The Future for the PRO14 - Part 4 - A Global Club Championship

First topic message reminder :

Following the Union Balldance of the last 12 months, another union has finally joined the party - SARU. The PRO12 league is gone with Martin Anayi's announcement of a global club championship involving conferences of teams from five unions with the potential for more to be included.

At first glance, it looks like a smart play - albeit somewhat fortuitous with SARU having to shed two teams from the Super Rugby competition. It brings together a lot more viewers that are attractive to media companies and business sponsors. Celtic Rugby Ltd still owns the competition with just its three founding shareholders - IRFU, SRU and WRU. No club or franchise owners involved. FIR failed to meet the required performance that would have made them shareholders at the beginning of July. And SARU weren't persuasive enough to get their seat at the table just yet. Rumours of a new company being set up failed to materialise. But they still signed up to a six-year agreement with £6m in funding each year.

It's not clear if this money is coming from SARU or directly from SuperSport, their broadcast partner. It is SARU who have signed the agreement to provide two teams so presumably the financial buck stops with them. It's more likely the £6m is a participation fee paid by SARU, similar to what FIR was charged when it joined in 2010. Media reports have said that the monies will be split equally amongst the 12 teams with travel and logistics costs for SA trips met centrally by Celtic Rugby Ltd since these will vary for clubs depending on whether they play one or both teams in SA.

Next on Anayi's agenda is the negotiation of a new media deal involving PPV and terrestrial TV, and online platforms. SuperSport may have already got their slice - all 20-22 home games involving Cheetahs and Kings plus some/all of the finals stages. Or perhaps not. Sky and possibly other PPV broadcasters such as Eir Sport may be willing to bid more to be the primary broadcaster for a higher profile, expanded Championship. But Anayi will want to keep a slice for terrestrial TV since they have a much better viewership reach. The current deal is for four years. Would a six-year deal be a better strategic move to guarantee increased revenues for a longer period? It would link in with the duration of the SARU agreement. And it would outlast the current participation agreement for the European Cup run by EPCR.

Further expansion is obviously the other key consideration with possibly other teams from SA, US and Europe coming on board. The danger is that Celtic Rugby goes too far and repeats the mistakes of Super Rugby. Better to build slowly to see if they will still come.

The coming season will be a fascinating one to see how the new structure and Championship beds in. Will attendances increase? Will there be more surprise results and potentially another new team to lift the cup next May?

Roll on 1 September.



Further info on PRO14 can be found here:
http://www.pro14rugby.org/2017/08/01/guinness-pro14-championship-qa/

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:The Irish club's do get private investment already.

They do. But it's on an individual transaction basis isn't it? As in per player? Like somebody will stump up for Heaslip's ambassadorial money etc? The overall ownership is the Union. That's the key, they tell the coaches if they want to rest a player. They control the outs and ins.

So lets get this straight, the IRFU are resisting private investment while getting private investment Someone really talks out their

It's not the right model!!!

He wants a model whereby a single entity self-made man comes into a Province like Ulster or Leinster, the self made man starts throwing money at it ...coz that's what they seemingly do on their days off. (I do HOPE he's expected to buy the Provinces at the going rate.... i.e. ---- I hope he brings a lot of his personal wealth with him. The IRFU won't sell cheaply)  

Anyway, the new 'clubs' then tell IRFU to Frak off and pay up when the IRFU want to have some players that they had a part in nurturing for International duty (ie, the new owner wants a return on his investment and that's one of the routes. Shame on him).  

That creates good relationships between Clubs and Union.  

It also creates lovely relationships between players and their clubs.  

IRFU says 'f**k you' and declares that Irish players no longer have to play in Ireland to be chosen.  

Irish players go away to the money in England and France.  

The kinds of players that come back to Leinster or Ulster are in the price range of what the owner can afford (or else the Irish players would have stayed ).  So the quality of the players are the quality that are bought in cheaper than the ones that left - not nurtured throughout the Provinces.  

Away in the wonderland of big money (England and France), Irish players are stretched widely and all have different contracts with different self-made men.  T

Trying to collect a meaningful International team becomes extremely difficult.  Ireland drop to 10th in International ranking, Leinster and Ulster play in the Challenge Cup

The new self made men don't care because they're either foreign or JP McManus.  They'll get a few quid on the handful of people that attend their games, and on some shirts and stuff, and on the plastic glasses of beer.  And the stands will be emptyish but the self-made men won't care coz it's just a plaything really.  A little club to throw a few million quid at now and again...a personal little trinket to take away the boredom of being a millionaire with nothing to do.

And the not so nice thing is that I fully believe Rugbyfan man here would be delighted with that scenario.   If you're not a Region, you're a rival.  Get the self-made men into Ireland to ruin our party.  Lovely plan.

I agree to a point leinster. What started the downward trend for me was extension of the champions league. It allowed re top clubs at that time to start the squad expansion rather than focus on the 15 players they used to. The investment of rich owners was a way to combat that to an extent.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I agree to a point leinster. What started the downward trend for me was extension of the champions league. It allowed re top clubs at that time to start the squad expansion rather than focus on the 15 players they used to. The investment of rich owners was a way to combat that to an extent.

I disagree the champions league and European football is what keeps a lot of smaller clubs going  (see Dundalk)and  is the only thing worth watching in club football for me as I get to see teams from other leagues around Europe (people do forget there is a world outside of the premier league) the money from the champions league is crucial to teams such as Basel.

I think extortionate transfer fees ruined football. Not only did it give the power to the players it created generations of players who just simply didn't care about the clubs.

I was talking specifically to the premier league and the rise of the super rich owners to combat the vast wealth of repeated forays into the cl.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I was talking specifically to the premier league and the rise of the super rich owners to combat the vast wealth of repeated forays into the cl.

I bet all the wealthy owners in the EPL are there just for ego according to some, the growing sums from tv revenue Im sure play no part in their investment just like with rugby

marty2086 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I was talking specifically to the premier league and the rise of the super rich owners to combat the vast wealth of repeated forays into the cl.

I bet all the wealthy owners in the EPL are there just for ego according to some, the growing sums from tv revenue Im sure play no part in their investment just like with rugby

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26365955

No 7&1/2 wrote:I was talking specifically to the premier league and the rise of the super rich owners to combat the vast wealth of repeated forays into the cl.

Yeah that's probably why clubs like Chelsea were happy to take their money

Well chelsea were there or there abouts anyway in successive cl. It's the guys like Lerner the venky s etc as well, who at least offered the promise of money spent but not to the effect of man city and Chelsea. I don't mind a mega rich owner to be fair. There's reward and risk to it.

A lot will never see a return marty. But as we've established already with rugby some will. For exeter read Tottenham. There's no one type of owner. There's no one system of ownership which is right with the others wrong

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well chelsea were there or there abouts anyway in successive cl. It's the guys like Lerner the venky s etc as well, who at least offered the promise of money spent but not to the effect of man city and Chelsea. I don't mind a mega rich owner to be fair. There's reward and risk to it.

Not really as when you get to a certain stage of wealth you basically have unlimited funds at your disposal.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I was talking specifically to the premier league and the rise of the super rich owners to combat the vast wealth of repeated forays into the cl.

I bet all the wealthy owners in the EPL are there just for ego according to some, the growing sums from tv revenue Im sure play no part in their investment just like with rugby

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26365955

'The Glazer Family bought Manchester United in 2006, recognising the immense value of its global brand as a cash generator and the opportunities to enhance it even further.

The cost of buying the club was loaded on to the club itself, with the revenues it generates used to pay down the debt and interest that the Glazers undertook to buy the club. Eventually, the hope is that the club will essentially pay for itself leaving its American owners in possession of a multi-billion pound asset. '

That's called a long term investment, kinda proving my point

What the article also fails to mention is that the likes of the Qatari royal family and Sheikh Mansour investing in clubs is a chance to improve their other brands and drive tourism to their countries.

No 7&1/2 wrote: For exeter read Tottenham.

What similarities are you referring to here?

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote: For exeter read Tottenham.

What similarities are you referring to here?

You're the expert, surely you should know this?

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote: For exeter read Tottenham.

What similarities are you referring to here?

You're the expert, surely you should know this?

I'm not an expert in Tottenham Hotspur sadly.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote: For exeter read Tottenham.

What similarities are you referring to here?

You're the expert, surely you should know this?

I'm not an expert in Tottenham Hotspur sadly.

Or much else it seems

Owners looking for profit and sustainability.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

munkian wrote:So, broadcasting rights for next season, how many subscription channels are we all going to have to stump out for ?

In Wales:
Premier Sport (£10) - pro14
BT Sport - euro cups £??

Ok and I'm guessing a few games on reejunal tv too ?

Is Prem sport a website then ?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Owners looking for profit and sustainability.

So Joe Lewis took the £38m profit that Spurs made for himself?

munkian wrote:

Ok and I'm guessing a few games on reejunal tv too ?

Is Prem sport a website then ?

Yes to both. Prem sport can be viewed on subscription channel and website.

No he won't have.

I have to be honest here. Some of the members on here are less than respectful when considering other people opinions, some of our members on here need to take a long hard look at themselves.

You should contribute to the conversation rather than cry foul all the time.

Unfortunately the trolls are wining on this forum and its now got so little traffic compared to a couple of years ago that its hardly worth visiting now.