business. Those loans carry liability.

Overspending is not being able to meet your debts, not being able to meet the repayment on the loans that you have. You know, like Munster.

So you consider overspend not meeting any payment then? It's not what Anayi or the majority here mean. But fair enough if you're moving the conversation away from what Anayi was saying.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Don't ignore the question though Phil. As pointed out by Anayi the benefactor model is only as good as them not up and leaving. So no Munster and Saracens are not comparable.

What question? Of course, Munster and Saracens are not comparable in the sense that I've had to educate you the other bloke with.

They are comparable in spending more than they earn, however, which was my previous point.

Please, don't be Key Stage Two on this.

marty2086 wrote:

'The Union advanced funds to the Munster Branch in order to assist with the development of Thomond Park. The amounts advanced
are secured on the Branch’s share in Thomond Park Stadium Company Limited and on the loan advanced by the Branch to that
company. Interest is chargeable on the loan to the Branch based on the effective cost of funds to the Union.'

The Branch is the Union, Martyn. Please, engage brain on this.

They are €9m the wrong way, they've had a couple of years of no payments, they have already renegotiated the deal yet still they are able to spend, spend, spend as they ain't paying the bills.

I'm really hopeful that you can now spot the difference.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
So you consider overspend not meeting any payment then? It's not what Anayi or the majority here mean. But fair enough if you're moving the conversation away from what Anayi was saying.

Oh, you're speaking on behalf of the majority? I see.

Anayi spoke about the benefactor model not working when the benefactors walks. Have a think about that. Have a real think. See if you can come to the logical conclusion of that statement.

If you want a clue: it's leaving a club in debt it cannot afford. That means missing debt payments. You know, like Munster have done.

FFS.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Don't ignore the question though Phil. As pointed out by Anayi the benefactor model is only as good as them not up and leaving. So no Munster and Saracens are not comparable.

What question? Of course, Munster and Saracens are not comparable in the sense that I've had to educate you the other bloke with.

They are comparable in spending more than they earn, however, which was my previous point.

Please, don't be Key Stage Two on this.

We were talking on the original article by Anayi but you've moved it on now onto something he wasn't talking about. Fair enough, I disagree with what you mean by overspending and it takes us down a different conversation if we're not on about the individual private owners being a sugar daddy. Anayi has his view on this, mine differs to his and you want to talk about the unfairness of the Irish.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
We were talking on the original article by Anayi but you've moved it on now onto something he wasn't talking about. Fair enough, I disagree with what you mean by overspending and it takes us down a different conversation if we're not on about the individual private owners being a sugar daddy. Anayi has his view on this, mine differs to his and you want to talk about the unfairness of the Irish.

No, I haven't moved on to something else.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
So you consider overspend not meeting any payment then? It's not what Anayi or the majority here mean. But fair enough if you're moving the conversation away from what Anayi was saying.

Oh, you're speaking on behalf of the majority? I see.

Anayi spoke about the benefactor model not working when the benefactors walks. Have a think about that. Have a real think. See if you can come to the logical conclusion of that statement.

If you want a clue: it's leaving a club in debt it cannot afford. That means missing debt payments. You know, like Munster have done.

FFS.

yes most people would not consider overspend the way you do. You belive Anayi was talking against Union ownership? I don't agree.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

'The Union advanced funds to the Munster Branch in order to assist with the development of Thomond Park. The amounts advanced
are secured on the Branch’s share in Thomond Park Stadium Company Limited and on the loan advanced by the Branch to that
company. Interest is chargeable on the loan to the Branch based on the effective cost of funds to the Union.'

The Branch is the Union, Martyn. Please, engage brain on this.

They are €9m the wrong way, they've had a couple of years of no payments, they have already renegotiated the deal yet still they are able to spend, spend, spend as they ain't paying the bills.

I'm really hopeful that you can now spot the difference.

If that was the case there would be no need for the loan, they missed 1 repayment of 200k and no renegotiation has been agreed, at least publically.

And someone who takes what others say as fact you think you would be clearer on the facts you present

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
We were talking on the original article by Anayi but you've moved it on now onto something he wasn't talking about. Fair enough, I disagree with what you mean by overspending and it takes us down a different conversation if we're not on about the individual private owners being a sugar daddy. Anayi has his view on this, mine differs to his and you want to talk about the unfairness of the Irish.

No, I haven't moved on to something else.

Yes you have. Anayi was not talking against Munster, but teams like Saracens.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You belive Anayi was talking against Union ownership?

FFS. He was, and has been, explicitly speaking in favour of it.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You belive Anayi was talking against Union ownership?

FFS. He was, and has been, explicitly speaking in favour of it.

So we agree in part then. He is criticising cases like Saracens and not Munster which he (and I) view differently. Personally I don't have a problem with the sort of debt which Saracens have built up and the way they invest, but there is a big risk to them.

And still no need to swear.

In fact, all you need is one to break the cap to make it fairly useless.

All the PRO12 countries, bar Ireland really have a problem holding onto their international players. A couple of things give the Irish Provinces - we're an island (so can't drive over a bridge every day to play for an English club) and the IRFU have more or less stuck to its guns about not selecting Test players who don't play their rugby in Ireland.

Munster have repaid 6m of an original €15m loan from IRFU. They've missed two debt repayments. Their funders/backers have sought changes to coaching structure and player acquisition to improve performance and cut costs. The senior squad has been reduced. The loan monies are sunk in an asset over which the backers have control and a lien on Munster Branch share.

Munster have to operate in different, reduced circumstances than they have before. The next two seasons will tell a lot more as to where the club is going and its potential fate.

PhilBB wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:Curious, the majority appear to believe that a Union controlled club system is the best way forward for the Pro12

What majority?

The majority on this thread. In the real world significant numbers of Scots and Welsh fans voted with their feet quite a while ago.

Good luck with explaining balance sheets and the legal concept of ownership of assets and liabilities to those on here.