Pro 12 plus maybe Friends 20/21

First topic message reminder :

As one season finishes it seems the new one seems to start sooner each year.  Here is the breakdown of teams over the last three years. Places (based on league points) and points are order 19/20, 18/19, 17/18

Leinster (Champions and clearly the team to beat)
Place 1, 3, 2, Average 2
Points 69, 76, 70 total 215
Always have finished top of their conference and winners for the last three years
Goal - Win, anything else is failure

Munster
Place 3, 2, 4 Average 3
Points 51, 77, 69 Total 197
Yet another table where Munster fall short yet again.  Each of the last three years have been knocked out by Leinster
Goal - Top Conference (2nd in league) to finally avoid Leinster in the playoffs to make the final

Glasgow
Place 7, 1, 1 Average 3
Points 38, 81, 76 Total 195
Was this year a WC hangover or is it the start of the slide back to the chasing pack.  Losing key players is taking it's toll. No longer the best team in Scotland.
Goal - Win back dominance in Scotland

Ulster
Place 4, 4, 6 Average 4.33
Points 44, 63, 62 Total 169
Improving each year and seem like one of the teams to challange Leinster.
Goal - Get back to the final

Scarlets
Place 4, 9, 3 Average 5.33
Points 47, 52, 70 Total 169
Last year killed them but on their day a match of anyone. Best team usually in Wales.
Goal - make the final

Edinburgh
Place 2, 10, 5 Average 5.66
Total 51, 51, 68 Total 170
Like Scarlets last year killed them.  Have conquered Scotland and have one of the best coaches in the league.  Possibly the 2nd best team for next season if Cockers has cracked rotation.
Goal - make the final

Connacht
Place 6, 5, 10 Average 7
Points 40, 61, 39 Total 140
Excluding the first year under Keane have been playoff contenders each year.  But they need to push on and not just be happy fighting for a playoff sport.
Have to push for Top 4

Benetton
Place 8, 7, 7 Average 7.33
Points 36, 57, 55 Total 148
Consistency has got them middle of the table which is a good place to build from rather than just the place to stay.
Goal - time to push for Top 6

Blues
Place 9, 8, 8 Average  8.33
Points 33, 54, 54 Total 141
Again consistent in their place but have fallen down and past by their peers.  Have to be looking over their shoulders at Dragons and Zebre.
Goal - time to get above 8th.

Ospreys
Place 12, 6, 9 Average 9
Points 17, 58, 54 Total 119
Which year was the anomaly, when they finished 6th or 12th.  An old team who live on past glories. Last year 6th may have been down to the drop in form of Scarlets and Edinburgh.
Goal - stop the rot

Dragons
Place 10, 11, 12 Average 11
Points 24, 26, 20 Total 70
Slowly improving.  No longer unable to win away from home and building nicely.
Goal - has to be 9th

Zebre
Place 11, 12, 11 Average 11.33
Points 21, 19, 36 Total 76
Have alot of young players coming through.  Last year wasn't great but the other two were improvements on previous years.
Goal - Finished 10th and pick up some big wins.

profitius wrote:

rugby racing and beer wrote:

TJ wrote:

But we'll have to wait and see as you say but I do think Edinburgh were being treated very generously in that previous banding discussion. Glasgow, Ulster, and the Scarlets look better when at their best.

Errmmm - did you see the finishing positions in the league even pre covid?

AWJ, Tipuric, North etc. had the small matter of actually competing in the Rugby World Cup knockout stages. Did Edinburgh's Scots? No.

You talking about Ospreys? I have not checked but surely Edinburgh lose more players to internationals than Ospreys do.

Weird how you managed to misunderstand the difference between getting to the semi finals of a RWC (and playing a bronze game) v getting knocked out in the groups having played only one proper tier 1 opponent...

Very weird.

PhilBB wrote:

rugby racing and beer wrote:I know it's early doors but I do think this goes to show what a few of us were saying about how to 'band' the teams in the league. Edinburgh aren't all that to be honest, I think they've reached their peak, Blues and Ospreys have been underperforming for years.

Of course, over a period of 'years', "Blues" (thank God that name is soon to go) and the Ospreys have performed perfectly in line with their salary spend, so I'd love to see a justification of the claim of "under performance"

That's a lot of inverted commas, Phil - have you just found a new button on the keyboard?

PhilBB wrote:

Brendan wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

rugby racing and beer wrote:I know it's early doors but I do think this goes to show what a few of us were saying about how to 'band' the teams in the league. Edinburgh aren't all that to be honest, I think they've reached their peak, Blues and Ospreys have been underperforming for years.

Of course, over a period of 'years', "Blues" (thank God that name is soon to go) and the Ospreys have performed perfectly in line with their salary spend, so I'd love to see a justification of the claim of "under performance"

As has been shown on this thread and others the 3 privately owned teams along with Ulster and Connacht are on between 6-7m per year.  For agreements sake we will say the Scots are too.

In the last 5 years only Connacht and Scarlets have won the Championship. Glasgow was 6 years ago.

The playoffs (Top3) since going to the Pro14 have been
17/18 Scarlets (f) Glasgow (s) Edinburgh (q)
18/19 Glasgow (f) Ulster (s) Connacht (q)
19/20 Ulster (f) Edinburgh (s) Glasgow, Scarlets (3rd in Conference)
3/3 Glasgow
2/3 Ulster, Scarlets, Edinburgh
1/3 Connacht, Cheetahs, Benetton
Ulster and Glasgow have always finished with a Champions Cup spot.

Cheetahs and Benetton also made the playoffs both which much smaller budgets than Blues and Ospreys and Benetton much more effected by the international window.

Last time in top 6
Ospreys 16/17 4th
Blues 6th 10/11 the first year the Italians entered and Scotland rested half their playera towards the end of the season in preparation for the WC.  Dragons finished 7th that year.

So I would love to know how Blues and Ospreys haven't under performed

Yeah, if you set that false equivalence from the budget then you're right, they have underperformed

How about we use the proper figures, however?

Cardiff's squad salary is below £6m. The SRU spend north of £30m on the professional game, so you can clearly put Glasgow and Edinburgh north of £7m both - comfortably.

Cardiff have won the Challenge(d) Cup in that time, whilst Ulster have won Frak all. Connacht got a league by taking so many points during the international windows and for Leinster being drunk for the final - the definition of an outlier.

However, I'm sure we can all shake hands on the Ospreys being crap.

Cardiff haven't won the Challenge Cup, Phil. You're talking about a fantasy world again. Cardiff don't even compete in the Pro14/12/Celtic League.

I think you might need to find a more appropriate forum to discuss Cardiff because at the moment this is a weird conversation where you're talking about a fantasy land of their own mind and getting annoyed when other people disagree with it. It's odd and uncomfortable to read.

WTF does the WC have to do with the quality of the pro 14 teams. Look at the pro 14 results and find out which are the best pro 14 teams.

Pillbb - lots of people have looked at the numnbrers on funding of the pro 14 teams including that wales online article and others in WOL and all come to the same conclusions - the welsh and scots are funded to similar levels

the key thing is the scots spend their money wisely. for the cost of one AWJ who will barely play a dozen games a year we get 3 players who will play 60+ games between them

PhilBB wrote:So are we really to believe that just a third of the expenditure is on player wages. Really? Come on.

Yes, that absolutely seems reasonable.

You're doing a lot of work and then lazily getting to the end point and throwing your hands up in the air.

Do you understand that the union will employ many professionals on good to high salaries who aren't players? That figure is entirely reasonable. Instead, you're not happy with the published/stated figures, so instead you're - once again - playing make believe based entirely on your own imagination.

Why?

[quote="TJ"]WTF does the WC have to do with the quality of the pro 14 teams./quote]

Pretty simple. The Edinburgh Scots were back playing for their club while the Welsh Ospreys were still trying to win a RWC. That takes its toll - something the Scots obviously don't know.

So includes international costs.  Don't the SRU have deals with other professional teams to help develop young players.  I doubt that's free.

All the travel which is higher per team for SRU than WRU or IRFU as only two teams so 3 Scottish games while the rest are flights. Murrayfield cost must be high for the 15 odd games a year that Edinburgh play.

International costs would includes trips to the SH on tours, I assume paying for visiting teams such as New Zealand in the 17/18 season.
Can you advise the international cost of running team Wales and Team Ireland so we can exclude similar amounts.

As per the WOL article quoted the WRU forked out £20m to give to the 4 teams in Wales yet with private backing and other income the regions could only spend £6m on wages.  Either you don't accept the cost of running teams or the regions figures must be really undervalued (which might be why they have much higher paid players in wales than either Scottish team)

I guess the good news is you accept that the Welsh aren't poor nor are their wages way less than Ulster Connacht and the Scots

Regarding Connacht the year they won it they lost 7 games
One during the WC period v Glasgow away
4 in December plus first game in January, Blues and Scarlets away (less then 7) plus the two Chrismas derbies.
In the game v Scarlets in Galway they won by 15pts.
Lost to Benetton and then Ulster.
The Decembet run of losses could be put down the rest the main teams got after the WC where as Connacht had to play non-stop.

Beat plenty of strong teams after the 6 Nations and beat Glasgow (Reigning Champs) and Leinster in the playoffs.

Again it's so easy to win in WC years that is why the teams with few internationals romped the league but we know that's not true. That Connacht team was built on the same philosophy that Pivac would use the next year, win the ball and attack from everywhere.  That same team in the next year beat Toulouse away and Wasps at home picking up 18pts in the group not qiuailifying only due to head to head.  When was the last time a Welsh team picked up 18+pts in Europe in the last 5 years, once Scarlets 17/18 so can't have been a bad team

In 2015 Glasgow had 21 players at the WC. Blues had 8. Glasgow finished 3rd in the league Blues finished 7th. If it was all about losing the internationals then the 2 biggest contributes Glasgow and Leinster wouldn't have finished 1st and 3rd

Brendan wrote:So I would love to know how Blues and Ospreys haven't under performed

They've both underperformed for years, big time. Put that many internationals into an Irish or English team and they're flying.

Brendan wrote:Either way they have both out performed Ospreys and Blues in the Champions Cup and Pro14

Absolutely.

TJ wrote: Dragons the poor relations

Correct. 100% spot on.

TJ wrote:WTF does the WC have to do with the quality of the pro 14 teams.  Look at the pro 14 results and find out which are the best pro 14 teams.

Pillbb - lots of people have looked at the numnbrers on funding of the pro 14 teams including that wales online article and others in WOL and all come to the same conclusions - the welsh and scots are funded to similar levels

the key thing is the scots spend their money wisely.  for the cost of one AWJ who will barely play a dozen games a year we get 3 players who will play 60+ games between them

Edinburgh and Scotland still dream of having a player as good as AWJ, it's not happening.

TJ wrote:Errrmmmm- what pro 14 games were played during the WC?

Jeepers you talk some utter pish

BTW - see the "overrated" Hogg and Russell - both up for european player of the year - on a shortlist made by people who clearly know a lot more about rugby than you do

If you want to be a troll you need a grain of truth and a bit of logic otherwise you are a and a clown

Warra numpty.

The World Cup semi final occurred during the 3rd round of the Pro14 in 2019/20.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/pro-tournament/scores-fixtures/2019-10

Of course, it's not like that's the ONLY consequence of getting far in to a world cup. There's also fatigue, injury etc...

Stop just throwing out insults and maybe try reading a bit. Or use google to give you info you clearly don't know. You're making yourself look like a clown.

Brendan wrote:In 2015 Glasgow had 21 players at the WC.  Blues had 8.  Glasgow finished 3rd in the league Blues finished 7th.  If it was all about losing the internationals then the 2 biggest contributes Glasgow and Leinster wouldn't have finished 1st and 3rd

That's a very lazy appeal to extremes.

rugby racing and beer wrote:

Brendan wrote:In 2015 Glasgow had 21 players at the WC.  Blues had 8.  Glasgow finished 3rd in the league Blues finished 7th.  If it was all about losing the internationals then the 2 biggest contributes Glasgow and Leinster wouldn't have finished 1st and 3rd

That's a very lazy appeal to extremes.

You can't have it both ways. Either Connacht won in 15/16 because they only had two players at the WC or they won because they were a good team with a good manager.

If a team like Glasgow with 21 players at the WC can finish third (there were 3 points between the 3 top teams)

If you don't accept that it was down to the WC then how can you say they won because of the WC.

In 15/16 no Pro12 team made it to the quarters of the Champions Cup so the league was it for the big teams. After the 6 Nations they beat Glasgow twice, Leinster twice and Munster. They did lose to Ulster and Benetton.

Brendan wrote:

rugby racing and beer wrote:

Brendan wrote:In 2015 Glasgow had 21 players at the WC.  Blues had 8.  Glasgow finished 3rd in the league Blues finished 7th.  If it was all about losing the internationals then the 2 biggest contributes Glasgow and Leinster wouldn't have finished 1st and 3rd

That's a very lazy appeal to extremes.

You can't have it both ways.  Either Connacht won in 15/16 because they only had two players at the WC or they won because they were a good team with a good manager.

No, I'm afraid life doesn't work like that.

This discussion came about because it's an ongoing one about Edinburgh being a bit overrated and specifically the South Wales Blues but also the Ospreys being a tad underrated - the Blues based on ability and recent recents, the Ospreys on talent (playing, not coaching).

The point was made regarding last season and how Edinburgh did better in the Pro14. Very simple, we're not comparing like for like.

Scotland were out in the group stage, Wales were still playing competitive rugby and another showpiece game well in to the Pro14 season. The season-long impact of that (up until covid disruption) is massive, for all teams, but specifically for those two even if Edinburgh lost more players to the RWC than the Ospreys (interesting to see totals across all teams tbh).

Why are you talking about Connacht in 2015? Ireland were out in the QFs, for what it's worth. Again, not like for like with Wales last year.

So yeah, it's a lazy appeal to extremes. Quite simply, I'm talking about a gut judgement that the Ospreys and Blues are better than the assessment several weeks ago, and Edinburgh not quite as good - the evidence of last season's results isn't exactly comparing like to for like, and this is not 'having it both ways', it's called referencing something some posters are clearly oblivious about (like, for instance, thinking the Pro14 wasn't played during the RWC - which is presumably because they're English).

I have a point to make here. A really good point. It’s such a good point, but it’s worth writing long posts, to really get my point across. As I’ve said, I have a really good point and I’m such a knowledgeable poster, with my good point. So as a result, it must be a good point, as I made it and I have written a lengthy post. What do people mean, when they say get to the point? Surely a long winded post to make my point is better than a shorter post? I have a point and I will use many words to show my point, as I’m really showing my point. Who needs 10 words to make my point, when I can use 1000? My point is really important and all you lesser people making a point aren’t as important, as I’ve exhausted my keypad to make my point. I win. My superior attitude whilst making my point, is so good too.

RiscaGame wrote:I have a point to make here. A really good point. It’s such a good point, but it’s worth writing long posts, to really get my point across. As I’ve said, I have a really good point and I’m such a knowledgeable poster, with my good point. So as a result, it must be a good point, as I made it and I have written a lengthy post. What do people mean, when they say get to the point? Surely a long winded post to make my point is better than a shorter post? I have a point and I will use many words to show my point, as I’m really showing my point. Who needs 10 words to make my point, when I can use 1000? My point is really important and all you lesser people making a point aren’t as important, as I’ve used exhausted my keypad to make my point. I win. My superior attitude whilst making my point, is so good too.

That’s a fantastic point,... I think

rugby racing and beer wrote:.

So yeah, it's a lazy appeal to extremes. Quite simply, I'm talking about a gut judgement that the Ospreys and Blues are better than the assessment several weeks ago, and Edinburgh not quite as good - the evidence of last season's results isn't exactly comparing like to for like, and this is not 'having it both ways', it's called referencing something some posters are clearly oblivious about (like, for instance, thinking the Pro14 wasn't played during the RWC - which is presumably because they're English).

Last season Ospreys won 2 from 15 while Edinburgh won 11 from 15. No contest there. You can try to explain your way out of it but the table shows the reality.

Cardiff won 7 from 15.

rugby racing and beer wrote:

Brendan wrote:

rugby racing and beer wrote:

Brendan wrote:In 2015 Glasgow had 21 players at the WC.  Blues had 8.  Glasgow finished 3rd in the league Blues finished 7th.  If it was all about losing the internationals then the 2 biggest contributes Glasgow and Leinster wouldn't have finished 1st and 3rd

That's a very lazy appeal to extremes.

You can't have it both ways.  Either Connacht won in 15/16 because they only had two players at the WC or they won because they were a good team with a good manager.

No, I'm afraid life doesn't work like that.

This discussion came about because it's an ongoing one about Edinburgh being a bit overrated and specifically the South Wales Blues but also the Ospreys being a tad underrated - the Blues based on ability and recent recents, the Ospreys on talent (playing, not coaching).

The point was made regarding last season and how Edinburgh did better in the Pro14. Very simple, we're not comparing like for like.

Scotland were out in the group stage, Wales were still playing competitive rugby and another showpiece game well in to the Pro14 season. The season-long impact of that (up until covid disruption) is massive, for all teams, but specifically for those two even if Edinburgh lost more players to the RWC than the Ospreys (interesting to see totals across all teams tbh).

Why are you talking about Connacht in 2015? Ireland were out in the QFs, for what it's worth. Again, not like for like with Wales last year.

So yeah, it's a lazy appeal to extremes. Quite simply, I'm talking about a gut judgement that the Ospreys and Blues are better than the assessment several weeks ago, and Edinburgh not quite as good - the evidence of last season's results isn't exactly comparing like to for like, and this is not 'having it both ways', it's called referencing something some posters are clearly oblivious about (like, for instance, thinking the Pro14 wasn't played during the RWC - which is presumably because they're English).

As per PhillBB he rejected Connacht's league win as legitimate because of the WC.  I highlighted why his point was stupid and I'll thought out from a logical point of view. You do realise all the NH teams left at the WC quarters or before.

We have been told for years that the Irish out spend the Welsh by loads.  Now turns out that a Welsh publication often quoted by certain posts as fact then show that the Welsh are on the same as Ulster, Connacht,  Edinburgh and Glasgow.  Yet somehow the Welsh haven't under performed specifically Ospreys and Blues over the last few years.

Edinburgh's last 3 years have each shown good results.
It is easier to win the Challange Cup then it is to get into the quarterfinal of the Champions Cup which is why most Challange Cup wins end up finishing 3rd or 4th when they get into the Champions Cup.

Blues last finished 6th in the league 10 years ago. Ospreys in their best year since going to Conference (3 years) has been 4th in a conference.  Both spending the same or more than Glasgow and Edinburgh yet no one would claim the two Welsh teams have performed as well as the Scots.

For balance Edinburgh until 3 years ago also underperformed but are no longer.

rugby racing and beer wrote:

Cardiff haven't won the Challenge Cup, Phil. You're talking about a fantasy world again. Cardiff don't even compete in the Pro14/12/Celtic League.

I think you might need to find a more appropriate forum to discuss Cardiff because at the moment this is a weird conversation where you're talking about a fantasy land of their own mind and getting annoyed when other people disagree with it. It's odd and uncomfortable to read.

I'm pretty comfortable that I was in Bilbao watching my team, called Cardiff, win the Challenge Cup

If that's the best argument you have, you really shouldn't be on this forum.

TJ wrote:WTF does the WC have to do with the quality of the pro 14 teams.  Look at the pro 14 results and find out which are the best pro 14 teams.

Pillbb - lots of people have looked at the numnbrers on funding of the pro 14 teams including that wales online article and others in WOL and all come to the same conclusions - the welsh and scots are funded to similar levels

the key thing is the scots spend their money wisely.  for the cost of one AWJ who will barely play a dozen games a year we get 3 players who will play 60+ games between them

The SRU annual report disproves any notion of equal funding.

The World Cup affects the quality of the PrO'league teams because the best players from the entrant clubs missed so much of that PrO season because of international duties. I'm not sure why such an obvious point had to be explained.

Brendan wrote:So includes international costs.  Don't the SRU have deals with other professional teams to help develop young players.  I doubt that's free.

All the travel which is higher per team for SRU than WRU or IRFU as only two teams so 3 Scottish games while the rest are flights. Murrayfield cost must be high for the 15 odd games a year that Edinburgh play.

International costs would includes trips to the SH on tours, I assume paying for visiting teams such as New Zealand in the 17/18 season.
Can you advise the international cost of running team Wales and Team Ireland so we can exclude similar amounts.

As per the WOL article quoted the WRU forked out £20m to give to the 4 teams in Wales yet with private backing and other income the regions could only spend £6m on wages.  Either you don't accept the cost of running teams or the regions figures must be really undervalued (which might be why they have much higher paid players in wales than either Scottish team)

I guess the good news is you accept that the Welsh aren't poor nor are their wages way less than Ulster Connacht and the Scots

What a post. Amazing

The SRU pays for 'travel' from those figures whilst the Welsh clubs have to pay their own travel costs. Yet you then go on to write that fourth paragraph, without even a nod to what you'd written previously.

Brilliant.

The idea that the total salary bill for Scottish professional players is under £10m is complete fantasy, as the figures prove

Brendan wrote:In 2015 Glasgow had 21 players at the WC.  Blues had 8.  Glasgow finished 3rd in the league Blues finished 7th.  If it was all about losing the internationals then the 2 biggest contributes Glasgow and Leinster wouldn't have finished 1st and 3rd

Glasgow's crew came home earlier and played more league games.

rugby racing and beer wrote:

PhilBB wrote:So are we really to believe that just a third of the expenditure is on player wages. Really? Come on.

Yes, that absolutely seems reasonable.

You're doing a lot of work and then lazily getting to the end point and throwing your hands up in the air.

Do you understand that the union will employ many professionals on good to high salaries who aren't players? That figure is entirely reasonable. Instead, you're not happy with the published/stated figures, so instead you're - once again - playing make believe based entirely on your own imagination.

Why?

Esportif reckoned the average salary of a PrO player was £170k in 2016-17 (https://rugbylad.ie/data-reveals-average-premiership-vs-pro14-salaries-highest-paid-positions/)

You're trying to tell me that 104 players in Scotland (two years later, at a time of rampant wage inflation) cost an average of £95,000

"That absolutely seems sensible" according to you

Which, of course, does nothing other than underline that you haven't got the foggiest clue about this subject.

mikey_dragon wrote:

TJ wrote: Dragons the poor relations

Correct. 100% spot on.

Except that is completely untrue, as has been shown by the the last three WRU Annual Reports.

The 'claim' in the latest report is that the Dragons cost £7.1m but that excludes stadia costs and many admin costs.

The WRU paid out £19.7m to the other three, so an average of £6.56m each.

Therefore, whichever way you look at it, the Dragons get the most from the WRU

Brendan wrote:Both spending the same or more than Glasgow and Edinburgh yet no one would claim the two Welsh teams have performed as well as the Scots.

It's almost as though that SRU Annual Report doesn't exist.

£30m on WAGES.

£30 million on wages including the womens teams, the sevens teams, the age group teams, international bonuses, the blazers, all the support staff, ground staff etc etc Hlaf of that on player wages sounfds about right to me

Stop with the false narrative. the Welsh teams get similar amounts of funding to the Scots - look at the wales on line report.

When thre SRU where tying to sell the teams off a year or two ago 7.5 million was the total cost of running each of the pro teams!

TJ wrote:£30 million on wages including the womens teams, the sevens teams, the age group teams, international bonuses, the blazers, all the support staff, ground staff  etc etc  Hlaf of that on player wages sounfds about right to me

Stop with the false narrative.  the Welsh teams get similar amounts of funding to the Scots - look at the wales on line report.

When thre SRU where tying to sell the teams off a year or two ago 7.5 million was the total cost of running each of the pro teams!

Half of £30m is £15m

Above we were told it was £9.9m. Now it's gone up by 50%... just like that.

The Wales On Line Report!?!?! Look at the bloody SRU Report.

I'd say £15m is a little light, but that would put Glasgow at £8m, Edinburgh at £7m. Cardiff is under £6m.

So....point proven

PhilBB wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

TJ wrote: Dragons the poor relations

Correct. 100% spot on.

Except that is completely untrue, as has been shown by the the last three WRU Annual Reports.

The 'claim' in the latest report is that the Dragons cost £7.1m but that excludes stadia costs and many admin costs.

The WRU paid out £19.7m to the other three, so an average of £6.56m each.

Therefore, whichever way you look at it, the Dragons get the most from the WRU

They don't though, they've gotten the least since 2004/05 season.

Above we were told it was £9.9m. Now it's gone up by 50%... just like that.

Cite

Most of us agree its in the area of 6.5 - 7 million each team including the WOL report. there is no way on earth its significantly more

Stop whining

mikey_dragon wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

TJ wrote: Dragons the poor relations

Correct. 100% spot on.

Except that is completely untrue, as has been shown by the the last three WRU Annual Reports.

The 'claim' in the latest report is that the Dragons cost £7.1m but that excludes stadia costs and many admin costs.

The WRU paid out £19.7m to the other three, so an average of £6.56m each.

Therefore, whichever way you look at it, the Dragons get the most from the WRU

They don't though, they've gotten the least since 2004/05 season.

Gaz, I just gave you the figures from the last WRU Annual Report to show that they do. They do now, at least, and have done since WRU ownership.

Don't fall for the spin of "player budget". This is about the total the WRU spends operating the Dragons.

TJ wrote:

Above we were told it was £9.9m. Now it's gone up by 50%... just like that.

Cite

Most of us agree its in the area of 6.5 - 7 million each team including the WOL report.  there is no way on earth its significantly more

Stop whining

104 players at the average salary of £170k a year is £17.7m, Champ.

That would be about right - to leave £12.3m for the rest of the wages.

profitius wrote:

rugby racing and beer wrote:.

So yeah, it's a lazy appeal to extremes. Quite simply, I'm talking about a gut judgement that the Ospreys and Blues are better than the assessment several weeks ago, and Edinburgh not quite as good - the evidence of last season's results isn't exactly comparing like to for like, and this is not 'having it both ways', it's called referencing something some posters are clearly oblivious about (like, for instance, thinking the Pro14 wasn't played during the RWC - which is presumably because they're English).

Last season Ospreys won 2 from 15 while Edinburgh won 11 from 15. No contest there. You can try to explain your way out of it but the table shows the reality.

Cardiff won 7 from 15.

I'm not arguing that the Ospreys are a better team than Edinburgh though.

I'm not sure why people are struggling with. Welsh players obviously put more effort in to their RWC campaign than Scotland. They played 3 extra games ffs.

PhilBB wrote:

rugby racing and beer wrote:

Cardiff haven't won the Challenge Cup, Phil. You're talking about a fantasy world again. Cardiff don't even compete in the Pro14/12/Celtic League.

I think you might need to find a more appropriate forum to discuss Cardiff because at the moment this is a weird conversation where you're talking about a fantasy land of their own mind and getting annoyed when other people disagree with it. It's odd and uncomfortable to read.

I'm pretty comfortable that I was in Bilbao watching my team, called Cardiff, win the Challenge Cup

If that's the best argument you have, you really shouldn't be on this forum.

Thankfully you're not in any position to decide who posts on this forum but I can see why it's uncomfortable having people point out that the Blues are a region, they are not a club called Cardiff, and have been since 2003.

PhilBB wrote:

rugby racing and beer wrote:

PhilBB wrote:So are we really to believe that just a third of the expenditure is on player wages. Really? Come on.

Yes, that absolutely seems reasonable.

You're doing a lot of work and then lazily getting to the end point and throwing your hands up in the air.

Do you understand that the union will employ many professionals on good to high salaries who aren't players? That figure is entirely reasonable. Instead, you're not happy with the published/stated figures, so instead you're - once again - playing make believe based entirely on your own imagination.

Why?

Esportif reckoned the average salary of a PrO player was £170k in 2016-17 (https://rugbylad.ie/data-reveals-average-premiership-vs-pro14-salaries-highest-paid-positions/)

You're trying to tell me that 104 players in Scotland (two years later, at a time of rampant wage inflation) cost an average of £95,000

"That absolutely seems sensible" according to you

Which, of course, does nothing other than underline that you haven't got the foggiest clue about this subject.

Why is it so hard to understand that Scotland would be paying under the 'average' which is massively inflated by Leinster paying the likes of Sexton the best part of half a million and the WRU paying to keep the vast majority of their star players in Wales? Do you really think the SRU are paying their players as well as the IRFU?

You might not have noticed, but the Scottish model isn't based on what the WRU or the IRFU do in order to keep their players at home: their best earning players are playing outside Scotland and have done so for a long, long time. Precisely because they will earn a lot more money in England and it doesn't hamper their international credentials. It seems entirely reasonable that Finn Russell realised he could earn shed loads more money overseas and that the SRU isn't going to bankrupt itself to try to keep him in Scotland as the WRU does with AWJ or the IRFU does with Sexton.

Once again, you're not actually dealing with facts when it comes down to your conclusion. You've got halfway towards something interesting, but then give up, rely on your own prejudicial conclusion, and start flinging out insults.

Why?

rugby racing and beer wrote:

Thankfully you're not in any position to decide who posts on this forum but I can see why it's uncomfortable having people point out that the Blues are a region, they are not a club called Cardiff, and have been since 2003.

That's not uncomfortable at all. It's very enjoyable as it's always the sign of an idiot.

Standalone club, mate.

Soon to be rebranded without the Blues nonsense.

Sorry about presenting these facts to you.

PhilBB wrote:

rugby racing and beer wrote:

Thankfully you're not in any position to decide who posts on this forum but I can see why it's uncomfortable having people point out that the Blues are a region, they are not a club called Cardiff, and have been since 2003.

That's not uncomfortable at all. It's very enjoyable as it's always the sign of an idiot.

Standalone club, mate.

Soon to be rebranded without the Blues nonsense.

Sorry about presenting these facts to you.

Are they actually going to be called 'Cardiff'? Can you post some evidence for this? Likewise, can you please provide evidence (and not just your claims) that they're a standalone club and not a region?

If so, I'll happily defer to you and brand myself an 'idiot' as you seem to believe I am.

rugby racing and beer wrote:

Why is it so hard to understand that Scotland would be paying under the 'average' which is massively inflated by Leinster paying the likes of Sexton the best part of half a million and the WRU paying to keep the vast majority of their star players in Wales?

You might not have noticed, but the Scottish model isn't based on what the WRU do in order to keep their players at home: their best earning players are playing outside Scotland and have done so for a long time. Precisely because they will earn a lot more money in England.

Once again, you're not actually dealing with facts when it comes down to your conclusion. You've got halfway towards something interesting, but then give up, rely on your own prejudicial conclusion, and start flinging out insults.

Why?

it's so hard to understand because the Esportif figures are a league average, we know the rates paid in Wales, we know that an average isn't heavily skewed by the individuals you mention and we know what the actual employers of the players - the SRU - say they spend on wages.

Sure, players like Hogg will take marquee wages elsewhere, but internationals also have to paid market rate wages to KEEP THEM IN SCOTLAND as they know they will STILL BE PICKED TO PLAY FOR SCOTLAND even if they aren't playing in Scotland. That's your own argument eating itself, right there.

So, in summary, the audited facts disprove you.

rugby racing and beer wrote:

Are they actually going to be called 'Cardiff'? Can you post some evidence for this? Likewise, can you please provide evidence (and not just your claims) that they're a standalone club and not a region?

If so, I'll happily defer to you and brand myself an 'idiot' as you seem to believe I am.

Cardiff RFC ltd annual accounts 2003-04, filed for year end May 2004.

As noted here: https://twitter.com/RugbyPhilBB/status/1316647700142723072?s=20

I don't need your confirmation, Champ. You just keep going as you are.

rugby racing and beer wrote:

Are they actually going to be called 'Cardiff'? Can you post some evidence for this? Likewise, can you please provide evidence (and not just your claims) that they're a standalone club and not a region?

If so, I'll happily defer to you and brand myself an 'idiot' as you seem to believe I am.

https://www.wru.wales/2003/04/agreement-reached/

Don't be too hard on yourself. A standalone club running a regional development pathway.

Do you want the company number?

You can start your journey here https://twitter.com/RugbyPhilBB/status/1299273044758867969?s=20

rugby racing and beer wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

rugby racing and beer wrote:

Cardiff haven't won the Challenge Cup, Phil. You're talking about a fantasy world again. Cardiff don't even compete in the Pro14/12/Celtic League.

I think you might need to find a more appropriate forum to discuss Cardiff because at the moment this is a weird conversation where you're talking about a fantasy land of their own mind and getting annoyed when other people disagree with it. It's odd and uncomfortable to read.

I'm pretty comfortable that I was in Bilbao watching my team, called Cardiff, win the Challenge Cup

If that's the best argument you have, you really shouldn't be on this forum.

Thankfully you're not in any position to decide who posts on this forum but I can see why it's uncomfortable having people point out that the Blues are a region, they are not a club called Cardiff, and have been since 2003.

Can you point me to the website of this team called Blues, please? Thanks in advance

PhilBB wrote:

rugby racing and beer wrote:

Why is it so hard to understand that Scotland would be paying under the 'average' which is massively inflated by Leinster paying the likes of Sexton the best part of half a million and the WRU paying to keep the vast majority of their star players in Wales?

You might not have noticed, but the Scottish model isn't based on what the WRU do in order to keep their players at home: their best earning players are playing outside Scotland and have done so for a long time. Precisely because they will earn a lot more money in England.

Once again, you're not actually dealing with facts when it comes down to your conclusion. You've got halfway towards something interesting, but then give up, rely on your own prejudicial conclusion, and start flinging out insults.

Why?

it's so hard to understand because the Esportif figures are a league average, we know the rates paid in Wales, we know that an average isn't heavily skewed by the individuals you mention and we know what the actual employers of the players - the SRU - say they spend on wages.

Sure, players like Hogg will take marquee wages elsewhere, but internationals also have to paid market rate wages to KEEP THEM IN SCOTLAND as they know they will STILL BE PICKED TO PLAY FOR SCOTLAND even if they aren't playing in Scotland. That's your own argument eating itself, right there.

So, in summary, the audited facts disprove you.

That's a lot of 'we knows' without any sort of evidence backing them up, though, Phil. 'We know' sounds a lot more like 'we want to think'. 'We' being 'you'.

Of course test players get paid more because they are deemed of higher value. None of that suggests that Johnny Gray and Russell were earning what the highest paid Welsh and Irish players. It might make sense that they were but there's no evidence for it. None whatsoever. You're completely making that up/wanting to believe there is a 'market' for test players as if Wales, Ireland, and Scotland have standardised their salaries (hint: they haven't) with each other. The whole point of this discussion is the discrepancy between how the unions fund their respective countries and clubs - and now you're suggesting there's a market rate? Between these countries? Waaaahhhhhhhhhhh...?!

Evidently, Hogg, Russell, Gray etc. will be earning shed loads more in England/France than in Scotland. Scotland have a model that allows this to happen because they pick players who play outside Scotland where Ireland and Wales (mostly) do not. It's probably the best model of all 3 unions as they have the right balance between centralised funding and accepting they're operating in an environment where two much wealthier competitors exist on their relative doorstep in France and England. But that's just my opinion...

The £95,000 figure you've come up with is an incredibly poor use of statistics to justify a conclusion you'd already decided on long before looking at any evidence. It's fitting figures in to alternative facts, it's not actually relevant. Do you think the Italians pay the 'average' salary? Do you think the Irish do? Or is it more fitting to consider each nation a standalone country that operates its own model...like...this...thread...has...been...discussing...

As it stands, my guess work is as good as your guess work. At least I've provided some logic behind my guess work on the basis that Scottish players have options: earn your trade in Scotland or go overseas, earn more money, but don't get looked after as well in terms of rest, being on the doorstep of Scottish selectors, staying at home/near family etc. Which is the same in all 3 of the Celtic countries. That doesn't mean that Scotland are paying the same as the Welsh or the Irish though - quite the opposite. Wales and Ireland demand that their players play for a home province/region is they want to get selected for the national side. Scotland do not make this demand. It follows that the 'pay off' for this demand is for the union to fund higher salaries for these players who could easily be playing for top English/French clubs to stay in Ireland and Wales. Scotland don't need to pay that kind of salary as they are evidently open to allowing at least some of their test players playing outside Scotland for several reasons, including only having 2 teams. That alone, the fact that the SRU do not demand selection for the national team comes with the necessity of playing for a Scottish club, is a pretty great reason as to why the SRU do not have the same player funding model as the IRFU and WRU do (which, in turn, are both significantly different from each other, which is why this is such a stupid discussion to have without nuance or reference to that fact).

Do you know what 'disprove' means, out of interest?.

I think this is pointless tbh. Brick wall stuff. There's half an interesting convo here but the lack emotional IQ and respect just makes it too hard going. You 'win' the sh1te flinging contest, Phil. I'll give you that one.

PhilBB wrote:

rugby racing and beer wrote:

Are they actually going to be called 'Cardiff'? Can you post some evidence for this? Likewise, can you please provide evidence (and not just your claims) that they're a standalone club and not a region?

If so, I'll happily defer to you and brand myself an 'idiot' as you seem to believe I am.

Cardiff RFC ltd annual accounts 2003-04, filed for year end May 2004.

As noted here: https://twitter.com/RugbyPhilBB/status/1316647700142723072?s=20

I don't need your confirmation, Champ. You just keep going as you are.

I'll ask again - can you please show me where the Cardiff Blues are rebranding to become 'Cardiff'?

rugby racing and beer wrote:

That's a lot of 'we knows' without any sort of evidence backing them up, though, Phil. 'We know' sounds a lot more like 'we want to think'. 'We' being 'you'. .

Other than the evidence of Sportif and the actual accounts of the SRU.

Yeah, I guess you're right.

If you ignore all of the evidence I provided then you're right to say there's no evidence that backs up any of the actual figures and numbers I've used from the actual reports.

Well done.

P.s. didn't the 'standalone club' status end in the mid 2000s? Hence Llanelli dropping their name from the Scarlets?

I'm not sure I can be bothered to look it up but it does seem to me that there might have been one or two developments since 2003 that you're telling porky pies about not knowing about...

rugby racing and beer wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

rugby racing and beer wrote:

Are they actually going to be called 'Cardiff'? Can you post some evidence for this? Likewise, can you please provide evidence (and not just your claims) that they're a standalone club and not a region?

If so, I'll happily defer to you and brand myself an 'idiot' as you seem to believe I am.

Cardiff RFC ltd annual accounts 2003-04, filed for year end May 2004.

As noted here: https://twitter.com/RugbyPhilBB/status/1316647700142723072?s=20

I don't need your confirmation, Champ. You just keep going as you are.

I'll ask again - can you please show me where the Cardiff Blues are rebranding to become 'Cardiff'?

You'll see, in time.

In the meantime, now that I've provided the evidence of them being a standalone club, please could you point me to the website for this team called "blues".

Thanks

PhilBB wrote:

rugby racing and beer wrote:

That's a lot of 'we knows' without any sort of evidence backing them up, though, Phil. 'We know' sounds a lot more like 'we want to think'. 'We' being 'you'. .

Other than the evidence of Sportif and the actual accounts of the SRU.

Yeah, I guess you're right.

If you ignore all of the evidence I provided then you're right to say there's no evidence that backs up any of the actual figures and numbers I've used from the actual reports.

Well done.

No, see, honestly I'm trying really hard here - but you're pointing at numbers and then making some pretty crazy claims about them that the stats don't show. You can't then not justify that and simply say 'but the evidence proves what I say'. That's borderline...I don't even know what to call it?!

rugby racing and beer wrote:P.s. didn't the 'standalone club' status end in the mid 2000s? Hence Llanelli dropping their name from the Scarlets?

I'm not sure I can be bothered to look it up but it does seem to me that there might have been one or two developments since 2003 that you're telling porky pies about not knowing about...

Nope. Nothing changed.

It seems to be that you're lying to try to (for some unknown reason) save face.

Trust me, the need to do that went a long time ago for you.

rugby racing and beer wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

rugby racing and beer wrote:

That's a lot of 'we knows' without any sort of evidence backing them up, though, Phil. 'We know' sounds a lot more like 'we want to think'. 'We' being 'you'. .

Other than the evidence of Sportif and the actual accounts of the SRU.

Yeah, I guess you're right.

If you ignore all of the evidence I provided then you're right to say there's no evidence that backs up any of the actual figures and numbers I've used from the actual reports.

Well done.

No, see, honestly I'm trying really hard here - but you're pointing at numbers and then making some pretty crazy claims about them that the stats don't show. You can't then not justify that and simply say 'but the evidence proves what I say'. That's borderline...I don't even know what to call it?!

Educational. It's borderline educational but the recipient is resistant as it has to save face.

Damn those actual audited numbers and figures. Never been your thing, figures, have they?