The Future for the PRO14 - Part 6 - Pay TV, More SA Makes Sweet 16

First topic message reminder :

A new thread to continue the tracking of where the multi-country Championship is heading.

With the TV deals done for Ireland, UK, Italy and South Africa, PRO14 quietly announced their deal for tapping other broadcast markets around the world with rights partner, RDA, who already have the Heineken Cup and English Premiership in their stable.  

Here’s extract from what the PRO14 press release said:  

Guinness PRO14 is the first rugby union championship to host clubs from the traditional rugby powers in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, with teams from South Africa competing against the top sides from Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy.....

....RDA’s focus will be on growing revenues in core markets as well as increasing the Guinness PRO14’s global footprint. Current media agreements in host markets secured by PRO14 include eir sport in Ireland, Premier Sports in the UK and Super Sport in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Martin Anayi, CEO, Guinness PRO14 commented: “It’s an incredible time in the Guinness PRO14 with our expansion into South Africa, the success of our clubs in Europe and the confirmation of our new broadcast partners in Ireland and the UK. Every season the biggest names in world rugby take to the pitch in our Championship guided by some of the sharpest minds in the game providing imaginative, high-intensity match-ups which make for compulsive viewing.

“The Guinness PRO14 is one of the most talked about rugby properties in the world right now and it’s the perfect time to join forces with RDA who have a track record of success when it comes to sports media rights. With brands such as Premiership Rugby, Champions Cup and European Challenge Cup in their portfolio we can ensure that rugby fans will feel a part of the Guinness PRO14 action no matter where they are.”

...,Richard Dennis, CEO, RDA commented: “The Guinness PRO14 is an action-packed tournament. With a global-playing base of 300 players capped at full international level, and 100 top players from countries such as New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and the Pacific Islands, PRO14 will have a worldwide appeal to rugby fans. It also boasts some impressive stats, 1.3 million attendees last season and games averaging 5.9 tries, so it’s no surprise scoring has risen for the fifth year in a row. We’re very much excited to be working with the Guinness PRO14.”

RDA adds the Guinness PRO14 to a strong rugby portfolio covering the newly sponsored Champions Cup, European Challenge Cup, Premiership Rugby, Betfred Super League and the RFL International Test Series.

Anayi in another pre-season general interview said that PRO16 would be the ideal size for the Championship that would allow less regular season games to be played and avoid test windows. It’s likely the final two spots would go to two more SA teams - likely from Super Rugby before the start of its new Sanzaar TV contract in 2020.

Anayi also mentioned that they were bringing in a new programme to allow them employ professional referees directly on their elite refs panel.

Good news for Welsh domestic rugby, BBC Wales will be covering the Welsh prem, filling the void left by not showing the Pro14.

This is something I called when the new deal was announced. This will be good for the Welsh domestic game and could help it steal a march on the Pro14 here in Wales with the extra exposure.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/45056961

LordDowlais wrote:Good news for Welsh domestic rugby, BBC Wales will be covering the Welsh prem, filling the void left by not showing the Pro14.

This is something I called when the new deal was announced. This will be good for the Welsh domestic game and could help it steal a march on the Pro14 here in Wales with the extra exposure.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/45056961

Guess we get to see first had the effect of free to air tv on attendances now then. If the prem sides start getting in huge numbers free to air is import, if attendances drop cos it’s in the telly, that proof it’s bad. Either way it could settle the bickering in this one way if the other.

Also it should be interesting to see how this goes, how serious the been take it, and what the viewing figures are.

The Aussies have been banging on about dropping the conference structure, the South Africans are hedging their bets and now even the kiwi media are at it.
Meanwhile the Pro14 'forge ahead....

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=12100442

Recwatcher16 wrote:The Aussies have been banging on about dropping the conference structure, the South Africans are hedging their bets and now even the kiwi media are at it.
Meanwhile the Pro14 'forge ahead....

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=12100442

The points made in the article are almost the exact opposite of what Wales went through in 2002! They’re talking about changing to a model of rich benefactors/‘sugar daddies’ (that much used 606v2 term). While that is great in terms of taking the pressure and burden off the governing body you still need to find 10 super rich people to take the plunge, at the same time, and more waiting in the wings when one of them gets fed up of throwing money away (because I doubt they’d be able to make much, if anything). And they talk about that new system being able to keep players in NZ/Aus because they could afford to pay them more? But that would only be if these rich owners are willing to fork out on inflated wages. Seems unrealistic to me, overall.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Good news for Welsh domestic rugby, BBC Wales will be covering the Welsh prem, filling the void left by not showing the Pro14.

This is something I called when the new deal was announced. This will be good for the Welsh domestic game and could help it steal a march on the Pro14 here in Wales with the extra exposure.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/45056961

Guess we get to see first had the effect of free to air tv on attendances now then.  If the prem sides start getting in huge numbers free to air is import, if attendances drop cos it’s in the telly, that proof it’s bad.  Either way it could settle the bickering in this one way if the other.

Also it should be interesting to see how this goes, how serious the been take it, and what the viewing figures are.

They probably won't be great. If there was that much interest in the Premiership, then every game would be better attended. To suggest that the semi pro game might steal a march on the Pro 14 is laughable.

They can't even get the coverage right for that anyway. No game being shown from Bargoed or Crosskeys, is what I have seen. More teams getting significantly more screen time than others too. Doesn't seem like a good start to it, if people are complaining about it already. Then you have the fact that a lot of people don't particularly like Scrum V's dated coverage anyway. If Jiffy etc can't get excited over a pro game, then how are they going to make Aberavon v Carmarthen Quins sound like a humdinger? What big names are going to be marketed as playing etc?

Pure, unashamed supposition once again. Or to put it another way, a load of guff. Food for thought.

Anyway, back to the (pro) rugby.

RiscaGame wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Good news for Welsh domestic rugby, BBC Wales will be covering the Welsh prem, filling the void left by not showing the Pro14.

This is something I called when the new deal was announced. This will be good for the Welsh domestic game and could help it steal a march on the Pro14 here in Wales with the extra exposure.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/45056961

Guess we get to see first had the effect of free to air tv on attendances now then.  If the prem sides start getting in huge numbers free to air is import, if attendances drop cos it’s in the telly, that proof it’s bad.  Either way it could settle the bickering in this one way if the other.

Also it should be interesting to see how this goes, how serious the been take it, and what the viewing figures are.

They probably won't be great. If there was that much interest in the Premiership, then every game would be better attended. To suggest that the semi pro game might steal a march on the Pro 14 is laughable.

They can't even get the coverage right for that anyway. No game being shown from Bargoed or Crosskeys, is what I have seen. More teams getting significantly more screen time than others too. Doesn't seem like a good start to it, if people are complaining about it already. Then you have the fact that a lot of people don't particularly like Scrum V's dated coverage anyway. If Jiffy etc can't get excited over a pro game, then how are they going to make Aberavon v Carmarthen Quins sound like a humdinger? What big names are going to be marketed as playing etc?

Pure, unashamed supposition once again. Or to put it another way, a load of guff. Food for thought.

Anyway, back to the (pro) rugby.

Also, probably the key point, it’ll clash with regional games so people will most likely still being going to them or watching on tv. If the people I know who attend games (even the once/twice a season lot) I’d say 90% have got premier sports now, so it’s a choice of Carm Quins v Cardiff RFC, or Blues v Edinburgh I know what most will watch on the tv.

Jiffy not going to Premier. Reason to get it?

Recwatcher16 wrote:The Aussies have been banging on about dropping the conference structure, the South Africans are hedging their bets and now even the kiwi media are at it.
Meanwhile the Pro14 'forge ahead....

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=12100442

Hedging their bets as in wondering which 'Conference' they want to be part of - the one in the SH or the one in the NH?

Tough choices.  But just wait until New Zealand gets a load of a Nigel Wray kinda figure (only in it for the lark, doesn't need it to be a self sustaining business, can afford to suck up massive losses, has the power leverage to break rules at will, doesn't like International rugby or players that like International rugby...etc..etc)  Just wait until the lauded New Zealand rugby machine wakes up to that new reality.

If they do go that way and it does begin to leave a sour taste in the mouths.... well, we might let some of their teams back into the Pan WO'rld Rugby Super Conference, the Pro248.

The Pro248. I like it!

Can the Dragons go in Conference Z please? With Benidorm Bandits, Kavos Cougars and Munich Marauders. Fancy some lively away days.

Ooooooooh, yes please.

The Oracle wrote:

The points made in the article are almost the exact opposite of what Wales went through in 2002! They’re talking about changing to a model of rich benefactors/‘sugar daddies’ (that much used 606v2 term).

Those sentences are contradictory.

Recwatcher16 wrote:The Aussies have been banging on about dropping the conference structure, the South Africans are hedging their bets and now even the kiwi media are at it.
Meanwhile the Pro14 'forge ahead....

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=12100442

So the issues I see with the article are (but not limited too)
1. Get rid of South Africa So they want to get rid of 50+% of the current Super Rugby funding and have that money go to Europe resulting in more money in Europe so even hiher wages.  Because SA would have more money to retain SA players, they would need to be replaced by more players not afilated with european rugby.
2. Forget about Argentina and Japan too  they then want to cut off japanese money which is seen as a future cashcow. Also getting rid of one of the better teams that won in New Zealand two weeks in a row.  This would see Agries coming to Europe either as a team or just the players. But both major losses for the tournament.
3. Go fully professional with independent owners So I take it from this that they would want the union paying a service agreement like NH countries.  I figure that would be a lot less then what the Unions are currently putting in.  They then expect 10 owners with access to $2-3m a year (at a minium) that they don't need, to fund these teams.  I assume European investors would be band to stop these teams becoming feeder teams to European teams as we see with soccer and with academies being set up in the SH by French clubs. That is 10 Nigel Wrays.
4. No restrictions on international players I don't see why the Unions would do this.  My Dad always said people who have moved countries once are more likely to move again as it is less scary.  Players would be likely to move to Europe as across to the other nation for less money. Fitting in rest periods and training camps would cause lots of problems and for players playing in the other nation.
5. Back to 10 teams total Assuming all the Aus players go into the three teams you are adding in 2 teams worse than the Blues who would be as bad but more like worse than the cut teams of last year and the Sunwolves.  While NZ has depth they couldn't fill 7 teams with current players in NZ unless they plan to weaken the better teams like SA did. I assume they didn't pick Perth as that is too far to travel even though the only person who would be sure to invest in this league funds a team there already.
Rest of the points are fair enough but not sure how a draft would work when two nations are involved. Having 18 games in theory is fine but NH teams play 21-26 plus 6 European games to fund their team. How would these teams be able to compete with wages when having 9 v 13/16 home games.

So in summary it ignores all the important things like money, outside competition and their effect on it, is very NZ centric (is in a NZ paper so to be expected) and unless it involves NZ or eastern Australia they seem to think it is to much work.
SA and AUS already have more professional players playing outside the country.  This plan would result in AUS & NZ becoming like South America in Soccer- If you are 25 and haven't got a contract in Europe you aren't good and are extremely unlikely to be an international.

PhilBB wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

The points made in the article are almost the exact opposite of what Wales went through in 2002! They’re talking about changing to a model of rich benefactors/‘sugar daddies’ (that much used 606v2 term).

Those sentences are contradictory.

Could have been better worded by me, admittedly. But then, I wrote it while sipping a cold Mythos next to the beach.

[quote="Brendan"]
3. Go fully professional with independent owners So I take it from this that they would want the union paying a service agreement like NH countries.  I figure that would be a lot less then what the Unions are currently putting in.  They then expect 10 owners with access to $2-3m a year (at a minium) that they don't need, to fund these teams.  I assume European investors would be band to stop these teams becoming feeder teams to European teams as we see with soccer and with academies being set up in the SH by French clubs. That is 10 Nigel Wrays.
/quote]

Sounds good to me. The obvious way forward for Rugby Union.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Brendan wrote:
3. Go fully professional with independent owners So I take it from this that they would want the union paying a service agreement like NH countries.  I figure that would be a lot less then what the Unions are currently putting in.  They then expect 10 owners with access to $2-3m a year (at a minium) that they don't need, to fund these teams.  I assume European investors would be band to stop these teams becoming feeder teams to European teams as we see with soccer and with academies being set up in the SH by French clubs. That is 10 Nigel Wrays.
/quote]

Sounds good to me. The obvious way forward for Rugby Union.

Only problem with it is it will result in all the players coming to Europe. When Super Rugby was struggling to compete with the poorest teams in the Pro12 for wages never mind the top teams and the richer Prem and T14 what hope would they have if they went down this route.
In Soccer the 6th richest league (spending power) Is the second tier in England and it is getting to the point where they can outbid teams in France Italy and Spain that are lower level teams. If the suggest plan was implemented this NZ & AUS league would also be the 6th richest (unless the SA went alone then it would be 7th) behind the T14, Prem, ProXX, ProD2, Championship and Japanese league (hard to place this league on list)
TV deal with only 3 Aus teams and kick offs in the middle of the night in Europe wouldn't get big money. Add in that a SA bank (as far as I know) is the current sponser for super rugby in NZ and you start to see money men would not spend the money needed to keep 400 top level professional players in the league.
Money men aren't stupid and want some hope of a reward.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Brendan wrote:
3. Go fully professional with independent owners So I take it from this that they would want the union paying a service agreement like NH countries.  I figure that would be a lot less then what the Unions are currently putting in.  They then expect 10 owners with access to $2-3m a year (at a minium) that they don't need, to fund these teams.  I assume European investors would be band to stop these teams becoming feeder teams to European teams as we see with soccer and with academies being set up in the SH by French clubs. That is 10 Nigel Wrays.
/quote]

Sounds good to me. The obvious way forward for Rugby Union.

So it's the obvious way forward when revenue will likely be down for many SH teams, when AP teams struggle to turn a profit and rely on wealthy benefactors? Not to mention the fact that you think everyone fits the same mould across regions, leagues and vastly differing economies

Brendan wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Brendan wrote:
3. Go fully professional with independent owners So I take it from this that they would want the union paying a service agreement like NH countries.  I figure that would be a lot less then what the Unions are currently putting in.  They then expect 10 owners with access to $2-3m a year (at a minium) that they don't need, to fund these teams.  I assume European investors would be band to stop these teams becoming feeder teams to European teams as we see with soccer and with academies being set up in the SH by French clubs. That is 10 Nigel Wrays.
/quote]

Sounds good to me. The obvious way forward for Rugby Union.

Only problem with it is it will result in all the players coming to Europe.  When Super Rugby was struggling to compete with the poorest teams in the Pro12 for wages never mind the top teams and the richer Prem and T14 what hope would they have if they went down this route.
In Soccer the 6th richest league (spending power) Is the second tier in England and it is getting to the point where they can outbid teams in France Italy and Spain that are lower level teams.  If the suggest plan was implemented this NZ & AUS league would also be the 6th richest (unless the SA went alone then it would be 7th) behind the T14, Prem, ProXX, ProD2, Championship and Japanese league (hard to place this league on list)
TV deal with only 3 Aus teams and kick offs in the middle of the night in Europe wouldn't get big money.  Add in that a SA bank (as far as I know) is the current sponser for super rugby in NZ and you start to see money men would not spend the money needed to keep 400 top level professional players in the league.
Money men aren't stupid and want some hope of a reward.

Why would it result in the players coming to Europe if there is more money to keep them where they are?

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Brendan wrote:
3. Go fully professional with independent owners So I take it from this that they would want the union paying a service agreement like NH countries.  I figure that would be a lot less then what the Unions are currently putting in.  They then expect 10 owners with access to $2-3m a year (at a minium) that they don't need, to fund these teams.  I assume European investors would be band to stop these teams becoming feeder teams to European teams as we see with soccer and with academies being set up in the SH by French clubs. That is 10 Nigel Wrays.
/quote]

Sounds good to me. The obvious way forward for Rugby Union.

So it's the obvious way forward when revenue will likely be down for many SH teams, when AP teams struggle to turn a profit and rely on wealthy benefactors? Not to mention the fact that you think everyone fits the same mould across regions, leagues and vastly differing economies

Of course. It's obvious. Private investment into rugby is great for the game. Only a fool would decline money being pumped into it.

I'm not sure why you are putting so much relevance on profit making. Rugby Union has never been about "profit making" in terms of domestic rugby. How much profit are Connacht and Edinburgh making by the way?

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Of course.  It's obvious. Private investment into rugby is great for the game. Only a fool would decline money being pumped into it.

I'm not sure why you are putting so much relevance on profit making. Rugby Union has never been about "profit making" in terms of domestic rugby. How much profit are Connacht and Edinburgh making by the way?

I love how fans of Union owned teams bang on about profit, not realising that their own team's finances are (at best) opaque and, more than likely, completely underpinned by the international game (and freebies from the UK tax payer).

The obsession with profit, based on a lack of understanding of UK tax and company law, is hilarious.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Brendan wrote:
3. Go fully professional with independent owners So I take it from this that they would want the union paying a service agreement like NH countries.  I figure that would be a lot less then what the Unions are currently putting in.  They then expect 10 owners with access to $2-3m a year (at a minium) that they don't need, to fund these teams.  I assume European investors would be band to stop these teams becoming feeder teams to European teams as we see with soccer and with academies being set up in the SH by French clubs. That is 10 Nigel Wrays.
/quote]

Sounds good to me. The obvious way forward for Rugby Union.

So it's the obvious way forward when revenue will likely be down for many SH teams, when AP teams struggle to turn a profit and rely on wealthy benefactors? Not to mention the fact that you think everyone fits the same mould across regions, leagues and vastly differing economies

Of course.  It's obvious. Private investment into rugby is great for the game. Only a fool would decline money being pumped into it.

I'm not sure why you are putting so much relevance on profit making. Rugby Union has never been about "profit making" in terms of domestic rugby. How much profit are Connacht and Edinburgh making by the way?

Only a fool would believe that investment is the same as fully independent owners. A person can invest in union owned teams, this is how it's done in NZ and SA but the union retains control, in NZ that's done by a licensing system in SA it's done by unions retaining a percentage of the ownership.

You ask why businesses need to turn a profit? Wealthy benefactors have a shelf life, just look at Stade Francais and the debacle of their 'merger' with Racing or Hans Peter Wild and his withdrawing funding from Heidelberger. Without profits you overly rely on people who can lose interest or could die as happened with Southampton FC, their wealthy owner died and his family decided to cut off funds to the club.

Not to mention that there are only so many rich rugby fans who are willing to invest, so not everyone can get a piece of that pie and not all economies can sustain them either which is a huge problem in SA

PhilBB wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Of course.  It's obvious. Private investment into rugby is great for the game. Only a fool would decline money being pumped into it.

I'm not sure why you are putting so much relevance on profit making. Rugby Union has never been about "profit making" in terms of domestic rugby. How much profit are Connacht and Edinburgh making by the way?

I love how fans of Union owned teams bang on about profit, not realising that their own team's finances are (at best) opaque and, more than likely, completely underpinned by the international game (and freebies from the UK tax payer).

The obsession with profit, based on a lack of understanding of UK tax and company law, is hilarious.

It is a bit strange. I'm sure I was told on this forum once that the only reason the likes of benefactors like Peter Thomas invested in rugby was to make money. He didn't do a great job if that's true.

marty2086 wrote:
Only a fool would believe that investment is the same as fully independent owners. A person can invest in union owned teams, this is how it's done in NZ and SA but the union retains control, in NZ that's done by a licensing system in SA it's done by unions retaining a percentage of the ownership.

You ask why businesses need to turn a profit? Wealthy benefactors have a shelf life, just look at Stade Francais and the debacle of their 'merger' with Racing or Hans Peter Wild and his withdrawing funding from Heidelberger. Without profits you overly rely on people who can lose interest or could die as happened with Southampton FC, their wealthy owner died and his family decided to cut off funds to the club.

Not to mention that there are only so many rich rugby fans who are willing to invest, so not everyone can get a piece of that pie and not all economies can sustain them either which is a huge problem in SA

Are Stade Francais still a rugby team in the top flight? How many independently owned rugby teams in the Northern Hemisphere are no longer functioning in their top divisions still the game went pro?

You're doomsday scenarios of these independently run clubs seems a bit misplaced to me.

I have stated I have no problem with private owners. I have an issue with the article mentioned and have laid out some of those points. Unions run the game and all money it makes goes back into rugby. The IRFU or SRU are not going to decide to stop running rugby and go into soccer or netball or any other sport or business.

My point is that the article is assuming that 10 people with 100+m at least are going to be lining up to join yet the one private investor who said he would give 70m to fund the force was not included as one of the teams.

As to Profit. The IRFU/SRU give connacht/Edinburgh money to run professional rugby in their area and pay them for access to their players. The two teams only use the money given to them so income & expenditure balance out. Connacht had a substantial increase in attendance and TV money and bring in players generally who are cheap. The fact that they do well doesn't mean that they are spending massive money. Cockerill with the same squad more or less got better results but generally the same budget.

Brendan wrote:I have stated I have no problem with private owners.  I have an issue with the article mentioned and have laid out some of those points.  Unions run the game and all money it makes goes back into rugby.  The IRFU or SRU are not going to decide to stop running rugby and go into soccer or netball or any other sport or business.

My point is that the article is assuming that 10 people with 100+m at least are going to be lining up to join yet the one private investor who said he would give 70m to fund the force was not included as one of the teams.

As to Profit.  The IRFU/SRU give connacht/Edinburgh money to run professional rugby in their area and pay them for access to their players.  The two teams only use the money given to them so income & expenditure balance out.  Connacht had a substantial increase in attendance and TV money and bring in players generally who are cheap.  The fact that they do well doesn't mean that they are spending massive money.  Cockerill with the same squad more or less got better results but generally the same budget.

How does income / expenditure balance out?

They cannot borrow money so they only have the income to spend. they might have a bit left over but never can run a deficit. So income = expenditure

They get money in for services rendered such as
Fans - providing an event
TV company - providing something people want to watch
Competition - fulfilling match commitments
Union - 1. Providing work for their part- time staff, 2. Developing rugby players, 3. Owning a share in the Union, etc

They then with this money pay for outgoings such as wages, rent, utilities etc.

Are you saying that these clubs are saddled with debt due to not being able to cover costs and owe the Union money. Munster owe their union money but that was not to cover expenditure but rather the purchase of assets.

Brendan wrote:They get money in for services rendered such as
Fans - providing an event
TV company - providing something people want to watch
Competition - fulfilling match commitments
Union - 1. Providing work for their part- time staff, 2. Developing rugby players, 3. Owning a share in the Union, etc

They then with this money pay for outgoings such as wages, rent, utilities etc.

Are you saying that these clubs are saddled with debt due to not being able to cover costs and owe the Union money.  Munster owe their union money but that was not to cover expenditure but rather the purchase of assets.

No, I'm saying they are given far more than they make.

Connacht's player budget is circa £4m - £5m ? Plus what they spend on the rest of rugby operations throughout the year. That's a hefty outgoing - so how you are claiming that their income balances expenditure is beyond me. Unless they have some banqueting and conference facility that I don't know about that rakes in about £5m a year.

marty2086 wrote:
Only a fool would believe that investment is the same as fully independent owners. A person can invest in union owned teams, this is how it's done in NZ and SA but the union retains control, in NZ that's done by a licensing system in SA it's done by unions retaining a percentage of the ownership.

You ask why businesses need to turn a profit? Wealthy benefactors have a shelf life, just look at Stade Francais and the debacle of their 'merger' with Racing or Hans Peter Wild and his withdrawing funding from Heidelberger. Without profits you overly rely on people who can lose interest or could die as happened with Southampton FC, their wealthy owner died and his family decided to cut off funds to the club.

Not to mention that there are only so many rich rugby fans who are willing to invest, so not everyone can get a piece of that pie and not all economies can sustain them either which is a huge problem in SA

Yeah, Union owners never get bored, or run out of money, or change their mind.

Just tell the guys in Borders. Or Connacht, almost.

Nice of you to mention Wild and his German money, typically disingenuous of you to omit to mention that he pulled out of German rugby thanks to the attitude of ERC blazers. You know, the Unions. The ones clinging on for dear life in a world that has evolved since 1996, even if they haven't.

Brendan wrote:The IRFU/SRU give connacht/Edinburgh money to run professional rugby in their area and pay them for access to their players.

That's complete drivel.

The IRFU is Connacht. It owns all of the players. The SRU owns all of Edinburgh.

It's why Edinburgh doesn't publish accounts. They are just departments of the Union.

TJ wrote:They cannot borrow money so they only have the income to spend.  they might have a bit left over but never can run a deficit.  So income = expenditure

And the income is variable dependent upon how much their owners wish to give them. They are like children spending allowances from their parents. They aren't independent.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Brendan wrote:They get money in for services rendered such as
Fans - providing an event
TV company - providing something people want to watch
Competition - fulfilling match commitments
Union - 1. Providing work for their part- time staff, 2. Developing rugby players, 3. Owning a share in the Union, etc

They then with this money pay for outgoings such as wages, rent, utilities etc.

Are you saying that these clubs are saddled with debt due to not being able to cover costs and owe the Union money.  Munster owe their union money but that was not to cover expenditure but rather the purchase of assets.

No, I'm saying they are given far more than they make.

Connacht's player budget is circa £4m - £5m ? Plus what they spend on the rest of rugby operations throughout the year. That's a hefty outgoing - so how you are claiming that their income balances expenditure is beyond me. Unless they have some banqueting and conference facility that I don't know about that rakes in about £5m a year.

What you are saying is that you feel the Union gives to much to Connacht not that Connacht are running a loss. It could be argued that from afar but when you consider growth in rugby clubs, participation numbers and profile plus the numbers of internationals they now produce is it overpaying. Clubs and members help fund the union. Their unage is improving also
They get the same money as the other 3 provinces hence why their wage bill is less than the others so living within their means

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
Only a fool would believe that investment is the same as fully independent owners. A person can invest in union owned teams, this is how it's done in NZ and SA but the union retains control, in NZ that's done by a licensing system in SA it's done by unions retaining a percentage of the ownership.

You ask why businesses need to turn a profit? Wealthy benefactors have a shelf life, just look at Stade Francais and the debacle of their 'merger' with Racing or Hans Peter Wild and his withdrawing funding from Heidelberger. Without profits you overly rely on people who can lose interest or could die as happened with Southampton FC, their wealthy owner died and his family decided to cut off funds to the club.

Not to mention that there are only so many rich rugby fans who are willing to invest, so not everyone can get a piece of that pie and not all economies can sustain them either which is a huge problem in SA

Are Stade Francais still a rugby team in the top flight? How many independently owned rugby teams in the Northern Hemisphere are no longer functioning in their top divisions still the game went pro?

You're doomsday scenarios of these independently run clubs seems a bit misplaced to me.

So Stade weren't about to become extinct except for the fans and players taking a stand because one man within the club wanted to make it happen?

They aren't doomsday scenarios, they are things that actually happened. London Welsh ring any bells? Biarritz and Narbonne are both in the lower tiers of French rugby because of their finances. You also have the likes of Wasps being moved from their fans

Do you pay any attention to the world of football? It's been professional a lot longer and plenty of clubs suffered because they failed to run efficiently. There were 3 in Italy's second tier suffering in recent weeks with two having to start over and one going completely out of business.

Unlike some I'm not in support of one model over another because I actually grasp that it's not that simple as one business model does not fit everyone. Just like not all private owners use the same model, Sarries I believe are still a group rather than one individual, Toulon are one individual but Mourad built it to be self sufficient, others rely on one individual pumping money in, Wasps have their own model.

The same goes for union ownership, SA, NZ, Scotland and Ireland all have slightly different models

Brendan wrote:
What you are saying is that you feel the Union gives to much to Connacht not that Connacht are running a loss.

Eh? I'm not commenting on the appropriateness of funding amounts whatsoever. I'm simply saying that your claim of "income = expenditure" is absolute nonsense.

It could be argued that from afar but when you consider growth in rugby clubs, participation numbers and profile plus the numbers of internationals they now produce is it overpaying.  Clubs and members help fund the union.  Their unage is improving also

Not a clue what that means sorry.

They get the same money as the other 3 provinces hence why their wage bill is less than the others so living within their means

So they are living within their means even though their squad costs c£5m, yet they're revenue is probably about £2m?

Riiiiiight.

Brendan wrote:
What you are saying is that you feel the Union gives to much to Connacht not that Connacht are running a loss.  It could be argued that from afar but when you consider growth in rugby clubs, participation numbers and profile plus the numbers of internationals they now produce is it overpaying.  Clubs and members help fund the union.  Their unage is improving also
They get the same money as the other 3 provinces hence why their wage bill is less than the others so living within their means

a) you've no proof of any of that
b) are you sure Connacht get the same as the other three?

marty2086 wrote:

So Stade weren't about to become extinct except for the fans and players taking a stand because one man within the club wanted to make it happen?

What point are you trying to make here? The owners of a company / business / sports team can do many things with it at any point. Just like the example above re: Borders Rugby.

I'm not sure what the relevance is of the merger you speak about. So what they nearly merged? The IRFU could merge Leinster and Munster if they wanted to. What's your point?

They aren't doomsday scenarios, they are things that actually happened. London Welsh ring any bells? Biarritz and Narbonne are both in the lower tiers of French rugby because of their finances. You also have the likes of Wasps being moved from their fans

Do you pay any attention to the world of football? It's been professional a lot longer and plenty of clubs suffered because they failed to run efficiently. There were 3 in Italy's second tier suffering in recent weeks with two having to start over and one going completely out of business.

Unlike some I'm not in support of one model over another because I actually grasp that it's not that simple as one business model does not fit everyone. Just like not all private owners use the same model, Sarries I believe are still a group rather than one individual, Toulon are one individual but Mourad built it to be self sufficient, others rely on one individual pumping money in, Wasps have their own model.

The same goes for union ownership, SA, NZ, Scotland and Ireland all have slightly different models

You're just talking about cyclical sport though. Money comes, money goes. Perhaps in 4 years time, Edinburgh will be the bigger of the 2 Scottish clubs due to a shift in power, due to a few good signings, due to a few good revenue streams due to a few good appointments etc etc etc.

The Ospreys were kings of Wales 6 years ago. They're not now. They might be again in 5 years. What's your point?

Biarritz might be in the top 4 of the top 14 in 5 years time. What's your point?

Southampton might be a top 6 Premeir League club in 2 years time. What's your point?

Money comes and money goes.

Here's a question for you Marty - Peter Thomas (principal benefactor who has pumped approx £14m of his own money into Cardiff Blues in the pro era) is stepping down from his role next year. What is going to happen to that rugby team?

marty2086 wrote:
So Stade weren't about to become extinct except for the fans and players taking a stand because one man within the club wanted to make it happen?

Disingenuous Martin still kids himself of the obvious link to Connacht.

How about Borders? How are they going to do this season?

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

So Stade weren't about to become extinct except for the fans and players taking a stand because one man within the club wanted to make it happen?

What point are you trying to make here? The owners of a company / business / sports team can do many things with it at any point. Just like the example above re: Borders Rugby.

I'm not sure what the relevance is of the merger you speak about. So what they nearly merged? The IRFU could merge Leinster and Munster if they wanted to. What's your point?

They aren't doomsday scenarios, they are things that actually happened. London Welsh ring any bells? Biarritz and Narbonne are both in the lower tiers of French rugby because of their finances. You also have the likes of Wasps being moved from their fans

Do you pay any attention to the world of football? It's been professional a lot longer and plenty of clubs suffered because they failed to run efficiently. There were 3 in Italy's second tier suffering in recent weeks with two having to start over and one going completely out of business.

Unlike some I'm not in support of one model over another because I actually grasp that it's not that simple as one business model does not fit everyone. Just like not all private owners use the same model, Sarries I believe are still a group rather than one individual, Toulon are one individual but Mourad built it to be self sufficient, others rely on one individual pumping money in, Wasps have their own model.

The same goes for union ownership, SA, NZ, Scotland and Ireland all have slightly different models

You're just talking about cyclical sport though. Money comes, money goes. Perhaps in 4 years time, Edinburgh will be the bigger of the 2 Scottish clubs due to a shift in power, due to a few good signings, due to a few good revenue streams due to a few good appointments etc etc etc.

The Ospreys were kings of Wales 6 years ago. They're not now. They might be again in 5 years. What's your point?

Biarritz might be in the top 4 of the top 14 in 5 years time. What's your point?

Southampton might be a top 6 Premeir League club in 2 years time. What's your point?

Money comes and money goes.

Here's a question for you Marty - Peter Thomas (principal benefactor who has pumped approx £14m of his own money into Cardiff Blues in the pro era) is stepping down from his role next year. What is going to happen to that rugby team?

Sorry we are talking finances and private ownership and you switch to status and success?

I forgot about Reivers thanks for mentioning them, perfect example of exactly what I said. It's not a case of one model fitting all, but where were all these rich owners to step in and keep them going?

Blues are another good example, what is going to happen to them? Where is the of billionaires to snap them up? If they were running better as a business they wouldn't feel the loss of their cash cow so badly but what do I know eh

marty2086 wrote:



Sorry we are talking finances and private ownership and you switch to status and success?

I forgot about Reivers thanks for mentioning them, perfect example of exactly what I said. It's not a case of one model fitting all, but where were all these rich owners to step in and keep them going?

Blues are another good example, what is going to happen to them? Where is the of billionaires to snap them up? If they were running better as a business they wouldn't feel the loss of their cash cow so badly but what do I know eh  

Well firstly, the definition of a cash cow isn't an external investor, it's a venture within the business that generates huge profits but that's for another discussion. The point being made - is that the main benefactor can pull out / take a back seat / decrease investment and normally there are absolutely no threats to the business. There are other investors. The main benefactor at the Scarlets, for example, has been 4 (maybe 5) different people in the last 12 years. Money comes, money goes.

Borders: didn't the SRU disband them? So there were no funders available because there was nothing to fund. The SRU wanted 2 teams and no more. It's a perfect example of why the Unions can control destinies as much as any other owner, if not more.

But it's nice to see you finally admit that you are now "not in support of one model over another", which is a step in the right direction I guess.

marty2086 wrote:

I forgot about Reivers thanks for mentioning them, perfect example of exactly what I said. It's not a case of one model fitting all, but where were all these rich owners to step in and keep them going?

Blues are another good example, what is going to happen to them? Where is the of billionaires to snap them up? If they were running better as a business they wouldn't feel the loss of their cash cow so badly but what do I know eh  

Since when were Border Reivers put up for sale?

Martin showing his knowledge of the Welsh payment model there, too, folks. "Running better as a business".... the cluelessness is frightening.

I've continually said that it's not a case of one model over another unlike people like you and Phil, given that you aren't the same person who advocate one model, you just assume that because someone defends the union ownership model that they automatically advocate for that and only that.

FYI I'm well aware of what a cash cow is but it just seemed a more apt phrase than sugar daddy

It's all gotta do with what's legit and what isn't.

It isn't legit that one Owner can own four 'clubs'.  It's just not respectable and it isn't good for the game.

It IS legit for one owner to own one club, and have the "self made bad boy turned good and drags himself out of the ghetto to give to charity and things" reputation of a man who doesn't need to make the books balance.  

To hell with the books, this guy got the cash from other extremities of his legit concerns. He can afford to pump money because it's LOVE, you see.  He loves the sport and the Blazers don't.  He can afford to haemorrhage money and still win big because true sport is about spending oodles upon oodles on 'special' players, it's about sucking up most of your nearest rival's best players, it's about pricing the little guy out of the market and then laughing that it doesn't even have to be a 'market' as it's all about that fantasy level unlinked-in investment portfolio and the sheer hedonistic love of seeing your rivals not being able to spend the dosh you do to buy the winning you can buy.  

And you can relax with the Havana cigars and the Swedish birds and not have a viable business, a viable club financially, a profitable club independently ...or even win everything every year .....but you do have what the Unions don't have; a spiritually clean, verifiably sanctimonious, utterly moral and saintly emotional Private Men's Sports Club.

The Rich win ...but also moan quite a bit, which might be the bit that attracts the good looking gold diggers.....whose to say?

Remember folks, Henry Speight is going to Ulster because he loves marches, churches and the Belfast weather.

Nothing to do with money.

That would be uncouth.

PhilBB wrote:

TJ wrote:They cannot borrow money so they only have the income to spend.  they might have a bit left over but never can run a deficit.  So income = expenditure

And the income is variable dependent upon how much their owners wish to give them. They are like children spending allowances from their parents. They aren't independent.

They are independent. They get an agreed budget and thats it. Its up to Edinburgh how its spent. The SRU can suggest things with players ie rest this one, play this one in this position but the cockers is the boss of Edinburgh and has the final say

PhilBB wrote:

Brendan wrote:
What you are saying is that you feel the Union gives to much to Connacht not that Connacht are running a loss.  It could be argued that from afar but when you consider growth in rugby clubs, participation numbers and profile plus the numbers of internationals they now produce is it overpaying.  Clubs and members help fund the union.  Their unage is improving also
They get the same money as the other 3 provinces hence why their wage bill is less than the others so living within their means

a) you've no proof of any of that
b) are you sure Connacht get the same as the other three?

None of the provinces get the same amount. Competition Income is divided according to performance. Salary bills are different in each province. Number of Cat A contract players is different. Number of players on each province payroll is different. Coaching team resources differ.

TJ wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

TJ wrote:They cannot borrow money so they only have the income to spend.  they might have a bit left over but never can run a deficit.  So income = expenditure

And the income is variable dependent upon how much their owners wish to give them. They are like children spending allowances from their parents. They aren't independent.

They are independent.  They get an agreed budget and thats it.  Its up to Edinburgh how its spent.  The SRU can suggest things with players ie rest this one, play this one in this position but the cockers is the boss of Edinburgh and has the final say

Independent ? I understand why fans take that view in order to avoid the conclusion that Unions are conflicted with more than one team under their control.
Who actually agrees the budget ? and how is that budget number calculated - either annual phased or rolling ?
It must just be a coincidence that the Test players all broadly accumulate on one team for each country - Leinster, Glasgow, Treviso and Llanelli, even after twenty plus years when the Scottish and Welsh leagues got demoted status and consolidation of players into smaller numbers of teams. Those teams are not strategically independent - day to day shouting by Cockerill doesn't count.

It is of course the Union which dictates and this ultimately in undefined broad terms decides who will qualify for Champions Cup and who doesn't and the cycle perpetuates. PRO14 fans appear to accept this status quo and as long as that remains the case, the Conferences will be seen as credible.
Time will tell.

Rec the only issue with your logic on union run teams hold most of the internationals as a couple of flaws

It is true that Leinster have many of the international players of Ireland but what do you expect when they are European and Pro14 champions. Same was true when Munster were the top dog in Ireland.
Scarlets only have most of the internationals because they were Pro14 champions and then CC semi finalist. When Ospreys were top.they had the most internationals.
When the Scotland coach had a choice between players of one of the top teams in the league or one of the bottom teams players he picked the better performing players. And can you believe as the bad team got better they got more players picked.

Sarries in a non union controlled setup had more England internationals. It would be they are the best team in England and back to back CC winners.

Teams get more internationals the better the team performers against other teams. But I guess NZ force all their best players to play for the Crusaders and not that their players are playing better and will have more players called up as a result

Recwatcher16 wrote:
It must just be a coincidence that the Test players all broadly accumulate on one team for each country - Leinster, Glasgow, Treviso and Llanelli

Just taking Leinster on that one. The EXACT OPPOSITE of what you say is true. If players were "accumulating" in Leinster you would have to expect that a lot of non Leinster players were transferring in from other provinces. The only top team player in Leinster who came in the last 6 years is Robbie Henshaw from Connacht. The only other one in the whole squad of 44 senior squad players is Sean Cronin who arrived in 2011 from Connacht also, having started in Munster. Apart from the 4 current NIQs and Michael Bent (Who all obviously came from outside the country) the rest all came through our academy.

The reason Leinster are doing so well and contributing so many players to the national team is because they have a phenomenal academy and schools system. This may not continue for ever of course but currently that is the reason.

TJ wrote:
They are independent.  They get an agreed budget and thats it.  Its up to Edinburgh how its spent.  The SRU can suggest things with players ie rest this one, play this one in this position but the cockers is the boss of Edinburgh and has the final say

Who does Cockerill work for?

And therein lies the answer as to who is in control.

Once you can bring yourself to admit that, we can all move forward safe in the knowledge that they are not "independent".

Pot Hale wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Brendan wrote:
What you are saying is that you feel the Union gives to much to Connacht not that Connacht are running a loss.  It could be argued that from afar but when you consider growth in rugby clubs, participation numbers and profile plus the numbers of internationals they now produce is it overpaying.  Clubs and members help fund the union.  Their unage is improving also
They get the same money as the other 3 provinces hence why their wage bill is less than the others so living within their means

a) you've no proof of any of that
b) are you sure Connacht get the same as the other three?

None of the provinces get the same amount.   Competition Income is divided according to performance.  Salary bills are different in each province.  Number of Cat A contract players is different.   Number of players on each province payroll is different.  Coaching team resources differ.  

Exactly. Brendan was writing complete falsehoods

Recwatcher16 wrote:

Independent ? I understand why fans take that view in order to avoid the conclusion that Unions are conflicted with more than one team under their control.
Who actually agrees the budget ? and how is that budget number calculated - either annual phased or rolling ?
It must just be a coincidence that the Test players all broadly accumulate on one team for each country - Leinster, Glasgow, Treviso and Llanelli, even after twenty plus years when the Scottish and Welsh leagues got demoted status and consolidation of players into smaller numbers of teams. Those teams are not strategically independent - day to day shouting by Cockerill doesn't count.

It is of course the Union which dictates and this ultimately in undefined broad terms decides who will qualify for Champions Cup and who doesn't and the cycle perpetuates. PRO14 fans appear to accept this status quo and as long as that remains the case, the Conferences will be seen as credible.
Time will tell.

Why on earth did you mention Llanelli and Treviso? Neither are Union owned.