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/

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you know that mourad does still put money in I posted a link rugbyfan.

I just posted a link saying otherwise.

Weird.

Oh look, here's another one:

Boudjellal – who no longer puts his own money into the club

http://www.rugbyworld.com/countries/france-countries/top-14-finances-salary-cap-strongly-policed-france-42028#UrJpIOkc7CF7i6xE.99

RugbyFan100 wrote:

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.

You don't know. To your knowledge, you don't know. So, yet again, your opinion on your presumption is your presumption. But it carries no debate weight.

Sponsors are investors in Privately run clubs btw. They're in it for profit or their accountants get to work on the return value and they're out again...... like Sky

RugbyFan100 wrote:

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?

None of it would be the answer, but I know him and Gareth Edwards always look chumly chumly together when the TV cameras are on them at the CAP, so I doubt he is that bothered, he is worth over £200 million, and he gets a Welsh rugby hero as a hanger oner whilst his ego get's massaged by the BBC.

Ever seen the film Twin Town ? Bryn Cartright will show you the true meaning of some who owns a rugby club and has too much money. I quote:-

Why do I keep throwing money into this slag heap ? Because I fecking loves it.

LordDowlais wrote:
Ever seen the film Twin Town ? Bryn Cartright will show you the true meaning of some who owns a rugby club and has too much money. I quote:-

Why do I keep throwing money into this slag heap ? Because I fecking loves it.

That about sums it up.
Some people seemingly either can't grasp this, or don't want to.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

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?

Fun. Loads of fun. That's all he wants.

Have you ever watched a film called Twin Town SF ?

You should, you will learn more about Wales from that one film alone, than you would in any libraries or schools.

So you're ignoring that he put over a million in to stop them being relegated rugbyfan. Just get over you were wrong. Are you happy to admit that ou can't lump all owners into 1 box and generalise about them too?

I do like your link about admitting plating the wage cap though. Tip of the cap to saracens and bath.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you're ignoring that he put over a million in to stop them being relegated rugbyfan. Just get over you were wrong. Are you happy to admit that ou can't lump all owners into 1 box and generalise about them too?

You've read my comments on this. If you choose to ignore them it's not my lookout.

I do like your link

RugbyFan100 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:
Ever seen the film Twin Town ? Bryn Cartright will show you the true meaning of some who owns a rugby club and has too much money. I quote:-

Why do I keep throwing money into this slag heap ? Because I fecking loves it.

 That about sums it up.
Some people seemingly either can't grasp this, or don't want to.

Can't grasp that This is supposedly the ideal model of Professionlism.  

Besides, I thought your ideal was that in the professional Private club world, if a Private club can't stand on its own two feet then it should fall and nobody should worry too much about it.  The club shouldn't have a rich sugar daddy (like the IRFU) just throwing money at it.  Shouldn't be allowed!!!!

SecretFly wrote:

Besides, I thought your ideal was that in the professional Private club world, if a Private club can't stand on its own two feet then it should fall and nobody should worry too much about it.  

Which post of mine led you to believe this?

The club shouldn't have a rich sugar daddy (like the IRFU) just throwing money at it.  Shouldn't be allowed!!!!

That's pro sport.

And we're back to square 1 - where we were about 2 days ago.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Besides, I thought your ideal was that in the professional Private club world, if a Private club can't stand on its own two feet then it should fall and nobody should worry too much about it.  

Which post of mine led you to believe this?

The club shouldn't have a rich sugar daddy (like the IRFU) just throwing money at it.  Shouldn't be allowed!!!!

That's pro sport.

And we're back to square 1 - where we were about 2 days ago.

So the IRFU are okay with you now.... rich benefactors dishing out money coz the guys in IRFU absolutely love rugby? Grand. You're right. We're back to Square One.... that began some years back. We always go back to Square One on this site. You'll get to know that if you stick around for a spell.

Not ignoring but you are sidestepping a lot rugbyfan. Not all owners will be happy to lose money. Mourad has recently put money into the club.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not ignoring but you are sidestepping a lot rugbyfan. Not all owners will be happy to lose money.

So we've established that many wealthy individuals are happy to sit on a board of Directors at a rugby club and ARE happy to put money into the club with no possibilities for return on investment.

Have we got any info on those wealthy individuals that put money into a rugby club but AREN'T happy to lose money ?

We've also established you don't generalise haven't we?

Gonna answer?

I'm not sure it's possible to prove that without a quote. The opposite way to establish that though would be the same way way you have confirmed your happy to establish some owners are 'happy' to have a loss: a rugby club which turns a profit eg exeter.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Have we got any info on those wealthy individuals that put money into a rugby club but AREN'T happy to lose money ?

It's Professionalism.  Don't knock it.

Quite bizarre. Definition of Professionalism: The absolute desire to lose money foolishly and laugh about it.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

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

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

I didn't post any headline so not sure what you are going on about but nothing I read suggested they were going bust and clearly stated what the problem was, just seems like you making stuff up once more

No one said anything about Unions buying clubs, what one of the poster boys for private ownership has said is that the current model isn't sustainable which contradicts your repeated claims

marty2086 wrote:

I didn't post any headline so not sure what you are going on about but nothing I read suggested they were going bust and clearly stated what the problem was, just seems like you making stuff up once more

No one said anything about Unions buying clubs, what one of the poster boys for private ownership has said is that the current model isn't sustainable which contradicts your repeated claims

So now you're hanging on every word of Boudjellal's? You agree with every word he utters in the press?

Interesting.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

I didn't post any headline so not sure what you are going on about but nothing I read suggested they were going bust and clearly stated what the problem was, just seems like you making stuff up once more

No one said anything about Unions buying clubs, what one of the poster boys for private ownership has said is that the current model isn't sustainable which contradicts your repeated claims

So now you're hanging on every word of Boudjellal's? You agree with every word he utters in the press?

Interesting.

You're a confusing entity whoever you may be

So people in the know say one thing and you disagree so you dismiss what they say?

Given he's running the model you're lauding as the perfect model for sustainability in rugby yet the man himself is saying it's not, that's pretty relevant and contradictory of what you have claimed is it not?

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm not sure it's possible to prove that without a quote.

We're back to this no quotes - no truth thing? There wouldn't be much debate if every opinion needed a quote to back it up.

There's plenty of evidence reporting that the vast majority of owners plough money in to rugby clubs with no hope of getting anything back. This occurs at clubs like the Welsh regions all along a sliding scale upwards to big spending French clubs.

What I haven't seen is the same level of evidence suggesting that wealthy individuals are putting money into rugby clubs with a view to gaining a return on that investment.

One could form a sensible conclusion given this information.

What I don't get is why a private individual throwing his money for to a club is fine, but a union using the money made from rugby reinvesting it into rugby is bad?
And I know someone will shout conflict of interests, so if that's how you feel do you believe that the IRFU would order one province to throw a match?
And if they do how the hell have they kept it quite?
Same with refs. By going on about Irish refs your suggesting that they are under orders to fix matches.

Boudjellal............................ (why the feck! is that man's name so difficult to type right btw )....................... Boudjellal, has fallen from grace and must be shunned henceforth as a traitor to all self-made men with hotels and stuff and maybe even a yacht for the clients and business partners to wine and dine on.

Down with Boudjellal!

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm not sure it's possible to prove that without a quote.

We're back to this no quotes - no truth thing? There wouldn't be much debate if every opinion needed a quote to back it up.

There's plenty of evidence reporting that the vast majority of owners plough money in to rugby clubs with no hope of getting anything back. This occurs at clubs like the Welsh regions all along a sliding scale upwards to big spending French clubs.

What I haven't seen is the same level of evidence suggesting that wealthy individuals are putting money into rugby clubs with a view to gaining a return on that investment.

One could form a sensible conclusion given this information.

They're good bluffers? Is that the answer?

You believe everything they might say to you about what they might 'have a view to gaining'?

Remember your Boudjellal comment before responding.

marty2086 wrote:

Given he's running the model you're lauding as the perfect model for sustainability in rugby yet the man himself is saying it's not, that's pretty relevant and contradictory of what you have claimed is it not?

Only time will tell if he believes what he's saying here. If Toulon change their model next season, or if Boudjellal starts a campaign to persuade French domestic rugby to change their current model of private club ownership to something else, then it would need revisiting. Until then, they've got the same model throughout, as far as I'm aware, and that in my opinion is the perfect model for pro rugby.

Infact, what with the Scottish now wanting this model, are the Irish the only tier 1 European nation that are resisting this private investment model for all their top clubs? Maybe Italy too as from a few months ago.

The Irish club's do get private investment already.

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

carpet baboon wrote:What I don't get is why a private individual throwing his money for to a club is fine, but a union using the money made from rugby reinvesting it into rugby is bad?

It's because:

With a privately owned league - everybody running it and making decisions are doing so with 100% interests in the league. When Unions are invovled and own teams and run leagues - you get players like Peinaar being told to get out of the competition. You get the Unions demanding second choice squads in derby matches because they've chosen to rest some test players for the betterment of the national team. The list goes on. That devalues the league and is unlikely to happen if there is zero Union invovlement.

And I know someone will shout conflict of interests, so if that's how you feel do you believe that the IRFU would order one province to throw a match?
And if they do how the hell have they kept it quite?
Same with refs. By going on about Irish refs your suggesting that they are under orders to fix matches.

Back to the old "limiting the perception" of bias. Been done to death.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Infact, what with the Scottish now wanting this model, are the Irish the only tier 1 European nation that are resisting this private investment model for all their top clubs? Maybe Italy too as from a few months ago.

So the Scots and yourselves can do the talking and be ready to leave the Pro14 when the present agreement is coming to an end.  
You know?  Why complicate the stuff.  You're annoyed.  You want the English/French model.  You're not happy.  You're too small to make the perfect model work in Wales alone.  You need friends.  You don't know the right tone to use to get them but................ BUT........Scottish rugby might want to help the Welsh create a Pro8 League.  Things are looking brighter for you.  We'd have to try to kick on with a Pro8 tournament or something.  Ahhhhh, don't get the sniffles, we know we'd be missed

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.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Back to the old "limiting the perception" of bias. Been done to death.

Nah. That was the old "Limiting the Welsh perception" of bias.

This thread...

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Given he's running the model you're lauding as the perfect model for sustainability in rugby yet the man himself is saying it's not, that's pretty relevant and contradictory of what you have claimed is it not?

Only time will tell if he believes what he's saying here. If Toulon change their model next season, or if Boudjellal starts a campaign to persuade French domestic rugby to change their current model of private club ownership to something else, then it would need revisiting. Until then, they've got the same model throughout, as far as I'm aware, and that in my opinion is the perfect model for pro rugby.

Infact, what with the Scottish now wanting this model, are the Irish the only tier 1 European nation that are resisting this private investment model for all their top clubs? Maybe Italy too as from a few months ago.

Ireland have received private investment in different forms to assist them so your claim is wide of the mark yet again, they just haven't taken direct investment through selling parts of clubs.

Each club and Union is different so to claim one model fits all is just utterly clueless and shows just how little business nous you have

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.

Yes...the Union is the owner. The owner controls what happens in their sphere of influence. Just like PRL, saying some folks can go over the cap but other distinctly different in ownership clubs can't. The PRL ownership model. The Union of English Rugby Clubs (UERC)

Why only take part of my quote rugbyfan? I went onto say exeternal would back that point. And you've already said on this topic that you don't generalise. So you'd accept that people won't be driven by the same goals or priorities.

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 £??

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

Erm everybody in a private league is doing everything to benefit that league? No. Bath and saracens were cheating the agreed salary cap recently.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:What I don't get is why a private individual throwing his money for to a club is fine, but a union using the money made from rugby reinvesting it into rugby is bad?

It's because:

With a privately owned league - everybody running it and making decisions are doing so with 100% interests in the league. When Unions are invovled and own teams and run leagues - you get players like Peinaar being told to get out of the competition. You get the Unions demanding second choice squads in derby matches because they've chosen to rest some test players for the betterment of the national team. The list goes on. That devalues the league and is unlikely to happen if there is zero Union invovlement.

And I know someone will shout conflict of interests, so if that's how you feel do you believe that the IRFU would order one province to throw a match?
And if they do how the hell have they kept it quite?
Same with refs. By going on about Irish refs your suggesting that they are under orders to fix matches.

Back to the old "limiting the perception" of bias. Been done to death.

Weren't the English players talking about strike action due to playing too much rugby? You keep banging on about Peinarr (like you actually care that he's gone) a guy heading towards his mid 30s and who has been injured for almost the entire top 14 season so far. What about the world class IRISH players the provinces provide and retain for the league? Not to mention the likes of Fardy, Lowe, Aki etc and the ones before them

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 £??

So Boudejellal saying the current model is wait and see, the tv deal for next season is set in stone?

Almost like you apply contradictory logic when your arguments don't hold up

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

They are resisting the private ownership model, yes. Unlike, say Scotland, who have seen the benefit can bring, and want in.

marty2086 wrote:

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 £??

So Boudejellal saying the current model is wait and see, the tv deal for next season is set in stone?

Almost like you apply contradictory logic when your arguments don't hold up

There are reports the pro14 tv deal is set in stone

There are no reports the top14 teams are about to all change their ownership model.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:What I don't get is why a private individual throwing his money for to a club is fine, but a union using the money made from rugby reinvesting it into rugby is bad?

It's because:

With a privately owned league - everybody running it and making decisions are doing so with 100% interests in the league. When Unions are invovled and own teams and run leagues - you get players like Peinaar being told to get out of the competition. You get the Unions demanding second choice squads in derby matches because they've chosen to rest some test players for the betterment of the national team. The list goes on. That devalues the league and is unlikely to happen if there is zero Union invovlement.

Yet more cowpat from you, when was Peinaar as you call him, told to get out of the competition?

And the IRFU have never demanded a second choice squad, they've limited players game time and left it to the coaches to choose when and where the players play. A bit like when England players will miss games in the AP

No 7&1/2 wrote: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

There are some for sure but there are also other reason why these clubs get wealthy investors. Roman Abramovich bought Chelsea to hide his money from the Russian government and clearly the blazers at Liverpool want something as they were desperate to raise the price of match day tickets only to be stopped by mass protests. I think most real premier league fans would be in agreement that these investors have destroyed the game there domestically and internationally. This is why a lot of fans are turning to non league teams such as FC United who are funded entirely by fans.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

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 £??

So Boudejellal saying the current model is wait and see, the tv deal for next season is set in stone?

Almost like you apply contradictory logic when your arguments don't hold up

There are reports the pro14 tv deal is set in stone

There are no reports the top14 teams are about to all change their ownership model.

No one said anything about changing ownership models, you see that's what happens with you. You read something and because of your naivety you don't grasp it, the model in question is their business model

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:What I don't get is why a private individual throwing his money for to a club is fine, but a union using the money made from rugby reinvesting it into rugby is bad?

It's because:

With a privately owned league - everybody running it and making decisions are doing so with 100% interests in the league. When Unions are invovled and own teams and run leagues - you get players like Peinaar being told to get out of the competition. You get the Unions demanding second choice squads in derby matches because they've chosen to rest some test players for the betterment of the national team. The list goes on. That devalues the league and is unlikely to happen if there is zero Union invovlement.

Yet more cowpat from you, when was Peinaar as you call him, told to get out of the competition?

And the IRFU have never demanded a second choice squad, they've limited players game time and left it to the coaches to choose when and where the players play. A bit like when England players will miss games in the AP

England players miss out across all teams due to their deal with the RFU. The RFU doesn't pull x player from Leicester Tigers because they don't want him playing in that fixture. Or to demand that x player tries a game at full back because England are short of full backs. Or to demand that one of their clubs is not allowed to sign any players in a particular position as they want younger players to be developed.

Union meddling is what we have in the pro14.

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

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 £??

So Boudejellal saying the current model is wait and see, the tv deal for next season is set in stone?

Almost like you apply contradictory logic when your arguments don't hold up

There are reports the pro14 tv deal is set in stone

There are no reports the top14 teams are about to all change their ownership model.

No one said anything about changing ownership models, you see that's what happens with you. You read something and because of your naivety you don't grasp it, the model in question is their business model

So remind me, what is the imminent change in business models of the Top 14 clubs?

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:What I don't get is why a private individual throwing his money for to a club is fine, but a union using the money made from rugby reinvesting it into rugby is bad?

It's because:

With a privately owned league - everybody running it and making decisions are doing so with 100% interests in the league. When Unions are invovled and own teams and run leagues - you get players like Peinaar being told to get out of the competition. You get the Unions demanding second choice squads in derby matches because they've chosen to rest some test players for the betterment of the national team. The list goes on. That devalues the league and is unlikely to happen if there is zero Union invovlement.

Yet more cowpat from you, when was Peinaar as you call him, told to get out of the competition?

And the IRFU have never demanded a second choice squad, they've limited players game time and left it to the coaches to choose when and where the players play. A bit like when England players will miss games in the AP

England players miss out across all teams due to their deal with the RFU. The RFU doesn't pull x player from Leicester Tigers because they don't want him playing in that fixture. Or to demand that x player tries a game at full back because England are short of full backs. Or to demand that one of their clubs is not allowed to sign any players in a  particular position as they want younger players to be developed.

Union meddling is what we have in the pro14.

I never said the RFU did pull anyone from fixtures but I don't know any union that does

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:What I don't get is why a private individual throwing his money for to a club is fine, but a union using the money made from rugby reinvesting it into rugby is bad?

It's because:

With a privately owned league - everybody running it and making decisions are doing so with 100% interests in the league. When Unions are invovled and own teams and run leagues - you get players like Peinaar being told to get out of the competition. You get the Unions demanding second choice squads in derby matches because they've chosen to rest some test players for the betterment of the national team. The list goes on. That devalues the league and is unlikely to happen if there is zero Union invovlement.

Yet more cowpat from you, when was Peinaar as you call him, told to get out of the competition?

And the IRFU have never demanded a second choice squad, they've limited players game time and left it to the coaches to choose when and where the players play. A bit like when England players will miss games in the AP

England players miss out across all teams due to their deal with the RFU. The RFU doesn't pull x player from Leicester Tigers because they don't want him playing in that fixture. Or to demand that x player tries a game at full back because England are short of full backs. Or to demand that one of their clubs is not allowed to sign any players in a  particular position as they want younger players to be developed.

Union meddling is what we have in the pro14.

I never said the RFU did pull anyone from fixtures but I don't know any union that does

Presumably you admit that the other things all happen which devalue the league then. Union meddling.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:What I don't get is why a private individual throwing his money for to a club is fine, but a union using the money made from rugby reinvesting it into rugby is bad?

It's because:

With a privately owned league - everybody running it and making decisions are doing so with 100% interests in the league. When Unions are invovled and own teams and run leagues - you get players like Peinaar being told to get out of the competition. You get the Unions demanding second choice squads in derby matches because they've chosen to rest some test players for the betterment of the national team. The list goes on. That devalues the league and is unlikely to happen if there is zero Union invovlement.

Yet more cowpat from you, when was Peinaar as you call him, told to get out of the competition?

And the IRFU have never demanded a second choice squad, they've limited players game time and left it to the coaches to choose when and where the players play. A bit like when England players will miss games in the AP

England players miss out across all teams due to their deal with the RFU. The RFU doesn't pull x player from Leicester Tigers because they don't want him playing in that fixture. Or to demand that x player tries a game at full back because England are short of full backs. Or to demand that one of their clubs is not allowed to sign any players in a  particular position as they want younger players to be developed.

Union meddling is what we have in the pro14.

Why are these things a problem? Are they effecting attendances elsewhere? Because the provinces are still some of the best supported teams in the league... If you think they do effect attendances go and look at the crowd the ospreys got for their crucial game against Saracens last weekend.