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.

SirJohnnyEnglish wrote:By that reasoning the Munster debt is serviceable then surely?

No.

And that is the issue. Munster could not re-pay their debt. Yet here they are, still in business. This is why when i say things like, Is it Munster debt ? I never get an answer, because nobody admits that the IRFU control ALL Irish rugby.

SirJohnnyEnglish wrote:

By that reasoning the Munster debt is serviceable then surely?

Because their system is skewed.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Tongue in cheek comment that Welsh and Irish versions aren't fair. The English model ain't fair.

Yes, the English model is fair.

Isn't there plenty of instances where privately owned teams (certainly in English football) have missed payments and still remain in existence?

LordDowlais wrote:

SirJohnnyEnglish wrote:By that reasoning the Munster debt is serviceable then surely?

No.

And that is the issue. Munster could not re-pay their debt. Yet here they are, still in business. This is why when i say things like, Is it Munster debt ? I never get an answer, because nobody admits that the IRFU control ALL Irish rugby.

Its like rugbys answer to schrodingers cat

What you fail to grasp is

1. Debt can be renegotiated
2. Thomond Park was used as collateral, meaning if the IRFU don't get cash they get property
3. What benefit is it to the IRFU to put Munster out of business?

marty2086 wrote:
3. What benefit is it to the IRFU to put Munster out of business?

Exactly. In one.

If only you could understand what you've just written.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Isn't there plenty of instances where privately owned teams (certainly in English football) have missed payments and still remain in existence?

A few years old but English clubs with tax bills written off

League Tax owed Amount club is to repay Deficit
Leicester City League One £7m £700k £6.3m
Leeds United League One £6.8m £680k £6.1m
Ipswich Town Championship £5m £391k £4.6m
Bradford City League Two £2.6m £26k £2.58m
Luton League Two £2.5m 275k £2.2m
Wrexham Blue Square Prem. £1.45m £507k £943k
Bournemouth League Two £1m £100k £900k
Halifax Town Unibond Division One North £795k £0 £795k
Huddersfield League One £723k £101k £622k
Cambridge U Blue Square Prem. £532K £101k £431k
Oldham League One £520k £260k £260k
Notts County League Two £487k £96k £391k
Wimbledon (now MK Dons) League One £460k £0 £460k
Rotherham League Two £450k £20k £430k
Exeter City League Two £442k £62k £380k
Darlington League Two £416k £2k £414k
Lincoln City League Two £350k £143k £207k
Crawley Town Blue Square Prem. £193k £96K £97

No 7&1/2 wrote:Isn't there plenty of instances where privately owned teams (certainly in English football) have missed payments and still remain in existence?

Mate, what is this? Check your own mortgage. See how many payments you have to miss before the bailiffs come knocking.

marty2086 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Isn't there plenty of instances where privately owned teams (certainly in English football) have missed payments and still remain in existence?

A few years old but English clubs with tax bills written off

That seems to be soccer.

I'm hoping that you, living in the UK, aren't moaning about tax write offs here. The irony of that would be painfully outstanding.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
3. What benefit is it to the IRFU to put Munster out of business?

Exactly. In one.

If only you could understand what you've just written.

I know exactly what Ive written, they lose an important part of their history and alienate a huge part of their fanbase.
They lose a developmental pathway
That's not to mention, THEY DON'T NEED TO PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS AS THEY USED THOMOND AS COLLATERAL

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Isn't there plenty of instances where privately owned teams (certainly in English football) have missed payments and still remain in existence?

A few years old but English clubs with tax bills written off

That seems to be soccer.

I'm hoping that you, living in the UK, aren't moaning about tax write offs here. The irony of that would be painfully outstanding.

Who moaned about anything?

7.5 asked a question, I answered

We leave the moaning on here to you and LD

marty2086 wrote:
I know exactly what Ive written, they lose an important part of their history and alienate a huge part of their fanbase.
They lose a developmental pathway
That's not to mention, THEY DON'T NEED TO PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS AS THEY USED THOMOND AS COLLATERAL

But, in a proper system, somebody else would step into that breach.

Under the Irish system, they can't. They ain't allowed. And the IRFU won't chop its own leg off, because it owns and controls it, as you've pointed out.

The other 50% of Thomond Park moving back and forth between different legal entities of the same organisation is just work for accountants. It means nothing else.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Isn't there plenty of instances where privately owned teams (certainly in English football) have missed payments and still remain in existence?

Mate, what is this? Check your own mortgage. See how many payments you have to miss before the bailiffs come knocking.

You didn't really answer or even acknowledge the example did you. There are plenty of examples where clubs in English football who failed in repayments and weren't wound down yes?

MUNSTER!!!!!

....seems to haunt someone here.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

You didn't really answer or even acknowledge the example did you. There are plenty of examples where clubs in English football who failed in repayments and weren't wound down yes?

I acknowledged it by trying to give you a real life example so that you could understand that missing repayments doesn't automatically result in being wound down.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
I know exactly what Ive written, they lose an important part of their history and alienate a huge part of their fanbase.
They lose a developmental pathway
That's not to mention, THEY DON'T NEED TO PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS AS THEY USED THOMOND AS COLLATERAL

But, in a proper system, somebody else would step into that breach.

Under the Irish system, they can't. They ain't allowed. And the IRFU won't chop its own leg off, because it owns and controls it, as you've pointed out.

The other 50% of Thomond Park moving back and forth between different legal entities of the same organisation is just work for accountants. It means nothing else.

Who decides what's a proper system?

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
I know exactly what Ive written, they lose an important part of their history and alienate a huge part of their fanbase.
They lose a developmental pathway
That's not to mention, THEY DON'T NEED TO PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS AS THEY USED THOMOND AS COLLATERAL

But, in a proper system, somebody else would step into that breach.

Under the Irish system, they can't. They ain't allowed. And the IRFU won't chop its own leg off, because it owns and controls it, as you've pointed out.

The other 50% of Thomond Park moving back and forth between different legal entities of the same organisation is just work for accountants. It means nothing else.

By that logic the debt doesn't exist and is just money moving between different legal entities so this whole thing is null and void but doesn't stop you going on and on and on and on and on and on......and on and on and on and on

We all know this Phil. Hence there's no real difference between Munster and Saracens debt, albeit Saracens owe more. If saracens were to miss a payment as some clubs in football did it would be the same as Munster.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
I know exactly what Ive written, they lose an important part of their history and alienate a huge part of their fanbase.
They lose a developmental pathway
That's not to mention, THEY DON'T NEED TO PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS AS THEY USED THOMOND AS COLLATERAL

But, in a proper system, somebody else would step into that breach.

Under the Irish system, they can't. They ain't allowed. And the IRFU won't chop its own leg off, because it owns and controls it, as you've pointed out.

The other 50% of Thomond Park moving back and forth between different legal entities of the same organisation is just work for accountants. It means nothing else.

Who decides what's a proper system?

Phil!

He means a proper system like Wales, where the Warriors went bust and the WRU decided who took over like happens in the business world...

He's said he basically wants to follow the English model but with no money!

asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Who decides what's a proper system?

Mature professional sports leagues. Or, World Rugby. They don't allow multiple ownership of teams in the same competition unless it is their mates doing it. Why do you think that is?

marty2086 wrote:
By that logic the debt doesn't exist and is just money moving between different legal entities so this whole thing is null and void but doesn't stop you going on and on and on and on and on and on......and on and on and on and on

I've written this before - the debt of Munster is owed to the rest of the game in Ireland. It only exists in that format, if you want to look at it that way.

Hopefully this is now sinking in with you.

marty2086 wrote:

Phil!

He means a proper system like Wales, where the Warriors went bust and the WRU decided who took over like happens in the business world...

The Celtic Warriors didn't go bust, Genius.

Embarrassing lack of knowledge.

No 7&1/2 wrote:We all know this Phil. Hence there's no real difference between Munster and Saracens debt, albeit Saracens owe more. If saracens were to miss a payment as some clubs in football did it would be the same as Munster.

There's a huge difference between Munster's and Saracens' debt, ffs. Munster owes the money to the rest of the game in Ireland, so it is immune from the effects of the real world. Saracens debt is to itself.

Seriously, look into it.

Munster are happily plodding along, spending money on wages it can't afford, because the rest of the game in Ireland is bank rolling it without Munster having to care about it.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
By that logic the debt doesn't exist and is just money moving between different legal entities so this whole thing is null and void but doesn't stop you going on and on and on and on and on and on......and on and on and on and on

I've written this before - the debt of Munster is owed to the rest of the game in Ireland. It only exists in that format, if you want to look at it that way.

Hopefully this is now sinking in with you.

You are losing yourself in your logic, if IRFU own the provinces then there is no debt so which one is it?

marty2086 wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
I know exactly what Ive written, they lose an important part of their history and alienate a huge part of their fanbase.
They lose a developmental pathway
That's not to mention, THEY DON'T NEED TO PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS AS THEY USED THOMOND AS COLLATERAL

But, in a proper system, somebody else would step into that breach.

Under the Irish system, they can't. They ain't allowed. And the IRFU won't chop its own leg off, because it owns and controls it, as you've pointed out.

The other 50% of Thomond Park moving back and forth between different legal entities of the same organisation is just work for accountants. It means nothing else.

Who decides what's a proper system?

Phil!

He means a proper system like Wales, where the Warriors went bust and the WRU decided who took over like happens in the business world...

....and where a bit of a madman naturalised Aussie called Moffatt was given carte blanche to create the 'Regions', then fecked off to think about other more important personal things.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:We all know this Phil. Hence there's no real difference between Munster and Saracens debt, albeit Saracens owe more. If saracens were to miss a payment as some clubs in football did it would be the same as Munster.

There's a huge difference between Munster's and Saracens' debt, ffs. Munster owes the money to the rest of the game in Ireland, so it is immune from the effects of the real world. Saracens debt is to itself.

Seriously, look into it.

Munster are happily plodding along, spending money on wages it can't afford, because the rest of the game in Ireland is bank rolling it without Munster having to care about it.

Nah, it's the same. If saracens were to miss a payment what would happen do you think?

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Phil!

He means a proper system like Wales, where the Warriors went bust and the WRU decided who took over like happens in the business world...

The Celtic Warriors didn't go bust, Genius.

Embarrassing lack of knowledge.

'Dowellais and I have been on the end of some (attempted) 'abuse' from a small clique of Irish rugby followers

Irony

They were liquidated because they had an owner making a pigs ear of running them and peeving off half their fanbase

A glowing endorsement of the private ownership model genius

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:We all know this Phil. Hence there's no real difference between Munster and Saracens debt, albeit Saracens owe more. If saracens were to miss a payment as some clubs in football did it would be the same as Munster.

There's a huge difference between Munster's and Saracens' debt, ffs. Munster owes the money to the rest of the game in Ireland, so it is immune from the effects of the real world. Saracens debt is to itself.

Seriously, look into it.

Munster are happily plodding along, spending money on wages it can't afford, because the rest of the game in Ireland is bank rolling it without Munster having to care about it.

Nah, it's the same. If saracens were to miss a payment what would happen do you think?

Are Saracens even making payments?

PhilBB wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Who decides what's a proper system?

Mature professional sports leagues. Or, World Rugby. They don't allow multiple ownership of teams in the same competition unless it is their mates doing it. Why do you think that is?

Can you clarify what you mean here,who don't allow multiple ownership of teams in the same competition unless it is their mates doing it?

They're sticklers for the rules so yes Marty.

marty2086 wrote:

You are losing yourself in your logic, if IRFU own the provinces then there is no debt so which one is it?

Bloody hell, mate. This is like GCSE Accounts. If you don't understand it, don't join in.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Nah, it's the same. If saracens were to miss a payment what would happen do you think?

No, it's not the same as the rest of the game in England isn't millions of pounds down as a result.

Grasp that fact first before continuing.

marty2086 wrote:

'Dowellais and I have been on the end of some (attempted) 'abuse' from a small clique of Irish rugby followers

Irony

They were liquidated because they had an owner making a pigs ear of running them and peeving off half their fanbase

A glowing endorsement of the private ownership model genius

Yeah, and when we give some back you all 'moan' and 'bitch'.

They were liquidated by their owner. They didn't go bust. Think of who their owner was when they were put through, Martyn. Have a think.....

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Who decides what's a proper system?

Mature professional sports leagues. Or, World Rugby. They don't allow multiple ownership of teams in the same competition unless it is their mates doing it. Why do you think that is?

Can you clarify what you mean here,who don't  allow multiple ownership of teams in the same competition unless it is their mates doing it?

I already had clarified.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Nah, it's the same. If saracens were to miss a payment what would happen do you think?

No, it's not the same as the rest of the game in England isn't millions of pounds down as a result.

Grasp that fact first before continuing.

Sorry I get you now. You're saying that Leinster et al are now in debt because of Munster.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

You are losing yourself in your logic, if IRFU own the provinces then there is no debt so which one is it?

Bloody hell, mate. This is like GCSE Accounts. If you don't understand it, don't join in.

Again with the insults

Its nothing to do with accounts but your logic, if IRFU own all the provinces then theres no problem so need for you going on or they don't own them then theres an issue which one is it?

So World Rugby decide a proper system and they've decided that the Irish,S.A,N.Z.,Australian model is a proper system.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Nah, it's the same. If saracens were to miss a payment what would happen do you think?

No, it's not the same as the rest of the game in England isn't millions of pounds down as a result.

Grasp that fact first before continuing.

Sorry I get you now. You're saying that Leinster et al are now in debt because of Munster.

No.

I'm saying the game in Ireland is €8m down, or whatever. That money could have been spent on the junior game, medical care, etc. etc.

marty2086 wrote:
Its nothing to do with accounts but your logic, if IRFU own all the provinces then theres no problem so need for you going on or they don't own them then theres an issue which one is it?

It's not an insult if its true.

The problem, as has been explained countless times, is that the money owed is being removed from other areas of the game for which the IRFU are responsible. Do you understand now?

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Nah, it's the same. If saracens were to miss a payment what would happen do you think?

No, it's not the same as the rest of the game in England isn't millions of pounds down as a result.

Grasp that fact first before continuing.

Sorry I get you now. You're saying that Leinster et al are now in debt because of Munster.

No.

I'm saying the game in Ireland is €8m down, or whatever. That money could have been spent on the junior game, medical care, etc. etc.

Oh Christ, don't make me puke. Concern for the welfare of Irish rugby? Leave that to people who really care.

Some of the stuff on here is entertaining.

If Saracens go bust because of lack of cash flow, they would be ejected from the AP and someone else would take their place. In all likelihood they would downsize using any equity left over from managing to obtain a stadium in North London - a feat in itself. Richmond are an obvious example of this process.

In a closed shop Munster, to use recent common parlance are 'too big to fail'. The IRFU are rightly terrified they could be significantly pulled down by it and the other three without silverware to keep the fans stumping up cash to see their stars, a dozen times a season.

The dominance of teams goes in cycles but if the intervening period is extended the financial pressures will go up exponentially for the ultimate bankroller.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
Its nothing to do with accounts but your logic, if IRFU own all the provinces then theres no problem so need for you going on or they don't own them then theres an issue which one is it?

It's not an insult if its true.

The problem, as has been explained countless times, is that the money owed is being removed from other areas of the game for which the IRFU are responsible. Do you understand now?

No because there is still no point to what you are saying, so what that the money can be spent elsewhere the same could be said for any money spent. The IRFU took a business decision but Phil knows best as usual

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Nah, it's the same. If saracens were to miss a payment what would happen do you think?

No, it's not the same as the rest of the game in England isn't millions of pounds down as a result.

Grasp that fact first before continuing.

Sorry I get you now. You're saying that Leinster et al are now in debt because of Munster.

No.

I'm saying the game in Ireland is €8m down, or whatever. That money could have been spent on the junior game, medical care, etc. etc.

So again what would be the point of not allowing Munster to continue to now repay this? Would it be better that tehy just give the money to Munster?

Recwatcher16 wrote:
In a closed shop Munster, to use recent common parlance are 'too big to fail'. The IRFU are rightly terrified they could be significantly pulled down by it and the other three without silverware to keep the fans stumping up cash to see their stars, a dozen times a season.

Except that that's not the case, as has been stated here repeatedly Thomond was used as collateral meaning the debts covered

The IRFU are propped up by the national team not the provinces so the IRFU would actually probably do better with the provinces

Interesting slant.

The total of the Munster loan is not overdue now so saying that Irish rugby is already down €8m is inaccurate.

Munster missed this year's payment of the principal, but they have paid the interest due - approx 50/60k. So like many other businesses and individuals have done, they are on an interest-only repayment with the debt renegotiated. They have opportunities to reduce the debt substantially in the next 12-18 months. So they are being given time to do so. They have had their costs cut and squad reduced and they are not allowed to spend like they did in the past.

Its not a slant, the IRFU rely on the income generated by the Irish team

The income generated by the provinces goes to the provinces topped up by payments from the union

So the provinces are draining funds from the union

marty2086 wrote:Its not a slant, the IRFU rely on the income generated by the Irish team

The income generated by the provinces goes to the provinces topped up by payments from the union

So the provinces are draining funds from the union

I think the point that Recwatcher is making is that if the provinces were to fail, then the international test team would be less of a draw and attendances would drop.

"so the IRFU would actually probably do better with the provinces" Did you mean "with" or "without"?

PhilBB wrote:

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.

A) I'm taking the mick, you humourless fellow
B) you haven't made any kind of analytical criticism there. If ever there was a textbook example of playing the man, not the ball, it's your post. You literally mention me and the apparent limits of my knowledge, and not a single assertion I make.