Is the bubble bursting for the PRL ?

First topic message reminder :

So Mark McCafferty has started piping up again, and started moaning about things again. But his he just trying to deflect the issues that are going on within his own organisation ? The PRL was unable to find a new title sponsor last summer, prompting Aviva to extend its agreement for a final season at a reduced price.

Only one of PRL’s members, Exeter Chiefs, made a profit in the last tax year.

Worcester lost £8m, London Irish £3m. new English champions Saracens are about £45m in the red while independent auditors have cast a shadow of doubt on the future of Wasps after the club’s latest filed accounts revealed it was relying on shareholder cash to stay afloat.


Only one English club – Saracens – made it to the knockout stage of Europe’s showpiece Champions Cup, losing to Leinster in the quarter-finals.

Also, there's the debacle with Europe, who are once again, sponsored by Heineken, at a lower price than they were previously. Where are all these new sponsors we were promised ? Where is all this money we were supposed to be swimming in by now on the back of it ?

I know it is the WOL, but this makes for an interesting read:-

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/dont-blame-wales-lions-major-14748559


How long will it be before the PRL ruin things altogether ?

RugbyFan100 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:Tigers owe more than the £13m Exeter do. They have secured the debt against long term loans which they can afford to repay. That's the cost of the stadium redevelopment and land purchases they've made. Unfortunately they can't seem to source the funding for a decent training ground at the minute.

It's funny how some people are quick to label Exeter as good guys, as they make a profit, but they don't apply the same logic to Toulon who also make a profit (most seasons).

Did I label anybody good guys? I just made a point about how sometimes you need to fund long term projects with credit. The key is to acquire credit at decent rates that allow you to repay it in line with cashflow expectations (I'm looking at you Coventry Wasps).

I was agreeing with you!

That's alright then.

Can I just point out I stated debt is ok when used in the right way.

Debt for Stadiums is fine as it gives assets and can be paid off over time. It brings in money etc. Fan based clubs such as Barcelona in Soccer do fine at raising money. If you have 10k fans happy to give 1k each every year and they get shares in return off you go. Rugby league clubs are having difficulties as money is getting tighter for them. Richmond and L Welsh aren't what they use to be because of money problems

Using loans to pay off losses aren't advised for a lot of years as how can you pay it back if you don't have money to pay current bills.

In regards to unions they are like trusts used by universities. The national union isn't going to decide one day to stop investing in rugby. Unions should be wise with their income and running continual losses is as bad as a sugar daddy. Just ask the Scots what happens if your union is in financial problems. Unions living beyond their means are more of a blight on the sport than sugar daddy's.

Brendan wrote:Just ask the Scots what happens if your union is in financial problems. Unions living beyond their means are more of a blight on the sport than sugar daddy's.

In my opinion, there is no difference whatsoever between sugar daddy owners running the team, and unions running the team.

The both scenarios distort the market, as they both bankroll the teams paying higher wages that the club itself could on it's own not afford, forcing other teams to either live beyond their means to stay successful or allow their star players to leave so they do not go bankrupt.

That is the trouble with both union run clubs and sugar daddy run clubs. Neither has the moral high ground over the other, as they both behave the same.

LD, what other option is there?! You have issues with union owned and sugar daddy owned clubs - what’s the alternative, community owned?! No owner?!

It’s all business these days since the game went pro. You’ll always have good players attracting higher wages. You can’t change that regardless of the ownership model. The difference for me between union run and Sugar daddy run is that if the sugar daddy has a t*t full he can just walk away and the club is stuffed (although as pointed out by someone earlier in the thread that rarely actually happens and they end up just writing off their debts and the club carries on) but with the union owned model it is much more stable. A top guy walks away or is sacked but the ‘business’ goes on. It’s like a local council/government - you can sack the chief exec, or whatever they’re called, but the council/govt doesn’t close down. It’s much less volatile and able to ride out finance issues because there are a lot more people involved, much deeper rooted structures and ultimately more people to carry the can. Can be a hindrance in other ways too, I suppose.

Brendan wrote:Can I just point out I stated debt is ok when used in the right way.

Debt for Stadiums is fine as it gives assets and can be paid off over time.  It brings in money etc.  Fan based clubs such as Barcelona in Soccer do fine at raising money.  If you have 10k fans happy to give 1k each every year and they get shares in return off you go.  Rugby league clubs are having difficulties as money is getting tighter for them.  Richmond and L Welsh aren't what they use to be because of money problems

Using loans to pay off losses aren't advised for a lot of years as how can you pay it back if you don't have money to pay current bills.

In regards to unions they are like trusts used by universities.  The national union isn't going to decide one day to stop investing in rugby.  Unions should be wise with their income and running continual losses is as bad as a sugar daddy.  Just ask the Scots what happens if your union is in financial problems. Unions living beyond their means are more of a blight on the sport than sugar daddy's.

So, of the approximately 23 domestic pro teams in Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England - how many are currently operating via a model you see as "the right way"?

LordDowlais wrote:LD, what other option is there?! You have issues with union owned and sugar daddy owned clubs - what’s the alternative, community owned?! No owner?! Very Happy

Honestly, I have no issues with either. You can quote me on this, as I have said it over and over on here. Each to their own I say, nobody is doing anything wrong. Unions/clubs should do what they feel works for them.

All I am saying is, there is no difference to sugar daddy run clubs and union run clubs. So people should really not get on their high horses when the team they support is under the stewardship of one of the scenarios.

The Oracle wrote:It’s all business these days since the game went pro. You’ll always have good players attracting higher wages. You can’t change that regardless of the ownership model.

Yes, but it distorts the market, when a sugar daddy or union run club can pay a player more than the club who made that player can afford, sometimes that player is not worth the wages the rich clubs are willing to pay, with money the clubs have not earned themselves. Thus the market has been distorted.

The Oracle wrote:The difference for me between union run and Sugar daddy run is that if the sugar daddy has a t*t full he can just walk away and the club is stuffed (although as pointed out by someone earlier in the thread that rarely actually happens and they end up just writing off their debts and the club carries on) but with the union owned model it is much more stable.  

That's not true though is it ?

And we have witnessed this in Wales, the Union can get fed up, and just disband a team that they feel is not worth it, look what happened with the Celtic Warriors. In fact, I would wager that union run clubs are more at threat because the unions have less to lose and more to gain by disbanding a team to save money.

LordDowlais wrote:

The Oracle wrote:It’s all business these days since the game went pro. You’ll always have good players attracting higher wages. You can’t change that regardless of the ownership model.

Yes, but it distorts the market, when a sugar daddy or union run club can pay a player more than the club who made that player can afford, sometimes that player is not worth the wages the rich clubs are willing to pay, with money the clubs have not earned themselves. Thus the market has been distorted.

The Oracle wrote:The difference for me between union run and Sugar daddy run is that if the sugar daddy has a t*t full he can just walk away and the club is stuffed (although as pointed out by someone earlier in the thread that rarely actually happens and they end up just writing off their debts and the club carries on) but with the union owned model it is much more stable.  

That's not true though is it ?

And we have witnessed this in Wales, the Union can get fed up, and just disband a team that they feel is not worth it, look what happened with the Celtic Warriors. In fact, I would wager that union run clubs are more at threat because the unions have less to lose and more to gain by disbanding a team to save money.

I don't know if clubs are more at threat if they have been established for a while. It's difficult to argue that because Glasgow and Edinburgh are Union run they are more at risk of being closed. We all know they are well established and if the union wants to run the game well focusing on the 2 largest cities in scotland is the best way to do it.

If it were a new venture you could argue that yes a union is more likely to close a failing club than a sugar daddy. A union is beholden (supposedly) to its members where as a private investor/sugar is beholden to no-one but his own pride. In this way you could suggest that perhaps the union is more predictable in terms of "My investment is not working out, best pull the club otherwise I will get the sack", whereas who can tell when a private investor will get bored?

LordDowlais wrote: sometimes that player is not worth the wages the rich clubs are willing to pay, with money the clubs have not earned themselves. .

If someone is willing to pay x amount in wages for a player, then that is what the player is worth. This is basic market forces.

Also, money they've not earned themselves? Every club has that funding mechanism whether it be Peter Pies plugging funding gaps, Denis O'Brien paying for Johnny Sexton's wages or Kingspan stadium being funded by the UK Taxpayer.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote: sometimes that player is not worth the wages the rich clubs are willing to pay, with money the clubs have not earned themselves. .

If someone is willing to pay x amount in wages for a player, then that is what the player is worth. This is basic market forces.

Also, money they've not earned themselves? Every club has that funding mechanism whether it be Peter Pies plugging funding gaps, Denis O'Brien paying for Johnny Sexton's wages or Kingspan stadium being funded by the UK Taxpayer.

Do you reckon players like Tyler Morgan and Dan Baker were worth a NDC ?

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Brendan wrote:Can I just point out I stated debt is ok when used in the right way.

Debt for Stadiums is fine as it gives assets and can be paid off over time.  It brings in money etc.  Fan based clubs such as Barcelona in Soccer do fine at raising money.  If you have 10k fans happy to give 1k each every year and they get shares in return off you go.  Rugby league clubs are having difficulties as money is getting tighter for them.  Richmond and L Welsh aren't what they use to be because of money problems

Using loans to pay off losses aren't advised for a lot of years as how can you pay it back if you don't have money to pay current bills.

In regards to unions they are like trusts used by universities.  The national union isn't going to decide one day to stop investing in rugby.  Unions should be wise with their income and running continual losses is as bad as a sugar daddy.  Just ask the Scots what happens if your union is in financial problems. Unions living beyond their means are more of a blight on the sport than sugar daddy's.

So, of the approximately 23 domestic pro teams in Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England - how many are currently operating via a model you see as "the right way"?

Without seeing the accounts I can't give you a great answer.
The IRFU are running a breakeven. They do get donations from people to fund projects/players but they aren't loaned just donated. Leinster and Ulster are breaking even as I think Munster are. Connacht not so sure but I don't think they are allowed make a loss (Again IRFU donation helps but is given not loaned). Munster do have debt repayment issues but have assets that would allow for a re-finance of the debt if needed (but the debt is in house so accounting debt between departments then a debt that is held by outside people). Again Munster own two stadia and a training ground to the best of my knowledge.
The only debt issue the IRFU have to worry about is the well run organisation of the FAI

I would be happy for others to talk about their own clubs/unions. Feel free to tell me who you know about.
In the English set-up if you go broke the club drops down tiers should fans not worry about playing in level 6 or whatever level it is if it goes bad. Championship is nothing compared to the drop they would face.

Double post

LordDowlais wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote: sometimes that player is not worth the wages the rich clubs are willing to pay, with money the clubs have not earned themselves. .

If someone is willing to pay x amount in wages for a player, then that is what the player is worth. This is basic market forces.

Also, money they've not earned themselves? Every club has that funding mechanism whether it be Peter Pies plugging funding gaps, Denis O'Brien paying for Johnny Sexton's wages or Kingspan stadium being funded by the UK Taxpayer.

Do you reckon players like Tyler Morgan and Dan Baker were worth a NDC ?

I don't think any player should be on a NDC as that system is awful. Were they getting paid more than they would have at their pro teams?

Brendan wrote:
The IRFU are running a breakeven.  They do get donations from people to fund projects/players but they aren't loaned just donated.  Leinster and Ulster are breaking even as I think Munster are.  Connacht not so sure but I don't think they are allowed make a loss (Again IRFU donation helps but is given not loaned).  Munster do have debt repayment issues but have assets that would allow for a re-finance of the debt if needed (but the debt is in house so accounting debt between departments then a debt that is held by outside people).  Again Munster own two stadia and a training ground to the best of my knowledge.

So all the Irish clubs are operating a perfect model. What a shocker.

I'd be astonished if Connacht rake in more than they spend given their squad and facilities. But I guess that doesn't count because Ireland.

I would be happy for others to talk about their own clubs/unions.  Feel free to tell me who you know about.
In the English set-up if you go broke the club drops down tiers should fans not worry about playing in level 6 or whatever level it is if it goes bad. Championship is nothing compared to the drop they would face.

But you know the models that clubs such as Cardiff, Scarlets, Ospreys, Saracens, Wasps, Sale, Newcastle, Bristol adopt yes? You know those clubs don't break even -so are you saying that measures should be taken against those clubs to change the way they operate?

RugbyFan100 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote: sometimes that player is not worth the wages the rich clubs are willing to pay, with money the clubs have not earned themselves. .

If someone is willing to pay x amount in wages for a player, then that is what the player is worth. This is basic market forces.

Also, money they've not earned themselves? Every club has that funding mechanism whether it be Peter Pies plugging funding gaps, Denis O'Brien paying for Johnny Sexton's wages or Kingspan stadium being funded by the UK Taxpayer.

Do you reckon players like Tyler Morgan and Dan Baker were worth a NDC ?

I don't think any player should be on a NDC as that system is awful. Were they getting paid more than they would have at their pro teams?

Yes but by putting a player like Dan Baker on a NDC, then a player who was keeping him out of the team, Tylor Ardron, has the leverage to turn around and ask for more money.

It distorts the market.

LordDowlais wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote: sometimes that player is not worth the wages the rich clubs are willing to pay, with money the clubs have not earned themselves. .

If someone is willing to pay x amount in wages for a player, then that is what the player is worth. This is basic market forces.

Also, money they've not earned themselves? Every club has that funding mechanism whether it be Peter Pies plugging funding gaps, Denis O'Brien paying for Johnny Sexton's wages or Kingspan stadium being funded by the UK Taxpayer.

Do you reckon players like Tyler Morgan and Dan Baker were worth a NDC ?

I don't think any player should be on a NDC as that system is awful. Were they getting paid more than they would have at their pro teams?

Yes but by putting a player like Dan Baker on a NDC, then a player who was keeping him out of the team, Tylor Ardron, has the leverage to turn around and ask for more money.

It distorts the market.

Why would Ardron ask for more money just because Baker is getting paid via a different structure?

Brendan wrote:
I would be happy for others to talk about their own clubs/unions.  Feel free to tell me who you know about.
In the English set-up if you go broke the club drops down tiers should fans not worry about playing in level 6 or whatever level it is if it goes bad. Championship is nothing compared to the drop they would face.

Yes - that is a risk and the impact on the club if backers withdraw funding is one that is called out (as a statutory requirement) in most clubs' accounts every year. It happened to several clubs - most famously Richmond - in the early years of professionalism and could have happened to more (Quins were apparently at one point a couple of weeks away from being closed down and given to their original investors for the land value). However, most clubs now have backers who have given every indication that they are in it for the long haul.

The closest we've seen to a wobble recently is that PwC recently resigned as Wasps' auditors over being misled. Wasps have said that it's an isolated issue, and not much has been heard since:
Sky News on Wasps' accounts

Coventry Telegraph on the same

RugbyFan100 wrote:Why would Ardron ask for more money just because Baker is getting paid via a different structure?

Because, I bet with the unions weight behind the DC Baker was getting more money than what Ospreys on their own were paying Ardron.

LordDowlais wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:Why would Ardron ask for more money just because Baker is getting paid via a different structure?

Because, I bet with the unions weight behind the DC Baker was getting more money than what Ospreys on their own were paying Ardron.

Even if this supposition is all correct, why is the market distorted? I don't get it. Players will want what they feel they are worth. If they don't get it, they try and go elsewhere to a place that will give them what they are worth.

Isn't that what happened to Ardron? Three was no market distortion.

RugbyFan100 wrote:Even if this supposition is all correct, why is the market distorted? I don't get it. Players will want what they feel they are worth. If they don't get it, they try and go elsewhere to a place that will give them what they are worth.

Well how on earth would you reckon they gauge what they are worth ?????

They will look at what other players, in their position are earning at their own, and other clubs and ask for parity.

If a club who has union backing, or a sugar daddy, can offer more to a player it does not necessarily represent the true worth. As seen by the WRU giving NDC's out players who do not really warrant them. Then the market has become distorted.

Ok put it this way, in your opinion, if Ardron was Welsh as well as Baker, who do you reckon should get the NDC ?

RugbyFan100 wrote:Isn't that what happened to Ardron? Three was no market distortion.

I don't know. Sorry.

LordDowlais wrote:

Ok put it this way, in your opinion, if Ardron was Welsh as well as Baker, who do you reckon should get the NDC ?

Whoever the Union deem to be the most valuable for keeping in Wales. Tyler Ardron is not Welsh so there was no chance of putting him on a NDC. That shouldn't stop Welsh rugby from doing all they can to keep Baker in Wales, if that's what they deemed necessary. It isn't a comparable situation because Baker is Welsh and Ardron is not.

Thankfully NDCs look to be coming to and end with the new agreemeent anyway.

RugbyFan100 wrote:Whoever the Union deem to be the most valuable for keeping in Wales. Tyler Ardron is not Welsh so there was no chance of putting him on a NDC. That shouldn't stop Welsh rugby from doing all they can to keep Baker in Wales, if that's what they deemed necessary. It isn't a comparable situation because Baker is Welsh and Ardron is not.

OK then, Tyler Morgan and Jack Dixon then.

LordDowlais wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:Whoever the Union deem to be the most valuable for keeping in Wales. Tyler Ardron is not Welsh so there was no chance of putting him on a NDC. That shouldn't stop Welsh rugby from doing all they can to keep Baker in Wales, if that's what they deemed necessary. It isn't a comparable situation because Baker is Welsh and Ardron is not.

OK then, Tyler Morgan and Jack Dixon then.

What about them? Morgan was seen as the bigger prospect so he was placed on a NDC.

RugbyFan100 wrote:What about them? Morgan was seen as the bigger prospect so he was placed on a NDC.

And he was injured all the time. So somebody playing in his place could then turn round and say, if he is getting paid all this money, and I am playing and he's not, then where is my NDC.

The market is then distorted.

Lewis Evans could have gone to the Dragons board and said, hey, Dan Baker is earning all this money on a NDC and he cannot even get into his team, I am captain here at Dragons, pay me the same or I am off.

I cannot fathom how you are not getting this.

Look I totally understand if you disagree, but I am just trying to make you understand.

LordDowlais wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:Whoever the Union deem to be the most valuable for keeping in Wales. Tyler Ardron is not Welsh so there was no chance of putting him on a NDC. That shouldn't stop Welsh rugby from doing all they can to keep Baker in Wales, if that's what they deemed necessary. It isn't a comparable situation because Baker is Welsh and Ardron is not.

OK then, Tyler Morgan and Jack Dixon then.

I don’t believe Jack Dixon is on an NDC.

For Morgan, was he paid more though? Remember, NDCs aren’t a set amount. Morgan didn’t suddenly get £200k because he went onto an NDC. His wages were still relatively low because he was just coming out of a development contract. There would be players are the Dragons not on an NDC who would be on more than him. Whatever his wage was it was just agreed that the Dragons would pay x% and the WRU x%. I don’t think that inflated his wage.

The one thing that has the power to distort the market is limiting the number of non-welsh players in the regional teams/squads. If there are only 40 top standard Welsh players, and you can’t bring in any more foreigners, then the teams have to be filled with other welsh players who then can name their price to a certain extent. We had that before though, before the regions. We had 10-12 ‘pro’ teams and, in order to field teams and make the league work, we had to hand out pro contracts (and therefore wages) to hundreds of guys who were not up to pro standard. They were just ‘pro’ fillers. THAT was a good example of distorting the league/wages!

Hi Oracle, please read my post above yours for my answer.

LordDowlais wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:What about them? Morgan was seen as the bigger prospect so he was placed on a NDC.

And he was injured all the time. So somebody playing in his place could then turn round and say, if he is getting paid all this money, and I am playing and he's not, then where is my NDC.

The market is then distorted.

Lewis Evans could have gone to the Dragons board and said, hey, Dan Baker is earning all this money on a NDC and he cannot even get into his team, I am captain here at Dragons, pay me the same or I am off.

I cannot fathom how you are not getting this.

Look I totally understand if you disagree, but I am just trying to make you understand.

Yeah that's just not how it works at all. Just because player X can't get into a team, doesn't mean player Y at another team that is playing 80 minutes every week deserves to be paid the same. This is kindergarten logic you are using.

You are assuming all players are of the same standard and are of the same use to all the rugby coaches/teams in Wales. Bonkers logic.

LD,

All you’re describing, for me, is normal market forces. The same in any pro team sport. A player becomes available, his agent speaks to clubs, the highest bidder gets their man. Another player says ‘Dan Carter is on double what I’m on, that’s not fair’ and the club either increases his wage (at contract renewal) or tell him to F-off. Player then either stays or leaves for perhaps more wages elsewhere or perhaps not.

Clubs want the best players and the best players cost more, so clubs have to pay more. Just like someone wanting a rare vintage comic will have to pay the highest price. If he doesn’t have the money he doesn’t get the comic. As said before, value is whatever someone is willing to pay. Same as with a house. You see it all the time - someone’s house gets valued by an estate agent and they moan that it’s been undervalued so they stick it on the market for more and it doesn’t sell! If it sells for £10k less then that is the value. If it sells for £50k more then that is the value.

I just can’t see what you mean by sugar daddies and unions distorting the market. The market itself is distorted because not all players are of equal standard and therefore not all players cost the same, and better players (on paper) win more games and generate more income. So perhaps it is business/professionalism that distorts the market but ANY club, regardless of the ownership model, is subject to that.

Poorfour wrote:

Brendan wrote:
I would be happy for others to talk about their own clubs/unions.  Feel free to tell me who you know about.
In the English set-up if you go broke the club drops down tiers should fans not worry about playing in level 6 or whatever level it is if it goes bad. Championship is nothing compared to the drop they would face.

Yes - that is a risk and the impact on the club if backers withdraw funding is one that is called out (as a statutory requirement) in most clubs' accounts every year. It happened to several clubs - most famously Richmond - in the early years of professionalism and could have happened to more (Quins were apparently at one point a couple of weeks away from being closed down and given to their original investors for the land value). However, most clubs now have backers who have given every indication that they are in it for the long haul.

The closest we've seen to a wobble recently is that PwC recently resigned as Wasps' auditors over being misled. Wasps have said that it's an isolated issue, and not much has been heard since:
Sky News on Wasps' accounts

Coventry Telegraph on the same

Thanks poorfour.

One of the things that has been going on in England is clubs are building up the business. Tigers seemed to put a good structure in place to build the fans and business to support their plans. While they may have been lucky to have the team of the early 2000s it is there long run of reaching the play-off that show they were able to sustain it.

If you look at Sarries v L Welsh Wray didn't do the Russian roulette with his plans. Yes they have run a debt but he has a plan in place. It was a setback to have the SA people leave but he built up the club. The academy is now up there in terms of development with the best. They have a nice home and slowly building fan base. It is going slower than he would have liked but he has a plan. L Welsh had no plan and spent tons of money and move home miles away in the hope of staying up which if they had of would not have stopped the ruin that resulted.

RugbyFan100 wrote:Yeah that's just not how it works at all. Just because player X can't get into a team, doesn't mean player Y at another team that is playing 80 minutes every week deserves to be paid the same. This is kindergarten logic you are using.

You are assuming all players are of the same standard and are of the same use to all the rugby coaches/teams in Wales. Bonkers logic.

It's not kindergarten logic, what ever that is. It happens everywhere, in football, in every job out there.

If you are the best player for a club, and that club is paying you a salary, but then all of a sudden a rich sugar daddy club comes along and offers more, and more of what the club is not earning by the way, then the market is distorted, because the market value should only be what the clubs/teams can afford off their own ilk. Not what they can afford with money from outside influences.

The way Leinster were paying Johnny Sexton for years was distorting the market, as he was getting payed handsomely by an outside investor. Now the going rate for a player of the ilk of Johnny Sexton is going to be what ever he was getting paid by a third party. The market has been distorted.

I think what you’re saying, LD, is that clubs should limit their income streams to only tv/competition money and gate receipts? Is that what you mean? So clubs should not look to maximise their revenue streams, e.g. by attracting investors that swell their coffers and distort the market as it’s not what the club has ‘earned’ themselves?

LordDowlais wrote:

It's not kindergarten logic, what ever that is. It happens everywhere, in football, in every job out there.

If you are the best player for a club, and that club is paying you a salary, but then all of a sudden a rich sugar daddy club comes along and offers more, and more of what the club is not earning by the way, then the market is distorted, because the market value should only be what the clubs/teams can afford off their own ilk. Not what they can afford with money from outside influences.

So you're basically saying there should be zero investment into rugby. You realise that in that scenario there would be about 2 clubs in the whole of the UK that would survive? Probably Leinster and maybe 1 in England?

The way Leinster were paying Johnny Sexton for years was distorting the market, as he was getting payed handsomely by an outside investor. Now the going rate for a player of the ilk of Johnny Sexton is going to be what ever he was getting paid by a third party. The market has been distorted.

No, no, no. That type of player has to get outside investment because others, in France etc, are offering more. His value is already at that level - that's why he has to be paid it.

You're looking at it asss backwards. Why would they overpay an employee just for the sake of it? They are paying him that because that is what it takes to retain him!

Utterly bonkers.

The Oracle wrote:I think what you’re saying, LD, is that clubs should limit their income streams to only tv/competition money and gate receipts? Is that what you mean? So clubs should not look to maximise their revenue streams, e.g. by attracting investors that swell their coffers and distort the market as it’s not what the club has ‘earned’ themselves?  

It's complete garbage. LD's methodology here is basically the antithesis of pro sport.

The Oracle wrote:All you’re describing, for me, is normal market forces. The same in any pro team sport. A player becomes available, his agent speaks to clubs, the highest bidder gets their man. Another player says ‘Dan Carter is on double what I’m on, that’s not fair’ and the club either increases his wage (at contract renewal) or tell him to F-off. Player then either stays or leaves for perhaps more wages elsewhere or perhaps not.

yes, but if a sugar daddy, or a union is pumping the money in, and not the club itself, then the market is getting distorted because they are not paying with money that is generated by the club.

Because a sugar daddy club or a union owned club can pay more than a club that lives within it's means, then the sugar daddies and the unions dictate the market, not the clubs, thus the market is then distorted.

Get it ?

The Oracle wrote:Clubs want the best players and the best players cost more, so clubs have to pay more. Just like someone wanting a rare vintage comic will have to pay the highest price. If he doesn’t have the money he doesn’t get the comic. As said before, value is whatever someone is willing to pay. Same as with a house. You see it all the time - someone’s house gets valued by an estate agent and they moan that it’s been undervalued so they stick it on the market for more and it doesn’t sell! If it sells for £10k less then that is the value. If it sells for £50k more then that is the value.

that is comparing apples with oranges. You do not go into a news agents and start bidding on comics.

The Oracle wrote:I just can’t see what you mean by sugar daddies and unions distorting the market. The market itself is distorted because not all players are of equal standard and therefore not all players cost the same, and better players (on paper) win more games and generate more income. So perhaps it is business/professionalism that distorts the market but ANY club, regardless of the ownership model, is subject to that.

Look, if none of the clubs had sugar daddies, or were not union controlled, then the price for that player is what ever the club who has worked the hardest to earn the most to spend on that player is. At least all the clubs then know the score.

When you have clubs, who do not have to work hard to to strive to be able to do what I have said above, and are getting monies not earned, and can pay even more than the hard working clubs, Leicester for example, then it distorts the market.

If the harder working clubs now want to compete, then they have to go into debt. because no matter how well they are doing, they will never match what the unions or a sugar daddy can put up against you.

That is how the market is distorted, because the price for a player has now just sky rocketed, because of entities outside the club can manipulate it to get all the best players, and no worry about the price.

Manchester City, PSG, Chelsea are doing it to a grander scale in football, paying £200million+ for a player, nobody is worth that. The market is then distorted.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:I think what you’re saying, LD, is that clubs should limit their income streams to only tv/competition money and gate receipts? Is that what you mean? So clubs should not look to maximise their revenue streams, e.g. by attracting investors that swell their coffers and distort the market as it’s not what the club has ‘earned’ themselves?  

It's complete garbage. LD's methodology here is basically the antithesis of pro sport.

well debated.

The Oracle wrote:I think what you’re saying, LD, is that clubs should limit their income streams to only tv/competition money and gate receipts? Is that what you mean? So clubs should not look to maximise their revenue streams, e.g. by attracting investors that swell their coffers and distort the market as it’s not what the club has ‘earned’ themselves?  

Nope, I have never said that, and I never want it either.

I have said it once, and I have also said you can quote me on it, on this very thread, so I do not know why you are saying this.

I said each club/union/team should do what ever they feel suits them best. But sugar daddy clubs are no different to union controlled clubs. That is what I have said.

RugbyFan100 wrote:So you're basically saying there should be zero investment into rugby. You realise that in that scenario there would be about 2 clubs in the whole of the UK that would survive? Probably Leinster and maybe 1 in England?

Nope, that is not something I have said either. I am just saying how union owned clubs and sugar daddy clubs are distorting the market. I am saying nothing about investment and who should or should not get it.

RugbyFan100 wrote:No, no, no. That type of player has to get outside investment because others, in France etc, are offering more. His value is already at that level - that's why he has to be paid it.

You're looking at it asss backwards. Why would they overpay an employee just for the sake of it? They are paying him that because that is what it takes to retain him!

Utterly bonkers.

I am not saying that either.

oh here we go, you and Oracle are trying to skew this in another direction.

I am saying this because Leinster could not afford him, but with outside help they could, nice to have that investment, all the best for Leinster I say, but because of this, the going price for a player at Sexton's level has been skewed/distorted, all of a sudden, only the hyper rich can get these players, as the market has been distorted/manipulated to favour the sugar daddy and the union clubs.

LordDowlais wrote:

The Oracle wrote:I think what you’re saying, LD, is that clubs should limit their income streams to only tv/competition money and gate receipts? Is that what you mean? So clubs should not look to maximise their revenue streams, e.g. by attracting investors that swell their coffers and distort the market as it’s not what the club has ‘earned’ themselves?  

Nope, I have never said that, and I never want it either.

I have said it once, and I have also said you can quote me on it, on this very thread, so I do not know why you are saying this.

I said each club/union/team should do what ever they feel suits them best. But sugar daddy clubs are no different to union controlled clubs. That is what I have said.

Ummm, you said clubs need to live off their own ilk (?!) which I assumed to mean that they should live within their own means and what they generate naturally as a club? And not have sugar daddies adding to their available funds.

The Oracle wrote:Ummm, you said clubs need to live off their own ilk (?!)

Again, show me where I have said this, please ? I think you are either getting confused or are just not being thorough with your reading.

I am getting told I have said a lot of things on this thread, people should be a little more thorough.

I said the market value should be what the clubs can afford off their own ilk.

I wonder if I will get an apology.

The Oracle wrote:which I assumed to mean that they should live within their own means and what they generate naturally as a club? And not have sugar daddies adding to their available funds.

Perhaps you should stop assuming things, I have not suggested that either. If sugar daddies want to put their own money into their teams, good for them.

LordDowlais wrote:

The Oracle wrote:Ummm, you said clubs need to live off their own ilk (?!)

Again, show me where I have said this, please ? I think you are either getting confused or are just not being thorough with your reading.

I am getting told I have said a lot of things on this thread, people should be a little more thorough.

I said the market value should be what the clubs can afford off their own ilk.

I wonder if I will get an apology.

The Oracle wrote:which I assumed to mean that they should live within their own means and what they generate naturally as a club? And not have sugar daddies adding to their available funds.

Perhaps you should stop assuming things, I have not suggested that either. If sugar daddies want to put their own money into their teams, good for them.

I'm assuming you're trying to be clever as usual, but what exactly would "sugar daddies" be putting money into clubs for if its not for increasing the quality of its playing squad

BamBam wrote:I'm assuming you're trying to be clever as usual, but what exactly would "sugar daddies" be putting money into clubs for if its not for increasing the quality of its playing squad

I dunno, you tell me.

Don't know what this whine is about, can somebody help ?

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Brendan wrote:
The IRFU are running a breakeven.  They do get donations from people to fund projects/players but they aren't loaned just donated.  Leinster and Ulster are breaking even as I think Munster are.  Connacht not so sure but I don't think they are allowed make a loss (Again IRFU donation helps but is given not loaned).  Munster do have debt repayment issues but have assets that would allow for a re-finance of the debt if needed (but the debt is in house so accounting debt between departments then a debt that is held by outside people).  Again Munster own two stadia and a training ground to the best of my knowledge.

So all the Irish clubs are operating a perfect model. What a shocker.

I'd be astonished if Connacht rake in more than they spend given their squad and facilities. But I guess that doesn't count because Ireland.

I would be happy for others to talk about their own clubs/unions.  Feel free to tell me who you know about.
In the English set-up if you go broke the club drops down tiers should fans not worry about playing in level 6 or whatever level it is if it goes bad. Championship is nothing compared to the drop they would face.

But you know the models that clubs such as Cardiff, Scarlets, Ospreys, Saracens, Wasps, Sale, Newcastle, Bristol adopt yes? You know those clubs don't break even -so are you saying that measures should be taken against those clubs to change the way they operate?

The IRFU have a service agreement with the four provinces.  Connacht get the same about as the other three.  They generate less themselves which is why they have a poorer squad.  For this money each of the provinces must agree to the following but not limited too
1. Provide players to a high enough standard that Ireland has enough internationals. We saw the benefits of that in the 6 nations
2. Develop rugby within the provinces
3. Let the IRFU over ride any non IQ player they want to sign or resign, even if your team needs it (that alone would cost €2-3m per team if the FFR or RU tried to bring in that rule)
4. Rest, release for camps an players they want what most service agreements only cover.
5. pick certain players in certain positions as per IRFU request.  (Imagine how much Bath would have charged if Lancaster had of demanded that of Bath leading up to the world cup for a certain league convert.  Ulster played a centre at fly-half and said anytime you want boss).

So yes the IRFU do give large amounts of money to the provinces but demand a pound of flesh for it.

I do think Ireland as a whole is well run but the IRFU had major issues in the first 10 years of professional rugby with 1.5 players for key positions because of bad management.  Connacht was almost closed because they weren't giving them a fair crack and any good players were moved on.  If it was like that now all internationals and nearly internationals would be at Ulster or Munster and Leinster kids would have filled the gaps.

Just because I feel the IRFU is run well does not mean I am wrong. We have problems with some structures but finance is fine

LordDowlais wrote:

BamBam wrote:I'm assuming you're trying to be clever as usual, but what exactly would "sugar daddies" be putting money into clubs for if its not for increasing the quality of its playing squad

I dunno, you tell me.

Don't know what this whine is about, can somebody help ?

You definitely need some help

What is it with you BamBam, why can't you just debate like an adult ? Please do not spoil this debate.

I just don't understand why you claim to have no issue with "sugar daddies", but then say they shouldn't be allowed to invest money on improving the squad - that means you do have an issue with outside investment

True or not?

BamBam wrote:I just don't understand why you claim to have no issue with "sugar daddies", but then say they shouldn't be allowed to invest money on improving the squad - that means you do have an issue with outside investment

True or not?

Except I have not said they shouldn't be allowed to invest money improving the squad, quote me on it if you can find it, have you actually read all of what I have said on here ? Also, where have I said anything about them not being allowed to invest in anything ?

So NOT TRUE.

I won't hold my breath for an apology, I will just let you fester in your own stupidity.

LordDowlais wrote:

The Oracle wrote:Ummm, you said clubs need to live off their own ilk (?!)

Again, show me where I have said this, please ? I think you are either getting confused or are just not being thorough with your reading.

I am getting told I have said a lot of things on this thread, people should be a little more thorough.

I said the market value should be what the clubs can afford off their own ilk.

I wonder if I will get an apology.

The Oracle wrote:which I assumed to mean that they should live within their own means and what they generate naturally as a club? And not have sugar daddies adding to their available funds.

Perhaps you should stop assuming things, I have not suggested that either. If sugar daddies want to put their own money into their teams, good for them.

Right, I’ll spell it out for you. You said the market value should be what the club can afford ‘off their own ilk’. Firstly, that actually makes no sense in the English language. ‘Ilk’ means a type of person or thing similar to one already referred to. So ‘off their own ilk’ does not make sense. Therefore, we need to guess at what you meant. Now, given what else you have written I’m guessing you mean that market value should be what clubs can afford off their own backs and not what they can afford if they are supplemented by a sugar daddy? I.e. living within their own means? If that’s not what you mean then what the hell have all of your posts been about??? Because it seems you’re now contradicting yourself.

FFS Oracle mun.

I reckon you know exactly what I mean. What is it with this place ? Instead of debating properly, you would  rather just always try and take on the member.

By their own ILK, I meant by doing it themselves, through what the club generates. Not added extras from a sugar daddy or a union.

Please, be an adult about this.

Also, I do not think what union controlled clubs or what sugar daddy clubs do is wrong. But somebody somewhere does, because for some reason, we are seeing salary caps in certain leagues, something again I do not agree with.

I should have stuck to my original thought:

"Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you to their level and beat you with experience"

LordDowlais wrote:

Except I have not said they shouldn't be allowed to invest money improving the squad, quote me on it if you can find it

LordDowlais wrote:

By their own ILK, I meant by doing it themselves, through what the club generates. Not added extras from a sugar daddy or a union.

Are you suffering from a knock to the head? You're literally typing this 9 minutes apart.

You sad, strange little man