Offer of £275M to buy 51% ownership of the Premiership from the ex-owners of F1

The deal seems cheap to me but a sign of things to come and as always the devil is in the detail of whether the clubs maintain any voting rights against a 51% share.
I can't imagine the RFU are too happy about it but the sooner the game is returned to the power of the domestic fan the better and the jamborees at Twicks can remain just that...jamborees.

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/45417946

What do they see in the current financial state of the Premiership that the current owners don't?

The TV deal is as good as it's ever going to get, raising ticket prices is not an option if they actually want fans in the stadiums, player wages are going up, no club is actually running at a profit apart from Exeter, etc.

Where's the value in this for them or is it just one of those businesses that acquires things for the sake of having a monopoly on them but has no real idea what to do with them?

The same was probably said of the English football league twenty years ago.
The Achilles heel of the rugby clubs is the stadia - they need capital or they take have to take debt. Players salaries are being frozen until 2020 and any rises sees more academy players being employed to stay in the cap.
The reasons for Gallagher taking the Premiership sponsorship are interesting and the global viewing figures they are projecting are very large indeed.

No deal.

£275m! - Bruce Craig has more than that in a suit case under his bed.

TightHEAD wrote:No deal.

£275m!  - Bruce Craig has more than that in a suit case under his bed.

Indeed and the BBC article states the owners see £550m offer as undervalued.

The key question is what would a new majority owner/investor want to invest to get a return on its money?

Irish Londoner wrote:What do they see in the current financial state of the Premiership that the current owners don't?

The TV deal is as good as it's ever going to get, raising ticket prices is not an option if they actually want fans in the stadiums, player wages are going up, no club is actually running at a profit apart from Exeter, etc.

Where's the value in this for them or is it just one of those businesses that acquires things for the sake of having a monopoly on them but has no real idea what to do with them?

Why will the tv deal never get better? The importance of live sport is growing for networks, there is now increased competition with Eleven Sports and Premier coming on the scene. BT overpaid last time but next time around might have stiff competition and have a greater need for the product

Imagine what they'd pay to a league that actually competed at the breakdown ?

The only sport offerings that actually makes any sense in terms of attracting viewers are soccer and in the UK/Ireland horse racing. Everything else is space filler - rugby (union and league), tennis, golf, etc. If rugby is such a premium product Sky would have broke the bank to get it when BT bid for it, same when the EC came up again.
Look at when the games are on BT Sport, a premium product which has precisely no adverts apart from the sponsor and for other BT programming - a premium product would have companies queuing for the prime slots on a rugby broadcast.
Similarly overseas markets - anyone really think that apart from the people who'll watch rugby at any level just because it's rugby that the SH audience are dying to see Bath V Sale or Ulster V Cardiff ?
At the moment there seems to be a bubble around getting the rights to sport but it's going to burst sooner or later - either because the broadcasters will do the maths and work out they get very little for their expenditure or the governing bodies will work out that having your sport on a platform that only a small percentage of the population are able to watch it on and even then only a small percentage of that group actually watch it is killing the sport at the grass roots.

munkian wrote:Imagine what they'd pay to a league that actually competed at the breakdown ?

Imagine what a league is worth when most of the grounds are full ?

TightHEAD wrote:

munkian wrote:Imagine what they'd pay to a league that actually competed at the breakdown ?

Imagine what a league is worth when most of the grounds are full ?

Not when fans are priced out the game.

munkian wrote:Imagine what they'd pay to a league that actually competed at the breakdown ?

If only that league didn't have a large portion of 1/4 of its fan base bleating about £10 a month

munkian wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

munkian wrote:Imagine what they'd pay to a league that actually competed at the breakdown ?

Imagine what a league is worth when most of the grounds are full ?

Not when fans are priced out the game.

Makes me laugh when people moan about a £30 match ticket to support your club, pay players wages etc but are happy to spend £4.80 a pint which they piss out every 10mins!

Irish Londoner wrote:The only sport offerings that actually makes any sense in terms of attracting viewers are soccer and in the UK/Ireland horse racing. Everything else is space filler - rugby (union and league), tennis, golf, etc. If rugby is such a premium product Sky would have broke the bank to get it when BT bid for it, same when the EC came up again.
Look at when the games are on BT Sport, a premium product which has precisely no adverts apart from the sponsor and for other BT programming - a premium product would have companies queuing for the prime slots on a rugby broadcast.
Similarly overseas markets - anyone really think that apart from the people who'll watch rugby at any level just because it's rugby that the SH audience are dying to see Bath V Sale or Ulster V Cardiff ?
At the moment there seems to be a bubble around getting the rights to sport but it's going to burst sooner or later - either because the broadcasters will do the maths and work out they get very little for their expenditure or the governing bodies will work out that having your sport on a platform that only a small percentage of the population are able to watch it on and even then only a small percentage of that group actually watch it is killing the sport at the grass roots.

BT use BT Sport to sell their internet. I didn't catch any games at the weekend on BT but they do have ad breaks.

I left out Amazon Prime too getting into the sports market with the US Open and Premier League rights.

The growth of Netflix and TiVo and boxsets and binge watching tv series means that marketing opportunities on tv are becoming rarer. It's why in America networks are creating more live specials and variety type shows because they are shows you watch live and will have ad breaks that will generate.

It's why the tv rights for the WWE are now going at hundreds of millions of dollars a year for live weekly programming in the US

What makes you think there is a bubble around sports rights? And the Premiership have been on pay tv for about 20 years or so now haven't they? Yet they have grown their attendances in that time.

Hi Marty, I didn't say they don't have adverts, I said they only seem to have adverts for the programme sponsor or for their own shows - if rugby was a premium product they'd have other advertisers looking to be on there.
I think there's a bubble as it's simply not sustainable - everything (except football it would seem) has a natural level of coverage and viewers, I'm also worried about the long term affect of moving sport into "layers" of PPV - to watch rugby now you have to pay for a basic platform (in the UK Sky/Virgin mostly) and then pay a further supplement on that to watch rugby - at the moment to add rugby on BT sport and Premier Sport would add about £40 a month to my Sky package which I just can't justify (and afford!) and I'm sure a lot of other people feel the same.

Sorry I meant to say ad breaks with other products advertised

Different sports will have different approaches, football can bring in the masses but it's not just the number watching that matters. It all comes down to the demographics. If someone watching with little to no disposable income is watching they are of no use to most marketers as they have no money to be spending on what they are selling. They want those with a bit of money with cash burning a hole in their pocket, it's why pay tv matters as it can almost weed out part of the audience they are after

Irish Londoner wrote:
The TV deal is as good as it's ever going to get, raising ticket prices is not an option if they actually want fans in the stadiums, player wages are going up, no club is actually running at a profit apart from Exeter, etc.

Why is the TV deal as good as it is going to get?

What has raising ticket prices got to do with the league? They are buying the league not the teams.

marty2086 wrote:Sorry I meant to say ad breaks with other products advertised

Different sports will have different approaches, football can bring in the masses but it's not just the number watching that matters. It all comes down to the demographics. If someone watching  with little to no disposable income is watching they are of no use to most marketers as they have no money to be spending on what they are selling. They want those with a bit of money with cash burning a hole in their pocket, it's why pay tv matters as it can almost weed out part of the audience they are after

Quite right. Advertisers like sport because it gets them a different audience from the rest of TV. The sports audience is more male than most TV which is mostly female. Sports also bring in a wider range of male ages than most programming - in particular younger men hardly watch TV apart from sport.

Could be a good move this. They'll expect a tight ship to be run and the product to be tip top - which will hopefully mean any questionable World Rugby regulations (regulation 9 perhaps?) are dealt with.

Would be great if the Welsh pro sides could join the English once again too

Irish Londoner wrote:Look at when the games are on BT Sport, a premium product which has precisely no adverts apart from the sponsor and for other BT programming - a premium product would have companies queuing for the prime slots on a rugby broadcast.

That just is not true though is it? They do not just have advertisements for their sponsors and their own shows. I just checked just one of the two half time advertising periods in the Glaws v Saints game. There were advertisements for Mini cars, Expedia, Samsung Phones, Save The Children, Betway, Villas Plus, Shpock, Samsung Computers and Amazon. There was just one for BT Sport.

It will be all about profit, development won't matter to the new owners, teams will be slashed or cut from the league completely.

RugbyFan100 wrote:Could be a good move this. They'll expect a tight ship to be run and the product to be tip top - which will hopefully mean any questionable World Rugby regulations (regulation 9 perhaps?) are dealt with.

Would be great if the Welsh pro sides could join the English once again too :OK:

Yeah....not likely

munkian wrote:It will be all about profit, development won't matter to the new owners, teams will be slashed or cut from the league completely.

Why will they be cut from the league?

carpet baboon wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:Could be a good move this. They'll expect a tight ship to be run and the product to be tip top - which will hopefully mean any questionable World Rugby regulations (regulation 9 perhaps?) are dealt with.

Would be great if the Welsh pro sides could join the English once again too :OK:

Yeah....not likely

Sadly I agree.

One issue I see recwatcher is if they do tell the RFU to back off wont the RFU withdraw a lot of there funding, a don't most clubs need the RFU payments to survive? (And if I remember correctly didn't a couple of clubs threaten to not sign the RFU agreement unless they all agreed not to out them as the salary cap cheats, so they all agreed to make sure they got the nice RFU lifegiving elixir off cash money)

Could this new shareholder replace these millions?
Would they want to?

The issue with any break away league is they are going up against the richest union in the world.  The reason the Euro league breakaway threat works is the clubs are bigger than any of the FAs who control them.

In rugby it's the opposite so there is no threat because the union has all the money and can replace the clubs with regions and put them in the Pro XX league.

As per below the turnover of the union is roughly the same as the entire league in Rugby.  In Soccer the FA only make more than the sixth highest club a little bit less than 4th and 5th.  I think the RFU is safe for any breakaway

FA  351m v RFU 185m
Liverpool (5th) & Chelsea (4th) 365m each v All Prem rugby clubs 189m

Brendan wrote:The issue with any break away league is they are going up against the richest union in the world.  The reason the Euro league breakaway threat works is the clubs are bigger than any of the FAs who control them.

In rugby it's the opposite so there is no threat because the union has all the money and can replace the clubs with regions and put them in the Pro XX league.

As per below the turnover of the union is roughly the same as the entire league in Rugby.  In Soccer the FA only make more than the sixth highest club a little bit less than 4th and 5th.  I think the RFU is safe for any breakaway

FA  351m v RFU 185m
Liverpool (5th) & Chelsea (4th) 365m each v All Prem rugby clubs 189m

And it's exactly those figures that make PRL want to take over the RFU.
Brian Moore has stated that several years ago a PRL board member told him the end game was for the PRL to have full control over all professional rugby from the national team down.
Others who have close relationships with the PRL have also stated in interviews that the RFU should only handle the amateur side of rugby and hand over the England team to the PRL.

Some have claimed that part of the BT deal was a promise that when the PRL gain control over team England BT would get the exclusive TV rights.

Could make for some interesting drama

Brendan wrote:In rugby it's the opposite so there is no threat because the union has all the money and can replace the clubs with regions and put them in the Pro XX league.

That's not really true. The vast majority of the RFU's income comes from using the professional club's contracted players. If the club's withdraw access to players the union would collapse in days.

As for replacing club's with regions that cannot happen as they have no contracted players. If they tried it, where would they play and who would watch them? The history of Welsh regional rugby indicates that it is no simple thing to replace clubs with real support with artificial regions.

Of course none of this is going to happen as the RFU benefit from the clubs developing and providing access to players and in return the clubs benefit from income from international games. I see no reason why that should not continue.

carpet baboon wrote:Some have claimed that part of the BT deal was a promise that when the PRL gain control over team England BT would get the exclusive TV rights.

Some people have claimed they have been abducted by aliens.

Those who claim such things show a singular lack of understanding of how business works. BT would not make a contract or pay a penny extra based on a vague promise that should the other contracting party, at some unspecified date, have something to sell they would sell it to BT at an unspecified price. In any event the BT contract only goes up to 2021. I don't think anyone believes such a change is going to happen by then.

carpet baboon wrote:One issue I see recwatcher is if they do tell the RFU to back off wont the RFU withdraw a lot of there funding, a don't most clubs need the RFU payments to survive? (And if I remember correctly didn't a couple of clubs threaten to not sign the RFU agreement unless they all agreed not to out them as the salary cap cheats, so they all agreed to make sure they got the nice RFU lifegiving elixir off cash money)

Could this new shareholder replace these millions?
Would they want to?

Carpet, you quote the above as RFU funding, the clubs see it as lending their players as they own the player contracts and RFU paying for access - which many see as generous.

Given an English selected player this season will be away for probably six weeks for the four Al's and then the 6N is a 7 week event with a two week build-up and a further week off after the event. I make that potentially 16 weeks, so call it four months of the season - providing they also don't get injured. So let's actually call it compensation for selecting these players. The PRL then choose to divide these monies into12 equal amounts regardless of which clubs supply the players. So regardless of who owns the Premiership, the RFU will have to pay to get access to players. The RFU had the chance to own player contracts in 1995 and they (rightly) turned it down.

As far as the cap goes it is well known that there were qualification flaws in the rules which some clubs identified and others didn't and the so PRL chose (by a club vote) to keep the oversight private.

Personally I would prefer the PRL and RFU to work together because they can compliment each other rather than each work at the expense of the other. There is an eight year agreement currently in place and that will in all likelihood continue.

I wonder if there is a buyer out there for the Pro14? where the priority for the owners of the player contracts is for their other team which doesnt actually play in the league......

Yes they voted not to make the investigation and its findings public.
Didn't the majority of the teams put out statements about how they were not under investigation for salary cap violations?
In fact if I remember one team specified a particular season (just so happens the season they specified was not the season that the salary cap investigation was focused on, so although true a little underhand)

Yup they did do that vote to protect bath and saracens who cheated.

Regionalism in Wales is doing just fine with attendances each week about the sames as back in the club days would have only been for the big games. They also have produced much better players internationally as shown by their 5 nations results of the 90s v 00s and 10s.

It is true that currently the players are contracted but if there was a breakaway league a lot of those contracted would be null and void. The RFU pay the players good money for representing them 22k per match as a side job

Brendan wrote:Regionalism in Wales is doing just fine with attendances each week about the sames as back in the club days would have only been for the big games

Where have you got this info from ?

Derbies aside, the regions are not getting bigger crowds Newport/Cardiff/Llanelli/Swansea were getting week in week out.

Brendan wrote:They also have produced much better players internationally as shown by their 5 nations results of the 90s v 00s and 10s.

Yes, but that is more down to professionalism, rather than regionalism. Although, there will be people on here who would argue that they are the same thing.

LordDowlais wrote:

Derbies aside, the regions are not getting bigger crowds Newport/Cardiff/Llanelli/Swansea were getting week in week out.

Are you sure about this? Have you got any figures?

RugbyFan100 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Derbies aside, the regions are not getting bigger crowds Newport/Cardiff/Llanelli/Swansea were getting week in week out.

Are you sure about this? Have you got any figures?

I know this is Wales Online and nobody likes it, but it has the average attendances for the 2002-2003 season, just before regionalism.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/special-report-story-welsh-rugby-2024649

Cardiff 7000
Newport 6120
Neath 4594
Swansea 2775
Bridgend 2625
Llanelli 3294

Some very interesting figures there, with only Llanelli improving a lot really. You could argue Swansea, but do we need to add Neath with that ?

Also, would judgement day skew today's figures ?

I will try and go back a little further.

LordDowlais wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Derbies aside, the regions are not getting bigger crowds Newport/Cardiff/Llanelli/Swansea were getting week in week out.

Are you sure about this? Have you got any figures?

I know this is Wales Online and nobody likes it, but it has the average attendances for the 2002-2003 season, just before regionalism.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/special-report-story-welsh-rugby-2024649

Cardiff 7000
Newport 6120
Neath 4594
Swansea 2775
Bridgend 2625
Llanelli 3294

Some very interesting figures there, with only Llanelli improving a lot really. You could argue Swansea, but do we need to add Neath with that ?

Also, would judgement day skew today's figures ?

I will try and go back a little further.

I'm struggling to see how that article does anything other than completely blow your point out of the water.

Because brendan said that the attendances for the regions now, are same as they were back in the club days for the big games, they are not.

Cardiff Blues V anyone not Welsh do not have the same crowds as the big games back in the club days.

That's the point I am trying to make. Back in the club days there were a lot of travelling fans.

As I said I will try and gather info from further back. But unless I am looking through rose tinted specs, then I can remember the grounds being a lot fuller than they are now, especially Cardiff.

Also, that was for the Celtic league. I will try and get the numbers for before the Celtic league started.

Wasn't Cardiffs avg attendance last season over 11k?

I have searched the web, and I cannot find this info, if anybody else can, then please feel free, as I would love to know for sure as well.

I will keep trying.

marty2086 wrote:Wasn't Cardiffs avg attendance last season over 11k?

Yes, but judgment day skews the figures.

I would wager that the crowds during the 90's were better than they are today. But I would gladly be proven wrong.

OK

This info is nowhere to be found, I challenge anybody to get it.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Wasn't Cardiffs avg attendance last season over 11k?

Yes, but judgment day skews the figures.

I would wager that the crowds during the 90's were better than they are today. But I would gladly be proven wrong.

Well if you ignore JD completely the average is about 6k not a huge difference considering you are ignoring a match that would draw a sizeable crowd

From your favourite source:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/every-welsh-rugby-regions-average-14617136.amp

Very easy to find by the way

The Oracle wrote:From your favourite source:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/every-welsh-rugby-regions-average-14617136.amp

Thats the regions average.

I am looking for the clubs average before regionalism.

Anywhere from 1990-2000 would be nice.

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Wasn't Cardiffs avg attendance last season over 11k?

Yes, but judgment day skews the figures.

I would wager that the crowds during the 90's were better than they are today. But I would gladly be proven wrong.

Well if you ignore JD completely the average is about 6k not a huge difference considering you are ignoring a match that would draw a sizeable crowd

So thats 6K now.

Back in 2003 Cardiff RFC were averaging 7K. So yes it is not has brendan put it.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Wasn't Cardiffs avg attendance last season over 11k?

Yes, but judgment day skews the figures.

I would wager that the crowds during the 90's were better than they are today. But I would gladly be proven wrong.

Well if you ignore JD completely the average is about 6k not a huge difference considering you are ignoring a match that would draw a sizeable crowd

So thats 6K now.

Back in 2003 Cardiff RFC were averaging 7K. So yes it is not has brendan put it.

Except as I stated, that's discounting a game that would draw one of the bigger crowds which would significantly increase that average. The Ospreys game that is held at the Principality may even be the biggest crowd of the season if held at CAP and would surpass the 7k average

Brendan wrote:It is true that currently the players are contracted but if there was a breakaway league a lot of those contracted would be null and void.  The RFU pay the players good money for representing them 22k per match as a side job

I doubt any players have contract terms that end the contract should the league break away from the RFU.  If there was a break then the RFU would have no players. They could seek to centrally contract players as their contracts expire but they will only be able to get players in dribs and drabs. What are they going to do with these players until they have enough to form a few teams?

As for the RFU setting up regions I cannot see them succeeding in competition with established clubs.  Let's say they create an East Midlands regional team. How successful will that be competing with Leicester and Northampton?  Where would they play? They would have to rent a football ground and be at a great financial disadvantage.

The clubs have the players and the RFU has to accept that. Given that the other unions will not play against a breakaway national team the RFU has the ability to bring in income from internationals that the clubs cannot access. The clubs have to accept that. The RFU and clubs will have to continue to work in partnership whether they like it or not. Currently it works fairly well.

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Wasn't Cardiffs avg attendance last season over 11k?

Yes, but judgment day skews the figures.

I would wager that the crowds during the 90's were better than they are today. But I would gladly be proven wrong.

Well if you ignore JD completely the average is about 6k not a huge difference considering you are ignoring a match that would draw a sizeable crowd

So thats 6K now.

Back in 2003 Cardiff RFC were averaging 7K. So yes it is not has brendan put it.

Except as I stated, that's discounting a game that would draw one of the bigger crowds which would significantly increase that average. The Ospreys game that is held at the Principality may even be the biggest crowd of the season if held at CAP and would surpass the 7k average

Ok then perhaps we can include the Shweppes cup finals for the pre regional games.

Cardiff Blues V Ospreys would not get a crowd of 60,000+ if it was not showcased and held in the Arms Park. Yes they would get a large crowd, but it would not put the everage attendance to 11K per season.

LordDowlais wrote:

The Oracle wrote:From your favourite source:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/every-welsh-rugby-regions-average-14617136.amp

Thats the regions average.

I am looking for the clubs average before regionalism.

Anywhere from 1990-2000 would be nice.

Sorry, thought you meant regions.

A bit fiddly, but you’d need to look at Cardiff RFC’s season 1999/2000 on this link (use the slider at the top to get the right year) and then click into each home game to see the attendance.

http://www.cardiffrfc.com/Matches/FixturesAndResultsIn/2000