Three Down, One To Go

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/37493141

This makes Anayi's words on 'the benefactor model' look even more out of touch.

Hello Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle.

Don Alfonso wrote:Presumably if the Pro12 isn't fair because the provinces are being bankrolled by the central body, the Six Nations isn't fair because the IRFU are having to funnel funds that should rightfully be used for the international team into these flailing, failing provincial teams?

There's a certain amount of resources in Ireland - it's a zero-sum game. I think I'll start a thread in January about how the Welsh team should be penalised because they don;t have the same  financial or logistical responsibilities to the regions, and that's the only reason the Welsh have won the Six Nations. Maybe we could get an asterisk put next to their name on the trophy.

If the IRFU could focus unhindered on the international team, the Welsh team would be our lapdog.

Oh, we have another who doesn't understand how the game is set up outside of their country.

LordDowlais wrote: We also cannot have a league where certain teams can leave beyond their means without reprisal and others cannot.

Exactly right, so we are correct to avoid a B & I league that allows Bath and Saracens to remain as members unpunished !

carpet baboon wrote:
The point is people claiming the province's can live beyond there means (they can't by the way) is no different to a sugar daddy pumping mullions into a club. Yet it's ok one way but wrong the other way.
I have no problem with the welsh regions, and definitely have no chip on my shoulder, but I do find it a little annoying when people claim the irfu way is unfair yet a multi millionaire spunking cash into a club is fine.

Munster have lived beyond their means for the last three years.

The issue with the IRFU is far more than what it spends. It's how it spends it, what it controls and how it imbalances fair competition.

carpet baboon wrote:
So are you accusing the teams and officials of collusion?
That's a mighty big accusations

Remind me why Nigel Owens can't referee Wales.

Or why the PrO'12 made a song and dance about having 'neutral' TMOs.

Any 'mighty big accusations' there? No. So grow up.

Munchkin wrote:
Tell me how the Irish model doesn't work, first. Please

Little national success and can no longer buy domestic European success.

It's a dated model.

What do you mean by Munster living beyond their means? Spending money they didn't earn?

asoreleftshoulder wrote:
i really don't see the difference,why does the source of the money matter?I honestly can't grasp why it matters so much to you.The provinces have benefits from our model but we also have restrictions that the regions don't. TheIf some benefactor was supplying Leinster with the exact same amount of money they now get from the IRFU how would the league suddenly become better.

I get the ref arguments,the league has work to do on that front,it is at least attempting to address the issue but it's going to take time and I can understand the frustration,however the governance issue just doesn't make sense to me.

Amazing.

A benefactor system sees money ON TOP of the earnings from the supply of assets to the international game. Think of the Sexton deal writ large, with Leinster being able to again afford the top international talent. Leinster would fly. They'd be the best team in Europe. That they are not is simply because of their ownership model.

The governance issue is also obvious. One entity employing all players, owning and controlling four teams, employing the match officials and being the base for the league is obviously detrimental to equal competition.

marty2086 wrote:
That means you're on the list

The Owen Robins of Northern Ireland.

Irish Londoner wrote:

LordDowlais wrote: We also cannot have a league where certain teams can leave beyond their means without reprisal and others cannot.

Exactly right, so we are correct to avoid a B & I league that allows Bath and Saracens to remain as members unpunished !

They aren't living beyond their means.

No 7&1/2 wrote:What do you mean by Munster living beyond their means? Spending money they didn't earn?

Mate, are you going to play this stupid game again? You know exactly what I mean. You've read enough stuff on it.

Try a different tactic.

Stupid game? Sorry I don't know what you mean by living beyond their means. debt?

Being given money?

No answer again?

No 7&1/2 wrote:No answer again?

Sorry, bored of this stupidity. If you're going to enter a debate, come with honesty and something to offer.

Phil again all your claims are that the irfu and province's and pro12 league are in cahoots to fix the league for the benefit of the irish.
And your proof?
With the exception of ospreys the region's havnt been good enough, even tho yesterday you told me Cardiff have many wealthy backers, why havnt they fully embraced the benefactor model and bought the best talent?

It's jealousy Phil. And the louder you claim it's a fix the easier it is to see.

Now feel free to come back with a "champ" or "son" remarks , tell me to grow up as you know. I know and everyone who reads your it's so unfair comments know, this is about your unhappiness that your team is not good enough.

Have a fun day

And good luck to the blues this season looks like they should do well.

carpet baboon wrote:Phil again all your claims are that the irfu and province's and pro12 league are in cahoots to fix the league for the benefit of the irish.
And your proof?
With the exception of ospreys the region's havnt been good enough, even tho yesterday you told me Cardiff have many wealthy backers, why havnt they fully embraced the benefactor model and bought the best talent?

It's jealousy Phil. And the louder you claim it's a fix the easier it is to see.

Now feel free to come back with a "champ" or "son" remarks , tell me to grow up as you know. I know and everyone who reads your it's so unfair comments know, this is about your unhappiness that your team is not good enough.

Have a fun day

And good luck to the blues this season looks like they should do well.

The IRFU are the Branches.

Why didn't Cardiff spend recklessly? In case you missed it, we had a WRU Chief Executive who was trying to close down the teams.

Jealousy is what children experience. That you're projecting that as 'a thing' shows so much about your mentality.

So you have nothing then? What do you mean by spending beyond their means? I thought that was your ultimate goal to follow Saracens example? If you're going to debate actual explain your points rather than trying to have digs.

PhilBB wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:

LordDowlais wrote: We also cannot have a league where certain teams can leave beyond their means without reprisal and others cannot.

Exactly right, so we are correct to avoid a B & I league that allows Bath and Saracens to remain as members unpunished !

They aren't living beyond their means.

From the BBC "Premiership champions Saracens are now £45.1m in debt, their accounts for the year to June 2015 have revealed"

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you have nothing then? What do you mean by spending beyond their means? I thought that was your ultimate goal to follow Saracens example? If you're going to debate actual explain your points rather than trying to have digs.

FFS. You know full well the Munster debt situation.

Irish Londoner wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:

LordDowlais wrote: We also cannot have a league where certain teams can leave beyond their means without reprisal and others cannot.

Exactly right, so we are correct to avoid a B & I league that allows Bath and Saracens to remain as members unpunished !

They aren't living beyond their means.

From the BBC "Premiership champions Saracens are now £45.1m in debt, their accounts for the year to June 2015 have revealed"

Ahh but that's good debt, not the bad kind

Irish Londoner wrote:

From the BBC "Premiership champions Saracens are now £45.1m in debt, their accounts for the year to June 2015 have revealed"

Servicing their debt is not living beyond their means. The money in that company, underwritten by the LLP, isn't solely spent on rugby anyway.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you have nothing then? What do you mean by spending beyond their means? I thought that was your ultimate goal to follow Saracens example? If you're going to debate actual explain your points rather than trying to have digs.

Why do you always persist with this childish angle ?

You know exactly what he means by spending beyond their means. Munster have accumulated a lot of debt over the last few years, if it really is their debt mind, yet they are carrying on regardless, if they were a privately owned club, they would have either had to be seriously reigned in, or they would be out of business.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you have nothing then? What do you mean by spending beyond their means? I thought that was your ultimate goal to follow Saracens example? If you're going to debate actual explain your points rather than trying to have digs.

FFS. You know full well the Munster debt situation.

And I know that other clubs are in debt, spending above what the 'club' earns, so don't really see this as a point against union control.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you have nothing then? What do you mean by spending beyond their means? I thought that was your ultimate goal to follow Saracens example? If you're going to debate actual explain your points rather than trying to have digs.

Why do you always persist with this childish angle ?

You know exactly what he means by spending beyond their means. Munster have accumulated a lot of debt over the last few years, if it really is their debt mind, yet they are carrying on regardless, if they were a privately owned club, they would have either had to be seriously reigned in, or they would be out of business.

Good on you with insults again LD. Yes the debt, but as I've just said this isn't just a union control thing.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Good on you with insults again LD. Yes the debt, but as I've just said this isn't just a union control thing.

Look, debt and serviceable debt are two different things. Everyone has serviceable debt. If you have a mortgage you have serviceable debt. If you have a credit card you have serviceable debt. As long as you are making the re-payments, you are good, nothing to worry about.

Now, we all know what happens when we stop servicing our debts ? You know, start missing re-payments ? You get a nasty visit from the debt collector. Munster are in this position, they cannot make their re-payments, are you getting this now ? Yet they can carry on regardless. Are things starting to sink in ? What do you think should happen ?

Now, none of us are saying that we want Munster to go jubblies up, what good would that do for the Pro12 ? But they also should not be allowed to carry on as if everything is rosy. Can you now see the lack of meritocracy this creates in the Pro12 ?

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Good on you with insults again LD. Yes the debt, but as I've just said this isn't just a union control thing.

Look, debt and serviceable debt are two different things. Everyone has serviceable debt. If you have a mortgage you have serviceable debt. If you have a credit card you have serviceable debt. As long as you are making the re-payments, you are good, nothing to worry about.

Now, we all know what happens when we stop servicing our debts ? You know, start missing re-payments ? You get a nasty visit from the debt collector. Munster are in this position, they cannot make their re-payments, are you getting this now ? Yet they can carry on regardless. Are things starting to sink in ? What do you think should happen ?

Now, none of us are saying that we want Munster to go jubblies up, what good would that do for the Pro12 ? But they also should not be allowed to carry on as if everything is rosy. Can you now see the lack of meritocracy this creates in the Pro12 ?

You are missing the fact that they put up Thomond as collateral on the debt, meaning the deeds for it will pass to the IRFU if they haven't already

Could Munster have got into that debt under a private ownership model? Yes is the answer so if the focus is on the negative view of different models it isn't really much of a problem.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
And I know that other clubs are in debt, spending above what the 'club' earns, so don't really see this as a point against union control.

Ok. Even after all of the explanation, you still don't see it.

Amazing.

marty2086 wrote:
You are missing the fact that they put up Thomond as collateral on the debt, meaning the deeds for it will pass to the IRFU if they haven't already

That's like passing the deeds to yourself.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Could Munster have got into that debt under a private ownership model? Yes is the answer so if the focus is on the negative view of different models it isn't really much of a problem.

Erm, you seem to be ignoring the financing and servicing of that debt.

Christ knows why.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Could Munster have got into that debt under a private ownership model? Yes is the answer so if the focus is on the negative view of different models it isn't really much of a problem.

Don't forget that Saracens debt, isn't serviceable as its still growing

Munster got a loan from their paymasters to work on their stadium, Racing got one built for them by Jacky Lorenzetti so got the benefits of a brand spanking new stadium without having to pay for it. Seem to remember Phil saying something about Ulster getting that.

7.5, Phil sees the unions as owners but treats them differently and holds them to a different standard than 'private' owners. That's the crux of it all

Explain to me Phil then as I clearly don't see your point.

That's my view marty. I don't understand his point but he won't explain it.

marty2086 wrote:

Don't forget that Saracens debt, isn't serviceable as its still growing

Munster got a loan from their paymasters to work on their stadium, Racing got one built for them by Jacky Lorenzetti so got the benefits of a brand spanking new stadium without having to pay for it. Seem to remember Phil saying something about Ulster getting that.

7.5, Phil sees the unions as owners but treats them differently and holds them to a different standard than 'private' owners. That's the crux of it all

A debt isn't serviceable if it is growing? Wow. That's a new one on business. Or, of course, a completely stupid comment to make.

The Unions are owners. Owners of multiple teams, something that World Rugby regulations explicitly prevents UNLESS it is the Unions owning the teams. Why do you think that is?

No 7&1/2 wrote:That's my view marty. I don't understand his point but he won't explain it.

I have done, endlessly.

Unions owning multiple teams in a competition skews the competition unfairly as Unions don't treat equally each of their teams. This unequal treatment skews the competition. That's before you consider the gerrymandering of the teams, the prevention of signing players, the 'encouragement' of players to move teams etc. etc. etc.

So for instance if a Union is paying a sizable lump of players wages across multiple teams they really need to be paying the same amount for each team and equally dividing those patients?

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Don't forget that Saracens debt, isn't serviceable as its still growing

Munster got a loan from their paymasters to work on their stadium, Racing got one built for them by Jacky Lorenzetti so got the benefits of a brand spanking new stadium without having to pay for it. Seem to remember Phil saying something about Ulster getting that.

7.5, Phil sees the unions as owners but treats them differently and holds them to a different standard than 'private' owners. That's the crux of it all

A debt isn't serviceable if it is growing? Wow. That's a new one on business. Or, of course, a completely stupid comment to make.

The Unions are owners. Owners of multiple teams, something that World Rugby regulations explicitly prevents UNLESS it is the Unions owning the teams. Why do you think that is?

That's a simplified version but yes Saracens debt isn't serviceable under current circumstances

The unions aren't owners as Phillip Browne previously stated, what was it you said yesterday

A Union is just a Union of clubs

That would actually make the Provinces owner of the IRFU then wouldn't it?

No 7&1/2 wrote:So for instance if a Union is paying a sizable lump of players wages across multiple teams they really need to be paying the same amount for each team and equally dividing those patients?

If they treated each one equally, that would be a start.

marty2086 wrote:

That's a simplified version but yes Saracens debt isn't serviceable under current circumstances

The unions aren't owners as Phillip Browne previously stated, what was it you said yesterday

A Union is just a Union of clubs

That would actually make the Provinces owner of the IRFU then wouldn't it?

Of course the debt is serviceable. If it wasn't, it would cause the company to cease trading.

We know that the IRFU owns and controls the professional game in Ireland. Be honest about that.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So for instance if a Union is paying a sizable lump of players wages across multiple teams they really need to be paying the same amount for each team and equally dividing those patients?

If they treated each one equally, that would be a start.

So there is also an issue with the current set up for the Welsh regions as well then.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

That's a simplified version but yes Saracens debt isn't serviceable under current circumstances

The unions aren't owners as Phillip Browne previously stated, what was it you said yesterday

A Union is just a Union of clubs

That would actually make the Provinces owner of the IRFU then wouldn't it?

Of course the debt is serviceable. If it wasn't, it would cause the company to cease trading.

We know that the IRFU owns and controls the professional game in Ireland. Be honest about that.

There you go again, your arrogance is staggering

The CEO of the IRFU says one thing but you know best

Owning and controlling are two separate things

The company would cease trading if the debt was called in, since they are in debt to their owners its unlikely to happen but since they aren't expected to pay it back like Munster were.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So for instance if a Union is paying a sizable lump of players wages across multiple teams they really need to be paying the same amount for each team and equally dividing those patients?

If they treated each one equally, that would be a start.

So there is also an issue with the current set up for the Welsh regions as well then.

With the NDCs? Yes.

marty2086 wrote:
There you go again, your arrogance is staggering

The CEO of the IRFU says one thing but you know best

Owning and controlling are two separate things

The company would cease trading if the debt was called in, since they are in debt to their owners its unlikely to happen but since they aren't expected to pay it back like Munster were.

No, I'm agreeing with Browne. You just don't understand his words.

Owning and controlling are two separate things, just as is the professional end of 'the branch' and who it employs etc. Have a think on that.

Debt can't be called in unless it is not being serviced. Again, have a think on that.

Heck, what does that leave? Following the Italians?

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
There you go again, your arrogance is staggering

The CEO of the IRFU says one thing but you know best

Owning and controlling are two separate things

The company would cease trading if the debt was called in, since they are in debt to their owners its unlikely to happen but since they aren't expected to pay it back like Munster were.

No, I'm agreeing with Browne. You just don't understand his words.

Owning and controlling are two separate things, just as is the professional end of 'the branch' and who it employs etc. Have a think on that.

Debt can't be called in unless it is not being serviced. Again, have a think on that.

Again the arrogance on show, reinterpreting what has been said but you keep trying

No 7&1/2 wrote:Heck, what does that leave? Following the Italians?

What?

marty2086 wrote:
Again the arrogance on show, reinterpreting what has been said but you keep trying

Cheers, Martyn.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

That's a simplified version but yes Saracens debt isn't serviceable under current circumstances

The unions aren't owners as Phillip Browne previously stated, what was it you said yesterday

A Union is just a Union of clubs

That would actually make the Provinces owner of the IRFU then wouldn't it?

Of course the debt is serviceable. If it wasn't, it would cause the company to cease trading.

We know that the IRFU owns and controls the professional game in Ireland. Be honest about that.

By that reasoning the Munster debt is serviceable then surely?

Tongue in cheek comment that Welsh and Irish versions aren't fair. The English model ain't fair.