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

First article I came across on the Web.

Tbf his seems to suggest BT get money from channel 5?

http://www.premiershiprugby.com/news/live-premiership-rugby-to-air-on-terrestrial-tv-for-first-time-as-channel-5-wins-competitive-bid/

The 44% is across all platforms, live attendances, BT Sport, ITV, NBC and whoever else broadcasts it.

[quote]•Average Live TV match audiences on BT Sport are up 13% up on last season and 5% up on our highest ever season (2014-15);
•4.41 million have watched live Aviva Premiership Rugby this season on BT Sport;

http://www.premiershiprugby.com/news/big-rise-confirmed-in-aviva-premiership-rugby-attendances-and-tv-audiences/

Cool thanks. So an increase. Anyway bit of a sideways step away from the pro 12 but hard not to ask about arrogant chairs getting in the way of make believe b and I league.

So just to clarify, does this mean that BBC Wales, Scrum V, BBC 2, BBC Alba and BBC Northern Ireland will no longer be showing any games?

Didn't realise they were showing the AP

These latest developments show, I believe, that the professional evolution of the structure and finances of the game still have a way to travel.

If you look at those sporting bodies at the forefront of top down structures using satellite tv, these are on the wane. Both the cricket and Union structures in Australia are moving away towards a bottom up approach using historic clubs with far greater access. Stadium and tv audiences have declined in line with the lack of success of the S18 / national sides - which is an inevitable cycle. The Union clubs in Australia are in open revolt with the ARU.
Here in the UK the cricket board are moving coverage back to terrestrial as crowds and participation are in massive decline - with elite players pretty much only appearing for test cricket.

Future rugby coverage will be a mix involving satellite as simply put the genie can't be put back in the bottle but greater access has to be the way forward.
Additional potential quality SA sides added to the league has to be a good thing in the short term. Longer term adding more deck chairs to the good ship Pro12 remains a flawed professional structure with reduced access to the top tier of the game.

Changing tack, Mark Palmer in the Sunday times, has just tweeted that it is looking possible that the Italian teams may be dropped and the SA sides introduced in their place in a straight swap.

Apparently there is a break clause that allows them to be kicked out rather than them be guaranteed a place up till 2020 as the Italians have suggested. The chaos surrounding Zebre has been the precipitator for this and the fact that Treviso have withdrawn season ticket sales last week, seems to confirm that something is up.

There is going to be a meeting between the FIR and Pro 12 in Rome this week to thrash it out.

I am a bit torn about this. Yes the Italians have been pretty hopeless and don't seem to have made much progress since they have joined but this will pretty much end professional rugby in Italy if it goes through and that would have a massive effect on the national team as well. Having said that, myself and probably most fans would prefer a straight league rather than a conference system.

As a declaration of interest, my wife is Italian and I thoroughly enjoyed my trip to Parma to see Glasgow play last year. Surely they have got to start improving at some stage and just need more time.

RDW_Scotland wrote:So just to clarify, does this mean that BBC Wales, Scrum V, BBC 2, BBC Alba and BBC Northern Ireland will no longer be showing any games?

Anyone...?

I can't see the Italians being cut when teams have already started pre season, surely the break would have had to be triggered before a certain date like May 31st or June 31st at the latest. I can't see it being left this late in the day.

If it is the case, then I think the Pro12 are being short sighted. Anything detrimental to the Italian game can have an impact on the 6Ns which feeds into everyone in the Pro12.

The Italians have just begun putting the proper structures into place. I have always said the Pro12 should have done more work to get them further along rather than leaving them to their own devices.

RDW_Scotland wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:So just to clarify, does this mean that BBC Wales, Scrum V, BBC 2, BBC Alba and BBC Northern Ireland will no longer be showing any games?

Anyone...?

It was in reference to the English league and Europe. Don't worry, all those channels will still be showing the Pro12.

You forgot to add S4C as well.

That's good. I knew I'd forgot one!

marty2086 wrote:I can't see the Italians being cut when teams have already started pre season, surely the break would have had to be triggered before a certain date like May 31st or June 31st at the latest. I can't see it being left this late in the day.

If it is the case, then I think the Pro12 are being short sighted. Anything detrimental to the Italian game can have an impact on the 6Ns which feeds into everyone in the Pro12.

The Italians have just begun putting the proper structures into place. I have always said the Pro12 should have done more work to get them further along rather than leaving them to their own devices.

You've always spouted nonsense in other words. Let's make the relatively impoverished PrO'12 teams carry the can for World Rugby's failure to develop the game.

If you want the Italians to grow you put them in the French structure, ending story.

Stone Motif wrote:

marty2086 wrote:I can't see the Italians being cut when teams have already started pre season, surely the break would have had to be triggered before a certain date like May 31st or June 31st at the latest. I can't see it being left this late in the day.

If it is the case, then I think the Pro12 are being short sighted. Anything detrimental to the Italian game can have an impact on the 6Ns which feeds into everyone in the Pro12.

The Italians have just begun putting the proper structures into place. I have always said the Pro12 should have done more work to get them further along rather than leaving them to their own devices.

You've always spouted nonsense in other words. Let's make the relatively impoverished PrO'12 teams carry the can for World Rugby's failure to develop the game.

If you want the Italians to grow you put them in the French structure, ending story.

Who mentioned the teams or money? I said the Pro12 i.e the body running the competition

A consultant working to help develop the structures to grow the game in Italy would benefit everyone especially as that has been one of their greatest failings.

Why wouldn't the teams want to help the Italians? Helping the Italian teams to improve and growing the game of rugby can tap into a large and competitive tv market from which everyone can benefit, so why would you want someone else doing that? Especially as everyone is apparently impoverished

Maybe instead of being snarky you may want to engage your brain and realise its called an investment and is not limited to giving them money. Glasgow have done some work with the Italian teams when in Italy in the past

marty2086 wrote:

Stone Motif wrote:

marty2086 wrote:I can't see the Italians being cut when teams have already started pre season, surely the break would have had to be triggered before a certain date like May 31st or June 31st at the latest. I can't see it being left this late in the day.

If it is the case, then I think the Pro12 are being short sighted. Anything detrimental to the Italian game can have an impact on the 6Ns which feeds into everyone in the Pro12.

The Italians have just begun putting the proper structures into place. I have always said the Pro12 should have done more work to get them further along rather than leaving them to their own devices.

You've always spouted nonsense in other words. Let's make the relatively impoverished PrO'12 teams carry the can for World Rugby's failure to develop the game.

If you want the Italians to grow you put them in the French structure, ending story.

Who mentioned the teams or money? I said the Pro12 i.e the body running the competition

A consultant working to help develop the structures to grow the game in Italy would benefit everyone especially as that has been one of their greatest failings.

Why wouldn't the teams want to help the Italians? Helping the Italian teams to improve and growing the game of rugby can tap into a large and competitive tv market from which everyone can benefit, so why would you want someone else doing that? Especially as everyone is apparently impoverished

Maybe instead of being snarky you may want to engage your brain and realise its called an investment and is not limited to giving them money. Glasgow have done some work with the Italian teams when in Italy in the past

Engage my brain? You're he one spouting this horse sh1t. Italy will never be a lucrative market for rugby in a million years McFly, and there's four Welsh teams that actually do, you know, contribute financially to this farce that could do with spending some money on consultancy thank you very much. You think our much richer competitors give a toss about growing the game in the nether regions of Europe?

There you go again horsesh!t? McFly? You cant contribute anything other than running things down

Italy can't be a lucrative market for rugby despite contributing significantly already to the 6 Nations tv revenue, having a population almost on par with France along with one of the wealthiest tv markets in the world.

Just because someone else doesn't do something doesn't mean they are doing things the right way, that didn't stop the English investing in the game in America. Maybe some people realise that the marketplace has its limits and you have to look elsewhere for revenue streams. All too complex for childish small minded individuals to grasp though

Marty and stone motif, your debate has lost its momentum, it is now just a squabble, I suggest you leave it

Stone Motif wrote:
Engage my brain? You're he one spouting this horse sh1t. Italy will never be a lucrative market for rugby in a million years McFly, and there's four Welsh teams that actually do, you know, contribute financially to this farce that could do with spending some money on consultancy thank you very much. You think our much richer competitors give a toss about growing the game in the nether regions of Europe?

Never say never. We've seen in the past few years that teams can get momentum and rise up and their fanbase rises also. Glasgow being a good example.

All Italian fans see are their teams losing nearly every match and playing crap rugby. It's hardly going to inspire people to watch.

Biltong wrote:Marty and stone motif, your debate has lost its momentum, it is now just a squabble, I suggest you leave it

Sorry for dealing in facts and figures against trolls

marty2086 wrote:The terms of the deal between BT and the AP may have already changed with Channel 5 coming on board, I doubt BT factored that into the figures when they made the deal

Channel 5 just took over from ITV4 in showing the highlights. Even the same production company is being used, so your thought is likely to be very wrong.

Zebre, of course, may be being closed down this week. Anayi is to discuss this with FIR today / this week.

And the BT thing is also nonsense.

profitius wrote:

Stone Motif wrote:
Engage my brain? You're he one spouting this horse sh1t. Italy will never be a lucrative market for rugby in a million years McFly, and there's four Welsh teams that actually do, you know, contribute financially to this farce that could do with spending some money on consultancy thank you very much. You think our much richer competitors give a toss about growing the game in the nether regions of Europe?

Never say never. We've seen in the past few years that teams can get momentum and rise up and their fanbase rises also. Glasgow being a good example.

All Italian fans see are their teams losing nearly every match and playing crap rugby. It's hardly going to inspire people to watch.

Glasgow's average attendance last season was 7,281. That's 10% below's Cardiff's average attendance, yet Cardiff will lose over £1m last season. Glasgow's wage bill is also significantly greater than Cardiff's.

Glasgow isn't the model for where rugby will be "lucrative". It's propped up by its union owners spending BT Sport's money, ironically.

Marty s point was that itv didn't show the free to air games, BT did.

Glasgow's attendances are now constrained by the size of their ground and less by their fan base, which has grown considerably, driven largely by style and success on the field.

Glasgow are a very good example of how a team can grow in an area that has never been a rugby heartland. Other teams could do well to take note of how things have happened there. I don't believe that they have maximised their potential either.

Ulster too benefitted from an upturn in fortune and a bit more flash to their style, they struggled to fill a stadium of 12k now they have over 15k for every game. Its just a pity about the lack of trophies to go with it

BigGee wrote:Glasgow's attendances are now constrained by the size of their ground and less by their fan base, which has grown considerably, driven largely by style and success on the field.

Glasgow are a very good example of how a team can grow in an area that has never been a rugby heartland. Other teams could do well to take note of how things have happened there. I don't believe that they have maximised their potential either.

You're right.

Other teams need to note how they can extend well beyond their means to host a squad of 35 international players.

marty2086 wrote:Ulster too benefitted from an upturn in fortune and a bit more flash to their style, they struggled to fill a stadium of 12k now they have over 15k for every game. Its just a pity about the lack of trophies to go with it

And a consistent kick off time because of being a nigh on one broadcaster partnership.

PhilBB wrote:

BigGee wrote:Glasgow's attendances are now constrained by the size of their ground and less by their fan base, which has grown considerably, driven largely by style and success on the field.

Glasgow are a very good example of how a team can grow in an area that has never been a rugby heartland. Other teams could do well to take note of how things have happened there. I don't believe that they have maximised their potential either.

You're right.

Other teams need to note how they can extend well beyond their means to host a squad of 35 international players.

Glasgow are owned by the SRU, as are a lot of rugby Franchises around the world, who are owned by their home unions. Gate receipts and TV money and sponsorship are only a part of their revenue streams. The SRU puts money into professional rugby, that it mainly gets from international gate receipts as it is the fuel that fires the whole game within the country, as do other countries.

We are most certainly not living without our means. The SRU has done that in the past and it nearly bankrupted it, one of the reasons we had to cut one of our professional teams. Much as we would like to have another one, just about everyone recognises that we can't afford it. The SRU finances are now well managed and our debt, which is mainly due to the re-furbishment of Murrayfield is coming down very nicely.

We are also realistic about player salaries and often have to let good players go because we can't compete with the wages on offer elsewhere. Scottish international players do not earn what others do in other countries.

I think if you are looking for examples of clubs living beyond their means, then you need to look elsewhere, mainly in England and France where the wage bills dwarf clubs in the Pro 12 and is only sustainable due to sugar daddy investors. That I would question is the unsustainable model of rugby.

BigGee wrote:

We are most certainly not living without our means. The SRU has done that in the past and it nearly bankrupted it, one of the reasons we had to cut one of our professional teams. Much as we would like to have another one, just about everyone recognises that we can't afford it. The SRU finances are now well managed and our debt, which is mainly due to the re-furbishment of Murrayfield is coming down very nicely.

We are also realistic about player salaries and often have to let good players go because we can't compete with the wages on offer elsewhere. Scottish international players do not earn what others do in other countries.

I think if you are looking for examples of clubs living beyond their means, then you need to look elsewhere, mainly in England and France where the wage bills dwarf clubs in the Pro 12 and is only sustainable due to sugar daddy investors. That I would question is the unsustainable model of rugby.

You've swallowed the spin.

Glasgow, as an entity in itself, is living beyond its means because a disproportionate sum is redirected into that SRU subsidiary from the international game. I know the ownership model.

You'd be surprised by the Glasgow wage bill when you look at the over £20m the SRU spends on professional rugby. I know the narrative is "we don't spend as much as others" but the figures don't seem to support that. 35 internationals don't come cheap.

The "sugar daddy" for Glasgow is, basically, BT Sport's sponsorship of the SRU.

Therefore, that's not a model others can follow - and that is the point I was making above. Glasgow is not a model for others to follow.

BigGee wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

BigGee wrote:Glasgow's attendances are now constrained by the size of their ground and less by their fan base, which has grown considerably, driven largely by style and success on the field.

Glasgow are a very good example of how a team can grow in an area that has never been a rugby heartland. Other teams could do well to take note of how things have happened there. I don't believe that they have maximised their potential either.

You're right.

Other teams need to note how they can extend well beyond their means to host a squad of 35 international players.

Glasgow are owned by the SRU, as are a lot of rugby Franchises around the world, who are owned by their home unions. Gate receipts and TV money and sponsorship are only a part of their revenue streams. The SRU puts money into professional rugby, that it mainly gets from international gate receipts as it is the fuel that fires the whole game within the country, as do other countries.

We are most certainly not living without our means. The SRU has done that in the past and it nearly bankrupted it, one of the reasons we had to cut one of our professional teams. Much as we would like to have another one, just about everyone recognises that we can't afford it. The SRU finances are now well managed and our debt, which is mainly due to the re-furbishment of Murrayfield is coming down very nicely.

We are also realistic about player salaries and often have to let good players go because we can't compete with the wages on offer elsewhere. Scottish international players do not earn what others do in other countries.

I think if you are looking for examples of clubs living beyond their means, then you need to look elsewhere, mainly in England and France where the wage bills dwarf clubs in the Pro 12 and is only sustainable due to sugar daddy investors. That I would question is the unsustainable model of rugby.

You are fighting a losing battle trying to argue with Phil, he hates the idea of union run teams so sh!ts all over them. The simple fact is that the SRU own Glasgow as like any owner they put money into the team which apparently is a bad thing when his own team are the one that is running up debts every year.

marty2086 wrote:

BigGee wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

BigGee wrote:Glasgow's attendances are now constrained by the size of their ground and less by their fan base, which has grown considerably, driven largely by style and success on the field.

Glasgow are a very good example of how a team can grow in an area that has never been a rugby heartland. Other teams could do well to take note of how things have happened there. I don't believe that they have maximised their potential either.

You're right.

Other teams need to note how they can extend well beyond their means to host a squad of 35 international players.

Glasgow are owned by the SRU, as are a lot of rugby Franchises around the world, who are owned by their home unions. Gate receipts and TV money and sponsorship are only a part of their revenue streams. The SRU puts money into professional rugby, that it mainly gets from international gate receipts as it is the fuel that fires the whole game within the country, as do other countries.

We are most certainly not living without our means. The SRU has done that in the past and it nearly bankrupted it, one of the reasons we had to cut one of our professional teams. Much as we would like to have another one, just about everyone recognises that we can't afford it. The SRU finances are now well managed and our debt, which is mainly due to the re-furbishment of Murrayfield is coming down very nicely.

We are also realistic about player salaries and often have to let good players go because we can't compete with the wages on offer elsewhere. Scottish international players do not earn what others do in other countries.

I think if you are looking for examples of clubs living beyond their means, then you need to look elsewhere, mainly in England and France where the wage bills dwarf clubs in the Pro 12 and is only sustainable due to sugar daddy investors. That I would question is the unsustainable model of rugby.

You are fighting a losing battle trying to argue with Phil, he hates the idea of union run teams so sh!ts all over them. The simple fact is that the SRU own Glasgow as like any owner they put money into the team which apparently is a bad thing when his own team are the one that is running up debts every year.

That makes sense, which is more than his arguments do. One thing you can't say about Scottish Rugby over the past few years since Dobson came on board is that it has not been well managed. The BT deal, mainly for the long term naming rights to the stadium was a particularly good bit of business and there have been others as well.

Most of that money has gone into setting up the academy structures which means that we are finally producing some decent young players ready for Professional rugby. Our highest ever finish in the recent JWC kind of shows that we must be doing something right.

When the BT deal was announced their was the predictable clamour to look at setting up a third team. Fortunately wiser heads are in control of the SRU these days and that call was rightly resisted. The BT deal has not resulted in any significant funding for the Scottish professional teams. Glasgow have managed to increase their own budget though by doing well in competitions (Euro cup and Pro12) and increasing their gates and sponsorship. It all counts at the end of the day.

marty2086 wrote:

You are fighting a losing battle trying to argue with Phil, he hates the idea of union run teams so sh!ts all over them. The simple fact is that the SRU own Glasgow as like any owner they put money into the team which apparently is a bad thing when his own team are the one that is running up debts every year.

Do Glasgow not run up debts every year?

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

You are fighting a losing battle trying to argue with Phil, he hates the idea of union run teams so sh!ts all over them. The simple fact is that the SRU own Glasgow as like any owner they put money into the team which apparently is a bad thing when his own team are the one that is running up debts every year.

Do Glasgow not run up debts every year?

Glasgow and Edinburgh don't have separate account as they are run by the SRU. As Biggee said all of the SRU's income streams are pulled together to fun the national team and both club teams, as well as everything else they pay for (academies, 7s, womans rugby etc)

Look, far from it for me to agree with Phil. But of all the rubbish he writes on here, on this one he has a point.

Why can't any of you see beyond the fact, that if the union run teams in our league were stand alone, and had to survive under their own esteem, then they would not be spending anywhere near what they are currently ?

The union run teams do not spend to what they earn, they spend more, thus they are spending beyond their means.

LordDowlais wrote:Look, far from it for me to agree with Phil. But of all the rubbish he writes on here, on this one he has a point.

Why can't any of you see beyond the fact, that if the union run teams in our league were stand alone, and had to survive under their own esteem, then they would not be spending anywhere near what they are currently ?

The union run teams do not spend to what they earn, they spend more, thus they are spending beyond their means.

But they are Union run teams, so why does this matter?

RDW_Scotland wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Look, far from it for me to agree with Phil. But of all the rubbish he writes on here, on this one he has a point.

Why can't any of you see beyond the fact, that if the union run teams in our league were stand alone, and had to survive under their own esteem, then they would not be spending anywhere near what they are currently ?

The union run teams do not spend to what they earn, they spend more, thus they are spending beyond their means.

But they are Union run teams, so why does this matter?

Because when folk write "Glasgow is a model to follow" they are writing complete nonsense.

LordDowlais wrote:But of all the rubbish he writes on here

You've some chutzpah.

LordDowlais wrote:Look, far from it for me to agree with Phil. But of all the rubbish he writes on here, on this one he has a point.

Why can't any of you see beyond the fact, that if the union run teams in our league were stand alone, and had to survive under their own esteem, then they would not be spending anywhere near what they are currently ?

The union run teams do not spend to what they earn, they spend more, thus they are spending beyond their means.

That's nothing but speculation since we don't know who would be running the teams in the absence of the unions and what arrangements would be in place.

That's like saying Saracens wouldn't be spending what they spend without their owners, Toulan without Mourad or any team without the funding that comes from their unions

LordDowlais wrote:Look, far from it for me to agree with Phil. But of all the rubbish he writes on here, on this one he has a point.

Why can't any of you see beyond the fact, that if the union run teams in our league were stand alone, and had to survive under their own esteem, then they would not be spending anywhere near what they are currently ?

The union run teams do not spend to what they earn, they spend more, thus they are spending beyond their means.

All the teams in the Pro 12 get subsidised by their Unions one way or another, even the Welsh get dual contracts and money from the WRU. No-one is arguing that they don't. It is professional rugby at the end of the day and has to get paid for, that is where the game is at now.

RDW_Scotland wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

You are fighting a losing battle trying to argue with Phil, he hates the idea of union run teams so sh!ts all over them. The simple fact is that the SRU own Glasgow as like any owner they put money into the team which apparently is a bad thing when his own team are the one that is running up debts every year.

Do Glasgow not run up debts every year?

Glasgow and Edinburgh don't have separate account as they are run by the SRU. As Biggee said all of the SRU's income streams are pulled together to fun the national team and both club teams, as well as everything else they pay for (academies, 7s, womans rugby etc)

But if Glasgow and say, Cardiff are drawing in similar crowds, have similar incomes and similar spends (although Glasgow clearly have a bigger, better squad) - then why is their model the one to follow just because they have it bankrolled by their own Union?

RugbyFan100 wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

You are fighting a losing battle trying to argue with Phil, he hates the idea of union run teams so sh!ts all over them. The simple fact is that the SRU own Glasgow as like any owner they put money into the team which apparently is a bad thing when his own team are the one that is running up debts every year.

Do Glasgow not run up debts every year?

Glasgow and Edinburgh don't have separate account as they are run by the SRU. As Biggee said all of the SRU's income streams are pulled together to fun the national team and both club teams, as well as everything else they pay for (academies, 7s, womans rugby etc)

But if Glasgow and say, Cardiff are drawing in similar crowds, have similar incomes and similar spends (although Glasgow clearly have a bigger, better squad)  - then why is their model the one to follow just because they have it bankrolled by their own Union?

I haven't said anywhere that it is the model to follow? It works for Glasgow and Edinburgh (well, not so much Edinburgh) - that doesn't mean that it would work for the rest of the league.

BigGee wrote:

All the teams in the Pro 12 get subsidised by their Unions one way or another, even the Welsh get dual contracts and money from the WRU. No-one is arguing that they don't. It is professional rugby at the end of the day and has to get paid for, that is where the game is at now.

Those aren't subsidies, those are payments for services.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

You are fighting a losing battle trying to argue with Phil, he hates the idea of union run teams so sh!ts all over them. The simple fact is that the SRU own Glasgow as like any owner they put money into the team which apparently is a bad thing when his own team are the one that is running up debts every year.

Do Glasgow not run up debts every year?

Glasgow and Edinburgh don't have separate account as they are run by the SRU. As Biggee said all of the SRU's income streams are pulled together to fun the national team and both club teams, as well as everything else they pay for (academies, 7s, womans rugby etc)

But if Glasgow and say, Cardiff are drawing in similar crowds, have similar incomes and similar spends (although Glasgow clearly have a bigger, better squad)  - then why is their model the one to follow just because they have it bankrolled by their own Union?

Because Gee wasn't talking business he was talking rugby

RDW_Scotland wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

You are fighting a losing battle trying to argue with Phil, he hates the idea of union run teams so sh!ts all over them. The simple fact is that the SRU own Glasgow as like any owner they put money into the team which apparently is a bad thing when his own team are the one that is running up debts every year.

Do Glasgow not run up debts every year?

Glasgow and Edinburgh don't have separate account as they are run by the SRU. As Biggee said all of the SRU's income streams are pulled together to fun the national team and both club teams, as well as everything else they pay for (academies, 7s, womans rugby etc)

But if Glasgow and say, Cardiff are drawing in similar crowds, have similar incomes and similar spends (although Glasgow clearly have a bigger, better squad)  - then why is their model the one to follow just because they have it bankrolled by their own Union?

I haven't said anywhere that it is the model to follow? It works for Glasgow and Edinburgh (well, not so much Edinburgh) - that doesn't mean that it would work for the rest of the league.

"BigGee" wrote that it was a model to follow. Without, seemingly, understanding that it isn't.

marty2086 wrote:

Because Gee wasn't talking business he was talking rugby

"Glasgow's attendances are now constrained by the size of their ground and less by their fan base, which has grown considerably, driven largely by style and success on the field.

Glasgow are a very good example of how a team can grow in an area that has never been a rugby heartland. Other teams could do well to take note of how things have happened there. I don't believe that they have maximised their potential either."

Yes, just rugby there. No note of how "success on the field" was delivered.

I just don't get your point here - are you saying that the SRU should have rejected BT's sponsorship (despite every professional sports team in the world using sponsorship as a revenue stream) and that Glasgow should only 'live within their means' by only using income generated within the club, thus meaning they would be much less successful on the field, develop players for Scotland less, have smaller crowds, and reduce the quality of the league overall?

The SRU were never going to reject £20 million of sponsorship for the relatively small trade off of putting BT at the start of the stadium name (given what happened to The Avivia and Principality stadium), and putting BT on all the sports team shirts. With that money we have been able to significantly invest in academies which basically didn't exist before, and it is paying off at under 20s level.

We're not talking about Wasps or Saracens here who have masses of debt - the SRU are living within their means through sponsorship and national ticket money etc. and are doing what they exist to do as a business entity - support and grow rugby in Scotland.

So what model should Edinburgh and Glasgow follow?

RDW_Scotland wrote:But they are Union run teams, so why does this matter?

It doesn't matter, well, not for me anyway, but you could make an argument for meritocracy with it.

You see, it could be argued, that with private ownership, it is more of a risk for one owner to over spend, than it is for an entire union, thus it makes it an uneven playing field.

marty2086 wrote:Because Gee wasn't talking business he was talking rugby

Nice goal post moving.

Marty, please do not give him ammo.

RDW_Scotland wrote:I just don't get your point here

It's pretty simple. The Glasgow model can't be followed elsewhere without the unequal backing offered to it by the SRU. It's not a model that can be repeated without serious sums of cash thrown at it.

And when private owners throw similar cash, they are seen by the short sighted and hypocritical as "bad for the game".