The Future for the PRO14 - Part 8 - who’s next?

First topic message reminder :

South African media reports emerging around comments made at PRO14 launch by SA Rugby president Mark Alexander that South African players will be better off playing in the northern hemisphere.

Alexander hinted South African rugby could be heading north on a more permanent basis in the near future.

The Cheetahs and Kings joined the Pro14 last year and there is a strong possibility that two more local teams will be included in the competition next season.

‘It’s a long-term investment. We have options now and in future. At some point in time, in future, if we don’t want to stay in the south [in Super Rugby], we can move north,’ said Alexander.

He added that the involvement of local players and coaches in Europe is beneficial for South African rugby.

‘The Pro14 is a good competition for the players and coaches who’re playing against tier-one nations each weekend. When we become a full Pro14 member next season, we’ll be the only nation who plays in the north and the south, and the major benefit of playing in the northern hemisphere is the players are better off.

‘With the structure of the Pro14 competition the way it is, it’s easier for travelling, with distances between places less than in the south, and the time zones are also better. When you consider player welfare and what’s best for them, then the north is better.’

The rumors are that it will be the Griquas and Pumas who will be proposed by SARU next season as their two new teams.  How well that will be received by the other participating unions remains to be seen given the poor quality of the Kings thus far.    SARU plans to cut the number of professional players in their system from approx 900 to 400 odd using a draft system and to spread the talent across the 8 professional teams.

Brendan wrote:I would like the IRFU to put up a player loan list at about March for other Pro14 teams to use take these players for a year.  Mainly the weaker teams such as Kings, Zebre, Dragons, the two SA teams coming if they need it. The IRFU could put in conditions such as playing time, positions etc.

Strengths the league, gives players a chance to improve and show how good they are.  Once the year is up they can then be bid on by the provinces.

The IRFU could pay a small wage topped up by the team.  I am sure there are plenty who would improve the lower team squads and the players get more game time. I think going to Connacht is over unless you are good enough.  Cian Kelleher being an example of what will happen where Leinster did all they could to keep him.

It also seems at international level that starting at your Province is important to getting picked which is great.

I'd suggested something like that a while back, even the possibility of a team in the US to be a development club for young Irish players with maybe a few grizzled pros to add some experience.

The problem is that the Celtic Cup may be expanded in the future to bridge the gap between the AIL and Pro14 plus the likes of Kings and Cheetahs are short of players in the early months of the season when the Currie Cup is on

What sort of issues?

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's not trolling to pick apart your arguments LD. Might be annoying for you but not trolling.

But that's the thing, the only member I am arguing with is you, when you do this, with everybody else I just debate, well except marty. I think you pair are cut from the same cloth if truth be told.

You two have a history with arguing with a hell of a lot of people on here. You No 7&1/2 have even driven a very good MOD and a very good member away from this forum.

Are you serious? You were claiming yesterday that you must had influenced the league into doing something about the officials because you had previously argued that they should do it. When you only argued it 11 months ago, claimed the issue was something else 12 months ago and the league first started addressing the issue 3 years ago

You see anecdotes and your opinion as valid and substantial as evidence of the issues you claim exist

Oh give over will you ? You'll only embarrass yourself again.

I swear, you and No 7&1/2 have serious issues.

You have just today said that there are no fall guys in the unions then said that guys would lose their jobs over the performance meaning they are fall guys

You claimed yesterday you had argued something as far back as 3 years ago...if that was the case why were you arguing that the issue was something else 1 year ago?

Does that not embarrass you?

Or maybe the real problem here is that you just argue from one side and throw out whatever you can in the hope someone says you are right and you don't really believe what you argue but are just a cantankerous fool?

marty2086 wrote:You have just today said that there are no fall guys in the unions then said that guys would lose their jobs over the performance meaning they are fall guys Rolling Eyes

What I meant was, that the guys at within the union run set-up do not stand to lose everything, unlike a private club owner.

marty2086 wrote:You claimed yesterday you had argued something as far back as 3 years ago...if that was the case why were you arguing that the issue was something else 1 year ago?

marty, I have been banging that drum on here for years, come on, you know it, I know it, and truth be told a lot of people on here know it.

marty2086 wrote:Or maybe the real problem here is that you just argue from one side and throw out whatever you can in the hope someone says you are right and you don't really believe what you argue but are just a cantankerous fool?

Really ?

It's a good point that people who plough personal fortunes into clubs risk losing a lot. It's why it's unfair when you get good owners setting up sustainable clubs having to deal with these guys. Maybe it should be outlawed so you can only spend what the club actually makes? And introduce more union ownership.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:You have just today said that there are no fall guys in the unions then said that guys would lose their jobs over the performance meaning they are fall guys Rolling Eyes

What I meant was, that the guys at within the union run set-up do not stand to lose everything, unlike a private club owner.

Yet you didn't say that? And what does that say about them if they put everything they own into a club then run it into the ground?

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:You claimed yesterday you had argued something as far back as 3 years ago...if that was the case why were you arguing that the issue was something else 1 year ago?

marty, I have been banging that drum on here for years, come on, you know it, I know it, and truth be told a lot of people on here know it.

And yet no one ha stepped up to agree with you? And yet there was a post from exactly 1 year ago of you saying the issue with the refs was who was paying them?

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Or maybe the real problem here is that you just argue from one side and throw out whatever you can in the hope someone says you are right and you don't really believe what you argue but are just a cantankerous fool?

Really ?

When you say the issue is one thing, then say the issue is another thing which most on here had said long before 11 months ago then it would seem so

Look Marty, I really do not want to keep making a fool of you on here, my posting history only goes back to 2016, but here is another for you:-

https://www.606v2.com/t62879-the-pro12-how-do-we-move-forward

I will try and find more. Now please stop.

Maybe if people stopped needlessly calling each other idiots the topics would be discussed.

"You're really a bit of an idiot, now just stop responding to me and trying to WUM."
"I'm not wumming.  You're an absolute idiot if you think responding to comments is wumming."
"Don't be an idiot and keep this going.  Just accept you're an idiot and let's move on."
"I'll agree that you're an idiot, but that's the only thing I'll be agreeing with."

Grow up everyone!  Really - what a shower of idiots .

LordDowlais wrote:Look Marty, I really do not want to keep making a fool of you on here, my posting history only goes back to 2016, but here is another for you:-

https://www.606v2.com/t62879-the-pro12-how-do-we-move-forward

I will try and find more. Now please stop.

Except there again you are arguing the issue is the payment of the refs and unions controlling and influencing refs, nothing about standards. Thanks for confirming your argument has actually changed over the years from one of bias to one of standards

'I am not comfortable that we are in a situation where the unions employ the referees AND the players. This leads to calls of potential bias, and the union controlled teams bringing their own refs with them, I think the referees should be employed by a central organisation, not the unions, and I think that the central organisation should be the league itself, the money the unions pay the refs should be payed to the league and then the league should have direct control over the referees. The league should then have a remit of how the refs should perform, and all the refs should be singing from the same hymn sheet, not that of their respective unions. Only when something like this happens will we see an improvement.'

What ever you say marty.

I don't say it...you do

"The league should then have a remit of how the refs should perform, and all the refs should be singing from the same hymn sheet."

I personally don't like it that refs are forced to be all of a religious persuasion. I don't mind that refs are religious but only choosing religious refs is despicable. Indeed, claiming they should all be from the same religion is even worse!

SecretFly wrote:"The league should then have a remit of how the refs should perform, and all the refs should be singing from the same hymn sheet."

I personally don't like it that refs are forced to be all of a religious persuasion.  I don't mind that refs are religious but only choosing religious refs is despicable.  Indeed, claiming they should all be from the same religion is even worse!

Isn't it rising problem in the world of "everyone is unique and special but you better conform to be just like us". The Pro 14 is different and we won't be conforming to the ideals of the Media overlords of private investment.

I am not a fan of getting all the refs to ref the same in the league.   Yes standards could be higher but so could standards in other areas.  I just want refs to treat all teams the same.  Which I think is happening.

Having different ref styles is definitely a plus for the League.

Currently Irish teams get Pro14 refs in Europe because they aren't Irish.  Would this stop if they were all hired by the Pro14 (Doyle can ref Irish teams as part of RFU panel).  Never having Owens would be a sad day for Irish teams.

No 7&1/2 wrote: Maybe it should be outlawed so you can only spend what the club actually makes? And introduce more union ownership.

Run me through how this would work.

And how many rugby clubs would exist (including Union owned clubs like Connacht)

Clubs would have to live within their limits. Something similar to football.
Would be fairer then. I mean you'd still get m9ans and groans because in the end it's just because people's supported sides aren't winning.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Clubs would have to live within their limits. Something similar to football.
Would be fairer then. I mean you'd still get m9ans and groans because in the end it's just because people's supported sides aren't winning.

Except in football they don't, they can still make a loss and many then fight for years not to pay the fines. In the EFL clubs like QPR fought for years and cheated to get promoted and reap the rewards of the cheating and use it to pay for the fines they eventually have to pay.

Bournemouth were fined £4.75m for breaking the rules when they were promoted, they'll increase their revenue by hundreds of millions over the years.

Yup. They'll fight tooth and nail for an advantage against the rules. See the salary cap in rugby too.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Clubs would have to live within their limits. Something similar to football.
Would be fairer then. I mean you'd still get m9ans and groans because in the end it's just because people's supported sides aren't winning.

But what limits are these? You need to be more specific. Do you mean a club can only spend a maximum of what it generates per season (turnover?), on their wage bill?

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote: Maybe it should be outlawed so you can only spend what the club actually makes? And introduce more union ownership.

Run me through how this would work.

And how many rugby clubs would exist (including Union owned clubs like Connacht)

Or Munster with the debt they accumulated or Sarries.

I am very intrigued to how you would think this would work, care to explain No 7&1/2 ?

LordDowlais wrote:
Or Munster

Doesn't count................

Something something Union run, something something, want the best for the game, something, something.

LordDowlais wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote: Maybe it should be outlawed so you can only spend what the club actually makes? And introduce more union ownership.

Run me through how this would work.

And how many rugby clubs would exist (including Union owned clubs like Connacht)

Or Munster with the debt they accumulated or Sarries.

I am very intrigued to how you would think this would work, care to explain No 7&1/2 ?

Every company has debt, debt doesn't mean there are no profits

Aren't you meant to be a business owner?

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote: Maybe it should be outlawed so you can only spend what the club actually makes? And introduce more union ownership.

Run me through how this would work.

And how many rugby clubs would exist (including Union owned clubs like Connacht)

Or Munster with the debt they accumulated or Sarries.

I am very intrigued to how you would think this would work, care to explain No 7&1/2 ?

Every company has debt, debt doesn't mean there are no profits

Aren't you meant to be a business owner?

Why are you making things personal ?

No 7&1/2 is saying that clubs can only spend what they earn, or something to that scale. Obviously at some point Munster and Sarries, along with others have spent more than what they've earned as they announced a loss at the end of the financial year. Both covered by their benefactors.

I know all about servicable debt, thank you very much, and it's different to making a profit or a loss.


So I will ask again, I am very intrigued to how you would think this would work, care to explain No 7&1/2 ?


I notice his WI-FI has packed in again though.

Except that's not how it works as I've already told you, debt doesn't equal no profit it means they have sourced money from elsewhere and the reasons for this can be numerous including preserving cash flow

Then again there is always this from Munsters AGM last year

In line with figures forecasted at last year’s AGM, the financial accounts for year ending 30th June 2017 showed a surplus of €900K which equated to a cash-flow surplus of €300K.

marty2086 wrote:Except that's not how it works as I've already told you, debt doesn't equal no profit it means they have sourced money from elsewhere and the reasons for this can be numerous including preserving cash flow

Then again there is always this from Munsters AGM last year

In line with figures forecasted at last year’s AGM, the financial accounts for year ending 30th June 2017 showed a surplus of €900K which equated to a cash-flow surplus of €300K.

So who is that for then ? Munster ? If it is, it's because, their debts are now being serviced. I will let somebody else answer who or how they think they are servicing them.

But at the time, they made a loss and the debt needed to be serviced.

Now on yer bike as I a fed up with this pointless bickering with you on here.

Now I wonder whats happened to No 7&1/2's WI-FI ?

I don't think it can work in reality LD. Teams cheat it in football and would in rugby as they do the salary cap. Teams spending will remain unfair. Sorry I'm not at your back and call for answers. There's at least a couple of mine you haven't answered yet by the way.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I don't think it can work in reality LD. Teams cheat it in football and would in rugby as they do the salary cap

So you go back on this comment then ?

No 7&1/2 wrote: Maybe it should be outlawed so you can only spend what the club actually makes? And introduce more union ownership. wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:There's at least a couple of mine you haven't answered yet by the way.

Which are ?

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Except that's not how it works as I've already told you, debt doesn't equal no profit it means they have sourced money from elsewhere and the reasons for this can be numerous including preserving cash flow

Then again there is always this from Munsters AGM last year

In line with figures forecasted at last year’s AGM, the financial accounts for year ending 30th June 2017 showed a surplus of €900K which equated to a cash-flow surplus of €300K.

So who is that for then ? Munster ? If it is, it's because, their debts are now being serviced. I will let somebody else answer who or how they think they are servicing them.

But at the time, they made a loss and the debt needed to be serviced.

Now on yer bike as I a fed up with this pointless bickering with you on here.

Pointless bickering? You're making claims about things you clearly lack the ability to grasp and then tell lies because it's pointed out while basically claiming Munster have lied at their AGM and essentially committed accounting fraud

Another snippet from the press release on the AGM

In an extremely positive step, Munster Rugby made a loan repayment of €2.6M to the IRFU in April 2018 having renegotiated the schedule of loan repayments with the governing body

The debts have been serviced though not always as scheduled and the schedule has been restructured and will likely cost Munster more money in the long run and the IRFU are taking a cut of a cut of some future revenues

But hey it's easier for you to say everyone else is wrong and argue against facts that hold your hands up and say you were wrong

Why would I go back on a question LD?
What are mine and Marty's issues you mentioned earlier?

A couple of the others were are the unions no longer providing refs for internationals or will they still actually be employed by them?
And why is it unfair for individuals to compete finance wise against unions. Abramovitch for example could blow the wru budget out of the water.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And why is it unfair for individuals to compete finance wise against unions.

I have answered this, and I used Mike Cuddy as a point. God your hard work.

No 7&1/2 wrote:A couple of the others were are the unions no longer providing refs for internationals or will they still actually be employed by them?

Iv'e answered this as well, and frankly, I do not care. That's for the unions to sort out, not the Pro14.

No 7&1/2 wrote:What are mine and Marty's issues you mentioned earlier?

That all you do is come on here to look for conflict, not to debate. Like I said, you have even driven a well respected moderator and a good contributor to this forum away with your antics.

So it's unfair on people like cuddy because their main business went down the drain. That would have happened anyway so what?
You didn't answered that 2nd one that I've seen but I presume you accept the refs will still be available and employed by the unions.
You didn't answer what issues we have. Or for that which mod are you on about?

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Except that's not how it works as I've already told you, debt doesn't equal no profit it means they have sourced money from elsewhere and the reasons for this can be numerous including preserving cash flow

Then again there is always this from Munsters AGM last year

In line with figures forecasted at last year’s AGM, the financial accounts for year ending 30th June 2017 showed a surplus of €900K which equated to a cash-flow surplus of €300K.

So who is that for then ? Munster ? If it is, it's because, their debts are now being serviced. I will let somebody else answer who or how they think they are servicing them.

But at the time, they made a loss and the debt needed to be serviced.

Now on yer bike as I a fed up with this pointless bickering with you on here.

Pointless bickering? You're making claims about things you clearly lack the ability to grasp and then tell lies because it's pointed out while basically claiming Munster have lied at their AGM and essentially committed accounting fraud

Another snippet from the press release on the AGM

In an extremely positive step, Munster Rugby made a loan repayment of €2.6M to the IRFU in April 2018 having renegotiated the schedule of loan repayments with the governing body

The debts have been serviced though not always as scheduled and the schedule has been restructured and will likely cost Munster more money in the long run and the IRFU are taking a cut of a cut of some future revenues

But hey it's easier for you to say everyone else is wrong and argue against facts that hold your hands up and say you were wrong

Marty, how are Munster in debt in the first place ? Answer that, then we can go from there.

Here you go enlighten yourself:-

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/trouble-at-the-thomond-turnstiles-the-startling-drop-off-in-numbers-at-munster-matches-laid-bare/

No 7&1/2 wrote:So it's unfair on people like cuddy because their main business went down the drain. That would have happened anyway so what?

thats very presumptuous of you.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You didn't answered that 2nd one that I've seen but I presume you accept the refs will still be available and employed by the unions.

I have not presumed or accepted anything.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You didn't answer what issues we have. Or for that which mod are you on about?

Yes I have, and you know the moderator I am talking about.


Now, lets talk about teams only spending what they earn, explain to me how it would work, and why we would have to introduce more union ownership.

Dear me. This is why you get the same questions because you don't answer them. Why is it presumptuous to suggest that someone's business floundering has adversely affected the club?
So as you admit you haven't really answered the 2nd. Do you believe that the refs now employed for the pro 14 will not be under consideration for internationals and thus not employed by unions?
Not sure on the mod. I guessed at biltong but your description makes me reconsider.
As for your last point not sure. Like I said they have something like it in football. I think teams would cheat it whatever and it would remain 'unfair'.

FFS go and learn about what you are referencing

Debt isn't the issue, as someone who claims to run a business you should know this. 30 day terms for paying a supplier...THAT'S DEBT!!!

Taking out a 10m loan....THAT'S DEBT!!

A mortgage....DEBT!!!

As I've clearly stated having debt doesn't mean you aren't turning a profit, so please do tell me what I need to be enlightened over?

Munster did not take out any mortgage though.....

Feck this.

I'm out, you and No 7&1/2 are a pair of sociopaths. You are ruining this forum. No decent debate can take place with you two around.

I'm done.

Is this the 2nd or 3rd flounce and announcement of leaving the forum in 2019 by LD?

Just for the record then LD still hasn't answered the questions.

I suppose he's answered 1 to be fair. He's managed to diagnose 2 people as sociopaths that he's never met.

I never said they did take out a bank loan, I never said they took out a mortgage either

So seems you are throwing a temper tantrum over your inability to grasp basic business finance and inability to read what was written

7.5 has suggested clubs shouldn't be able to make more than they earn, that's a nice sentiment but it's not manageable as ALL businesses are entitled to not only have debt but make a loss as year end accounts are merely a snapshot. A financial loss showing on April 30th of £10k could relate to a payment made on May 2nd of £15k

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just for the record then LD still hasn't answered the questions.

The 2nd today alone is it not?

I'm not suggesting any change in rules Marty. I asked LD if he wanted it as it would seem to.make it fairer.ie clubs earn their money and spend it. D9esnt just become a rich man's plaything which can go wrong as LD himself pointed out. In reality he doesn't want that as he wants his local club to outspend their competition. It's not about fair it never is. It's about wanting the teams he supports to be better.

I think part of it is him just being argumentative hence why I pointed out him arguing that refs being paid by the same organisation as players was his previous complaint, now it's standards yet he says we are sociopaths, liars and just plain wrong it seems. I'm just waiting on the cry of Fake News

It only took him a load of years to come around to nearly everybody elses way of thinking that the refs in the league were mostly shoite and that the fix wasn't in for the Irish teams

No 7&1/2 wrote:I don't think it can work in reality LD. Teams cheat it in football and would in rugby as they do the salary cap. Teams spending will remain unfair. Sorry I'm not at your back and call for answers. There's at least a couple of mine you haven't answered yet by the way.

Can you at least explain what you mean though please?

Do you mean teams can't spend more than their turnover?

Just look at the football example.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just look at the football example.

I don't know much about the football example. A quick google tells me:

Clubs can spend up to 5m euros (£3.9m) more than they earn per assessment period, although, under this monitoring period, total losses of 45m euros (£35m) were permitted as long as clubs had owners who could cover such amounts.

So, unless I'm mistaken, that would not affect any privately owned club in France, England or Wales whatsoever.

For example,
last year Saracens generated £18m.
£11m was spent on all staff.
Costs of £9.8m went on paying bills, renting land, equipment etc
They had a loss of £2.8m

So it wouldn't affect tem at all.

In short: Methinks you don't know what you're talking about.

Methinks I just asked a question to LD on unfairness. Make your own details that would apply better for rugby. Or don't. Don't care.

Don't like being called out on your nonsense at all do you.

Oh. I don't consider it being called out tbh. It was a question to LD as he seemed concerned about unfairness of clubs being supported by outside influence. But it's a forum anyone not wanting to be questioned is frankly a moron!

You've been called out on nonsense No 7&1/2. But I'm not surprised you don't have the good grace to admit it. You don't seem the type.

Also, it seems to me like LD has been called a moron and a cretin in 24 hours, yet other posters are banned for just debating.

Some place this.