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:

SecretFly wrote:
I'm explaining to a guy that he keeps forgetting about his word 'Professional' when talking about them in cosy terms ...and yet he says it's the very Professionalism of the set up (the cold business heart, if you like) rather than the old amateurish Unions that makes them the natural model for club ownership.

How do you think major league baseball teams are funded SecretFly? And NFL teams. And NBL teams?

Are they so successful due to their Unions?

NBL?

Maybe something to do with the lucrative tv and commercial deals? Not having to build their own stadiums or arenas?

Another question unanswered. So Marty.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

The sentiment from who?

People who slag Saracens off. And people who accuse owners of rugby teams of intending to personally profit from rugby.

Doesn't sound at all made up

Imagine the horrid thought of someone making money from a business

There's no money to be made in Rugby Union by individuals seeking to place themselves on the board of Directors at a club. The fact you think there is speaks volumes.

Really and you base that on what exactly?

Erm the fact that all the revenue made by clubs is put back into running them? The fact that only about 5% of pro rugby clubs make a profit. Listening to the benefactors talk, meeting them. Reading their interviews. That sort of thing.

Reading their interviews? Yet you didn't know Toulon were in economy mode?

So directors don't get dividends? Businesses where owners who want to take their share of the profits don't also put revenue back into the business?

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:
I'm explaining to a guy that he keeps forgetting about his word 'Professional' when talking about them in cosy terms ...and yet he says it's the very Professionalism of the set up (the cold business heart, if you like) rather than the old amateurish Unions that makes them the natural model for club ownership.

How do you think major league baseball teams are funded SecretFly? And NFL teams. And NBL teams?

Are they so successful due to their Unions?

NBL?

Maybe something to do with the lucrative tv and commercial deals? Not having to build their own stadiums or arenas?

Another question unanswered. So Marty.

No it was answered sarcastically but lets hear your reasons Phil...sorry I mean RF

I agree fly. To say or try to say that no owners want to make a profit is just,well, not believable. People don't act as one for all the same reasons.

SecretFly wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Any "profit" we are talking about is going to go to the club. Not the owner(s) / benefactors. By you making out that these benefactors are in it for themselves is a huge disservice to these people that prop up club rugby just because they want to.

If you want to claim semantics and say that your statement of "making a profit from rugby" was meant to be a club making profit not the benefactors making profit then I guess you now will. But your statement is there in black and white. You disrespect these benefactors because you think their agenda is evil. When they are the very people that are investing in rugby union and should be praised.

They own the clubs and seek to make a profit for themselves at one point or another.  They OWN the clubs, the profit they seek to make is theirs.  It's like suggesting that when a Millionaire buys a yacht, well it's not for him, it's to entertain important clients and business partners.  It's his.  It's already part of him.  

And when these owners sell a club, they get the Proifit from that sale if they are smart enough to sell it for more than they bought it.  They make the proifit.... not the flyhalf, not the groundsman, not the tea lady.  They do.  The owners.

No. They don't make a profit. You're completely wrong, I can't make it any clearer.

You just don't like it that your throw-away comment about Saracens and Wasps was picked up on.  When it was picked up, you ran to the ownership of the regions to try to distract attention away from your Saracens and Wasps comment.  But the hounds stuck with the initial comment.....

The comment still stands. As the model is the same. Wealthy people pump money in.....and get nothing out, financially speaking.

Wrong.  That they get nothing out is the complaints from the Welsh regions.... given that it means they have to put more in.  The 'getting nothing out of' is their continuing point, no?   They want the teams to be self supporting so that they can keep their own money in their pockets.  Meaning that if the team goes into profit, that's profit for the owners as they don't have to throw more dead money at their baby.  Get it?  Profit.  More money in their pockets by making their team more profitable.

How is it 'wrong'? You've just contradicted yourself

The benefactors put millions in. And get nothing out financially. That's a stone cold fact, friend.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Any "profit" we are talking about is going to go to the club. Not the owner(s) / benefactors. By you making out that these benefactors are in it for themselves is a huge disservice to these people that prop up club rugby just because they want to.

If you want to claim semantics and say that your statement of "making a profit from rugby" was meant to be a club making profit not the benefactors making profit then I guess you now will. But your statement is there in black and white. You disrespect these benefactors because you think their agenda is evil. When they are the very people that are investing in rugby union and should be praised.

They own the clubs and seek to make a profit for themselves at one point or another.  They OWN the clubs, the profit they seek to make is theirs.  It's like suggesting that when a Millionaire buys a yacht, well it's not for him, it's to entertain important clients and business partners.  It's his.  It's already part of him.  

And when these owners sell a club, they get the Proifit from that sale if they are smart enough to sell it for more than they bought it.  They make the proifit.... not the flyhalf, not the groundsman, not the tea lady.  They do.  The owners.

No. They don't make a profit. You're completely wrong, I can't make it any clearer.

You just don't like it that your throw-away comment about Saracens and Wasps was picked up on.  When it was picked up, you ran to the ownership of the regions to try to distract attention away from your Saracens and Wasps comment.  But the hounds stuck with the initial comment.....

The comment still stands. As the model is the same. Wealthy people pump money in.....and get nothing out, financially speaking.

Wrong.  That they get nothing out is the complaints from the Welsh regions.... given that it means they have to put more in.  The 'getting nothing out of' is their continuing point, no?   They want the teams to be self supporting so that they can keep their own money in their pockets.  Meaning that if the team goes into profit, that's profit for the owners as they don't have to throw more dead money at their baby.  Get it?  Profit.  More money in their pockets by making their team more profitable.

How is it 'wrong'? You've just contradicted yourself

The benefactors put millions in. And get nothing out financially. That's a stone cold fact, friend.

Have you never heard of an investment? That entails risk, just because you don't get something out of it doesn't mean you don't want to, just that you haven't been able to

RugbyFan100 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:
I'm explaining to a guy that he keeps forgetting about his word 'Professional' when talking about them in cosy terms ...and yet he says it's the very Professionalism of the set up (the cold business heart, if you like) rather than the old amateurish Unions that makes them the natural model for club ownership.

How do you think major league baseball teams are funded SecretFly? And NFL teams. And NBL teams?

Are they so successful due to their Unions?

The Irish teams are successful because of their Union.  That's my concern.  You worry about NFL, the English Premiership (football and rugby) and your Regions/or Region.

What I'm telling you is that the IRFU are as professional if not more Professional than the Private men.  

But if you like Private men then good luck with it at your Region.  It's not Ireland's business (or in it's interest) to bow to your model when the one we play by works for us - and we're not the ones always complaining.  So there is a clue there.

If the Private model is the one you seriously want and England won't bite, then find the solution in a renewal of a serious Domestic league in Wales.  And don't tell me all the hard luck stories about why that can't be done... that's your concern.  I don't worry about rugby in Wales.  But you worry a lot about rugby in Ireland.

marty2086 wrote:


So directors don't get dividends? Businesses where owners who want to take their share of the profits don't also put revenue back into the business?

Dividends. On £xm losses.

This is too funny. Keep going.

marty2086 wrote:

Have you never heard of an investment? That entails risk, just because you don't get something out of it doesn't mean you don't want to, just that you haven't been able to

You think benefactors actually believe that at some point they will get their money back? And then make a return on it?

Wow. I knew you guys had little knowledge of how rugby works outside your own country, but I didn't realise you were this misinformed. This whole debate is enlightening.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:


So directors don't get dividends? Businesses where owners who want to take their share of the profits don't also put revenue back into the business?

Dividends. On £xm losses.

This is too funny. Keep going.

Just because the club isn't in the black doesn't mean the financial backers aren't walking away with a nice chunk of cash. The CEO of Target in Canada walked away with 104 million after the company went bust and closed all their shops while the employees got nothing.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:


So directors don't get dividends? Businesses where owners who want to take their share of the profits don't also put revenue back into the business?

Dividends. On £xm losses.

This is too funny. Keep going.

Sorry but every club is working at a loss?

I am going to disagree with my countrymen here.
Rugby, in England, is a play thing for the mega rich which costs peanuts compared to Soccer.
Looking at the biggest loss makers
Saracens have lost £45 million or so total in the Wray era - he is worth over £300 million.
One he knows he will never get that money back, two he has owned them for about 10 years - interest alone on his wealth
will more than cover the rugby outgoings. You can easily invest that kind of money and get a 5% - 10% return.
Wasps - lost over £3 million last year.
The guys is worth £67million - his wealth went up 31% from 15 to 16 and I understand is rising again from 16 to 17.
Rugby is a bit of fun for these guys.

Now don't get me wrong wages cannot go up for ever and individual clubs could crash and burn without a backer.
Will the whole edifice tumble - No
Read an article from 4/5 years ago saying the whole thing was about to collapse - hasn't happened
Anyone thinking it will happen will have to wait a long time yet

We would do better accepting that and developing ways to combat the reality we find ourselves in rather than snipping on the sidelines hoping and praying the English set up will collapse

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Have you never heard of an investment? That entails risk, just because you don't get something out of it doesn't mean you don't want to, just that you haven't been able to

You think benefactors actually believe that at some point they will get their money back? And then make a return on it?

Wow. I knew you guys had little knowledge of how rugby works outside your own country, but I didn't realise you were this misinformed. This whole debate is enlightening.

That's quite ironic given that you came into this thread talking about Irish tv rights being for showing games from Ireland rather to Irish viewers, if you are going to say others are clueless maybe you shouldn't be so dense.

In between being a tattletale you've also claimed people have avoided answering questions yet haven't been able to state if these wealthy benefactors are all altruistic. So the growing number of wealthy owners and the growing tv deals and growth of the game are a mere coincidence?

marty2086 wrote:
In between being a tattletale you've also claimed people have avoided answering questions yet haven't been able to state if these wealthy benefactors are all altruistic. So the growing number of wealthy owners and the growing tv deals and growth of the game are a mere coincidence?

The growing number of wealthy owners is because the leagues have finally got their acts together. They realise that the sensible model is Union payments for services plus private investment.

Ask yourself why the Scottish CEO Dodson is open to the idea of private ownership of his 2 teams. It's because the Union model doesn't make enough on it's own.

Ask away any questions you want to Marty. I'm here to help.

geoff999rugby wrote:I am going to disagree with my countrymen here.
Rugby, in England, is a play thing for the mega rich which costs peanuts compared to Soccer.
Looking at the biggest loss makers
Saracens have lost £45 million or so total in the Wray era - he is worth over £300 million.
One he knows he will never get that money back, two he has owned them for about 10 years - interest alone on his wealth
will more than cover the rugby outgoings. You can easily invest that kind of money and get a 5% - 10% return.
Wasps - lost over £3 million last year.
The guys is worth £67million - his wealth went up 31% from 15 to 16 and I understand is rising again from 16 to 17.
Rugby is a bit of fun for these guys.

Now don't get me wrong wages cannot go up for ever and individual clubs could crash and burn without a backer.
Will the whole edifice tumble - No
Read an article from 4/5 years ago saying the whole thing was about to collapse - hasn't happened
Anyone thinking it will happen will have to wait a long time yet

We would do better accepting that and developing ways to combat the reality we find ourselves in rather than snipping on the sidelines hoping and praying the English set up will collapse  

Geoff, the bulk of Saracens debt is money owed to Wray and other directors some of whom are charging the club interest on that money so some owners are wanting to get something out of it all.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
In between being a tattletale you've also claimed people have avoided answering questions yet haven't been able to state if these wealthy benefactors are all altruistic. So the growing number of wealthy owners and the growing tv deals and growth of the game are a mere coincidence?

The growing number of wealthy owners is because the leagues have finally got their acts together. They realise that the sensible model is Union payments for services plus private investment.

Ask yourself why the Scottish CEO Dodson is open to the idea of private ownership of his 2 teams. It's because the Union model doesn't make enough on it's own.

Ask away any questions you want to Marty. I'm here to help.

Sorry that makes no sense, the Top 14 and AP have always been in private hands so maybe your cliam about others learning a bit more about whats going should be directed at yourself

So why are wealthy people investing in rugby all of a sudden?

geoff999rugby wrote:I am going to disagree with my countrymen here.
Rugby, in England, is a play thing for the mega rich which costs peanuts compared to Soccer.
Looking at the biggest loss makers
Saracens have lost £45 million or so total in the Wray era - he is worth over £300 million.
One he knows he will never get that money back, two he has owned them for about 10 years - interest alone on his wealth
will more than cover the rugby outgoings. You can easily invest that kind of money and get a 5% - 10% return.
Wasps - lost over £3 million last year.
The guys is worth £67million - his wealth went up 31% from 15 to 16 and I understand is rising again from 16 to 17.
Rugby is a bit of fun for these guys.

Now don't get me wrong wages cannot go up for ever and individual clubs could crash and burn without a backer.
Will the whole edifice tumble - No
Read an article from 4/5 years ago saying the whole thing was about to collapse - hasn't happened
Anyone thinking it will happen will have to wait a long time yet

We would do better accepting that and developing ways to combat the reality we find ourselves in rather than snipping on the sidelines hoping and praying the English set up will collapse  

100% right. ^

A fine post.

marty2086 wrote:

So why are wealthy people investing in rugby all of a sudden?

Many different reasons ranging from:

-They want a play thing
-They want kudos
-Because they are fans of the clubs

The latter is true to the club I support.

Claiming all owners just want to pump cash in and accept losses is plain wrong.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

So why are wealthy people investing in rugby all of a sudden?

Many different reasons ranging from:

-They want a  play thing
-They want kudos
-Because they are fans of the clubs

The latter is true to the club I support.

So no one anywhere is investing in rugby to make a profit?

RugbyFan100 wrote:

How is it 'wrong'? You've just contradicted yourself

The benefactors put millions in. And get nothing out financially. That's a stone cold fact, friend.

I'm not close to being your friend, Rugbyfan.... another habit from way back by the guy that can't be named....

That they get nothing out is the source of the complaining. Successful Private guy and guys who go to the wall with bad investment portfolios. The concept is to get rid of the headaches and make a profit. The way your favourite clubs Saracens and Toulon go about their biz...well, as you tell us anyway.

You won't get past the point that the goal is to make profit, for the club and to save the investors money and earn them profit TOO.

marty2086 wrote:

So no one anywhere is investing in rugby to make a profit?

That's a bit of a generalization. I'm sure there are loads of companies that do.

We're talking about Directors of rugby clubs here. And I personally can't think of one that is or has profited financially, and intentionally from investing in a rugby club.

marty2086 wrote:

Geoff, the bulk of Saracens debt is money owed to Wray and other directors some of whom are charging the club interest on that money so some owners are wanting to get something out of it all.

Investors looking for a return????

Peculiar logic there... RugbyFan won't be pleased with that development.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

So no one anywhere is investing in rugby to make a profit?

That's a bit of a generalization. I'm sure there are loads of companies that do.

We're talking about Directors of rugby clubs here. And I personally can't think of one that is or has profited financially, and intentionally from investing in a  rugby club.

Well maybe you should learn more about the game outside your own area then

No 7&1/2 wrote:Claiming all owners just want to pump cash in and accept losses is plain wrong.

I dont think these people got rich by willfully investing in bad deals and accepting a company will lose money.

Can you post the details of all the owners in the prem and English championship rugbyfan showing investments wages etc?

SecretFly wrote:

That they get nothing out is the source of the complaining.

What complaining? Who is complaining about what? Have you got an example? I'm not sure what you are talking about.

Successful Private guy and guys who go to the wall with bad investment portfolios.  The concept is to get rid of the headaches and make a profit.  The way your favourite clubs Saracens and Toulon go about their biz...well, as you tell us anyway.

Saracens and Toulon are in completely different shapes financially. Even though their model is more or less the same. Mourad Boudjellal has built it from the ground, so much so that he no longer puts any cash in, and Toulon near enough break even or make profit (which he doesn't take out). Saracens are way off this as you know.

The point being - that the "profit" you speak of, isn't going into the benefactors pockets.

You won't get past the point that the goal is to make profit, for the club and to save the investors money and earn them profit TOO.

So, to this end, please name a club / owner that has made a return on investment for the Director / owner / benefactor

No 7&1/2 wrote:Can you post the details of all the owners in the prem and English championship rugbyfan showing investments wages etc?

No. Don't be so silly.

And again leinster there will be some who do accept it. I know it's football but look at steve Gibson at boro. Pumped loads in. Now has drawn a line and wants the club to be self sufficient. You have others who want to make money

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

So no one anywhere is investing in rugby to make a profit?

That's a bit of a generalization. I'm sure there are loads of companies that do.

We're talking about Directors of rugby clubs here. And I personally can't think of one that is or has profited financially, and intentionally from investing in a  rugby club.

Do yoyu know all these guys personally? All the owners and investors in England and France? You know them all? On speaking terms with them all. Know their accountants? Have looked at their books.

Generalizations?

You can't think of one?

Do you even personally know one? And if you say yes. you're his accountant?

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Saracens and Toulon are in completely different shapes financially. Even though their model is more or less the same. Mourad Boudjellal has built it from the ground, so much so that he no longer puts any cash in, and Toulon near enough break even or make profit (which he doesn't take out). Saracens are way off this as you know.

Really? Yet Mourad had to put 2m in last summer to stop the club being relegated? Funny that

Someone is laughing hard here.

The twisting of logic here is so bizarre that someone has just got to be steering this Rugbyfan man for fun.

So you don't actually know then rugbyfan. Good to know.

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Saracens and Toulon are in completely different shapes financially. Even though their model is more or less the same. Mourad Boudjellal has built it from the ground, so much so that he no longer puts any cash in, and Toulon near enough break even or make profit (which he doesn't take out). Saracens are way off this as you know.

Really? Yet Mourad had to put 2m in last summer to stop the club being relegated? Funny that

Yes, really. Toulon receive more cash through their main shirt sponsor than the entire turnover of the reigning Pro12 champions.

SecretFly wrote:
Do yoyu know all these guys personally?

No

 All the owners and investors in England and France?

 

No

You know them all?  

No

On speaking terms with them all.  Know their accountants

No

Have looked at their books.

No

Do you even personally know one?  And if you say yes. you're his accountant?

No

So you accept that some owners won't be happy to incur losses. And that mourad has recently put cash in http://www.punditarena.com/rugby/smcmahon/toulon-agreement-financial-watchdog-2-million-debt/

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Saracens and Toulon are in completely different shapes financially. Even though their model is more or less the same. Mourad Boudjellal has built it from the ground, so much so that he no longer puts any cash in, and Toulon near enough break even or make profit (which he doesn't take out). Saracens are way off this as you know.

Really? Yet Mourad had to put 2m in last summer to stop the club being relegated? Funny that

Yes, really. Toulon receive more cash through their main shirt sponsor than the entire turnover of the reigning Pro12  champions.

What has that got to do with anything? Their wage bill is probably the same as Scarlets operating budget for 5 years but it's all irrelevant it's just

Bu!!$h!t

You made a false claim and now you pivot to something that has no relevance, the amount they bring in in sponsorship compared to someone elses turnover doesn't in anyway prove Mourads not putting money is

RugbyFan100 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:
Do yoyu know all these guys personally?

No

 All the owners and investors in England and France?

 

No

You know them all?  

No

On speaking terms with them all.  Know their accountants

No

Have looked at their books.

No

Do you even personally know one?  And if you say yes. you're his accountant?

No

Thanks for that. So you just can't think of any investors making a profit because you know none of them?

Not much merit in your observation then. We'll drop it from the court records.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you accept that some owners won't be happy to incur losses.

I've not seen that reported anywhere. Can you give me an example of a Director / benefactor of a privately owned club who has stated this. I'm not saying it's not true, just that I haven't seen it. It would certainly be the exception. Most backers, as I've repeatedly stated are not looking for a return on investment.

And that mourad has recently put cash in  http://www.punditarena.com/rugby/smcmahon/toulon-agreement-financial-watchdog-2-million-debt/

My understanding is that he does now, NOT routinely fund them on a season by season basis, as he did when he first got involved. That payment is a one off. Due mainly to a That is because Toulon are now turning over 25 million Euros. As was not the case when he started. Toulon are a massive success story in sporting terms. They're the model to follow in terms of sustainability. However, that sustainability is never going to be possible with all clubs as the huge sponsor money is just not there, so they will always have backers that are hugely out of pocket and annual accounts that incur losses.

SecretFly wrote:

Thanks for that.  So you just can't think of any investors making a profit because you know none of them?  

Yes, there are't any. To my knowledge. If you have evidence that supports otherwise, I'd like to see it.

So you were wrong then rugbyfan and as long as you're now acknowledging some owners will want returns etc etc we're all good.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you were wrong then rugbyfan and as long as you're now acknowledging some owners will want returns etc etc we're all good.

Can't see where you've come to that conclusion, sorry.

Which one? As you acknowledged both.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Which one? As you acknowledged both.

both

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you accept that some owners won't be happy to incur losses.

I've not seen that reported anywhere. Can you give me an example of a Director / benefactor of a privately owned club who has stated this. I'm not saying it's not true, just that I haven't seen it. It would certainly be the exception. Most backers, as I've repeatedly stated are not looking for a return on investment.

And that mourad has recently put cash in  http://www.punditarena.com/rugby/smcmahon/toulon-agreement-financial-watchdog-2-million-debt/

My understanding is that he does now, NOT routinely fund them on a season by season basis, as he did when he first got involved. That payment is a one off. Due mainly to a  That is because Toulon are now turning over 25 million Euros. As was not the case when he started. Toulon are a massive success story in sporting terms. They're the model to follow in terms of sustainability. However, that sustainability is never going to be possible with all clubs as the huge sponsor money is just not there, so they will always have backers that are hugely out of pocket and annual accounts that incur losses.

So you've went from saying he doesn't put money in anymore to he doesn't do it routinely?

And how is having to plug a hole in your accounts a model for sustainability?

Mourad Boudjellal wrote:We are in a collectivist system marked by large operating deficits and declining enthusiasm. The Top 14 must find a new development model

Seems your hero disagrees with you

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

So why are wealthy people investing in rugby all of a sudden?

Many different reasons ranging from:

-They want a  play thing
-They want kudos
-Because they are fans of the clubs
-They like to massage their ego's and show how rich they are.
-They want to surround themselves with hanger onners like Peter Thomas does down at the CAP.

The latter is true to the club I support.

You've missed one or two off there. So I added some.

marty2086 wrote:

So you've went from saying he doesn't put money in anymore to he doesn't do it routinely?

And how is having to plug a hole in your accounts a model for sustainability?  

"Plugging a hole in the accounts" is the sensationalist headline writer's thoughts. The 1.7m was around a kit dispute. The author makes it sound like they are broke. If their announced budget changes throughout the season they are liable to be fined.

The same publication reported this:

While the sustainability of such losses can be questioned, Toulon have moved away from their reliance on Mourad Boudjellal, being only one of two clubs to post profits in 2014. Toulon’s move toward self sufficiency has been achieved by their use of modern marketing techniques, such as creating a number 10 brand around Johnny Wilkinson, opening shops and even a restaurant in the city. Their dominance of European rugby therefore looks like it could continue.

http://www.punditarena.com/rugby/adrumm/is-the-top-14-set-to-dwarf-its-northern-hemisphere-rivals/

So you can cherry pick your quotes as much as you like. We'll all find one that suits us.

Mourad Boudjellal wrote:We are in a collectivist system marked by large operating deficits and declining enthusiasm. The Top 14 must find a new development model

Seems your hero disagrees with you [/quote]

Damn, I'm busted. When is the French Union going to buy all the clubs?

So you know that mourad does still put money in I posted a link rugbyfan. And you just acknowledged you can't generalise and also can't post me a link about owners who currently incur losses profits etc. So again what exactly are you disagreeing with.?

LordDowlais wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

So why are wealthy people investing in rugby all of a sudden?

Many different reasons ranging from:

-They want a  play thing
-They want kudos
-Because they are fans of the clubs
-They like to massage their ego's and show how rich they are.
-They want to surround themselves with hanger onners like Peter Thomas does down at the CAP.

The latter is true to the club I support.

You've missed one or two off there. So I added some.

Those 2 are probably correct in all honsety. £14m - Peter Thomas has now given to Cardiff rugby. All from his personal wealth. How much has he had back?