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

First topic message reminder :

First article I came across on the Web.

RDW_Scotland wrote:
So what model should Edinburgh and Glasgow follow?

I think that the SRU has answered that by putting both up for sale.

RDW_Scotland wrote:So what model should Edinburgh and Glasgow follow?

Whatever model suits them best, to get the best out of their squad and to keep them competitive.

LordDowlais wrote:

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.

Not really when you have billionaires investing in clubs, theres a greater risk to the unions in comparison

LordDowlais wrote:

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

Nice goal post moving.

Marty, please do not give him ammo.

I take it you mean Phil, I blocked him so not really important what he thinks

I wasn't moving any goalposts, if you read back Gee was talking about the style and success improving crowds at Glasgow that wasn't in a business context

marty2086 wrote:Not really when you have billionaires investing in clubs, theres a greater risk to the unions in comparison

It's exactly the same thing.

marty2086 wrote:I wasn't moving any goalposts, if you read back Gee was talking about the style and success improving crowds at Glasgow that wasn't in a business context

You cannot get any of that though unless you have the money to spend, and the union run clubs, Leinster aside I would imagine, would not have that money to spend without top up's from the unions.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Not really when you have billionaires investing in clubs, theres a greater risk to the unions in comparison

It's exactly the same thing.

I know it is but my point is there is a greater risk to a union doing it when so much of their assets are tied up in a team than for a billionaire who it accounts for a small fraction of their interests.

If Edinburgh went under then the SRU would be in trouble, if Toulon went under Mourad would still have his comic book empire

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:I wasn't moving any goalposts, if you read back Gee was talking about the style and success improving crowds at Glasgow that wasn't in a business context

You cannot get any of that though unless you have the money to spend, and the union run clubs, Leinster aside I would imagine, would not have that money to spend without top up's from the unions.

So why is it the money from the SRU and IRFU are top ups yet the NDCs aren't?

marty2086 wrote:So why is it the money from the SRU and IRFU are top ups yet the NDCs aren't?

It's because the regions, who are privately owned put a lot of money and resources into player development, Wales do not do this, should Wales then get these players for nothing, and hinder the teams that produce them in doing so ? No. The Dual contracts are what the WRU pay towards for the use of said players, all the other players at the regions are payed for, by the regions.

The difference is, that everything is payed for by the unions with union run clubs. Even the non internationals and the foreign players.

Wales (or the WRU) don't have to bail out/top up/subsidise/invest in the regions, yet still come fifth in the Six Nations. Beaten by Ireland and Scotland, who are pouring money into their club-equivalent teams. They really can't adopt a similar model or they'll come last. The "sugar daddy model" is a necessity for them.

marty2086 wrote:

If Edinburgh went under then the SRU would be in trouble, if Toulon went under Mourad would still have his comic book empire

But if Edinburgh went under, then that would indicate that the SRU were already in trouble because they couldn't afford to keep Edinburgh afloat. And if they can't afford to keep Edinburgh afloat, then they need to pass the reigns on to someone who can. Which, in a nutshell is perhaps why some posters have an aversion to Union owned teams - because it presents a finite limitation on the domestic game within a country.

As I understand it, Toulon are not dependent on Mourad for finances at all and are self sufficient.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:So why is it the money from the SRU and IRFU are top ups yet the NDCs aren't?

It's because the regions, who are privately owned put a lot of money and resources into player development, Wales do not do this, should Wales then get these players for nothing, and hinder the teams that produce them in doing so ? No. The Dual contracts are what the WRU pay towards for the use of said players, all the other players at the regions are payed for, by the regions.

The difference is, that everything is payed for by the unions with union run clubs. Even the non internationals and the foreign players.

Not true at all, the tv and prize money the Provinces win and earn goes to the IRFU, the central contracts the IRFU use are similar to the NDCs, the provinces receive funding from the IRFU as they are responsible for running the amateur game in their areas which isn't the case for privately run clubs.

The IRFU works hand in hand with, and ‘empowers’ the Branches to develop the game at club and school level –
this combines national leadership with local decision-making. The IRFU manages its relationship with each of the
Branches through a Service Level Agreement (SLA, or Heads of Agreement) which outlines the respective roles and
responsibilities of each party. Through these SLAs, we allocate a total of €3.25M annually to the Branches to
support development staff and programmes. Branches also allocate resources from their Provincial Game to
support local initiatives.

You say the foreign players are paid by the IRFU, that again is not the case. Ulster for example funded the signing of Charles Piutau through the Kingspan sponsorship deal

Checking the latest report from Ulster it states that IRFU grants last season totalled £1.58m which went towards 'salary costs of rugby development officers, professional team management costs and an academy grant'

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

If Edinburgh went under then the SRU would be in trouble, if Toulon went under Mourad would still have his comic book empire

But if Edinburgh went under, then that would indicate that the SRU were already in trouble because they couldn't afford to keep Edinburgh afloat.  And if they can't afford to keep Edinburgh afloat, then they need to pass the reigns on to someone who can. Which, in a nutshell is perhaps why some posters have an aversion to Union owned teams - because it presents a finite limitation on the domestic game within a country.

As I understand it, Toulon are not dependent on Mourad for finances at all and are self sufficient.

Not really it would just mean that Edinburgh were unsustainable but the whole thing was an example but what you miss completely is that Cardiff aren't union run yet were wanting the WRU to take the reigns so the club could pay for a stadium upgrade without having to foot the bill for running the club because they couldn't do both.

I am not disputing that both models have pros and cons but some dismiss the union run model out of hand when it works when done right as does the private run model

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

If Edinburgh went under then the SRU would be in trouble, if Toulon went under Mourad would still have his comic book empire

But if Edinburgh went under, then that would indicate that the SRU were already in trouble because they couldn't afford to keep Edinburgh afloat.  And if they can't afford to keep Edinburgh afloat, then they need to pass the reigns on to someone who can. Which, in a nutshell is perhaps why some posters have an aversion to Union owned teams - because it presents a finite limitation on the domestic game within a country.

As I understand it, Toulon are not dependent on Mourad for finances at all and are self sufficient.

Not really it would just mean that Edinburgh were unsustainable but the whole thing was an example but what you miss completely is that Cardiff aren't union run yet were wanting the WRU to take the reigns so the club could pay for a stadium upgrade without having to foot the bill for running the club because they couldn't do both.

I am not disputing that both models have pros and cons but some dismiss the union run model out of hand when it works when done right as does the private run model

It may be no coincidence that the leagues with the biggest tv revenues are the leagues that have independent club owners, whose best interests are always thought of. Unions have too much to organise on their own without domestic rugby leagues as well. Once you meld the two, you get a mish mash of remits.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

If Edinburgh went under then the SRU would be in trouble, if Toulon went under Mourad would still have his comic book empire

But if Edinburgh went under, then that would indicate that the SRU were already in trouble because they couldn't afford to keep Edinburgh afloat.  And if they can't afford to keep Edinburgh afloat, then they need to pass the reigns on to someone who can. Which, in a nutshell is perhaps why some posters have an aversion to Union owned teams - because it presents a finite limitation on the domestic game within a country.

As I understand it, Toulon are not dependent on Mourad for finances at all and are self sufficient.

Not really it would just mean that Edinburgh were unsustainable but the whole thing was an example but what you miss completely is that Cardiff aren't union run yet were wanting the WRU to take the reigns so the club could pay for a stadium upgrade without having to foot the bill for running the club because they couldn't do both.

I am not disputing that both models have pros and cons but some dismiss the union run model out of hand when it works when done right as does the private run model

It may be no coincidence that the leagues with the biggest tv revenues are the leagues that have independent club owners, whose best interests are always thought of. Unions have too much to organise on their own without domestic rugby leagues as well. Once you meld the two, you get a mish mash of remits.

Coincidentally the leagues with the biggest tv revenues are the ones with the biggest populations available to broadcast to ...

marty2086 wrote:
Not really it would just mean that Edinburgh were unsustainable but the whole thing was an example but what you miss completely is that Cardiff aren't union run yet were wanting the WRU to take the reigns so the club could pay for a stadium upgrade without having to foot the bill for running the club because they couldn't do both.

The above is untrue.

Don Alfonso wrote:Wales (or the WRU) don't have to bail out/top up/subsidise/invest in the regions, yet still come fifth in the Six Nations. Beaten by Ireland and Scotland, who are pouring money into their club-equivalent teams. They really can't adopt a similar model or they'll come last. The "sugar daddy model" is a necessity for them.

You know your stuff

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2017/03/10/wales-vs-ireland-six-nations-watch-live-score-updates1/

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:
Coincidentally the leagues with the biggest tv revenues are the ones with the biggest populations available to broadcast to ...

How does that work out when you factor in Italy?

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:
Coincidentally the leagues with the biggest tv revenues are the ones with the biggest populations available to broadcast to ...

How does that work out when you factor in Italy?

Or how the Scottish TV deal is worth £150k versus the £4.5m of the Welsh deal.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

If Edinburgh went under then the SRU would be in trouble, if Toulon went under Mourad would still have his comic book empire

But if Edinburgh went under, then that would indicate that the SRU were already in trouble because they couldn't afford to keep Edinburgh afloat.  And if they can't afford to keep Edinburgh afloat, then they need to pass the reigns on to someone who can. Which, in a nutshell is perhaps why some posters have an aversion to Union owned teams - because it presents a finite limitation on the domestic game within a country.

As I understand it, Toulon are not dependent on Mourad for finances at all and are self sufficient.

Not really it would just mean that Edinburgh were unsustainable but the whole thing was an example but what you miss completely is that Cardiff aren't union run yet were wanting the WRU to take the reigns so the club could pay for a stadium upgrade without having to foot the bill for running the club because they couldn't do both.

I am not disputing that both models have pros and cons but some dismiss the union run model out of hand when it works when done right as does the private run model

It may be no coincidence that the leagues with the biggest tv revenues are the leagues that have independent club owners, whose best interests are always thought of. Unions have too much to organise on their own without domestic rugby leagues as well. Once you meld the two, you get a mish mash of remits.

It is coincidence, Super Rugby brings in pretty sizeable tv revenues and its a mix of union run teams, privately run teams and union owned and privately run teams.

England and France have an advantage of a bigger tv market with bigger populations and with rugby being bigger sports there than in Ireland, Scotland and Italy. They are also older and far more established than the Pro12

marty2086 wrote:

It is coincidence, Super Rugby brings in pretty sizeable tv revenues and its a mix of union run teams, privately run teams and union owned and privately run teams.

England and France have an advantage of a bigger tv market with bigger populations and with rugby being bigger sports there than in Ireland, Scotland and Italy. They are also older and far more established than the Pro12

If Super rugby is commanding sizeable revenue, why are S African teams leaving and Australian rugby on the verge of a financial meltdown?

Seems to be that the consistently powerful, fundable, coherent leagues with no problems are those which are run by the clubs that are in them.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

It is coincidence, Super Rugby brings in pretty sizeable tv revenues and its a mix of union run teams, privately run teams and union owned and privately run teams.

England and France have an advantage of a bigger tv market with bigger populations and with rugby being bigger sports there than in Ireland, Scotland and Italy. They are also older and far more established than the Pro12

If Super rugby is commanding sizeable revenue, why are S African teams leaving and Australian rugby on the verge of a financial meltdown?

Seems to be that the consistently powerful, fundable, coherent leagues with no problems are those which are run by the clubs that are in them.

Maybe because tv revenues aren't everything?

For a rugby fan you aren't clued in on whats going on in rugby. The SA and Aussie teams aren't leaving they are being cut. The ARU have been a financial mess for years and can't compete due to rugby being a minority sport there

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

It is coincidence, Super Rugby brings in pretty sizeable tv revenues and its a mix of union run teams, privately run teams and union owned and privately run teams.

England and France have an advantage of a bigger tv market with bigger populations and with rugby being bigger sports there than in Ireland, Scotland and Italy. They are also older and far more established than the Pro12

If Super rugby is commanding sizeable revenue, why are S African teams leaving and Australian rugby on the verge of a financial meltdown?

Seems to be that the consistently powerful, fundable, coherent leagues with no problems are those which are run by the clubs that are in them.

Maybe because tv revenues aren't everything?

For a rugby fan you aren't clued in on whats going on in rugby. The SA and Aussie teams aren't leaving they are being cut. The ARU have been a financial mess for years and can't compete due to rugby being a minority sport there

Well you're right there, I'm always keen to learn. That's why I join forums like this.

I can't actually have any issue with how the Welsh, Irish or Italians choose to fund their teams. It does not seem to be currently causing major issues with the competitive nature of the league given that Glasgow, Connacht and Scarlets have all won it over the past three years. None of whom have been traditionally amongst the bigger spenders.

At the end of the day their will always be clubs that have bigger budgets than others in professional sport, even with salary caps, which as we well know are not worth the paper they are written on.

Glasgow, my team, do pretty well with the budget they have. They manage to recruit well on the whole and have the club ethic to make good players stay around, even if they could earn more elsewhere. Money is no doubt the most important thing for professional sportsmen but it is not everything. Glasgow seems to be a club that players would like to play for.

BigGee wrote:

At the end of the day their will always be clubs that have bigger budgets than others in professional sport, even with salary caps, which as we well know are not worth the paper they are written on.

It always makes me raise an eyebrow how teams like Clermont Auvergne never get mentioned as one of the bad boys in these things. They have a bigger salary spend that Toulon, have wealthy private owners pumping in millions, don't make as much profit as Toulon, have a bigger budget than Toulon, don't have a good as academy as Toulon, have about the same amount of foreign imports as Toulon, yet haven't won anywhere near as much silverware as Toulon.

But Toulon and Sarries are the bad boys. Is it because they win things? Or is it because their owners are in the public eye?

RugbyFan100 wrote:

But Toulon and Sarries are the bad boys. Is it because they win things? Or is it because their owners are in the public eye?

This is undoubtedly got a lot to do with it, we all love to hate a pantomime villain.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

It is coincidence, Super Rugby brings in pretty sizeable tv revenues and its a mix of union run teams, privately run teams and union owned and privately run teams.

England and France have an advantage of a bigger tv market with bigger populations and with rugby being bigger sports there than in Ireland, Scotland and Italy. They are also older and far more established than the Pro12

If Super rugby is commanding sizeable revenue, why are S African teams leaving and Australian rugby on the verge of a financial meltdown?

Seems to be that the consistently powerful, fundable, coherent leagues with no problems are those which are run by the clubs that are in them.

Broadly, SA don't have the player base to support 6 Super-rugby quality teams. By sending their 2 worst ones over to an easier league they gain extra tv revenue (as the SA broadcaster gets different content, and at different time of year), and they'll be hoping to attract home some of the players who went abroad to get more cash - a lot depends on SA politics on that front too. SA is a decent TV deal - but 55 million people in a 3rd world country amounts to less than what you'd get for TV in England or France.

Australia also have 2 teams too many for their talent pool (even though they've been less hard-hit than SA by the European exodus). Unfortunately for them, the resulting poor performances post-expansion drove away a chunk of their fan base - Aus has one of the most congested pro sports markets in the world, & the fans want winners. Cricket in Aus is also facing a major income cut currently as the rise of AFL along with the popularity of RL (who had similar problems in the past after attempting expansion), soccer, basketball and netball draw off sections of fan base



It's also worth noting that only 2 or 3 (I forget exactly who aside from Exeter) Premiership clubs made a profit in the 2015-16 season. So while they're pulling in a hefty amount of TV wonga, they're sending it back out the door to players

RugbyFan100 wrote:

BigGee wrote:

At the end of the day their will always be clubs that have bigger budgets than others in professional sport, even with salary caps, which as we well know are not worth the paper they are written on.

It always makes me raise an eyebrow how teams like Clermont Auvergne never get mentioned as one of the bad boys in these things. They have a bigger salary spend that Toulon, have wealthy private owners pumping in millions, don't make as much profit as Toulon, have a bigger budget than Toulon, don't have a good as academy as Toulon, have about the same amount of foreign imports as Toulon, yet haven't won anywhere near as much silverware as Toulon.

But Toulon and Sarries are the bad boys. Is it because they win things? Or is it because their owners are in the public eye?

How is Toulons academy better than Clermonts?

Toulon may pay less in 'salaries' but that does not always include everything that is paid to players. Mourad has openly admitted this in the past and the regulations were changed at the start of last season to include these payments to the extent he stomped his feet and threatened to leave the Top14 because Toulon would break the salary cap due to the amounts paid to their players

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

It is coincidence, Super Rugby brings in pretty sizeable tv revenues and its a mix of union run teams, privately run teams and union owned and privately run teams.

England and France have an advantage of a bigger tv market with bigger populations and with rugby being bigger sports there than in Ireland, Scotland and Italy. They are also older and far more established than the Pro12

If Super rugby is commanding sizeable revenue, why are S African teams leaving and Australian rugby on the verge of a financial meltdown?

Seems to be that the consistently powerful, fundable, coherent leagues with no problems are those which are run by the clubs that are in them.

Broadly, SA don't have the player base to support 6 Super-rugby quality teams. By sending their 2 worst ones over to an easier league they gain extra tv revenue (as the SA broadcaster gets different content, and at different time of year), and they'll be hoping to attract home some of the players who went abroad to get more cash - a lot depends on SA politics on that front too. SA is a decent TV deal - but 55 million people in a 3rd world country amounts to less than what you'd get for TV in England or France.

Australia also have 2 teams too many for their talent pool (even though they've been less hard-hit than SA by the European exodus). Unfortunately for them, the resulting poor performances post-expansion drove away a chunk of their fan base - Aus has one of the most congested pro sports markets in the world, & the fans want winners. Cricket in Aus is also facing a major income cut currently as the rise of AFL along with the popularity of RL (who had similar problems in the past after attempting expansion), soccer, basketball and netball draw off sections of fan base



It's also worth noting that only 2 or 3 (I forget exactly who aside from Exeter) Premiership clubs made a profit in the 2015-16 season. So while they're pulling in a hefty amount of TV wonga, they're sending it back out the door to players

If SA have enough revenue to retain their players instead of an exodus they can front 10 competitive teams

Are the SARU fronting Munster these days? Would explain the number they have these days

Biltong wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

It is coincidence, Super Rugby brings in pretty sizeable tv revenues and its a mix of union run teams, privately run teams and union owned and privately run teams.

England and France have an advantage of a bigger tv market with bigger populations and with rugby being bigger sports there than in Ireland, Scotland and Italy. They are also older and far more established than the Pro12

If Super rugby is commanding sizeable revenue, why are S African teams leaving and Australian rugby on the verge of a financial meltdown?

Seems to be that the consistently powerful, fundable, coherent leagues with no problems are those which are run by the clubs that are in them.

Broadly, SA don't have the player base to support 6 Super-rugby quality teams. By sending their 2 worst ones over to an easier league they gain extra tv revenue (as the SA broadcaster gets different content, and at different time of year), and they'll be hoping to attract home some of the players who went abroad to get more cash - a lot depends on SA politics on that front too. SA is a decent TV deal - but 55 million people in a 3rd world country amounts to less than what you'd get for TV in England or France.

Australia also have 2 teams too many for their talent pool (even though they've been less hard-hit than SA by the European exodus). Unfortunately for them, the resulting poor performances post-expansion drove away a chunk of their fan base - Aus has one of the most congested pro sports markets in the world, & the fans want winners. Cricket in Aus is also facing a major income cut currently as the rise of AFL along with the popularity of RL (who had similar problems in the past after attempting expansion), soccer, basketball and netball draw off sections of fan base



It's also worth noting that only 2 or 3 (I forget exactly who aside from Exeter) Premiership clubs made a profit in the 2015-16 season. So while they're pulling in a hefty amount of TV wonga, they're sending it back out the door to players

If SA have enough revenue to retain their players instead of an exodus they can front 10 competitive teams

True - I should have said "home-based players"

PhilBB wrote:

Don Alfonso wrote:Wales (or the WRU) don't have to bail out/top up/subsidise/invest in the regions, yet still come fifth in the Six Nations. Beaten by Ireland and Scotland, who are pouring money into their club-equivalent teams. They really can't adopt a similar model or they'll come last. The "sugar daddy model" is a necessity for them.

You know your stuff

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2017/03/10/wales-vs-ireland-six-nations-watch-live-score-updates1/

Sorry, meant in the table. 2nd to 5th.

The Kings players are keen for the move apparently

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/40562458

Don Alfonso wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Don Alfonso wrote:Wales (or the WRU) don't have to bail out/top up/subsidise/invest in the regions, yet still come fifth in the Six Nations. Beaten by Ireland and Scotland, who are pouring money into their club-equivalent teams. They really can't adopt a similar model or they'll come last. The "sugar daddy model" is a necessity for them.

You know your stuff

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2017/03/10/wales-vs-ireland-six-nations-watch-live-score-updates1/

Sorry, meant in the table. 2nd to 5th.

Yet a region one the Pro12.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Don Alfonso wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Don Alfonso wrote:Wales (or the WRU) don't have to bail out/top up/subsidise/invest in the regions, yet still come fifth in the Six Nations. Beaten by Ireland and Scotland, who are pouring money into their club-equivalent teams. They really can't adopt a similar model or they'll come last. The "sugar daddy model" is a necessity for them.

You know your stuff

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2017/03/10/wales-vs-ireland-six-nations-watch-live-score-updates1/

Sorry, meant in the table. 2nd to 5th.

Yet a region one the Pro12.

WON!!

Top 2 were provinces though

How does that change whether the WRU can afford to subsidise them?

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

BigGee wrote:

At the end of the day their will always be clubs that have bigger budgets than others in professional sport, even with salary caps, which as we well know are not worth the paper they are written on.

It always makes me raise an eyebrow how teams like Clermont Auvergne never get mentioned as one of the bad boys in these things. They have a bigger salary spend that Toulon, have wealthy private owners pumping in millions, don't make as much profit as Toulon, have a bigger budget than Toulon, don't have a good as academy as Toulon, have about the same amount of foreign imports as Toulon, yet haven't won anywhere near as much silverware as Toulon.

But Toulon and Sarries are the bad boys. Is it because they win things? Or is it because their owners are in the public eye?

How is Toulons academy better than Clermonts?

Toulon may pay less in 'salaries' but that does not always include everything that is paid to players. Mourad has openly admitted this in the past and the regulations were changed at the start of last season to include these payments to the extent he stomped his feet and threatened to leave the Top14 because Toulon would break the salary cap due to the amounts paid to their players

Toulon have performed well in the French academy competition. Better than Clermont's over the past few seasons.

Your second point is exactly the same for any club. The fact you have highlighted these points just makes my post stand out further. Toulon are unfairly disliked.

Toulon are disliked because of their president behavior who comes across as pretty arrogant and do not hesitate to be quite confrontational.

Why do people get all tetchy over this ?

There is a debate to be had, yet all we see is point scoring, I have no problem with whatever system each union wants to adopt, but I am also not so blinkered that I fail to see how the issue of meritocracy cannot raise it's ugly head because of it.

Firstly we all need to agree that nobody is doing anything wrong, then take each point of view and pick the bones out of it.

Marty

congrats on you're job with the gammer police, i hope their very please with your hard work.  They're may even be a promotion for you.

Back to the pro12 proposals. The other thing to consider is the mercenary angle of these south african players. Alot of today's BBC article is quite depressing. Players are using the pro12 to get noticed and picked up by European clubs.

This is what current Kings scrum half thinks of the proposal:

"Most of the South Africans want to earn their pounds or their Euros and I think playing in Europe, playing against Munster or Ulster, the big teams from Ireland or Scotland or Wales can certainly put your foot in the door a bit," Van Rooyen said.


"The only way people in Europe can see you play is clips and games that you send them, but once you start playing against them week in, week out, they can know more about you as a person and how you play.

"I've got only about four, five, six years left - you have to make your pounds or your Euros. Playing against the European teams week in, week out, should hopefully make a way for us to get overseas just by playing against the teams there.

"So I think it can really help us to become Boks or to get that big contract in Europe to help you get financial stability for after rugby.

"It can be a huge door to be opened for South Africans wanting to make a few bucks before their time runs out with rugby."

LordDowlais wrote:Why do people get all tetchy over this ?

There is a debate to be had, yet all we see is point scoring, I have no problem with whatever system each union wants to adopt, but I am also not so blinkered that I fail to see how the issue of meritocracy cannot raise it's ugly head because of it.

Firstly we all need to agree that nobody is doing anything wrong, then take each point of view and pick the bones out of it.

It really is a shame. There are some real issues, and queries about what will happen in the future, and how it will impact upon the fans. However, this forum (especially all the Pro12 threads) are only ever going to be Irish (generally Ulster fans) and Welsh fans bickering the same nonsense that they have argued non-stop since the whole HEC/RCC stuff.

RDW_Scotland wrote:The Kings players are keen for the move apparently

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/40562458

And a number of teams are keen to nick some super rugby players. Ulster have already started - living up to their rep there .

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

BigGee wrote:

At the end of the day their will always be clubs that have bigger budgets than others in professional sport, even with salary caps, which as we well know are not worth the paper they are written on.

It always makes me raise an eyebrow how teams like Clermont Auvergne never get mentioned as one of the bad boys in these things. They have a bigger salary spend that Toulon, have wealthy private owners pumping in millions, don't make as much profit as Toulon, have a bigger budget than Toulon, don't have a good as academy as Toulon, have about the same amount of foreign imports as Toulon, yet haven't won anywhere near as much silverware as Toulon.

But Toulon and Sarries are the bad boys. Is it because they win things? Or is it because their owners are in the public eye?

How is Toulons academy better than Clermonts?

Toulon may pay less in 'salaries' but that does not always include everything that is paid to players. Mourad has openly admitted this in the past and the regulations were changed at the start of last season to include these payments to the extent he stomped his feet and threatened to leave the Top14 because Toulon would break the salary cap due to the amounts paid to their players

Toulon have performed well in the French academy competition. Better than Clermont's over the past few seasons.

Your second point is exactly the same for any club. The fact you have highlighted these points just makes my post stand out further. Toulon are unfairly disliked.  

And how many of those players have went on to the first XV? That's the raison d'etre of the academies, Toulons academy has had more success at that level, it doesn't mean it is better

No its not because no other club raised an issue with the new regs, only Mourad

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Marty

congrats on you're job with the gammer police, i hope their very please with your hard work.  They're may even be a promotion for you.

It's spelling not 'gammer' though I'm taking the ridiculously poor spelling in that post is a poor attempt at trolling

marty2086 wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Marty

congrats on you're job with the gammer police, i hope their very please with your hard work.  They're may even be a promotion for you.

It's spelling not 'gammer' though I'm taking the ridiculously poor spelling in that post is a poor attempt at trolling

OMG.

Can you not see the sarcasm in his post ?

That's the trouble with you marty. You have an obsession about always being right all the time. Just take a breather.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Marty

congrats on you're job with the gammer police, i hope their very please with your hard work.  They're may even be a promotion for you.

It's spelling not 'gammer' though I'm taking the ridiculously poor spelling in that post is a poor attempt at trolling

OMG.

Can you not see the sarcasm in his post ?

That's the trouble with you marty. You have an obsession about always being right all the time. Just take a breather.

Easy to say when you're wrong so often

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Marty

congrats on you're job with the gammer police, i hope their very please with your hard work.  They're may even be a promotion for you.

It's spelling not 'gammer' though I'm taking the ridiculously poor spelling in that post is a poor attempt at trolling

OMG.

Can you not see the sarcasm in his post ?

That's the trouble with you marty. You have an obsession about always being right all the time. Just take a breather.

Easy to say when you're wrong so often

OK......

BigGee 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.

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.

And the English clubs (PRL) have sign a £200m deal to get money from the RFU.


I can see your point LD but it's a bit simplistic to say that because as I noted above, even the English clubs are heavily linked up with the RFU. The RFU are giving them money, the RFU are pumping money into the underage game and all things like that. You have national lottery grants etc too in helping to produce players. It's all part of a complex system.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Marty

congrats on you're job with the gammer police, i hope their very please with your hard work.  They're may even be a promotion for you.

It's spelling not 'gammer' though I'm taking the ridiculously poor spelling in that post is a poor attempt at trolling

OMG.

Can you not see the sarcasm in his post ?

That's the trouble with you marty. You have an obsession about always being right all the time. Just take a breather.

Easy to say when you're wrong so often

OK......

No comment on Ulster receiving only £1.58m from the IRFU?