Should the top two English leagues be merged?

First topic message reminder :

Ruck.co.uk have put together a rather pie in the sky piece about league reform in England.

https://www.ruck.co.uk/what-would-the-premiership-look-like-if-it-was-split-into-conferences-like-the-nfl/

It suggests splitting the top two divisions into 5 NFL style conferences. 

NORTHERN DIVISION
Doncaster Knights
Newcastle Falcons
Sale Sharks
Yorkshire Carnegie

LONDON DIVISION
Ealing Trailfinders
Harlequins
London Irish
Saracens

MIDLANDS 1
Bedford Blues
Leicester Tigers
Northampton Saints
Nottingham

MIDLANDS 2
Bristol Bears
Gloucester
Wasps
Worcester Warriors

SOUTHERN DIVISION
Bath
Cornish Pirates
Exeter Chiefs
Jersey

The issues emerge immediately as outraged Bristol fans want to know why they are a Midlands team and Bath are a Southern one. Midlands 2 would be much better re-badged as West.

Yorkshire/Leeds or whatever their name is this week obviously aren't fit to enter and Coventry would probably be annoyed by being overlooked after finishing last season on 4th. Not sure the Prem teams would be keen on sharing the television coverage pie but more games should mean more coverage options and maybe some shared coverage.

The West Country teams would probably want to be in the same group for derby game purposes but this would make their conference extremely harsh.

Brendan wrote:

So the PRL sold 91% of what to CVC as that is the key.  How do the broadcasting rights compare to payments by the RFU to the PRL.

The European fight was over how big each market was.  It is debatable if BT or any other TV company would pay more for this AngloWelsh league as they do for the Premiership.  As you and others have pointed out Soccer is quiet popular in Wales so would they sell more subs in the UK.
Adding Ireland would however open up a new market for both sponsers and TV.
Of the teams that have folded or changed ownership most have been private owner
IRFU no change
SRU closed Broaders
FIR Aronini private owned closed
Wales Warriors privately own closed (WRU refused to take over) Dragons taken over by WRU or would have closed. Ospreys almost closed because was hard to sell.
England & France plenty private companies folded.

Market Size.
GDP
Rep. Ireland $382.5b
Scotland $202b
Wales $94.7b
N Ireland $35.5b

CVC own 91% of the company that will control the commercial activity: https://inews.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/premiership-rugby-cvc-television-rights-amazon-dazn-netflix-281839
The BT Sport payment is north of £30m a year. RFU/PRL agreement is £225m over 8 years

The European fight was over control, not market share. The Blazers wanted to keep the control themselves so the English and French clubs gave notice. The 'hatred' between the IRFU and PRL from that time is famous.

Adding Ireland wouldn't open a new market as BT already broadcast in Ireland.

The Ospreys were remarkably easy to sell, but I'm not sure why you're writing about that.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Absolutely. Tat would have to stop or be extended to other clubs in the league like the Leinsters or Exeters I'd imagine. gets messy pretty quickly.

I'm at the point where I'm hoping your deliberate woeful misinterpretation is just an act.

It's a childlike act that deprives the board of traffic and debate, but there we go. As long as you get a kick from it.

There's no misunderstanding from my side. Not sure the English clubs would want the WRU chipping in 80% of some Welsh players (but only at Welsh clubs) wages. Don't think that's a controversial opinion.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Absolutely. Tat would have to stop or be extended to other clubs in the league like the Leinsters or Exeters I'd imagine. gets messy pretty quickly.

I'm at the point where I'm hoping your deliberate woeful misinterpretation is just an act.

It's a childlike act that deprives the board of traffic and debate, but there we go. As long as you get a kick from it.

There's no misunderstanding from my side. Not sure the English clubs would want the WRU chipping in 80% of some Welsh players (but only at Welsh clubs) wages. Don't think that's a controversial opinion.

It would be a bizarre option for an adult to hold, however, who had read up on the payment model. Especially those who are aware of the RFU £225 over 8 year deal.

And I wrote misinterpretation, not misunderstanding. I've no doubt that you understand the words written, my confusion comes from your deliberate act to misinterpret them. As at least one other has noted, that's not really how things should be.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Absolutely. Tat would have to stop or be extended to other clubs in the league like the Leinsters or Exeters I'd imagine. gets messy pretty quickly.

I'm at the point where I'm hoping your deliberate woeful misinterpretation is just an act.

It's a childlike act that deprives the board of traffic and debate, but there we go. As long as you get a kick from it.

There's no misunderstanding from my side. Not sure the English clubs would want the WRU chipping in 80% of some Welsh players (but only at Welsh clubs) wages. Don't think that's a controversial opinion.

Isn’t that what the RFU essentially does though? It rewards English clubs for international and academy players?

PhilBB wrote:

Brendan wrote:

So the PRL sold 91% of what to CVC as that is the key.  How do the broadcasting rights compare to payments by the RFU to the PRL.

The European fight was over how big each market was.  It is debatable if BT or any other TV company would pay more for this AngloWelsh league as they do for the Premiership.  As you and others have pointed out Soccer is quiet popular in Wales so would they sell more subs in the UK.
Adding Ireland would however open up a new market for both sponsers and TV.
Of the teams that have folded or changed ownership most have been private owner
IRFU no change
SRU closed Broaders
FIR Aronini private owned closed
Wales Warriors privately own closed (WRU refused to take over) Dragons taken over by WRU or would have closed. Ospreys almost closed because was hard to sell.
England & France plenty private companies folded.

Market Size.
GDP
Rep. Ireland $382.5b
Scotland $202b
Wales $94.7b
N Ireland $35.5b

CVC own 91% of the company that will control the commercial activity: https://inews.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/premiership-rugby-cvc-television-rights-amazon-dazn-netflix-281839
The BT Sport payment is north of £30m a year. RFU/PRL agreement is £225m over 8 years

The European fight was over control, not market share. The Blazers wanted to keep the control themselves so the English and French clubs gave notice. The 'hatred' between the IRFU and PRL from that time is famous.

Adding Ireland wouldn't open a new market as BT already broadcast in Ireland.

The Ospreys were remarkably easy to sell, but I'm not sure why you're writing about that.

So the CVC own 91% of the commercial arm not the PRL so CVC can sell the rights to watch the Premiership and sponsership extra but they can't actually do anything when it comes to the running of the Premiership.  So in fact they have no input whatsoever into how the PRL choose to run the league including to merge with other leagues or take in new teams

Income for TV money for 4 years would be £120m v £112m from the RFU.  Add in that the RFU must sanction and rugby league in their boundary.  So again CVC has no say in anything other than getting commercial deals for the PRL.

You mentioned how unstable union teams can be but as you can see they are more stable in Europe. Say all you want about the Ospreys but they were ready to finish trading at the end of last season

Do you think CVC would push for 4 Irish teams or 4 Welsh teams if in your view they hold all the cards.
Team sponsership of the 4 Irish teams compared to the Welsh tells you the difference in commercial values of two countries. Irish teams are also similar to Premership attendances and have plenty of Irish in England who would also attend away games. European games show the difference In interest between Welsh teams and Irish teams when it comes to attendances in England.

When it comes to TV deals the same companies bidding for the Premiership who cover all the UK not just England. When it comes to Ireland there are a dew extra TV companies who could up the price in Ireland.

Sadly your pie in the sky dream has caused you to put hope in someone who wouldn't pick you if they were to choose.

mikey_dragon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Absolutely. Tat would have to stop or be extended to other clubs in the league like the Leinsters or Exeters I'd imagine. gets messy pretty quickly.

I'm at the point where I'm hoping your deliberate woeful misinterpretation is just an act.

It's a childlike act that deprives the board of traffic and debate, but there we go. As long as you get a kick from it.

There's no misunderstanding from my side. Not sure the English clubs would want the WRU chipping in 80% of some Welsh players (but only at Welsh clubs) wages. Don't think that's a controversial opinion.

Isn’t that what the RFU essentially does though? It rewards English clubs for international and academy players?

Money is paid for how many English qualified players there are etc but they don't pay 80% of wages. If its true that this 80% is still included in the wage figures that's one thing ticked off but the union budging up the ability for clubs to outbid English clubs I would imagine would cause grumbles.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Absolutely. Tat would have to stop or be extended to other clubs in the league like the Leinsters or Exeters I'd imagine. gets messy pretty quickly.

I'm at the point where I'm hoping your deliberate woeful misinterpretation is just an act.

It's a childlike act that deprives the board of traffic and debate, but there we go. As long as you get a kick from it.

There's no misunderstanding from my side. Not sure the English clubs would want the WRU chipping in 80% of some Welsh players (but only at Welsh clubs) wages. Don't think that's a controversial opinion.

Isn’t that what the RFU essentially does though? It rewards English clubs for international and academy players?

Money is paid for how many English qualified players there are etc but they don't pay 80% of wages. If its true that this 80% is still included in the wage figures that's one thing ticked off but the union budging up the ability for clubs to outbid English clubs I would imagine would cause grumbles.

I think WRU pays 60 or 70% of wages. I think you’re right to assume that it wouldnt work out, but our pay systems do seem a little similar.

Brendan wrote:So the CVC own 91% of the commercial arm not the PRL so CVC can sell the rights to watch the Premiership and sponsership extra but they can't actually do anything when it comes to the running of the Premiership.  So in fact they have no input whatsoever into how the PRL choose to run the league including to merge with other leagues or take in new teams

Income for TV money for 4 years would be £120m v £112m from the RFU.  Add in that the RFU must sanction and rugby league in their boundary.  So again CVC has no say in anything other than getting commercial deals for the PRL.

You mentioned how unstable union teams can be but as you can see they are more stable in Europe.  Say all you want about the Ospreys but they were ready to finish trading at the end of last season

Do you think CVC would push for 4 Irish teams or 4 Welsh teams if in your view they hold all the cards.
Team sponsership of the 4 Irish teams compared to the Welsh tells you the difference in commercial values of two countries.  Irish teams are also similar to Premership attendances and have plenty of Irish in England who would also attend away games.  European games show the difference In interest between Welsh teams and Irish teams when it comes to attendances in England.

When it comes to TV deals the same companies bidding for the Premiership who cover all the UK not just England.  When it comes to Ireland there are a dew extra TV companies who could up the price in Ireland.

Sadly your pie in the sky dream has caused you to put hope in someone who wouldn't pick you if they were to choose.

a) I'm pretty sure the RFU wouldn't prevent a cross border league that both their clubs and clubs from another union wanted. They'd have no reason to do this.
b) The 'commercial activity' is the product itself, so I think your interpretation about 'merging leagues' is missing.
c) Where did I mention "how unstable union teams can be"?
d) the Ospreys weren't ready to finish trading at the end of last season. Anybody with even the most basic knowledge would know of the reaction of the major shareholder in the Ospreys once the merger talks had taken place.
e) I think CVC will push for a B&I League. That seems to be the noise at the minute, except the IRFU aren't interested. Which is why we could end up with an AW.
f) You're quite right about the larger economy of Ireland being more valuable. Spot on about this. A private ownership model in Ireland would see rugby flourish for the reasons you give.
g) I think you're over egging the broadcast rights by means of extra players, remembering that TG4 used to pay only €900k a year for the PrO'12 pre-Sky.
h) The reason to 'pick' as you put it is the set up of rugby in Ireland making it nigh on impossible to align it with the set up of rugby in more commercially advanced countries. The ray of hope with that is the words of Phillip Browne when he noted the IRFU ownership model was 'unsustainable'.

mikey_dragon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Absolutely. Tat would have to stop or be extended to other clubs in the league like the Leinsters or Exeters I'd imagine. gets messy pretty quickly.

I'm at the point where I'm hoping your deliberate woeful misinterpretation is just an act.

It's a childlike act that deprives the board of traffic and debate, but there we go. As long as you get a kick from it.

There's no misunderstanding from my side. Not sure the English clubs would want the WRU chipping in 80% of some Welsh players (but only at Welsh clubs) wages. Don't think that's a controversial opinion.

Isn’t that what the RFU essentially does though? It rewards English clubs for international and academy players?

Money is paid for how many English qualified players there are etc but they don't pay 80% of wages. If its true that this 80% is still included in the wage figures that's one thing ticked off but the union budging up the ability for clubs to outbid English clubs I would imagine would cause grumbles.

I think WRU pays 60 or 70% of wages. I think you’re right to assume that it wouldnt work out, but our pay systems do seem a little similar.

I suppose its background payments or contributing to wages. that's where iwas trying to get to with Phil in terms of does that 80% contribute to wage cap or would it be hidden. It allows Welsh clubs to outbid English (or certainly help) at the moment, so just a sticking point. there would be plenty more in this and that along with loss of power and probably money makes me think that it'll always be a dream. Nothing I've read or seen suggests that this is something that anyone is keen on bar some of the Welsh.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Money is paid for how many English qualified players there are etc but they don't pay 80% of wages. If its true that this 80% is still included in the wage figures that's one thing ticked off but the union budging up the ability for clubs to outbid English clubs I would imagine would cause grumbles.

There's that woeful and deliberate misinterpretation again.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
I suppose its background payments or contributing to wages. that's where iwas trying to get to with Phil in terms of does that 80% contribute to wage cap or would it be hidden. It allows Welsh clubs to outbid English (or certainly help) at the moment, so just a sticking point. there would be plenty more in this and that along with loss of power and probably money makes me think that it'll always be a dream. Nothing I've read or seen suggests that this is something that anyone is keen on bar some of the Welsh.

No, it doesn't allow Welsh clubs to outbid English. That's nonsense. It's the "have to play in Wales to play for Wales" that brings Welsh qualified players to Wales.

mikey_dragon wrote:

I think WRU pays 60 or 70% of wages. I think you’re right to assume that it wouldnt work out, but our pay systems do seem a little similar.

The WRU doesn't pay any player wages bar all of those at your club, Gaz.

mikey_dragon wrote:

Isn’t that what the RFU essentially does though? It rewards English clubs for international and academy players?

Yes.

As part of the £225m over 8 years.

The source I've quoted (BBC) and the source you linked to shows that it's true Phil. If you're saying that the 80% paid for by the WRU is included within wage cap that's one less issue but others remain. It certainly does help Wales keep players in wales though and helps outbid. Even a team like Bath would be challenged if what they offer a player could be matched by another club only paying 20% of the fee. would allow that club to offer more clearly and not come from the club.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The source I've quoted (BBC) and the source you linked to shows that it's true Phil. If you're saying that the 80% paid for by the WRU is included within wage cap that's one less issue but others remain. It certainly does help Wales keep players in wales though and helps outbid. Even a team like Bath would be challenged if what they offer a player could be matched by another club only paying 20% of the fee. would allow that club to offer more clearly and not come from the club.

Sorry, but I don't believe that you've genuinely interpreted the information in that manner. I'm not sure if you're playing that game as you think you're riling me but, in all seriousness, your responses are generating only concern rather than riling me.

Which bit am I interpreting incorrectly? I never try to rile but you seem to be painting a all is rosy if the Welsh can get rid of the pesky Irish and I don't see it that way.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Which bit am I interpreting incorrectly?

All of it. And you've had it explained to you more than once, so there's no point going back over it.

Read back over the last few dozen posts and it's all there

PhilBB wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

I think WRU pays 60 or 70% of wages. I think you’re right to assume that it wouldnt work out, but our pay systems do seem a little similar.

The WRU doesn't pay any player wages bar all of those at your club, Gaz.

Mikey is Dragons fan isn't he? I doubt all 38 players play for the Dragons!

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Which bit am I interpreting incorrectly?

All of it. And you've had it explained to you more than once, so there's no point going back over it.

Read back over the last few dozen posts and it's all there

I've used the articles from the BBC and Walesonline. What have they got wrong then?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Which bit am I interpreting incorrectly?

All of it. And you've had it explained to you more than once, so there's no point going back over it.

Read back over the last few dozen posts and it's all there

I've used the articles from the BBC and Walesonline. What have they got wrong then?

Let's see if this explanation works:

Your parents pay you £10 for washing their car but they tell you that £3 of it must be used to buy a book.

Do you get it now?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

I think WRU pays 60 or 70% of wages. I think you’re right to assume that it wouldnt work out, but our pay systems do seem a little similar.

The WRU doesn't pay any player wages bar all of those at your club, Gaz.

Mikey is  Dragons fan isn't he? I doubt all 38 players play for the Dragons!

I don't understand why you've written that message.

The WRU employs all Dragons players.

The WRU do not PAY wages or part wages of any other player in Wales.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Which bit am I interpreting incorrectly?

All of it. And you've had it explained to you more than once, so there's no point going back over it.

Read back over the last few dozen posts and it's all there

I've used the articles from the BBC and Walesonline. What have they got wrong then?

Let's see if this explanation works:

Your parents pay you £10 for washing their car but they tell you that £3 of it must be used to buy a book.

Do you get it now?

Me and mate want to buy a book we both have a tenner. I get a ten pound book he gets one which costs 50 quid as he parents paid the rest.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

I think WRU pays 60 or 70% of wages. I think you’re right to assume that it wouldnt work out, but our pay systems do seem a little similar.

The WRU doesn't pay any player wages bar all of those at your club, Gaz.

Mikey is  Dragons fan isn't he? I doubt all 38 players play for the Dragons!

I don't understand why you've written that message.

The WRU employs all Dragons players.

The WRU do not PAY wages or part wages of any other player in Wales.

So the BBC and Walesonline you linked to are out of date? Whats changed in relation to the subsidies for the 38; covid?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Me and mate want to buy a book we both have a tenner. I get a ten pound book he gets one which costs 50 quid as he parents paid the rest.

That would be true if the wage contribution came on top of the payment for services.

It doesn't.

Your "mate", gets £225m over 8 years from his parents.

If you're being genuine then your appreciation of this simple issue is amazing.

[quote="No 7&1/2"

So the BBC and Walesonline you linked to are out of date? Whats changed in relation to the subsidies for the 38; covid?[/quote]

They aren't subsidies.

I can't explain this Jack and Jill stuff any more clearly so if you can't grasp it then so be it.

So you are saying that the article you posted from Walesonline is incorrect and so are the BBC articles?

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you are saying that the article you posted from Walesonline is incorrect and so are the BBC articles?

I'm quite clear in telling you your interpretation is incorrect.

Had you read the tweets then you wouldn't now be asking this silly question.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/53212992

'Under a banding system introduced last year, the WRU pays 80% of the salaries of the 38 top-ranked players in Wales, with the players' regions contributing the remaining 20%.'

How can you interpret this as anything other than the WRU pays 80% of the top 38 ranked players (who play in Wales).?

No 7&1/2 wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/53212992

'Under a banding system introduced last year, the WRU pays 80% of the salaries of the 38 top-ranked players in Wales, with the players' regions contributing the remaining 20%.'

How can you interpret this as anything other than the WRU pays 80% of the top 38 ranked players (who play in Wales).?

Because. The. Players. Are. Not. Contracted. To. The. WRU.

And. The. Money. For. Wages. Is. Not. On. Top. Of. The. Payments. For. Services.

So as I've said you believe both the BBC, this and at least 1 earlier article, and Walesonline are reporting incorrectly that the WRU pay 80% of wages. To me this seems very odd as you'd imagine a mistake as big as that would have been challenged and corrected. if that's the case fair enough but you can hardly accuse me of deliberately attempting to rile you if 2 media organisations as big as them have got it wrong and not corrected themselves.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So as I've said you believe both the BBC, this and at least 1 earlier article, and Walesonline are reporting incorrectly that the WRU pay 80% of wages. To me this seems very odd as you'd imagine a mistake as big as that would have been challenged and corrected. if that's the case fair enough but you can hardly accuse me of deliberately attempting to rile you if 2 media organisations as big as them have got it wrong and not corrected themselves.

You know in my example to you, did your parents buy the £3 book?

No 7&1/2 wrote:So as I've said you believe both the BBC, this and at least 1 earlier article, and Walesonline are reporting incorrectly that the WRU pay 80% of wages. To me this seems very odd as you'd imagine a mistake as big as that would have been challenged and corrected. if that's the case fair enough but you can hardly accuse me of deliberately attempting to rile you if 2 media organisations as big as them have got it wrong and not corrected themselves.

From that WalesOnline article: "they remain contracted to the regions"

Do you understand what that means?

I'll go with no.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So as I've said you believe both the BBC, this and at least 1 earlier article, and Walesonline are reporting incorrectly that the WRU pay 80% of wages. To me this seems very odd as you'd imagine a mistake as big as that would have been challenged and corrected. if that's the case fair enough but you can hardly accuse me of deliberately attempting to rile you if 2 media organisations as big as them have got it wrong and not corrected themselves.

From that WalesOnline article: "they remain contracted to the regions"

Do you understand what that means?

I do. Do you know what the WRU pays 80% of wages means?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So as I've said you believe both the BBC, this and at least 1 earlier article, and Walesonline are reporting incorrectly that the WRU pay 80% of wages. To me this seems very odd as you'd imagine a mistake as big as that would have been challenged and corrected. if that's the case fair enough but you can hardly accuse me of deliberately attempting to rile you if 2 media organisations as big as them have got it wrong and not corrected themselves.

From that WalesOnline article: "they remain contracted to the regions"

Do you understand what that means?

I do. Do you know what the WRU pays 80% of wages means?

Yes, I explained it to you above. The WalesOnline article confirmed how it works.

You, somehow, still don't get it.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'll go with no.

No to the book?

Right, but they gave you the money.

So, if you're true to your understanding, you must note how they bought you the book.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why would the english want to play with the welsh rather than include the better teams like Leinster? They'd still have the same problem with the welsh union paying players wages as well. That'd have to go as well of course. You've basically turned 3 threads into how youd like your team to play with the english though. Bit sad when it's not going to happen. Maybe follow the football if you're that unhappy with the rugby?

The Welsh union only pays the Dragons wages whilst the Dragons are being sold.
The English wouldn't want single ownership of multiple entrants who wouldn't work to a salary cap.

I've not turned anything into anything, but it's telling that your mindset is to run away rather than work to improve. I guess it's difficult to play the role of deliberate contrarian when presented with logic, hence your complete failure today.

I have 2 sources that say otherwise (1 of which you posted). WRU pays 80% of 38 players wages. Your won link says that. I'd be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to others but I really have to ask you to post something that backs your point up that the WRU don't do that (for others apart from the Dragons).

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why would the english want to play with the welsh rather than include the better teams like Leinster? They'd still have the same problem with the welsh union paying players wages as well. That'd have to go as well of course. You've basically turned 3 threads into how youd like your team to play with the english though. Bit sad when it's not going to happen. Maybe follow the football if you're that unhappy with the rugby?

The Welsh union only pays the Dragons wages whilst the Dragons are being sold.
The English wouldn't want single ownership of multiple entrants who wouldn't work to a salary cap.

I've not turned anything into anything, but it's telling that your mindset is to run away rather than work to improve. I guess it's difficult to play the role of deliberate contrarian when presented with logic, hence your complete failure today.

I have 2 sources that say otherwise (1 of which you posted). WRU pays 80% of 38 players wages. Your won link says that. I'd be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to others but I really have to ask you to post something that backs your point up that the WRU don't do that (for others apart from the Dragons).

Ok, no worries. I can't explain things in a more simple manner so I'll leave you to your opinion.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/53212992

'Under a banding system introduced last year, the WRU pays 80% of the salaries of the 38 top-ranked players in Wales, with the players' regions contributing the remaining 20%.'

How can you interpret this as anything other than the WRU pays 80% of the top 38 ranked players (who play in Wales).?

Because. The. Players. Are. Not. Contracted. To. The. WRU.

And. The. Money. For. Wages. Is. Not. On. Top. Of. The. Payments. For. Services.

Between both of you I'm confused. Phil can you help - this is how I see it?

The WRU don't pay the players wages as the players are not contractually employed by the WRU but by the clubs - is that correct?
The WRU do (in line with all other nations) pay players who are in the squad for attending national training and playing in international games - is that correct ?
The clubs pay the all wages of the players when they play in club games as they are contracted players of the clubs - is that correct ?

Now this is where it gets complicated.
The WRU do give the clubs payments equivalent to 80% of the salaries of the 38 top Welsh players - is this used to pay the players wages i.e. the clubs pay it to the players in their salaries and cover the other 20% themselves or is the WRU money given to the clubs and it's up them to spend how they will, they can use it to pay the players or they can spend it on ground improvements and find the salary themselves as long as the players get paid?

I.E. Are the WRU in practice actually paying the players wages or is it a payment to the club for producing Welsh internationals which the clubs can spend on whatever they like?

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So as I've said you believe both the BBC, this and at least 1 earlier article, and Walesonline are reporting incorrectly that the WRU pay 80% of wages. To me this seems very odd as you'd imagine a mistake as big as that would have been challenged and corrected. if that's the case fair enough but you can hardly accuse me of deliberately attempting to rile you if 2 media organisations as big as them have got it wrong and not corrected themselves.

From that WalesOnline article: "they remain contracted to the regions"

Do you understand what that means?

I do. Do you know what the WRU pays 80% of wages means?

Yes, I explained it to you above. The WalesOnline article confirmed how it works.

You, somehow, still don't get it.

Yes the article backs up exactly my point as does the BBC article. Its currently my opinion that Walesoneline and the BBC are correct and that for the chosen 38 the WRU pays 80% of the wage. Its your opinion they don't but the only thing you've linked to prove this does the opposite.

Irish Londoner wrote:

Between both of you I'm confused. Phil can you help - this is how I see it?

The WRU don't pay the players wages as the players are not contractually employed by the WRU but by the clubs - is that correct?
The WRU do (in line with all other nations) pay players who are in the squad for attending national training and playing in international games - is that correct ?
The clubs pay the all wages of the players when they play in club games as they are contracted players of the clubs - is that correct ?

Now this is where it gets complicated.
The WRU do give the clubs payments equivalent to 80% of the salaries of the 38 top Welsh players - is this used to pay the players wages i.e. the clubs pay it to the players in their salaries and cover the other 20% themselves or is the WRU money given to the clubs and it's up them to spend how they will, they can use it to pay the players or they can spend it on ground improvements and find the salary themselves as long as the players get paid?

I.E. Are the WRU in practice actually paying the players wages or is it a payment to the club for producing Welsh internationals which the clubs can spend on whatever they like?

The WRU don't pay the players wages as the players are not contractually employed by the WRU but by the clubs - is that correct? YES
The WRU do (in line with all other nations) pay players who are in the squad for attending national training and playing in international games - is that correct ? YES
The clubs pay the all wages of the players when they play in club games as they are contracted players of the clubs - is that correct ? NO. The three independent clubs do this, but the Dragons have all wages paid by the WRU

The WRU do give the clubs payments equivalent to 80% of the salaries of the 38 top Welsh players - YES, as part of the payments (in line with my book analogy)

In practice it is as I explained with the book analogy. "Here's your payment for the services provided but £x must be used in this manner. The £y is yours to spend as you see fit"

so after all that, the admission. for 38 players chosen the WRU pay 80% of their wages. Thanks. Finally. Now given that 80% of Biggars wages aren't paid for by the WRU if there were to be a B&I league that would prove problematic I'm sure.

No 7&1/2 wrote:so after all that, the admission. for 38 players chosen the WRU pay 80% of their wages. Thanks. Finally. Now given that 80% of Biggars wages aren't paid for by the WRU if there were to be a B&I league that would prove problematic I'm sure.

You may be sure, but I doubt many others would be.

They wouldn't be for 225,000,000 reasons over 8 years.

After all that, are you sure Phil that the 80% paid for by the WRU is included in the wage bill of the teams affected?

PhilBB wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:

Between both of you I'm confused. Phil can you help - this is how I see it?

The WRU don't pay the players wages as the players are not contractually employed by the WRU but by the clubs - is that correct?
The WRU do (in line with all other nations) pay players who are in the squad for attending national training and playing in international games - is that correct ?
The clubs pay the all wages of the players when they play in club games as they are contracted players of the clubs - is that correct ?

Now this is where it gets complicated.
The WRU do give the clubs payments equivalent to 80% of the salaries of the 38 top Welsh players - is this used to pay the players wages i.e. the clubs pay it to the players in their salaries and cover the other 20% themselves or is the WRU money given to the clubs and it's up them to spend how they will, they can use it to pay the players or they can spend it on ground improvements and find the salary themselves as long as the players get paid?

I.E. Are the WRU in practice actually paying the players wages or is it a payment to the club for producing Welsh internationals which the clubs can spend on whatever they like?

The WRU don't pay the players wages as the players are not contractually employed by the WRU but by the clubs - is that correct? YES
The WRU do (in line with all other nations) pay players who are in the squad for attending national training and playing in international games - is that correct ? YES
The clubs pay the all wages of the players when they play in club games as they are contracted players of the clubs - is that correct ? NO. The three independent clubs do this, but the Dragons have all wages paid by the WRU

The WRU do give the clubs payments equivalent to 80% of the salaries of the 38 top Welsh players - YES, as part of the payments (in line with my book analogy)

In practice it is as I explained with the book analogy. "Here's your payment for the services provided but £x must be used in this manner. The £y is yours to spend as you see fit"

So the short answer is that the WRU do pay 80% of the top 38 players wages and that money is ring fenced in the funding the WRU provide to the regions ?

Irish Londoner wrote:
So the short answer is that the WRU do pay 80% of the top 38 players wages and that money is ring fenced in the funding the WRU provide to the regions ?

No.

As part of the payments (not funding) a proportion must be used only for the employment of the elite 38.

The WRU don't pay the wages. The WRU provide, as part of the payment, a sum that must be used for wages.

Just like the parents didn't buy the book, the child did.

No 7&1/2 wrote:After all that, are you sure Phil that the 80% paid for by the WRU is included in the wage bill of the teams affected?

So you don't understand the point about who contracts them.

As I thought.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:After all that, are you sure Phil that the 80% paid for by the WRU is included in the wage bill of the teams affected?

So you don't understand the point about who contracts them.

As I thought.

Are you sure that the 80% is included within the wage bill?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:After all that, are you sure Phil that the 80% paid for by the WRU is included in the wage bill of the teams affected?

So you don't understand the point about who contracts them.

As I thought.

Are you sure that the 80% is included within the wage bill?

If you understood who held the contract, you wouldn't need to ask the question.

PhilBB wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:
So the short answer is that the WRU do pay 80% of the top 38 players wages and that money is ring fenced in the funding the WRU provide to the regions ?

No.

As part of the payments (not funding) a proportion must be used only for the employment of the elite 38.

The WRU don't pay the wages. The WRU provide, as part of the payment, a sum that must be used for wages.

Just like the parents didn't buy the book, the child did.

Isn't that semantics at best - if the WRU give the clubs money with the specific condition that it has to be used for player wages then it's the WRU that are effectively paying 80% of the wages.

Like your child with the book - if you get £10 to spend on what you want it's your money - if you get £10 to spend but have to spend £3 on a book or you don't get the money, you haven't been given £10 you've been given £7 and a book.