The Future for the PRO12 - Part 3 - The Union Balldance

First topic message reminder :

I stepped out and she stepped in again
I stepped out and she stepped in again
learning to dance for Lanigan's Ball


In thinking about recent goings-on at union level within the PRO12, I was reminded of the lyrics of this old song as unions, corporate interests, private investors, Welsh benefactors, and sundry money-makers make their various moves on the PRO12 dance floor.  Scotland and Ireland seem to be bashfully eyeing up the investor lads on one side of the hall, fluttering their eyelashes, whilst on the other side, the Welsh bennys (as they're affectionately known ) are making tapes and throwing shapes, whilst secretly hoping eagerly that they might get a chance to sign the WRU's card for a dance or two.  Meanwhile, the Italians dither in the middle wondering where they should be but won't tell anyone that they don't know even the music.  

But for now the band has taken a break whilst the visiting Europeans and Anglo heavies make their way onto the floor to start their version of French/Anglo hopscotch involving a number of bulky partners, foreign tap dancers, celtic coaches, and comic millionaires.

It's a good a time as any for a quick cuppa and a chance to talk about where the PRO12 is going with all the plans for expansion to US and Europe suddenly gone quiet, some league quality improvements, big weekend derbies, more neutral officials, and what else is on the horizon for upcoming changes within the PRO12.

The looming spectre of dwindling money and funding ever more expensive teams for the future seems to be the next big issue and where that is all going to come from.   Hopes of improved TV deals, better sponsors and business supporters of the league remain a distant aspiration - although the recent appointment of a commercial director to work alongside Martin Anayi on securing the best deals possible seems to be a step in the right direction.  Some are holding their whisth on that one.

Ownership and financing of the teams themselves is the most urgent and vexing issue facing the four unions operating in the PRO12.  Over the last number of months, the SRU have been making a lot of noise and some news headlines with their plans to bring in private investment to its two Scottish clubs to help meet some of the ongoing costs involved.   The SRU says it can't continue to finance the two teams at current levels of revenue and costs, and they need to bring in private investors/business to meet a substantial portion of the costs in return for a stake in one or both of the two clubs.  How much that stake would be is not clear as the SRU would want to keep their hand in the two clubs responsible for generating its line of test players, but whether that would be a 51% stake or less remains to be seen.   A voting process in late 2016 saw members give the green light to the Scottish Union to pursue this path of identifying and securing potential investment but only time will tell if it will draw in any worthwhile investors.

Italian rugby seems to lurch from one crisis to the next with the FIR having to bail out both Treviso and Zebre in recent times with substantial commitments of money.  After the last crisis, which saw a number of players leave the two clubs, it is Treviso who have fared better with the backing of Bennetton, and it is Zebre who are staring down the barrel of closure at season end once again.  A new franchise, based in Rome, is being rumoured to be on the cards with the FIR willing to put financial support into its development.   For many within the PRO12, and without, the Italian project seems to be a wasted exercise and just amounts to weekly humiliation as opposition teams pile up the points, regularly taking home try bonus points in their victories. For others, the Italian involvement is a long game and one that has to be persevered with.    Yet, the FIR is still not a shareholder in Celtic Rugby, the company which manages the PRO12 - the latest filings with the Companies Registration Office in Dublin shows that the three Celtic unions remain the founding shareholders, and critically, the beneficiaries of any financial dealing that flow through it - particularly in relation to TV broadcasting deals such as Sky Sports.  This current season, it took until Round 6 before an Italian broadcaster could be secured for covering the home matches of Treviso and Zebre, and with crowds often hovering around 1,500-2,000, this didn't raise many eyebrows.  for the foreseeable future, Italian rugby will stay within the PRO12, and the FIR will continue to be a major stakeholder/financier in the teams.

Irish rugby has been dabbling with business support for a number of years now with the provincial teams drawing in sponsorships, player salary top-ups, and increasing financial support for the various provinces through different types of schemes devised by the individual branches.   Jamie Heaslip recently re-signed with Leinster on what's likely to be his final playing contract before retirement (at age 37).  One of Ireland’s most consistent and durable players, he’s also been one of the most consistently highest paid through his IRFU central contract, and a salary top-up through his Leinster club with a business sponsorship deal with Bank of Ireland.  

But these adhoc business supports and extended sponsorships/player promotions and brand ambassadors do not fill the coffers of the branches sufficiently to grow and expand, it's sufficient only to pay the salaries of 2-3 players to keep them in place against ever higher competing offers from the TV-deal-enriched clubs in England and France.  As the IRFU pointed at the launch of its annual report last June, the IRFU cannot continue to be "the bank of last resort" for the provinces - following a €1 million plus bailout of Munster, and a €250k additional budget for each province to help them compete on player salaries.   A number of the provinces have sought quietly to persuade the IRFU to consider opening up the provinces’ branch company structures to allow private investors to take a stake in each of the provinces in return for continued investment over a period of time.  Until the last year, those overtures have been largely rebuffed with the occasional odd positive murmur about the need to keep control if such a development were to be envisaged.   It is rumoured that alongside the SRU’s current moves, the IRFU is also investigating how the branches’ structures could be altered to allow such investment in the future.  A variant of the NZRU model whereby they allowed private investors to take a stake in each of the five Super Rugby franchises is being considered, but the IRFU would want to maintain a controlling stake that gives them oversight and control in line with the current player management policy and protocols they have in place.  

As the IRFU have stated time and again, the revenues from the test game is what keeps the whole of Irish rugby afloat - interfering with or disabling that in some way is not something they would countenance.  Equally, the union recognises that costs will continue to rise in the PRO12 and wider club game with player salaries being biggest driver.   Their investment policy has switched from paying out large salaries to high-profile capped foreign players to investing in the domestic pathway development (€10m over the last 3 years) - with the emergence of some fine academy players across the provinces proving testament to this approach led by David Nucifora on behalf of the IRFU.

Nonetheless, the club game is getting bigger and more financially competitive so if a methodology can be developed to allow private investment takes its place at the table, it’s likely to happen over the next few years.  

But as two unions move across the dance floor looking for wealthy partners, the Welsh benefactors are being drawn (protestingly for some) from the other side by the WRU who have recently announced that they see the future of the Welsh game involving a marriage of both union and private investment funds.  As two unions prepare to step out, the Welsh union is preparing to step in again.   The Dragons region has been languishing in the shop window for the past year, gathering dust as various investor-type people amble up, take a poke and move off again without buying.   Martin Phillps was pushed recently in an interview to say that the WRU couldn't allow the region to fold, but he wasn't too specific in public as to what kind of support they might bring.  Equally, he was encouraged enough to say that increased union funding for the four regions seemed to be inevitable - but he didn't say what price they might extract for such investment.  Would the benefactors/shareholders be asked to move on, or move around the table to make more room for union faces to sit down?  

Whilst there are those who pine for a future whereby pure private investment and ownership rules the roost like their counterparts in England and France, the likelihood of that model being created and surviving does not seem to be on anyone's dance cards.   More likely, a marriage of convenience may be arrived at, wherein true love may never be expressed, but at least the two parties will be able to pay the mortgage together, and maybe afford a new extension or two in the near future to mix a few metaphors.

But for now, let the European hopscotch begin, and then the merry four-nation dance can begin again.

All together now:

Sixteen long years we spent in Dub-i-lin
Sixteen long years doin' nothing at all
Sixteen long years we spent in Dub-i-lin
Learning to dance at the PRO12 ball.

They stepped out, and they stepped in again......

LordDowlais wrote:

Stone Motif wrote:They are only really important to the identity of the teams, which are being eroded min two if the four anyway. We could play derbies 13 fixtures a year and still make a loss. We need substantially more TV cash or we are doomed.

But the TV companies want the derby's the Welsh derby's are a big selling point to BBC Wales/S4C as I would imagine SKY look at as well.

Yeah. Nah.

geoff999rugby wrote:3 - Yes you would loose 1 possibly 2 home derbies but seeing as those games are often, less than 10,000 a game at home to a Saffer franchise more than make up for it
4 - Most Pro12 games, including derbies, generate a small proportion of the total income - sponsorship and TV are more important

I think you need to go and get some facts for this, look at the difference in:-

1. The crowd size for a Welsh derby compared to any other fixture.
2. The amount of people watching the same fixture on the tele compared to any other fixture.

I think you will be more than surprised. Also, you are asking for a team to give up their home derby fixture, which is a lot of money to lose.

Now I am not opposed to change, I just do not want it at the cost of professional rugby in Wales, somebody quoted earlier that the airlines would pay for the travel to SA, good, then if that's the case, bring it on, but I would not want less Welsh derby's as a result of it.

LordDowlais wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:3 - Yes you would loose 1 possibly 2 home derbies but seeing as those games are often, less than 10,000 a game at home to a Saffer franchise more than make up for it
4 - Most Pro12 games, including derbies, generate a small proportion of the total income - sponsorship and TV are more important

I think you need to go and get some facts for this, look at the difference in:-

1. The crowd size for a Welsh derby compared to any other fixture.
2. The amount of people watching the same fixture on the tele compared to any other fixture.

I think you will be more than surprised. Also, you are asking for a team to give up their home derby fixture, which is a lot of money to lose.

Now I am not opposed to change, I just do not want it at the cost of professional rugby in Wales, somebody quoted earlier that the airlines would pay for the travel to SA, good, then if that's the case, bring it on, but I would not want less Welsh derby's as a result of it.

So you wouldn't swap say Ospreys v Dragons for Ospreys v Cheetahs plus a lot of extra money (that more than makes up for less people though the gate and much more besides)?

Extra money that can be used to keep the best Welsh players at Ospreys.

Sure Kingshu, who needs the South Africans when you have the WRU there to keep you going

Kingshu wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:3 - Yes you would loose 1 possibly 2 home derbies but seeing as those games are often, less than 10,000 a game at home to a Saffer franchise more than make up for it
4 - Most Pro12 games, including derbies, generate a small proportion of the total income - sponsorship and TV are more important

I think you need to go and get some facts for this, look at the difference in:-

1. The crowd size for a Welsh derby compared to any other fixture.
2. The amount of people watching the same fixture on the tele compared to any other fixture.

I think you will be more than surprised. Also, you are asking for a team to give up their home derby fixture, which is a lot of money to lose.

Now I am not opposed to change, I just do not want it at the cost of professional rugby in Wales, somebody quoted earlier that the airlines would pay for the travel to SA, good, then if that's the case, bring it on, but I would not want less Welsh derby's as a result of it.

So you wouldn't swap say Ospreys v Dragons for Ospreys v Cheetahs plus a lot of extra money (that more than makes up for less people though the gate and much more besides)?

Extra money that can be used to keep the best Welsh players at Ospreys.

Not a chance.

And I bet a lot of other people in Wales would not either. I would not mind the Cheetahs being part of our league, but there would not be as much interest locally as there would for Ospreys V Dragons.

Dragons would bring more support with them than Cheetahs would, thus it would generate more income, we are struggling to get support for the Pro12 in Wales as it is, I do not think it would be a good idea to reduce the Welsh fixtures.

marty2086 wrote:Sure Kingshu, who needs the South Africans when you have the WRU there to keep you going

marty, stop being so tiresome, it is hard enough to have the patience to keep debating with you on here as it is. The regions do not go "begging" to the WRU, you know this, so please stop trolling.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty, stop being so tiresome, it is hard enough to have the patience to keep debating with you on here as it is. The regions do not go "begging" to the WRU, you know this, so please stop trolling.

Leave him at it I say. He's making a complete fool of himself.

You're right, continually asking them for money is not begging

RugbyFan100 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty, stop being so tiresome, it is hard enough to have the patience to keep debating with you on here as it is. The regions do not go "begging" to the WRU, you know this, so please stop trolling.

Leave him at it I say. He's making a complete fool of himself.

marty2086 wrote:You're right, continually asking them for money is not begging

Continually, hang on, when was the last time this raised it's head ?

Also, wanting a fair and competitive price for services of your players is a fair ask, all the regions want from the WRU is parity with what other unions are paying their clubs for the same services. That is not begging.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:You're right, continually asking them for money is not begging

Continually, hang on, when was the last time this raised it's head ?

Also, wanting a fair and competitive price for services of your players is a fair ask, all the regions want from the WRU is parity with what other unions are paying their clubs for the same services. That is not begging.

Exactly. The WRU are the beggars here, expecting goods and services without paying for them.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:You're right, continually asking them for money is not begging

Continually, hang on, when was the last time this raised it's head ?

Also, wanting a fair and competitive price for services of your players is a fair ask, all the regions want from the WRU is parity with what other unions are paying their clubs for the same services. That is not begging.

A few weeks ago....

When the Cardiff board asked the WRU if they would be willing to foot the bill for their staff while they redeveloped CAP

Stone Motif wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:You're right, continually asking them for money is not begging

Continually, hang on, when was the last time this raised it's head ?

Also, wanting a fair and competitive price for services of your players is a fair ask, all the regions want from the WRU is parity with what other unions are paying their clubs for the same services. That is not begging.

Exactly. The WRU are the beggars here, expecting goods and services without paying for them.

Except they do pay for them

marty2086 wrote:

Stone Motif wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:You're right, continually asking them for money is not begging

Continually, hang on, when was the last time this raised it's head ?

Also, wanting a fair and competitive price for services of your players is a fair ask, all the regions want from the WRU is parity with what other unions are paying their clubs for the same services. That is not begging.

Exactly. The WRU are the beggars here, expecting goods and services without paying for them.

Except they do pay for them

You don't seem to know what your argument is anymore. Time to put the keyboard down, have a mug of tea and listen to some relaxing music maybe?

marty2086 wrote:

Just because you go with the begging bowl doesn't mean you get what you want

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:You're right, continually asking them for money is not begging

Continually, hang on, when was the last time this raised it's head ?

Also, wanting a fair and competitive price for services of your players is a fair ask, all the regions want from the WRU is parity with what other unions are paying their clubs for the same services. That is not begging.

A few weeks ago....

When the Cardiff board asked the WRU if they would be willing to foot the bill for their staff while they redeveloped CAP

Exactly, a few weeks ago, that is not continually. When else have they asked ? If it is continually, then please enlighten us with these continuous situations.

Come on, I am expecting a load of links and evidence to show me the "continually " you have stated.

You asked for the last time it raised it's head, I answered and you said that was the case

Now you are saying its not sufficient?

The only Celtic team in the league continually begging to their Union is Munster.

marty2086 wrote:You asked for the last time it raised it's head, I answered and you said that was the case

Now you are saying its not sufficient?

I am asking you to justify your "continually" statement. But you as always are skirting around it. Once a few weeks/months ago is not continually as you put it.

I think you should take rugbyfan's advice.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Stone Motif wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:You're right, continually asking them for money is not begging

Continually, hang on, when was the last time this raised it's head ?

Also, wanting a fair and competitive price for services of your players is a fair ask, all the regions want from the WRU is parity with what other unions are paying their clubs for the same services. That is not begging.

Exactly. The WRU are the beggars here, expecting goods and services without paying for them.

Except they do pay for them

You don't seem to know what your argument is anymore. Time to put the keyboard down, have a mug of tea and listen to some relaxing music maybe?

marty2086 wrote:

Just because you go with the begging bowl doesn't mean you get what you want

No I'm well aware of the argument, WRU pay for the services, Cardiff went asking for more and were rebuffed its not complicated

Well for most anyway

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:You asked for the last time it raised it's head, I answered and you said that was the case

Now you are saying its not sufficient?

I am asking you to justify your "continually" statement. But you as always are skirting around it. Once a few weeks/months ago is not continually as you put it.

I think you should take rugbyfan's advice.

No you asked

'when was the last time this raised it's head ? '

RugbyFan100 wrote:The only Celtic team in the league continually begging to their Union is Munster.

Nope they are one of a number but that's not relevant to RRW doing it really, unless they are wanting the IRFU to give them money too?

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:You asked for the last time it raised it's head, I answered and you said that was the case

Now you are saying its not sufficient?

I am asking you to justify your "continually" statement. But you as always are skirting around it. Once a few weeks/months ago is not continually as you put it.

I think you should take rugbyfan's advice.

No you asked

'when was the last time this raised it's head ? '

OK, fair enough.

Can you now please back up this "continually" statement please ?

I did earlier on

marty2086 wrote:I did earlier on

No you did not. You have mentioned one situation, that is not continually, you have been shown up to be the troll you are on here.

If you can back your statement up, I will be more than willing to apologise and concede to your statement.

What an abomination of a thread this is.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:I did earlier on

No you did not. You have mentioned one situation, that is not continually, you have been shown up to be the troll you are on here.

If you can back your statement up, I will be more than willing to apologise and concede to your statement.

I doubt you would, I don't need you to concede anything either

Scottrf wrote:What an abomination of a thread this is.

Exactly.

Especially when you get certain Irish trolls just turning this place into a joke.

LordDowlais wrote:

Scottrf wrote:What an abomination of a thread this is.

Exactly.

Especially when you get certain Irish trolls just turning this place into a joke.

I mentioned the WRU and the begging bowl and it seems to have got Wales in up in arms, that's no trolling that's some eejits denying reality

Hope the 3rd team is the Stormers. Think they would really add to the league.

and yes I would swap an Ulster V Connacht game for Ulster v Stormers (will still get to play Connacht V Ulster and maybe a trip to Galway ).

Kingshu wrote:Hope the 3rd team is the Stormers. Think they would really add to the league.

and yes I would swap an Ulster V Connacht game for Ulster v Stormers (will still get to play Connacht V Ulster and maybe a trip to Galway ).

Etzebeth v Henderson

Kingshu wrote:Hope the 3rd team is the Stormers. Think they would really add to the league.

and yes I would swap an Ulster V Connacht game for Ulster v Stormers (will still get to play Connacht V Ulster and maybe a trip to Galway ).

Fair enough.


Each to their own as they say.

marty2086 wrote:

Kingshu wrote:Hope the 3rd team is the Stormers. Think they would really add to the league.

and yes I would swap an Ulster V Connacht game for Ulster v Stormers (will still get to play Connacht V Ulster and maybe a trip to Galway ).

Etzebeth v Henderson

That would not happen.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Kingshu wrote:Hope the 3rd team is the Stormers. Think they would really add to the league.

and yes I would swap an Ulster V Connacht game for Ulster v Stormers (will still get to play Connacht V Ulster and maybe a trip to Galway ).

Etzebeth v Henderson

That would not happen.

So Henderson doesn't play for Ulster and Etzebeth doesn't play for Stormers?

More LD logic

marty2086 wrote:So Henderson doesn't play for Ulster and Etzebeth doesn't play for Stormers?

No. Because all the star South African players would just end up re-signing for other South African franchises already in the Super 14.

marty2086 wrote:More LD logic picard

Once a troll, always a troll.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:So Henderson doesn't play for Ulster and Etzebeth doesn't play for Stormers?

No. Because all the star South African players would just end up re-signing for other South African franchises already in the Super 14.

Just because?

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:So Henderson doesn't play for Ulster and Etzebeth doesn't play for Stormers?

No. Because all the star South African players would just end up re-signing for other South African franchises already in the Super 14.

Just because?

That is their competition. Do the South African union even want to be part of the Pro12 ? Secondly why are South Africa dropping any of their franchises from the Super 14 ?

Anyway, how come it's the stormers all of a sudden ? I thought the Cheetahs were joining.

RugbyFan100 wrote:The only Celtic team in the league continually begging to their Union is Munster.

300,000 surplus this season.

Revenue up 2m (gate receipts) due to the IRFU allowing Munster to host the Maori and making knockout stages of Europe & Pro12.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:So Henderson doesn't play for Ulster and Etzebeth doesn't play for Stormers?

No. Because all the star South African players would just end up re-signing for other South African franchises already in the Super 14.

Just because?

That is their competition. Do the South African union even want to be part of the Pro12 ? Secondly why are South Africa dropping any of their franchises from the Super 14 ?

Anyway, how come it's the stormers all of a sudden ? I thought the Cheetahs were joining.

Reading and comprehending aren't you're strong points are they

1. They aren't dropping them they are being told to drop them
2. As Geoff explained, they aren't happy about this as they prop up SANZAR with their tv money and are looking elsewhere
3. The Stormers was a suggestion by Kingshu
4. No I won't explain this further for you

SA teams queue for Pro12

The introduction of the Cheetahs and Southern Kings into Europe’s Pro12 competition next season, will be the beginning of the end of southern hemisphere rugby’s Sanzaar alliance in its current form.

Reports leaked that the deal has been done and this reporter has ascertained that not only are two South African teams set to join the tournament, but an equal split of broadcast rights have also been negotiated.

And that’s not all. Last week Sanzaar had an emergency meeting (via conference call) to try and unscramble the egg that is the culling of three teams, mainly to humour Australia.

The Australian Rugby Union (ARU) faces legal action from the Melbourne Rebels and possibly the Western Force if one of those teams is cut from Super Rugby at the end of the current season.

The difficulty for the ARU is that the deal was decided by Sanzaar before the ARU had fully worked it through with its franchises. SA Rugby went to the London meeting in April with a clear mandate and a planned course of action knowing two teams were likely to be on the chopping block. The ARU went with nothing but hope.

The upshot is that the ARU are now desperately trying to find a way to retain five teams to avoid an unseemly legal battle, even though Australian rugby cannot sustain four franchises, let alone five.

Which brings us back to the Pro12 (soon to be called the Pro14, or even Pro15). The Cheetahs and the Kings are not unhappy about developments because they will still earn good money from broadcast rights (paid in pounds), have less travel and probably a better chance of success.

It’s become such an attractive proposition that a third SA franchise, whose identity I know, but won’t mention, has indicated that it would be happy to abandon Sanzaar in favour of the Pro12 as well.

The fissures in Sanzaar are quickly developing into a cavernous void. South African franchises are coming round to the idea that they might be better served in a different competition, happy to leave New Zealand and Australia to entertain each other.

The argument that SA teams are better off playing against NZ teams because they are the benchmark of rugby excellence is only true because NZ teams are strong because of SA.

NZ rugby is propped up by the vast sums of television money earned via Sanzaar, which is underpinned by a strong TV viewership emanating from SA. Without it, NZ wouldn’t be able to afford to keep its top players and very soon a player brain drain would have a negative impact on their rugby as well.

In terms of SANZAAR, the battle lines are quite simple – NZ brings the best quality and SA brings the audience and therefore money. Australia brings very little.

A move into Europe by SA teams will damage Sanzaar’s equilibrium and have a huge impact on NZ and to a lesser extent, Australia.

But the deal is nearly done and SA’s first steps towards Europe are a reality. It’s only a matter of time before this move kills off the Sanzaar consortium as we know it. And for many, it’s not a moment too soon.

https://www.alloutrugby.com/sa-teams-queue-for-pro12/

LordDowlais wrote: That is their competition. Do the South African union even want to be part of the Pro12 ? Secondly why are South Africa dropping any of their franchises from the Super 14 ?

.

There are people in SA who are totally feed up with Super 18.
They don't want to give up franchises.
They bring the big bucks in terms of TV money.

The third, as yet unnamed team are one of the big 4 who are not being dropped but want to jump ship.

geoff999rugby wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:  That is their competition. Do the South African union even want to be part of the Pro12 ? Secondly why are South Africa dropping any of their franchises from the Super 14 ?

.

There are people in SA who are totally feed up with Super 18.
They don't want to give up franchises.
They bring the big bucks in terms of TV money.

The third, as yet unnamed team are one of the big 4 who are not being dropped but want to jump ship.

Genune question here, but does the S15 TV deal really generate a large amount of money? Yes, the SA audience is big and forms the majority (in the current S14 setup, due to SA population, etc.) but I've always been led to believe that SA loses players to Europe because they cannot afford to keep them. Percy Montgomery didn't come to Newport for the lifestyle, after all! So why do they struggle to generate enough to keep players? Their crowds are huge I thought?

So I would have thought that if SA teams wanted to join the Pro12 then it would be to tap into OUR TV deal, rather than us generating new increased funds by tapping into theirs?

Griff wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:  That is their competition. Do the South African union even want to be part of the Pro12 ? Secondly why are South Africa dropping any of their franchises from the Super 14 ?

.

There are people in SA who are totally feed up with Super 18.
They don't want to give up franchises.
They bring the big bucks in terms of TV money.

The third, as yet unnamed team are one of the big 4 who are not being dropped but want to jump ship.

Genune question here, but does the S15 TV deal really generate a large amount of money? Yes, the SA audience is big and forms the majority (in the current S14 setup, due to SA population, etc.) but I've always been led to believe that SA loses players to Europe because they cannot afford to keep them. Percy Montgomery didn't come to Newport for the lifestyle, after all! So why do they struggle to generate enough to keep players? Their crowds are huge I thought?

So I would have thought that if SA teams wanted to join the Pro12 then it would be to tap into OUR TV deal, rather than us generating new increased funds by tapping into theirs?

Just to try to clear things up the super 18 is being reduced to 15 teams next year, SA has been told its losing two teams and Australia is losing one.
SA rather than just leave the two teams to play in the currie cup or disband. SA is trying to place them in the Pro 12 instead. One other SA team on hearing this is also intrested in moving from Super Rugby to the Pro 12.
SA generatates the biggest tv deal for the super 18/15 more than NZ or Aus tv deals. Hence the perception that the two or 3 teams joining the Pro 12 will be able to generate a tv deal that increases the Pro 12 finances.

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Scottrf wrote:What an abomination of a thread this is.

Exactly.

Especially when you get certain Irish trolls just turning this place into a joke.

I mentioned the WRU and the begging bowl and it seems to have got Wales in up in arms, that's no trolling that's some eejits denying reality

Sounds like Wales to me. Very Cardiff too unfortunately, but there we are.

Griff wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:  That is their competition. Do the South African union even want to be part of the Pro12 ? Secondly why are South Africa dropping any of their franchises from the Super 14 ?

.

There are people in SA who are totally feed up with Super 18.
They don't want to give up franchises.
They bring the big bucks in terms of TV money.

The third, as yet unnamed team are one of the big 4 who are not being dropped but want to jump ship.

Genune question here, but does the S15 TV deal really generate a large amount of money? Yes, the SA audience is big and forms the majority (in the current S14 setup, due to SA population, etc.) but I've always been led to believe that SA loses players to Europe because they cannot afford to keep them. Percy Montgomery didn't come to Newport for the lifestyle, after all! So why do they struggle to generate enough to keep players? Their crowds are huge I thought?

So I would have thought that if SA teams wanted to join the Pro12 then it would be to tap into OUR TV deal, rather than us generating new increased funds by tapping into theirs?

The SA economy is the problem, they just officially entered recession this week

Which may impact any deal for the Pro12 but should generate sizeable amounts

This is part of the attraction, the PrO'12ers will get paid in pounds not rand

Stone Motif wrote:This is part of the attraction, the PrO'12ers will get paid in pounds not rand

The £ isn't doing too well at the moment. I'd imagine its Euro anyway since the PRO12 HQ is based in Ireland.

Griff wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:  That is their competition. Do the South African union even want to be part of the Pro12 ? Secondly why are South Africa dropping any of their franchises from the Super 14 ?

.

There are people in SA who are totally feed up with Super 18.
They don't want to give up franchises.
They bring the big bucks in terms of TV money.

The third, as yet unnamed team are one of the big 4 who are not being dropped but want to jump ship.

Genune question here, but does the S15 TV deal really generate a large amount of money? Yes, the SA audience is big and forms the majority (in the current S14 setup, due to SA population, etc.) but I've always been led to believe that SA loses players to Europe because they cannot afford to keep them. Percy Montgomery didn't come to Newport for the lifestyle, after all! So why do they struggle to generate enough to keep players? Their crowds are huge I thought?

So I would have thought that if SA teams wanted to join the Pro12 then it would be to tap into OUR TV deal, rather than us generating new increased funds by tapping into theirs?

Of the 3 big Southern Hemisphere team SA are the ones responsible for the big money with respect to TV - they subsidies the others.
However I do see you point but then again this is a classic win win situation.

The total package is far more attractive to Sky and the total value of the combined TV deal will be considerably bigger than adding together the existing SA and Sky deals
Also remember we are getting a big new sponsor - an Airline company which will also generate more income

geoff999rugby wrote:

Griff wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:  That is their competition. Do the South African union even want to be part of the Pro12 ? Secondly why are South Africa dropping any of their franchises from the Super 14 ?

.

There are people in SA who are totally feed up with Super 18.
They don't want to give up franchises.
They bring the big bucks in terms of TV money.

The third, as yet unnamed team are one of the big 4 who are not being dropped but want to jump ship.

Genune question here, but does the S15 TV deal really generate a large amount of money? Yes, the SA audience is big and forms the majority (in the current S14 setup, due to SA population, etc.) but I've always been led to believe that SA loses players to Europe because they cannot afford to keep them. Percy Montgomery didn't come to Newport for the lifestyle, after all! So why do they struggle to generate enough to keep players? Their crowds are huge I thought?

So I would have thought that if SA teams wanted to join the Pro12 then it would be to tap into OUR TV deal, rather than us generating new increased funds by tapping into theirs?

Of the 3 big Southern Hemisphere team SA are the ones responsible for the big money with respect to TV - they subsidies the others.
However I do see you point but then again this is a classic win win situation.

The total package is far more attractive to Sky and the total value of the combined TV deal will be considerably bigger than adding together the existing SA and Sky deals
Also remember we are getting a big new sponsor - an Airline company which will also generate more income

That sounds good. Wasn't arguing against bringing SA teams in, just wondering amount the amounts as 'big money' in the S15 might not be considered big money by us in the North if the migration of players is anything to go by (me assuming that they don't generate the sort of money we do which is maybe why they can't keep hold of them). Without reading back over the bickering to find out, does anyone know what sort of money the S15 deal generates for the teams/unions? I know it would be a different deal driven by UK Sky, but just interested as the S15 is THE premier club competition in the world arguably.

Just found this piece

What everything hinges on is, unsurprisingly, money and specifically preserving the value of the current broadcast deal. All Sanzaar member unions have agreed that any change they implement to next year's competition can't result in a reduction of broadcast income.

It is their view that a reduction of teams from 18 to 15 doesn't come with a reduction of content. The competition will still span the same time period and if anything, the reduction of teams - two being cut in Africa and one from Australia - will make more games of a more compelling nature than they currently are.

It is understood that New Zealand has already cleared the proposed changes with Sky and that the South Africans are not anticipating problems with their broadcast partner. But the position in Australia is not so clear.

Talk seems to be that if 3 teams go it solves the Australia problem as they could retain all 5 teams.

There is some promise of private money going to the Rebels and the Force.

Sun Wolves and Jaguars would both be with the Saffers.

Wish I could find out who the big SA team are who want to jump ship.
If its the Stormers I could be going to an Ulster away match next year

Regarding TV I believe it is worth more than the Pro12 but less than France or England.
(big range I know)
The key factor being, as mentioned, Saffers make up the lions share.