Worcester-Sixways, LI and Wasps, WTF?

First topic message reminder :

And no, I don’t mean “welcome to Facebook” .
I logged onto the forum a few days ago to learn more about what has happened to these clubs expecting to a thread on this. But I had to write one instead. (Should I have used the title “who cares”?)

After listening to an OTB interview with an English reporter on the subject I gather that no staff working at Worcester have been paid for months, including those on low wages who will have missed mortgage payments and since their finances/ accounts still haven’t been properly kept they can’t yet be sold so there’s no hope of a white knight rescuing them. Their finances were completely mismanaged. Wasps appear to be in a better position and although they’ll be relegated will continue to exist. They are struggling to pay a tax bill and a debt incurred when they moved to London. (I thought this sounded weird, why move to a crazy expensive city packed with other sports teams?)

Below is an interesting article from the BBC on this topic.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/63053674
What shocked me about this article is the following: “ One club owner, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told BBC Sport: "I don't think there's one owner who'd tell you the model is working. It's completely flawed." Bristol Bears owner Stephen Lansdown recently said there is "just not enough money in the game,” If this is true, why is it true?

In the meantime , other clubs in the prem have voted to increase the salary cap at a time when many clubs are struggling with debts. This all sounds seriously worrying and suggests that clubs in the prem will soon have bigger financial problems in the future trying to pay even more in wages. Which suggests that more will start to go bust. And they voted to increase the salary cap? Am I missing something here or is this as dysfunctional as it sounds? And how can there not be enough money in the game in England? Rugby fans from other countries also regularly say how great the competition is, fans are absolutely showing up to see it, the competition is healthy, tv contracts are in place, cvc threw money at it recently. In theory things should be great. So….Welcome to Facebook?

(By the way this thread isn’t an invitation to slam the premiership or gloat. We are all rugby fans first and foremost and this could just as easily happen to your own club.)

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Your quotes phil.

'There's three clubs on the verge of going bust in Wales and we've only got four to start with.

The Prem is thriving, but pro rugby won't work in Worcester and it won't work when a business loses £8m in a year because it can't open its hotel.'

Those are words. Where's the link to provide the context?

You think the context will change. Did you really mean to agree with Leinster that the prem isn't thriving?

I've no idea but what I do know is that nobody is willing to provide the context.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:
So what if Glaws run a tight ship? They could be playing in a 10 team league with no promotion or relegation in a country the size of England... That's not good enough. You're unwillingness to recognise their struggles is strange to me.

I have no unwillingness to recognise a struggle but a struggle isn't a crisis.

CVC want the smaller league in order to avoid the clashes with the international game but we've been there before with how the international game places the domestic game in the shadow, is a direct competitor and how it will, eventually, consume its supply chain to the point where its own product will be harmed. So, to underline the point I've made many times before, I understand why the domestic game struggles and won't reach its potential - hence I completely refute your final sentence above as it has no basis in fact or evidence.

Well it does because you claimed the league was "thriving" just a couple of months before two teams went bust and numerous others on the brink.

The international game is the only side that actually makes money. I mean is club rugby actually sustainable? 40-50 man squads on sizable salaries in teams that can barely attract 10k spectators through the gates. There's a reason why clubs need to be either union owned or have a sugar daddy. Are 100% fan owned clubs even possible in union playing in a top tier league, like it is in soccer?

Football ain't exactly a great show of financial responsibility.

Football exists outside the premiership. Look at a club like SC Frieburg, 100% fan owned and currently thrid in the Bundesliga. I know soccer is a completely different animal but still interesting.

There's always an exception eh. Think Exeter are the club that goes the other way in the prem. Too many teams from all sports chase the glory by pumping money in. And some overstretch.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Your quotes phil.

'There's three clubs on the verge of going bust in Wales and we've only got four to start with.

The Prem is thriving, but pro rugby won't work in Worcester and it won't work when a business loses £8m in a year because it can't open its hotel.'

Those are words. Where's the link to provide the context?

You think the context will change. Did you really mean to agree with Leinster that the prem isn't thriving?

I've no idea but what I do know is that nobody is willing to provide the context.

You wrote it so if you want to explain what you really meant of course you're free to. Personally I understood that quote to mean that you think the prem was thriving in August of this year.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Your quotes phil.

'There's three clubs on the verge of going bust in Wales and we've only got four to start with.

The Prem is thriving, but pro rugby won't work in Worcester and it won't work when a business loses £8m in a year because it can't open its hotel.'

Those are words. Where's the link to provide the context?

You think the context will change. Did you really mean to agree with Leinster that the prem isn't thriving?

I've no idea but what I do know is that nobody is willing to provide the context.

You wrote it so if you want to explain what you really meant of course you're free to. Personally I understood that quote to mean that you think the prem was thriving in August of this year.

Oh, so it was from August..... well, isn't that an important bit of context.

All words have context. All I can see here is that you're unwilling to provide the context.

PhilBB wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:
Well it does because you claimed the league was "thriving" just a couple of months before two teams went bust and numerous others on the brink.

The international game is the only side that actually makes money. I mean is club rugby actually sustainably? 50 man squads on sizable salaries in teams that can barely attract 10k spectators through the gates. There's a reason why clubs need to be either union owned or have a sugar daddy. Are 100% fan owned clubs even possible in union playing in a top tier league, like it is in soccer?

I've previously asked you to justify your claim that I noted it was 'thriving'. If I've missed your justification (the link, with context), apologies. If not, please provide it.

The International game, as noted before, is designed to ensure it's the only side that actually makes money.

Sugar daddies are fans, of course.

Clubs carry 50 men squads because they second their players to a third party for large parts of the season - the international game. With fewer internationals there could be a finance shift so that the international game is no longer a competitor, so the finance model changes.

That's why the issue of "club rugby can't wash its own face" is multi faceted

Perhaps that was RugbyFan100 who said that, apologies if it was. All sugar daddies aren't fans, you know that. Will less internationals mean more fans through the gates and more clubs being formed in your opinion?

Edit: looks like it was Phil.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
There's always an exception eh. Think Exeter are the club that goes the other way in the prem. Too many teams from all sports chase the glory by pumping money in. And some overstretch.

Exeter Rugby Club Ltd has a balance sheet value of -£5.7m in their last set of accounts

Exeter Rugby Group Ltd has a balance sheet value of £25.1m

Accountants, right?

LeinsterFan4life wrote:
Perhaps that was RugbyFan100 who said that, apologies if it was. All sugar daddies aren't fans, you know that. Will less internationals mean more fans through the gates and more clubs being formed in your opinion?

Hang on, which sugar daddies aren't fans?

Fewer internationals will mean more income for the domestic game through all major forms - broadcast and sponsorship being the prime money makers. Gate receipts are further down that list.

More clubs being formed? I'm not sure of the relevance of that. Where do you think these clubs would be formed? Or are you asking would more turn professional? Apologies for the confusion.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Your quotes phil.

'There's three clubs on the verge of going bust in Wales and we've only got four to start with.

The Prem is thriving, but pro rugby won't work in Worcester and it won't work when a business loses £8m in a year because it can't open its hotel.'

Those are words. Where's the link to provide the context?

You think the context will change. Did you really mean to agree with Leinster that the prem isn't thriving?

I've no idea but what I do know is that nobody is willing to provide the context.

You wrote it so if you want to explain what you really meant of course you're free to. Personally I understood that quote to mean that you think the prem was thriving in August of this year.

Oh, so it was from August..... well, isn't that an important bit of context.

All words have context. All I can see here is that you're unwilling to provide the context.

Well I did say a couple of months back... Own it Phil, we all get things wrong don't worry.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Your quotes phil.

'There's three clubs on the verge of going bust in Wales and we've only got four to start with.

The Prem is thriving, but pro rugby won't work in Worcester and it won't work when a business loses £8m in a year because it can't open its hotel.'

Those are words. Where's the link to provide the context?

You think the context will change. Did you really mean to agree with Leinster that the prem isn't thriving?

I've no idea but what I do know is that nobody is willing to provide the context.

You wrote it so if you want to explain what you really meant of course you're free to. Personally I understood that quote to mean that you think the prem was thriving in August of this year.

Oh, so it was from August..... well, isn't that an important bit of context.

All words have context. All I can see here is that you're unwilling to provide the context.

Why do you expect me to provide context for your words. Have you reevaluated now given 2 clubs have gone?

PhilBB wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:
Perhaps that was RugbyFan100 who said that, apologies if it was. All sugar daddies aren't fans, you know that. Will less internationals mean more fans through the gates and more clubs being formed in your opinion?

Hang on, which sugar daddies aren't fans?

Fewer internationals will mean more income for the domestic game through all major forms - broadcast and sponsorship being the prime money makers. Gate receipts are further down that list.

More clubs being formed? I'm not sure of the relevance of that. Where do you think these clubs would be formed? Or are you asking would more turn professional? Apologies for the confusion.

Well here's a quick one, Adam Gilchrist. Owner of the now defunct La Giltinis and Austin Gilgronis franchises. Or are we going to pretend that an aussie who bought two franchises in America to promote his new drinks (see the clubs names) was a fan of the clubs.

PhilBB wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:
Perhaps that was RugbyFan100 who said that, apologies if it was. All sugar daddies aren't fans, you know that. Will less internationals mean more fans through the gates and more clubs being formed in your opinion?

Hang on, which sugar daddies aren't fans?

Fewer internationals will mean more income for the domestic game through all major forms - broadcast and sponsorship being the prime money makers. Gate receipts are further down that list.

More clubs being formed? I'm not sure of the relevance of that. Where do you think these clubs would be formed? Or are you asking would more turn professional? Apologies for the confusion.

Would more turn professional yes, sorry for the confusion, I'm genuinely curious, as I really don't know how to grow the club game. The majority of new clubs I see being formed come from high performance centers based around the national sides (see the likes of Georgia, Uruguay, Portugal, Chile etc.)

LeinsterFan4life wrote:
Well here's a quick one, Adam Gilchrist. Owner of the now defunct La Giltinis and Austin Gilgronis franchises. Or are we going to pretend that an aussie who bought two franchises in America to promote his new drinks (see the clubs names) was a fan of the clubs.

Trying to get a bit of commercial upside out of a deal is one thing, but owning a sports club is almost always lossmaking for the owner. If you wanted to advertise a brand, you could take the same money and spend it on Superbowl ad spots and get a better return. Owners try to get synergies between the things they own, but there are very few sports franchises outside of top tier US sports and the 20-30 biggest soccer clubs in the world that you could buy expecting to make money. They get bought by fans who hope to defray some of the losses by supporting their other businesses.

(If you want a good insight into what's involved, Welcome To Wrexham has a surprising amount of business detail interspersed with Ryan Reynolds being charming and Rob McElhenney being faux pissed off at him. They hope to break even if they can get Wrexham into the higher leagues but are under no illusions that they're going to be running up some significant debts to get there.)

Poorfour wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:
Well here's a quick one, Adam Gilchrist. Owner of the now defunct La Giltinis and Austin Gilgronis franchises. Or are we going to pretend that an aussie who bought two franchises in America to promote his new drinks (see the clubs names) was a fan of the clubs.

Trying to get a bit of commercial upside out of a deal is one thing, but owning a sports club is almost always lossmaking for the owner. If you wanted to advertise a brand, you could take the same money and spend it on Superbowl ad spots and get a better return. Owners try to get synergies between the things they own, but there are very few sports franchises outside of top tier US sports and the 20-30 biggest soccer clubs in the world that you could buy expecting to make money. They get bought by fans who hope to defray some of the losses by supporting their other businesses.

(If you want a good insight into what's involved, Welcome To Wrexham has a surprising amount of business detail interspersed with Ryan Reynolds being charming and Rob McElhenney being faux pissed off at him. They hope to break even if they can get Wrexham into the higher leagues but are under no illusions that they're going to be running up some significant debts to get there.)

There's also tax right offs, money laundering, status in society etc etc. Saying every sugar daddy is a fan is simply not true.

Quote from Simon Jordan on Talksport the other day.
"How do you make a small fortune in sport? Start with a big fortune"
Probably the same for lots of sports.

Maine man wrote:Quote from Simon Jordan on Talksport the other day.
"How do you make a small fortune in sport? Start with a big fortune"
Probably the same for lots of sports.

I heard that, was when they were chatting to Tyson Fury who said he wanted to buy Morcombe.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:
Well I did say a couple of months back... Own it Phil, we all get things wrong don't worry.

If you presented me with the link, I may be able to own it

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Why do you expect me to provide context for your words. Have you reevaluated now given 2 clubs have gone?

If you don't provide context, you're taking the words out of context. Your call.

Have I reevaluated? Yes

Opinions should change when facts change.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:
Well here's a quick one, Adam Gilchrist. Owner of the now defunct La Giltinis and Austin Gilgronis franchises. Or are we going to pretend that an aussie who bought two franchises in America to promote his new drinks (see the clubs names) was a fan of the clubs.

You're right. I wasn't thinking of a MLR franchise in this discussion.

That you could only mention a MLR franchise, rather than a club, rather underlines my point.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:
Would more turn professional yes, sorry for the confusion, I'm genuinely curious, as I really don't know how to grow the club game. The majority of new clubs I see being formed come from high performance centers based around the national sides (see the likes of Georgia, Uruguay, Portugal, Chile etc.)

I think you're viewing this conversation through a different prism as my point is about Britain and Ireland.

However, I'll point you to the example of France where more clubs are turning professional now they have their club structure sorted.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:
There's also tax right offs, money laundering, status in society etc etc. Saying every sugar daddy is a fan is simply not true.

Can you name me one in Europe who isn't a fan?

Maine man wrote:Quote from Simon Jordan on Talksport the other day.
"How do you make a small fortune in sport? Start with a big fortune"
Probably the same for lots of sports.

Eddie Jordan once said "I made a million pounds from Formula One, the the problem was that it cost me five million pounds to do it"....

You have to be a real fan in order to be prepared to lose those kinds of sums of money.

Yeah the Saudi s have been fans of Newcastle since they saw Malcolm Mcdonald score 5 for England.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah the Saudi s have been fans of Newcastle since they saw Malcolm Mcdonald score 5 for England.

They're huge fans of the Premeir League though aren't they. They would have bought any one of a number of clubs. Because the product is so valuable.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah the Saudi s have been fans of Newcastle since they saw Malcolm Mcdonald score 5 for England.

They're huge fans of the Premeir League though aren't they. They would have bought any one of a number of clubs. Because the product is so valuable.

They knew the value of the Premier League because of their own streaming service

But what does that have to do with owners of clubs in rugby?!!?

Lol. Sure.

There are a myriad of reasons people get involved in sport. Not everyone is a fan. Thought that would just be obvious.

"There's a reason why clubs need to be either union owned or have a sugar daddy"

That was the sentence that set the context on the discussion of sugar daddies. It's clearly solely applicable to rugby.........

https://www.606v2.com/t70843p250-worcester-and-wasps-wtf#4060820

"Well it does because you claimed the league was "thriving" just a couple of months before two teams went bust and numerous others on the brink.

The international game is the only side that actually makes money. I mean is club rugby actually sustainable? 40-50 man squads on sizable salaries in teams that can barely attract 10k spectators through the gates. There's a reason why clubs need to be either union owned or have a sugar daddy. Are 100% fan owned clubs even possible in union playing in a top tier league, like it is in soccer?"

Ahem.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Why do you expect me to provide context for your words. Have you reevaluated now given 2 clubs have gone?

If you don't provide context, you're taking the words out of context. Your call.

Have I reevaluated? Yes

Opinions should change when facts change.

I didn't take anything out of context though did I. You just couldn't remember your own comments. So the league is no longer thriving. Good to know. Not much has really changed since August though bar the fact you thought the money men would sweep in and save those 2 clubs.

PhilBB wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah the Saudi s have been fans of Newcastle since they saw Malcolm Mcdonald score 5 for England.

They're huge fans of the Premeir League though aren't they. They would have bought any one of a number of clubs. Because the product is so valuable.

They knew the value of the Premier League because of their own streaming service

But what does that have to do with owners of clubs in rugby?!!?

That value being presentation rather than money. The point of using a wide range of examples across sports is to merely highlight human reasoning and nature. People will always do things for a variety of reasons. And to add to that there are some great owners who pump a shed load of their cash in. And there's some crummy ones, who still put their own cash in...and then their are people out to milk profit etc.

PhilBB wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:
Well here's a quick one, Adam Gilchrist. Owner of the now defunct La Giltinis and Austin Gilgronis franchises. Or are we going to pretend that an aussie who bought two franchises in America to promote his new drinks (see the clubs names) was a fan of the clubs.

You're right. I wasn't thinking of a MLR franchise in this discussion.

That you could only mention a MLR franchise, rather than a club, rather underlines my point.

Proving that not ALL sugar daddies are fans underlines your point? Well with logic like that no wonder you never lose an argument.

PhilBB wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:
Would more turn professional yes, sorry for the confusion, I'm genuinely curious, as I really don't know how to grow the club game. The majority of new clubs I see being formed come from high performance centers based around the national sides (see the likes of Georgia, Uruguay, Portugal, Chile etc.)

I think you're viewing this conversation through a different prism as my point is about Britain and Ireland.

However, I'll point you to the example of France where more clubs are turning professional now they have their club structure sorted.

True on France, their pyramid is impressive. How come the international game hasn't stopped them or maybe it has?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

I didn't take anything out of context though did I. You just couldn't remember your own comments. So the league is no longer thriving. Good to know. Not much has really changed since August though bar the fact you thought the money men would sweep in and save those 2 clubs.

"If you don't provide context, you're taking the words out of context"

And still you don't provide the context, the proof, the evidence.

Not much has changed since August. Brilliant.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:
Proving that not ALL sugar daddies are fans underlines your point? Well with logic like that no wonder you never lose an argument.

As I noted, I wasn't thinking of MLR. I thought the context of the discussion was, at the furthest stretch, European rugby.

So any chance of naming one in Europe?

LeinsterFan4life wrote:
True on France, their pyramid is impressive. How come the international game hasn't stopped them or maybe it has?

Because the game is governed by the Government and because the clubs run the leagues.

The international game in France doesn't generate the same proportion of income because the Union doesn't own a major stadium.

PhilBB wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:
But what fascinates me is how a very few seem absolutely obsessed with blaming the Irish for the ills of Welsh regional rugby.
And the minority who seem to take more pleasure in an Irish teams defeat than a Welsh teams victory.

Just to make a comment on the above: I don't recognise that in anybody I know or anybody whose output I've read online.

What about the HIA Phill? Do you recognise that at all?

No, but I assumed you could link to the twitter accounts of those who made those claims.

The other stuff you wrote is complete fabrication to ruin the debate.

You don't recognise your own Twitter? Shocking

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

I didn't take anything out of context though did I. You just couldn't remember your own comments. So the league is no longer thriving. Good to know. Not much has really changed since August though bar the fact you thought the money men would sweep in and save those 2 clubs.

"If you don't provide context, you're taking the words out of context"

And still you don't provide the context, the proof, the evidence.

Not much has changed since August. Brilliant.

Provided your full quote...and you know the context as you wrote it Mr Sealion.

PhilBB wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:
Proving that not ALL sugar daddies are fans underlines your point? Well with logic like that no wonder you never lose an argument.

As I noted, I wasn't thinking of MLR. I thought the context of the discussion was, at the furthest stretch, European rugby.

So any chance of naming one in Europe?

Why would you think that? So was your point that every sugar daddy in Europe is a fan? I gave the MLR example because I've been following the league since it's inception and have a general idea on how the clubs are run and who the good owners and bad ones are. I don't follow the prem and France, so unable to give an example. Was Richardson, an Irishman, a wasps fan? Or did he see an opportunity, with the stadium, casinos, hotels etc? I genuinely don't know.

According to this interview he is an Irish rugby fan
https://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/champions-cup/the-irish-millionaire-at-the-heart-of-wasps-revival-30933178.html

"He's a huge Irish rugby fan." "He never misses an Irish game, if Leinster and Munster are playing, he's watching them."

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:
Perhaps that was RugbyFan100 who said that, apologies if it was. All sugar daddies aren't fans, you know that. Will less internationals mean more fans through the gates and more clubs being formed in your opinion?

Hang on, which sugar daddies aren't fans?

Fewer internationals will mean more income for the domestic game through all major forms - broadcast and sponsorship being the prime money makers. Gate receipts are further down that list.

More clubs being formed? I'm not sure of the relevance of that. Where do you think these clubs would be formed? Or are you asking would more turn professional? Apologies for the confusion.

Well here's a quick one, Adam Gilchrist. Owner of the now defunct La Giltinis and Austin Gilgronis franchises. Or are we going to pretend that an aussie who bought two franchises in America to promote his new drinks (see the clubs names) was a fan of the clubs.

Apologies but I am not sure I followed some of the recent posts.  Over here no one really seems to get that guy.  Regardless, he is supposed to be a Rugby fan. but I would not think he would be much of an asset with the established leagues.  I have seen him on tv and my initial reaction is always run, don't walk away from anything to do with this guy.  

I can't see anyone or groups magically appearing on the horizon to buy up a couple of Premiership who have managed their way out of business (with a push from Covid and Putin).  Perhaps partnerships with existing sports, such as the NFL, is the way to go.  In conversations with American pro athletes, coaches, and management, especially NFL, so many ask about Rugby because they all know I am involved.  My funny accent, speaking a horrible American dialect, kind of gives that bit away.

I am working in one of the training complexes today and one of the defensive linemen (310 lbs. 6' 2", ran the 40yd in 5.1 seconds, regular starter) thinks we are all nuts.  But, like quite a few NFLers, he is fascinated by Rugby, and he, in particular, always wants to watch highlights with me when I am in the complex.  He also thinks Rugby players are crazy playing for relative peanuts.   He is very smart - he thinks the best Rugby club wears black, green, and gold....

doctor_grey wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:
Perhaps that was RugbyFan100 who said that, apologies if it was. All sugar daddies aren't fans, you know that. Will less internationals mean more fans through the gates and more clubs being formed in your opinion?

Hang on, which sugar daddies aren't fans?

Fewer internationals will mean more income for the domestic game through all major forms - broadcast and sponsorship being the prime money makers. Gate receipts are further down that list.

More clubs being formed? I'm not sure of the relevance of that. Where do you think these clubs would be formed? Or are you asking would more turn professional? Apologies for the confusion.

Well here's a quick one, Adam Gilchrist. Owner of the now defunct La Giltinis and Austin Gilgronis franchises. Or are we going to pretend that an aussie who bought two franchises in America to promote his new drinks (see the clubs names) was a fan of the clubs.

Apologies but I am not sure I followed some of the recent posts.  Over here no one really seems to get that guy.  Regardless, he is supposed to be a Rugby fan. but I would not think he would be much of an asset with the established leagues.  I have seen him on tv and my initial reaction is always run, don't walk away from anything to do with this guy.  

I can't see anyone or groups magically appearing on the horizon to buy up a couple of Premiership who have managed their way out of business (with a push from Covid and Putin).  Perhaps partnerships with existing sports, such as the NFL, is the way to go.  In conversations with American pro athletes, coaches, and management, especially NFL, so many ask about Rugby because they all know I am involved.  My funny accent, speaking a horrible American dialect, kind of gives that bit away.

I am working in one of the training complexes today and one of the defensive linemen (310 lbs. 6' 2", ran the 40yd in 5.1 seconds, regular starter) thinks we are all nuts.  But, like quite a few NFLers, he is fascinated by Rugby, and he, in particular, always wants to watch highlights with me when I am in the complex.  He also thinks Rugby players are crazy playing for relative peanuts.   He is very smart - he thinks the best Rugby club wears black, green, and gold....

MLR fans are delighted to see the back of him, he put the league into disrepute with the ridiculous names he gave to his teams. He also got both of them kicked out of the playoffs for salary cap breaches last season. I feel sorry for the fans but the league will be better without him. The MLR is fascinating due to the market and the athletes they have, like the one you've referenced above. I do worry as attendances are very low, world rugby could really do with this league thriving.

Diamond is leading a consortium to save Warriors. Ex Tigers CEO Simon Cohen is onboard with local businessmen providing the financial backing.

Amazing news for the fans if it comes to pass.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:
True on France, their pyramid is impressive. How come the international game hasn't stopped them or maybe it has?

The big difference in France, as I understand it, is that the stadia are almost all municipally owned and the clubs pay relatively little for tenancy and upkeep. Without that capital and operating cost burden, club outlay is much lower and mostly staff costs. If anything, the problem for France has been getting the international game working when the style of play at club level is so forward dominated.

Poorfour wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:
True on France, their pyramid is impressive. How come the international game hasn't stopped them or maybe it has?

The big difference in France, as I understand it, is that the stadia are almost all municipally owned and the clubs pay relatively little for tenancy and upkeep. Without that capital and operating cost burden, club outlay is much lower and mostly staff costs. If anything, the problem for France has been getting the international game working when the style of play at club level is so forward dominated.

The TV deal in France dwarfs everything in the global club game and it hasn't happened in England, yet. Personal view is that there needs to be greater FTA tv as the current rugby style is leading to lots of attractive tries at pace and excitement, which will always generate interest.
If the Unions continue to insist on 12 Tests a season, which for test players also means an additional 5/6 weeks out of the club 40 ish week season. Then something has to give for fewer games and hence smaller squads and costs. The English and french will always prioritise their leagues and rightly. So if a European competition is to survive, it should move to a straight knockout competition, FA cup style.
Covid has undoubtedly stress tested the English club model and some have suffered accordingly, with as Poorfour points out the additional capital expenditure through loans on balance sheets for stadia acquisitions or improvements, which the French clubs haven't had to consider.
The club owners in the English game historically are fans of the game who have all spent large sums of money in the set up costs of these clubs with very little if no returns. The Worcester duo are an exception.
The revenue model is fine and generally well managed - the capital model has taken too long and for a variety of reason is still on going- my own club being a case in point.

The club game has undoubtedly been put back a few years by the pandemic but the on going projections and potential remain positive.

Interesting sound bite from Gloucester boss that salary bill was £1million per month when Covid hit. Then needed 25% pay cuts. The figures are huge.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:Interesting sound bite from Gloucester boss that salary bill was £1million per month when Covid hit. Then needed 25% pay cuts. The figures are huge.

Covid buggered things for a lot of clubs and Glaws will have been a great example of that. They've got a 16k capacity stadium with an average of 13k. You remove the income of those thirteen thousand people's tickets, drinks, food etc every other week and it's going to hammer the bottom line. Tigers estimated something like £500k to £700k was lost per home game without fans. It wasn't a fun time for clubs.

Has there been any news on when the P Shares issue will be decided by Premier Rugby. I'm assuming the RFU's recent comments regarding league size will impact their thinking.

Also if CVC is a 27% stake holder in the shares now, I wonder how they will vote as I would imagine they get a say as well. If they reduce the amount of clubs with P Shares is it safe to assume that the remaining clubs will essentially increase their own funding or if they still remain with 13 clubs with P Shares just provide these funds to the new teams replacing them? Going to be hard to see how Wasps and Worcester ever get them back if either becomes the case.

Im hearing Mike Ashley has bought the Ricoh for £17m...

I wouldn't be surprised if Ashley had been buying up a proportion of the bonds for a while. They were absurdly cheap at one point and still fairly cheap for a good while outside that period. If he already owns a decent chunk of the bonds then that £17m won't actually cost him £17m at all.

king_carlos wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if Ashley had been buying up a proportion of the bonds for a while. They were absurdly cheap at one point and still fairly cheap for a good while outside that period. If he already owns a decent chunk of the bonds then that £17m won't actually cost him £17m at all.

How does that work?

It looks like Ashley has bought the lease from the administrators.

The company in which there were bonds is bust.