IRFU Annual Report

Fair play to the IRFU for, yet again, investing in its supply chain and, on this occasion, being prepared to go into deficit in order to sustain the professional game.

If only the WRU had the governance set up, and the subsequent strength of the Executive, in order to do the same.

PhilBB wrote:Fair play to the IRFU for, yet again, investing in its supply chain and, on this occasion, being prepared to go into deficit in order to sustain the professional game.

If only the WRU had the governance set up, and the subsequent strength of the Executive, in order to do the same.

.. and to develop the women's game & 7s.

Sin é wrote:

PhilBB wrote:Fair play to the IRFU for, yet again, investing in its supply chain and, on this occasion, being prepared to go into deficit in order to sustain the professional game.

If only the WRU had the governance set up, and the subsequent strength of the Executive, in order to do the same.

.. and to develop the women's game & 7s.

Because no successful business ever does such a thing, it's not like they built up their reserves to tens of millions to allow rthem to invest down the line..oh wait they did

The Annual Report makes for interesting reading. Professional Game Costs up again - this time by €5m - costs are rising rapidly in the last 3 years. Competition Income from provincial competitions remains relatively static at €10.5m.

Pot Hale wrote:The Annual Report makes for interesting reading.  Professional Game Costs up again - this time by €5m - costs are rising rapidly in the last 3 years.  Competition Income from provincial competitions remains relatively static at €10.5m.  

http://www.the42.ie/ireland-women-funding-irfu-3496159-Jul2017/

also http://www.the42.ie/ireland-mens-sevens-england-world-cup-3498892-Jul2017/

Sevens heaven! Ireland seal qualification for next summer's World Cup in San Fran

A few years ago we didn't have a sevens team, and the Women's game is now also being better funded, these weren't costs that were there a few years ago in the Professional Game Costs.

The IRFU are doing a good job, especially when you compare it to the womens football team who have to share tracksuits with underage teams and change in airport toilets.

Womens costs don't fall under professional game costs because they aren't professional

The increase of €3.5m is due to no tour taking place in 2015/16, match costs for a full Guinness Series together with the Chicago match, insurance costs, player and management bonuses and increased funding for the Provinces.

So what is Phil's point ?

I cannot be @rsed to go trawling the WWW for this. Can any of you lot shine any light on the subject ?

LordDowlais wrote:So what is Phil's point ?

I cannot be @rsed to go trawling the WWW for this. Can any of you lot shine any light on the subject ?

Does he ever have one?

The IRFU had a deficit of €3m

marty2086 wrote:Does he ever have one?

No. But he does have a rhetoric.

marty2086 wrote:The IRFU had a deficit of €3m

Then why didn't he just say this in his original post ????


Despite, Phil's obvious agenda here, there is an actual decent debate to be had with this. Are their any plans afoot to cover this loss ? What do you reckon the IRFU will do ?

I can see in other posts why this might have happened, 7's team now started, women's rugby, but can the IRFU keep sustaining their support of all rugby in Ireland at this rate ? I would have thought the answer would be a resounding no.

Obviously cut backs are needed, but where do you all think they would come ? I am not as clued up with the IRFU as you lot are, what impacts do you think this will have on the Provinces and other area's of Irish rugby ?

Purely from a business point of view (nothing to do with rugby) - a £3m deficit for a business with 75m turnover isn't really an issue, and will have likely have been planned for

I doubt there is any immediate need to change anything or make cuts

They don't need to do anything about it, they have reserves of over €70m and as they explained in the report it was partly down to the lack of November Internationals which would have covered at least some of the difference.

marty2086 wrote:They don't need to do anything about it, they have reserves of over €70m and as they explained in the report it was partly down to the lack of November Internationals which would have covered at least some of the difference.

Ah OK, but I thought Ireland always played 3 AI's. You played New Zealand, Australia and Canada in the Autumn, plus an extra game in Chicago, so how can the lack of November Internationals be an issue ?

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:They don't need to do anything about it, they have reserves of over €70m and as they explained in the report it was partly down to the lack of November Internationals which would have covered at least some of the difference.

Ah OK, but I thought Ireland always played 3 AI's. You played New Zealand, Australia and Canada in the Autumn, plus an extra game in Chicago, so how can the lack of November Internationals be an issue ?

Sorry I said AIs, that's an assumption, it does relate to 2015/16 when the RWC was on

marty2086 wrote:Sorry I said AIs, that's an assumption, it does relate to 2015/16 when the RWC was on

Yeah, I was thinking that.

How much money does each nation lose when they play in the WC instead of havin AI's ? Wales got to the quarter finals of the last WC, so we played 5 games instead of 4, do you just get prize money for the WC, or do you get anything for actually playing ?

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Sorry I said AIs, that's an assumption, it does relate to 2015/16 when the RWC was on

Yeah, I was thinking that.

How much money does each nation lose when they play in the WC instead of havin AI's ? Wales got to the quarter finals of the last WC, so we played 5 games instead of 4, do you just get prize money for the WC, or do you get anything for actually playing ?

As far as I know, each country gets a set fee to play in the world cup to cover costs but basically it is a money making enterprise for World Rugby to facilitate the development of the game.

What about prize money ?

Both Wales and Ireland got to the same stages of the WC, so do you get extra prize money for getting out of your group ect ?

LordDowlais wrote:What about prize money ?

Both Wales and Ireland got to the same stages of the WC, so do you get extra prize money for getting out of your group ect ?

Seemingly not, according to this.

http://www.totalsportek.com/rugby/rwc-2015-prize-money/

The point that Phil is making is that the IRFU budgeted for a deficit in the last year - to the tune of €4m.  That included investing an extra €1m for the provinces to compete in the market on player salaries.  Because of better than expected results from teams, improved sponsor deals, the deficit only came to €2.8m. They planned for a deficit and including for a currency loss due to Brexit last year on sterling denominated income.  Their plan is to break even by end of next year.  

Professional Game Costs of €38m apprix cover men's international test matches, match fees and bonuses, the 20-person coaching and conditioning team, central contracts, and contributions to the four provinces.  This latter  cost is offset somewhat by provincial Competition Income of €10.5m.  

Bottom line is though -costs rising, provincial income static. Hence Browne's comments last year about PRO12 needing to change/improve. The creation of the PRO14 is a move in the right direction.  The new TV deal with terrestrial/PPV will tell a lot more.

The potential positive benefits for SA teams in the European Cup and TV rights remains to be seen.  It might change qualification numbers from each league with 7 each from the 14-team leagues, and 5/6 from Premiership and/or the Challenge Cup winner.

The agreement to keep PRO12 European income at a minimum to what it was before will likely change.  Particularly if the inclusion of SA market gives a boost to European TV income. However, BT just won the exclusive rights for the next 4 years so it will be interesting to see what their response will be if EPCR looks for more money.

Also, if the IRFU are looking at stumping up the costs for all rugby in Ireland, then for me the Aviva Stadium needs looking at.

It is the is the lowest capacity stadium in the 6N. A very nice stadium non the less, but there is a massive difference in £££££'s or €€€€€'s selling 20,000+ tickets every home game or not.

Nothing will happen with the Aviva, it was only reopened 7 years ago and cost of hundreds of millions to redevelop. It's size is limited by being surrounded by residential areas and is the reason for the sloping roof over one of stands.

The ground is also hosting regular preseason friendlies with some of the worlds biggest football clubs which Im sure don't hurt the revenue streams, along with the Leinster /Munster games and ERCC games too

marty2086 wrote:Nothing will happen with the Aviva, it was only reopened 7 years ago and cost of hundreds of millions to redevelop. It's size is limited by being surrounded by residential areas and is the reason for the sloping roof over one of stands.

The ground is also hosting regular preseason friendlies with some of the worlds biggest football clubs which Im sure don't hurt the revenue streams, along with the Leinster /Munster games and ERCC games too

I am not bad mouthing your stadium.

It's a really nice stadium. I know all about it and it's surroundings and found out why there was a glass wall at one end, so that residents would not lose any daylight.

But no matter how many events are held there, it is still to small. Ireland has the support to prop up it's union. Trouble is, you cannot all fit into that stadium.

Sorry but your argument was about finances, now its just that you think it should be bigger?

marty2086 wrote:Sorry but your argument was about finances, now its just that you think it should be bigger?

It needs to be bigger to generate more money. So yes it is about the stadium being bigger. It's a lovely stadium, it's just not big enough to generate the finances needed to help prop up all the rugby in Ireland.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Sorry but your argument was about finances, now its just that you think it should be bigger?

It needs to be bigger to generate more money. So yes it is about the stadium being bigger. It's a lovely stadium, it's just not big enough to generate the finances needed to help prop up all the rugby in Ireland.

That's why they hold the football games, its an additional revenue stream the others don't have

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Sorry but your argument was about finances, now its just that you think it should be bigger?

It needs to be bigger to generate more money. So yes it is about the stadium being bigger. It's a lovely stadium, it's just not big enough to generate the finances needed to help prop up all the rugby in Ireland.

The only way to make the Aviva any bigger, Is to knock it down sell the land, and build a new stadium outside Dublin. Since it was only upgraded 7 years ago that isn't going to happen.
Croke Park is a non starter, there is a special agreement for the possible RWC, and there is too much on there already there a Coldplay concert eight days before yesterday’s Leinster SFC final and some of the pitch needed relaid, and they are digging it up or the U2 concert which takes place on Saturday night, and Down-Monaghan and Armagh-Kildare football qualifiers set for Croke Park double-header on Saturday 29th July.

LordDowlais wrote:So what is Phil's point ?

I cannot be @rsed to go trawling the WWW for this. Can any of you lot shine any light on the subject ?

The point is, as always, how it is written. Read the words.

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Sorry but your argument was about finances, now its just that you think it should be bigger?

It needs to be bigger to generate more money. So yes it is about the stadium being bigger. It's a lovely stadium, it's just not big enough to generate the finances needed to help prop up all the rugby in Ireland.

That's why they hold the football games, its an additional revenue stream the others don't have

Yes, but you could make more if the stadium was bigger, jeees, are you just looking for an argument ? Again ?

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Sorry but your argument was about finances, now its just that you think it should be bigger?

It needs to be bigger to generate more money. So yes it is about the stadium being bigger. It's a lovely stadium, it's just not big enough to generate the finances needed to help prop up all the rugby in Ireland.

That's why they hold the football games, its an additional revenue stream the others don't have

Yes, but you could make more if the stadium was bigger, jeees, are you just looking for an argument ? Again ?

No you just can't grasp that they can't as has been explained on more than one occasion, most stadiums can make more if they are bigger but it's a little more complex than just wishing it be so

The need for other revenue streams forced the FAI and IRFU to go out and find different ways to make money, hence they brought the International Champions Cup games to the stadium and before that they had their own tournaments

IRFU cash reserves fell by €10m during the year to €5.3m

€36.8m spent on player and management costs by the IRFU on top of €3.3m national match costs.

Sin é wrote:

PhilBB wrote:Fair play to the IRFU for, yet again, investing in its supply chain and, on this occasion, being prepared to go into deficit in order to sustain the professional game.

If only the WRU had the governance set up, and the subsequent strength of the Executive, in order to do the same.

.. and to develop the women's game & 7s.

The Women's Game and 7s costs are shown separately in the accounts, so not relevant to my point. Sorry.

Did Munster make the scheduled €4.2m loan repayment on April 30th this season?

Or were they allowed to not pay that, strengthen their squad and out compete others by outspending them?

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Sorry but your argument was about finances, now its just that you think it should be bigger?

It needs to be bigger to generate more money. So yes it is about the stadium being bigger. It's a lovely stadium, it's just not big enough to generate the finances needed to help prop up all the rugby in Ireland.

That's why they hold the football games, its an additional revenue stream the others don't have

Yes, but you could make more if the stadium was bigger, jeees, are you just looking for an argument ? Again ?

No you just can't grasp that they can't as has been explained on more than one occasion, most stadiums can make more if they are bigger but it's a little more complex than just wishing it be so

The need for other revenue streams forced the FAI and IRFU to go out and find different ways to make money, hence they brought the International Champions Cup games to the stadium and before that they had their own tournaments

OMG.....

OK, deep breath....calm blue oceans, keep thinking calm blue oceans.......

Right, here goes. Whether Ireland want to, or whether the can or cannot is irrelevant, because as we all know, the Aviva stadium is new, and it is not going to be altered, BUT, the IRFU are hamstrung by the fact that they have the smallest stadium in the 6N, would you agree ? You are now stuck with the Aviva stadium, so every time you use it, you cannot make as much money as your peers as your stadium is about a third smaller than the MS, about half smaller than Twickenham and Paris, and about a quarter smaller than Murrayfield.

I would say that the Aviva stadium is not big enough to help prop up a whole countries rugby union and running costs. Croke park is big enough though.

You might be interested to know that the IRFU recorded a loss on their "joint ventures" of €2.2m

They might have broke even or made a gain if their national stadium was about 20,000 seats bigger.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Sorry but your argument was about finances, now its just that you think it should be bigger?

It needs to be bigger to generate more money. So yes it is about the stadium being bigger. It's a lovely stadium, it's just not big enough to generate the finances needed to help prop up all the rugby in Ireland.

That's why they hold the football games, its an additional revenue stream the others don't have

Yes, but you could make more if the stadium was bigger, jeees, are you just looking for an argument ? Again ?

No you just can't grasp that they can't as has been explained on more than one occasion, most stadiums can make more if they are bigger but it's a little more complex than just wishing it be so

The need for other revenue streams forced the FAI and IRFU to go out and find different ways to make money, hence they brought the International Champions Cup games to the stadium and before that they had their own tournaments

OMG.....

OK, deep breath....calm blue oceans, keep thinking calm blue oceans.......

Right, here goes. Whether Ireland want to, or whether the can or cannot is irrelevant, because as we all know, the Aviva stadium is new, and it is not going to be altered, BUT, the IRFU are hamstrung by the fact that they have the smallest stadium in the 6N, would you agree ? You are now stuck with the Aviva stadium, so every time you use it, you cannot make as much money as your peers as your stadium is about a third smaller than the MS, about half smaller than Twickenham and Paris, and about a quarter smaller than Murrayfield.

I would say that the Aviva stadium is not big enough to help prop up a whole countries rugby union and running costs. Croke park is big enough though.

Yes. all of that is correct. Aviva is def smaller than ideal, but that is the bed we are in for the next 10-20 years with matches in Croke being unlikely outside of a RWC bid. The fee from the GAA is such that using the Aviva is about the same income to the IRFU as using Croke anyways. The only way to make an appreciable increase in IRFU funds is through new TV markets for the Irish game. We will see if the new PRO14 helps with that. I could also see more Aviva use for large PRO14 matches (Leinster matches against the top Welsh/SA teams could easily take place there if demand grows with the new league format).

Interesting to see that the IRFU spend on the pro game is north of €45m. At present exchange rates that's circa 1.5m the WRU spend, even if you consider the income owed to PRW from competitions.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Sorry but your argument was about finances, now its just that you think it should be bigger?

It needs to be bigger to generate more money. So yes it is about the stadium being bigger. It's a lovely stadium, it's just not big enough to generate the finances needed to help prop up all the rugby in Ireland.

That's why they hold the football games, its an additional revenue stream the others don't have

Yes, but you could make more if the stadium was bigger, jeees, are you just looking for an argument ? Again ?

No you just can't grasp that they can't as has been explained on more than one occasion, most stadiums can make more if they are bigger but it's a little more complex than just wishing it be so

The need for other revenue streams forced the FAI and IRFU to go out and find different ways to make money, hence they brought the International Champions Cup games to the stadium and before that they had their own tournaments

OMG.....

OK, deep breath....calm blue oceans, keep thinking calm blue oceans.......

Right, here goes. Whether Ireland want to, or whether the can or cannot is irrelevant, because as we all know, the Aviva stadium is new, and it is not going to be altered, BUT, the IRFU are hamstrung by the fact that they have the smallest stadium in the 6N, would you agree ? You are now stuck with the Aviva stadium, so every time you use it, you cannot make as much money as your peers as your stadium is about a third smaller than the MS, about half smaller than Twickenham and Paris, and about a quarter smaller than Murrayfield.

I would say that the Aviva stadium is not big enough to help prop up a whole countries rugby union and running costs. Croke park is big enough though.

There you go with that BS, your inability to grasp what are very simple points are highlighted and you tell people to chill:picard:

Firstly, attendances are a fraction of overall income for any union and secondly the Aviva and its previous smaller incarnation of Lansdowne Road have sustained a whole countries union and its running costs so that kind of points to a gapping hole in your logic

And to top it all off, if you can't make as much money from attendances you look elsewhere to generate income, like sponsorship of the stadium and special events

The deferred ticket fund for the IRFU is €52,936,390

The IRFU chose an up front payment from Aviva of €8.3m instead of the annual payment from the 10 year sponsorship.

Whoops.

PhilBB wrote:The deferred ticket fund for the IRFU is €52,936,390

The IRFU chose an up front payment from Aviva of €8.3m instead of the annual payment from the 10 year sponsorship.

Whoops.

And you know why they did that.

The Aviva naming rights are due to end soon along with the restrictions on where test matches can be played.

The capacity has to be set at what can be achieved for all events - not just for an Ireland v England match. The Millennium is approx 20k larger but it doesn't always fill to capacity.

PhilBB wrote:Interesting to see that the IRFU spend on the pro game is north of €45m. At present exchange rates that's circa 1.5m the WRU spend, even if you consider the income owed to PRW from competitions.

Yes the IRFU spends more than the WRU. It has done so for quite some time even if you consider the Competition Income is the same or less than what the Welsh regions achieve.

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Sorry but your argument was about finances, now its just that you think it should be bigger?

It needs to be bigger to generate more money. So yes it is about the stadium being bigger. It's a lovely stadium, it's just not big enough to generate the finances needed to help prop up all the rugby in Ireland.

That's why they hold the football games, its an additional revenue stream the others don't have

Yes, but you could make more if the stadium was bigger, jeees, are you just looking for an argument ? Again ?

No you just can't grasp that they can't as has been explained on more than one occasion, most stadiums can make more if they are bigger but it's a little more complex than just wishing it be so

The need for other revenue streams forced the FAI and IRFU to go out and find different ways to make money, hence they brought the International Champions Cup games to the stadium and before that they had their own tournaments

OMG.....

OK, deep breath....calm blue oceans, keep thinking calm blue oceans.......

Right, here goes. Whether Ireland want to, or whether the can or cannot is irrelevant, because as we all know, the Aviva stadium is new, and it is not going to be altered, BUT, the IRFU are hamstrung by the fact that they have the smallest stadium in the 6N, would you agree ? You are now stuck with the Aviva stadium, so every time you use it, you cannot make as much money as your peers as your stadium is about a third smaller than the MS, about half smaller than Twickenham and Paris, and about a quarter smaller than Murrayfield.

I would say that the Aviva stadium is not big enough to help prop up a whole countries rugby union and running costs. Croke park is big enough though.

There you go with that BS, your inability to grasp what are very simple points are highlighted and you tell people to chill:picard:

Firstly, attendances are a fraction of overall income for any union and secondly the Aviva and its previous smaller incarnation of Lansdowne Road have sustained a whole countries union and its running costs so that kind of points to a gapping hole in your logic

And to top it all off, if you can't make as much money from attendances you look elsewhere to generate income, like sponsorship of the stadium and special events

Wow....

Just WOW.....

Why are you surprised, Dowlais? Martyn has a long history of posting nothing but errors.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Sorry but your argument was about finances, now its just that you think it should be bigger?

It needs to be bigger to generate more money. So yes it is about the stadium being bigger. It's a lovely stadium, it's just not big enough to generate the finances needed to help prop up all the rugby in Ireland.

That's why they hold the football games, its an additional revenue stream the others don't have

Yes, but you could make more if the stadium was bigger, jeees, are you just looking for an argument ? Again ?

No you just can't grasp that they can't as has been explained on more than one occasion, most stadiums can make more if they are bigger but it's a little more complex than just wishing it be so

The need for other revenue streams forced the FAI and IRFU to go out and find different ways to make money, hence they brought the International Champions Cup games to the stadium and before that they had their own tournaments

OMG.....

OK, deep breath....calm blue oceans, keep thinking calm blue oceans.......

Right, here goes. Whether Ireland want to, or whether the can or cannot is irrelevant, because as we all know, the Aviva stadium is new, and it is not going to be altered, BUT, the IRFU are hamstrung by the fact that they have the smallest stadium in the 6N, would you agree ? You are now stuck with the Aviva stadium, so every time you use it, you cannot make as much money as your peers as your stadium is about a third smaller than the MS, about half smaller than Twickenham and Paris, and about a quarter smaller than Murrayfield.

I would say that the Aviva stadium is not big enough to help prop up a whole countries rugby union and running costs. Croke park is big enough though.

There you go with that BS, your inability to grasp what are very simple points are highlighted and you tell people to chill:picard:

Firstly, attendances are a fraction of overall income for any union and secondly the Aviva and its previous smaller incarnation of Lansdowne Road have sustained a whole countries union and its running costs so that kind of points to a gapping hole in your logic

And to top it all off, if you can't make as much money from attendances you look elsewhere to generate income, like sponsorship of the stadium and special events

Wow....

Just WOW.....

Another riveting contribution

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Sorry but your argument was about finances, now its just that you think it should be bigger?

It needs to be bigger to generate more money. So yes it is about the stadium being bigger. It's a lovely stadium, it's just not big enough to generate the finances needed to help prop up all the rugby in Ireland.

That's why they hold the football games, its an additional revenue stream the others don't have

Yes, but you could make more if the stadium was bigger, jeees, are you just looking for an argument ? Again ?

No you just can't grasp that they can't as has been explained on more than one occasion, most stadiums can make more if they are bigger but it's a little more complex than just wishing it be so

The need for other revenue streams forced the FAI and IRFU to go out and find different ways to make money, hence they brought the International Champions Cup games to the stadium and before that they had their own tournaments

OMG.....

OK, deep breath....calm blue oceans, keep thinking calm blue oceans.......

Right, here goes. Whether Ireland want to, or whether the can or cannot is irrelevant, because as we all know, the Aviva stadium is new, and it is not going to be altered, BUT, the IRFU are hamstrung by the fact that they have the smallest stadium in the 6N, would you agree ? You are now stuck with the Aviva stadium, so every time you use it, you cannot make as much money as your peers as your stadium is about a third smaller than the MS, about half smaller than Twickenham and Paris, and about a quarter smaller than Murrayfield.

I would say that the Aviva stadium is not big enough to help prop up a whole countries rugby union and running costs. Croke park is big enough though.

There you go with that BS, your inability to grasp what are very simple points are highlighted and you tell people to chill:picard:

Firstly, attendances are a fraction of overall income for any union and secondly the Aviva and its previous smaller incarnation of Lansdowne Road have sustained a whole countries union and its running costs so that kind of points to a gapping hole in your logic

And to top it all off, if you can't make as much money from attendances you look elsewhere to generate income, like sponsorship of the stadium and special events

Wow....

Just WOW.....

Another riveting contribution

Dowlais and Phil are right.  Stating that attendances represent "a fraction of overall income" is just plain ignorance of the facts.  Read the Annual Report.  In particular, Phillip Browne's comments about the importance of ticket sales and the news release the IRFU posted on the topic.

Dowlais said no such thing the most we got from him was wow...just wow and as Ive Phil blocked Ive no idea what he said but considering that attendances are not all of the income the IRFU generates then it is a fraction of overall income, less than 50% in fact. Is it less than 45%?40%? That qualifies it as a fraction

LD stated that the stadium isn't big enough to sustain a country's union despite the fact it has for decades so no it's not ignorance of the facts on my part.

Ticket sales are important but having a smaller stadium is only a handicap if you allow it to be, fortunately the IRFU have so far been able to negate it and develop other revenue streams.

The long term key for the IRFU is weaning the provinces of its teat so they are self sufficient and the union can retain more as there are so many avenues that can go to develop more revenue.

marty2086 wrote:LD stated that the stadium isn't big enough to sustain a country's union despite the fact it has for decades so no it's not ignorance of the facts on my part.

Wrong, just plain wrong. Stop lying. FFS. You cannot always be right.

I said that the stadium is not big enough to help sustain a country's union, not to sustain it totally. It might have been big enough in the past, but in today's modern age of professionalism it is not big enough.

Please stop squirming. It is cringe worthy. Perhaps you need a break from this forum as your insistence to always argue, and the need to always be right is not healthy.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:LD stated that the stadium isn't big enough to sustain a country's union despite the fact it has for decades so no it's not ignorance of the facts on my part.

Wrong, just plain wrong. Stop lying. FFS. You cannot always be right.

I said that the stadium is not big enough to help sustain a country's union, not to sustain it totally. It might have been big enough in the past, but in today's modern age of professionalism it is not big enough.

Please stop squirming. It is cringe worthy. Perhaps you need a break from this forum as your insistence to always argue, and the need to always be right is not healthy.

Im sorry that one word makes all the difference only problem is I never said totally sustain. No one said that, except you in your squirming

It's not big enough despite doing exactly what you said it can't

marty2086 wrote:Dowlais said no such thing the most we got from him was wow...just wow and as Ive Phil blocked Ive no idea what he said but considering that attendances are not all of the income the IRFU generates then it is a fraction of overall income, less than 50% in fact. Is it less than 45%?40%? That qualifies it as a fraction

LD stated that the stadium isn't big enough to sustain a country's union despite the fact it has for decades so no it's not ignorance of the facts on my part.

Ticket sales are important but having a smaller stadium is only a handicap if you allow it to be, fortunately the IRFU have so far been able to negate it and develop other revenue streams.

The long term key for the IRFU is weaning the provinces of its teat so they are self sufficient and the union can retain more as there are so many avenues that can go to develop more revenue.

The phrase " only a fraction of the total/value/whole" is generally taken to mean only a small part. In reality ticket sales are the lifeblood of any rugby union. Attempting to come up with weasel words rather than simply acknowledge you were wrong just digs the hole deeper and discredits your views further.

Pot Hale wrote:
The phrase " only a fraction of the total/value/whole" is generally taken to mean only a small part. In reality ticket sales are the lifeblood of any rugby union.  Attempting to come up with weasel words rather than simply acknowledge you were wrong just digs the hole deeper and discredits your views further.

http://www.irishrugby.ie/matchdaytv?play=media&id=26075

Count how many times Browne says the word "attendances"