Is the Premiership up to the Challenge

Obviously, as we see now, the clear answer to me is No.

I keep reading more and more about the multitude of failures which led to the problems at Worcester and Wasps. Clearly the weaknesses which led to the collapse at each club were somewhat different, though the detonators were the same, the lack of accountability and involvement by the league and in fact their partner clubs is beyond disappointing. It is unprofessional and frankly it is amateur hour.

For me the silence coming from Citicorp Venture Capital is deafening. 2020-2022 has shown the underlying weakness in the Premiership and to a lesser extent Rugby in general. The organisational and financial structures and rules in the Premiership, and perhaps this is hindsight, but what we see is what we see, and it's poor. There appears to be little governance and little desire for any. These are all areas where CVC with their background should - perhaps must - throw their weight around.

As I talked to some general managers of a few American sports teams at a cross-functional medical meeting a few months ago, they were all surprised at the organisational weaknesses. The lack of transparency, in particular, was cited as a virtual guarantee for failure. Two of them speculated that further lack of investment in Rugby in general (mostly from only CVC) shows a lack of confidence in the basic business(es) of Rugby by the broader sports business community.

From all that, I think we need to do the impossible or unthinkable - forget the legacy club structure - with a few exceptions the management of most clubs are simply not up to the challenge of being modern pro sports teams. And the leadership of the Premiership as a league, and maybe other leagues but this is about the Premiership, are clearly not up to the challenge either. NBC has expressed disappointment with their investment and working relationship with the Premiership as well.

Something radical needs to happen because we all know the definition of lunacy: Doing the same thing and expecting different results. And picking and working around the fringes ain't getting it done.

So what do you all think we should do?

It's a very opportune time for the RFU to think again about central contracts. Albeit they'd pick the wrong bloody players.

Of course you also had this from the clubs about a month or so ago (Sky):

Premiership Rugby chief executive Simon Massie-Taylor is calling for stricter financial oversight to prevent more clubs following suit.

"The time is now, and we need to move quickly," he said. "Everyone is feeling a responsibility for what's happening. It's hard not to take it personally.



"We need to improve our governance and our financial regulation to ensure we get the right investors and have sight of these issues much earlier."

Wasps' administration is set to be confirmed on Monday, with the club owing £2m to HM Revenue and Customs in unpaid taxes and a further £35m in bonds.


With this season's Premiership now operating with 12 rather than 14 teams, there is concern that other clubs are also in serious financial trouble.

"We haven't been given any red flags from clubs - but until I get financial oversight, I can't give you a direct answer," Massie-Taylor said.

PRL also wants to change the governance of the league to create a more "robust structure and governance model".

The Premiership competition is currently run by Premiership Rugby (PRL) and its clubs, but is governed by the Rugby Football Union (RFU).

Any changes in governance would require the approval of all the top-flight clubs and the RFU.

Nigel Melville, who represents the Premiership clubs, said: "The time is right for a reset. I think there is a general feeling among the clubs that change is necessary to move forward.

"We must now work out what that change is and ensure it is credible and works within the system."

This line of questioning also presumably applies to the URC. Three clubs in that competition have gone bust in recent years.

There's already threads on that.

IMO the basic issue is living beyond their means and when people get fed up of chucking money away then team collapse.

The beauty of (most? of) the URC teams is they do not run deficits that need to be filled by sugar daddies

True to an extent TJ but depends on the owners. You have good and bad. Similarly if the unions decide to stop funding teams there would be similar issues.

TJ wrote:IMO the basic issue is living beyond their means and when people get fed up of chucking money away then team collapse.

The beauty of (most? of) the URC teams is they do not run deficits that need to be filled by sugar daddies

That’s largely because for most of the URC teams a much bigger share of their cost is borne by their respective unions. The last time I checked, URC attendance is still lower and the TV deals aren’t as generous, so they wouldn’t work without that support.

I also get a bit sick of people calling the English club owners sugar daddies. It’s clearly intended as a pejorative, and most of them don’t deserve it. Yes, they’re wealthy people but the majority of them have spent millions out of their own pockets supporting rugby, and the game would be far weaker without their contribution. They are hoping to eventually get a return on their investment - but with a time horizon of decades in most cases.

The Wasps and Worcester owners got it wrong - though even then they were caught out by an unprecedented global event that wrecked a lot of businesses. To put it in context, I was looking at some of Quins’ financials today, and COVID cut their revenues by over 60% from £25m to less than £10m. Pretty much every club will have experienced something similar, and whether they survived or not will have been heavily influenced by how deep their backers’ pockets were. If that backer happened to be a union, I don’t see why it would confer any moral superiority.

Really seems to me the problem goes back to the outset of professionalism.  At that time people thought they could simply apply the amateur structure and start paying the players and all would be good.  In essence starting a full blooded professional business and let the amateurs' continue to run it, mostly the way they used to.  Most business people would call that a recipe for failure.  The only surprise is this didn't happen sooner.  And, now we see, Wasps were always likely to fail or have to sell and take a beating in the process.  

I recall about 10 years ago, talking about the Premiership here, and when I mentioned the need for transparency, some people became quite upset with the idea: Invasion of privacy, need for independent businesses (which in the Premiership they are not) and all that nonsense which people say who are afraid of change when confronted by reality.  

I am not at all calling for central contracts nor most assuredly wanting teams owned by the RFU (they have their own issues).  Just centralised, strong, and binding fiscal and operating agreements for the participating teams with a strong experienced sports executive with a track record of success.  This works across all major American sports and they didn't start with billions, or even millions.  

But wait, there's more.  The minimum seating capacity, with the attendant requirements for toilets, egress, and so on, should be the bare minimum for entry into the Premiership.  We aspire to be a major sport?  Or not?  We need owners who have the acumen to make it work, the cash to make it work, and the vision how.  Can you imagine a potential investor looking at a 2000 seat ground and thinking this is a good growing concern to be involved with?  I believe one of the reasons Rugby's growth has been slow is because we lack the business acumen at the top, leadership at the top, any vision for what the Premiership should be in 5, 10, or 20 years, the same as any successful business.

That’s largely because for most of the URC teams a much bigger share of their cost is borne by their respective unions.

Point missed. URC teams cannot run deficits. they have a budget and have to live with that. Premiership clubs outspend their income which is unsustainable

Don't understand that point TJ. Well run clubs with private owners will also only spend what they want.

Hmmm -maybe I am not explaining it well.

Take the scottish teams - sru owned and get a budget which has to balance.  If the SRU only has 15 million a year that it can spend on the clubs then thats what they have to spend.  spending is equal to revenue.  clubs cannot run a deficit

In the premiership clubs can deficit spend.  Ie income of 5 million a year, but spend 10 million a year with the gap covered by what is effectivly gifts from rich benefactors.  Most clubs run a deficit.  works fine until the benefactor gets fed up then it all falls apart and clubs go bust

Teams in the URC are not reliant ( in general) on rich folk pouring money in.

Ah, get you. Just think the 'gift' as being the income of the clubs. The difference really in some of the cases is that it's 1 guy/consortium putting additional money in vs a union putting money in.

TJ wrote:

That’s largely because for most of the URC teams a much bigger share of their cost is borne by their respective unions.

Point missed.  URC teams cannot run deficits.  they have a budget and have to live with that.  Premiership clubs outspend their income which is unsustainable

So do the URC teams.

Connacht and Munster do not spend within their means for example.

And the Welsh teams rely on their union contributing 80% of wages for some of their better players.

LordDowlais wrote:

TJ wrote:

That’s largely because for most of the URC teams a much bigger share of their cost is borne by their respective unions.

Point missed.  URC teams cannot run deficits.  they have a budget and have to live with that.  Premiership clubs outspend their income which is unsustainable

So do the URC teams.

Connacht and Munster do not spend within their means for example.

How do you know this? Their budget/accounts are not published. If anything, it's evident they have had to cut their costs in recent years as their budgets have decreased with reduced gate monies.

Pot Hale wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

TJ wrote:

That’s largely because for most of the URC teams a much bigger share of their cost is borne by their respective unions.

Point missed.  URC teams cannot run deficits.  they have a budget and have to live with that.  Premiership clubs outspend their income which is unsustainable

So do the URC teams.

Connacht and Munster do not spend within their means for example.

How do you know this?   Their budget/accounts are not published.   If anything, it's evident they have had to cut their costs in recent years as their budgets have decreased with reduced gate monies.  

Well Munster have debt that they cannot pay off don't they ?

Also, you cannot tell me that Connacht can sustain their current squad/coaching team ect.... with the crowds they are getting ?

Budgets rely on how much money you can afford to spend, be that gate receipts, merchandise, tv money, rich owner spending some money, cash from unions etc. Why do people think 1 revenue is seemingly morally better than another. And why single out the Irish when the Welsh are reliant on union funding. In terms of the English clubs I don't think that a team like Saracens would be that keen on additional union money if it meant seeing less of their stars...I doubt they'd be that happy with more transparent financial overview either! From those inside the Saracens camp though they think the sun shines out of the A+++. They seem to look after their players very well, and get an awful lot of things right.

The difference is in the URC its sustainable. Expenditure does not exceed revenue. the SRU does not have year on year increasing debt

its a completely different model. Union funded yes - but that union funding is sustainable not deficit.

the premiership system works until the benefactor decides they no longer want to spend that money then the club goes bust. this cannot happen in the union funded system because the books balance

TJ wrote:The difference is in the URC its sustainable.  Expenditure does not exceed revenue.  the SRU does not have year on year increasing debt

its a completely different model.  Union funded yes - but that union funding is sustainable not deficit.

the premiership system works until the benefactor decides they no longer want to spend that money then the club goes bust.  this cannot happen in the union funded system because the books balance

Is it? For one, not all clubs are in the position of Wasps. Saracens under a different ownership structure would love to spend more, and obviously did on wages for years (in comparison to others!). We have seen the consideration in Wales to reducing teams. I'm sure there used to be another team in Scotland...! Union funding is great, and can work fantastically but as with all others it can change. If a union decides to stop the money a team is in the same pickle as if an owner walks away.

TJ wrote:The difference is in the URC its sustainable.  Expenditure does not exceed revenue.  the SRU does not have year on year increasing debt

its a completely different model.  Union funded yes - but that union funding is sustainable not deficit.

the premiership system works until the benefactor decides they no longer want to spend that money then the club goes bust.  this cannot happen in the union funded system because the books balance

How is URC sustainable when most of clubs in it have poor attendance compared to Prem? Welsh regions are surely loss making? SA? Only clubs with pretty much guaranteed support are Irish ones.
Central funded of course but still loss making?

URC clubs are not loss making.  they live within their budgets.  That budget is sustainable because it comes from guaranteed income streams not somone filling a deficit. Income to the unions and outgoings balance

TJ wrote:

The beauty of (most? of) the URC teams is they do not run deficits that need to be filled by sugar daddies

That's absolute Grade A nonsense. They all do, except for perhaps Leinster.

TJ wrote:URC clubs are not loss making.  they live within their budgets.

Absolute nonsense.

TJ wrote:URC clubs are not loss making.  they live within their budgets.  That budget is sustainable because it comes from guaranteed income streams not somone filling a deficit.  Income to the unions and outgoings balance

Ah, sorry didn't realise that the Unions funding was guaranteed. I'm off to watch the Border Reivers next weekend if anyone fancies a pint.

There are obviously big benefits in teams securing funding from the unions. Far more money to spend obviously, though doesn't necessarily mean that they will spend it wisely, or remain within budget.

I believe most URC teams spend less than premiership teams. Leinster perhaps match the premiership cap. Scots teams are well below as are Welsh and SA. Teams cannot go over their budget. there is no mechanism to do so. Scots teams get their budget and thats it

My biggest issue with this is that when times were good - when the BT money came in and then the CVC money - the attitude of certain club chairman to the RFU was "leave us alone we're managing this fine, private investment is the way forward" then when things get tough "well it's up to the government/RFU to support the professional clubs".

Privatise the profits - Socialise the losses.

Rugbyfan - its not nonsense. Scots teams have their budget to spend and that is it. They have no other way of raising money

TJ wrote:I believe most URC teams spend less than premiership teams.  Leinster perhaps match the premiership cap.  Scots teams are well below as are Welsh and SA.  Teams cannot go over their budget.  there is no mechanism to do so.  Scots teams get their budget and thats it

You're on a wind up. Seriously, stop it or you'll be reported to Admin.

TJ wrote:Rugbyfan - its not nonsense.  Scots teams have their budget to spend and that is it.  They have no other way of raising money

I believe most URC teams spend less than premiership teams - NONSENSE
Scots teams are well below as are Welsh - NONSENSE
URC clubs are not loss making - NONSENSE
URC teams is they do not run deficits that need to be filled by sugar daddies - NONSENSE
Expenditure does not exceed revenue. - NONSENSE

Well, I've read enough URC threads to know that it's very difficult to say what teams are paying. But it's interesting to think of the outcomes here. Does it matter that teams within the URC are spending what you consider to be within their budgets? There was talk very recently that there would be a reduction of the number of Welsh teams for example. So given they are reliant on the Union maintaining support does that make that system of support better than Saracens who have a fantastic rep in terms of support from their owners and have been fantastically successful in terms of trophies won but also the amount of players they have provided to England (and to that effect other international teams).

If there was a change to the Prem teams simply swapping where the money flows from would not safeguard them spending above budget or ensuring their long term survival.

LordDowlais wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

TJ wrote:

That’s largely because for most of the URC teams a much bigger share of their cost is borne by their respective unions.

Point missed.  URC teams cannot run deficits.  they have a budget and have to live with that.  Premiership clubs outspend their income which is unsustainable

So do the URC teams.

Connacht and Munster do not spend within their means for example.

How do you know this?   Their budget/accounts are not published.   If anything, it's evident they have had to cut their costs in recent years as their budgets have decreased with reduced gate monies.  

Well Munster have debt that they cannot pay off don't they ?

Also, you cannot tell me that Connacht can sustain their current squad/coaching team ect.... with the crowds they are getting ?

Connacht have one of the worst squads in the URC and their head coach was an absolute nobody before joining Connacht... Strange to think they are running up a massive debt like Munster have.

https://www.bristolbearsrugby.com/news/statement-annual-accounts-202122/

Bristol announce a turnover of £14m but overall loss of £3.3m...

Clubs just cant operate at that level and stay healthy...unless they have a billionaire whos using his pocket change to bankroll a hobby...

Edinburgh and Glasgow spend much less than the premiership cap - well known and well proven

They cannot run a deficit. Its not how they operate.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:Strange to think they are running up a massive debt like Munster have.

You best tell TJ that Munster have debts, he doesn't think that is possible.

TJ wrote:Edinburgh and Glasgow spend much less than the premiership cap - well known and well proven

They cannot run a deficit.  Its not how they operate.

The Scottish Rugby Union spent £32,000,000 on pro players and management last season. They have two domestic professional rugby teams. You are spouting absolute nonsense again and again

TJ wrote:Edinburgh and Glasgow spend much less than the premiership cap - well known and well proven

They cannot run a deficit.  Its not how they operate.

But then, so what? If the SRU decided that they would only support 1 team from next season what would happen?

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

TJ wrote:

That’s largely because for most of the URC teams a much bigger share of their cost is borne by their respective unions.

Point missed.  URC teams cannot run deficits.  they have a budget and have to live with that.  Premiership clubs outspend their income which is unsustainable

So do the URC teams.

Connacht and Munster do not spend within their means for example.

How do you know this?   Their budget/accounts are not published.   If anything, it's evident they have had to cut their costs in recent years as their budgets have decreased with reduced gate monies.  

Well Munster have debt that they cannot pay off don't they ?

Also, you cannot tell me that Connacht can sustain their current squad/coaching team ect.... with the crowds they are getting ?

Connacht have one of the worst squads in the URC and their head coach was an absolute nobody before joining Connacht... Strange to think they are running up a massive debt like Munster have.

I havent said they are running up debt.

What I will say though, is that if they were not union funded, they would be around where Zebre are at the minute.

This was Munster's situation BEFORE Covid:

The southern province, 10 years on from its initial Heineken Cup final success over Biarritz, last night forecast a cash-flow deficit of €1.95 million for the year ending this June 30 and it still has a €10 million loan with the game’s governing body in Lansdowne Road following the 2008 redevelopment of Thomond Park.

Yet it has been given considerable relief on the debt in the form of loan negotiations, including a holiday from this year’s repayment of €200,000 and €1.1m in additional grant income.

“We have held numerous meetings with the IRFU over the past four months and will continue to work closely with the IRFU with the aim of getting Munster back on a sound financial footing,” Munster’s financial controller Philip Quinn told delegates during last night’s Munster Branch AGM at Young Munster RFC in Limerick.

“We’ve made no capital repayment to the IRFU this year and our interest has been a five-figure sum,” he told the Irish Examiner. “Because of our current situation we’re working with the Union. They came to us and said we’ll deal with that as part of the long-term plan.

“We’re able to meet all of our third-party commitments and that’s the key thing for us. Any bills that come in from third parties, we can pay them. What we need to do is work with the IRFU over what we owe them.

“We were due to pay €200,000 this year but the IRFU haven’t asked us for that money. They asked us for the interest but we’re talking €50-60,000 interest, which is the deposit rate that they’d be getting on the €10 million.”

“What’s crippling Munster is that our gate income has dropped significantly. Our player costs have gone up but the IRFU have given us additional grant income to offset that increase, although they haven’t covered it in full.”

Source: Irish Examiner

They owe their sugar daddy millions.

LordDowlais wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

TJ wrote:

That’s largely because for most of the URC teams a much bigger share of their cost is borne by their respective unions.

Point missed.  URC teams cannot run deficits.  they have a budget and have to live with that.  Premiership clubs outspend their income which is unsustainable

So do the URC teams.

Connacht and Munster do not spend within their means for example.

How do you know this?   Their budget/accounts are not published.   If anything, it's evident they have had to cut their costs in recent years as their budgets have decreased with reduced gate monies.  

Well Munster have debt that they cannot pay off don't they ?

Also, you cannot tell me that Connacht can sustain their current squad/coaching team ect.... with the crowds they are getting ?

Connacht have one of the worst squads in the URC and their head coach was an absolute nobody before joining Connacht... Strange to think they are running up a massive debt like Munster have.

I havent said they are running up debt.

What I will say though, is that if they were not union funded, they would be around where Zebre are at the minute.

Connacht have much better attendances and sponsors than Zebre have though? Zebre are also Union funded btw.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

TJ wrote:

That’s largely because for most of the URC teams a much bigger share of their cost is borne by their respective unions.

Point missed.  URC teams cannot run deficits.  they have a budget and have to live with that.  Premiership clubs outspend their income which is unsustainable

So do the URC teams.

Connacht and Munster do not spend within their means for example.

How do you know this?   Their budget/accounts are not published.   If anything, it's evident they have had to cut their costs in recent years as their budgets have decreased with reduced gate monies.  

Well Munster have debt that they cannot pay off don't they ?

Also, you cannot tell me that Connacht can sustain their current squad/coaching team ect.... with the crowds they are getting ?

Connacht have one of the worst squads in the URC and their head coach was an absolute nobody before joining Connacht... Strange to think they are running up a massive debt like Munster have.

I havent said they are running up debt.

What I will say though, is that if they were not union funded, they would be around where Zebre are at the minute.

Connacht have much better attendances and sponsors than Zebre have though? Zebre are also Union funded btw.

Aren't Zebre Union funded because they went bust? Like the Dragons and one of the South African teams?

The Scottish Rugby Union spent £32,000,000 on pro players and management last season. They have two domestic professional rugby teams. You are spouting absolute nonsense again and again

Yes - and that includes academys and age grades sevens and women all management and grounds. Equates to about 10 million a year for each pro team. equates to 7 - 9 million on players each pro team ie less than the premiership

RugbyFan100 wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

TJ wrote:

That’s largely because for most of the URC teams a much bigger share of their cost is borne by their respective unions.

Point missed.  URC teams cannot run deficits.  they have a budget and have to live with that.  Premiership clubs outspend their income which is unsustainable

So do the URC teams.

Connacht and Munster do not spend within their means for example.

How do you know this?   Their budget/accounts are not published.   If anything, it's evident they have had to cut their costs in recent years as their budgets have decreased with reduced gate monies.  

Well Munster have debt that they cannot pay off don't they ?

Also, you cannot tell me that Connacht can sustain their current squad/coaching team ect.... with the crowds they are getting ?

Connacht have one of the worst squads in the URC and their head coach was an absolute nobody before joining Connacht... Strange to think they are running up a massive debt like Munster have.

I havent said they are running up debt.

What I will say though, is that if they were not union funded, they would be around where Zebre are at the minute.

Connacht have much better attendances and sponsors than Zebre have though? Zebre are also Union funded btw.

Aren't Zebre Union funded because they went bust? Like the Dragons and one of the South African teams?

I don't know, but I reckon they would be not much better than Zebre without their union subsidising them.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

TJ wrote:

That’s largely because for most of the URC teams a much bigger share of their cost is borne by their respective unions.

Point missed.  URC teams cannot run deficits.  they have a budget and have to live with that.  Premiership clubs outspend their income which is unsustainable

So do the URC teams.

Connacht and Munster do not spend within their means for example.

How do you know this?   Their budget/accounts are not published.   If anything, it's evident they have had to cut their costs in recent years as their budgets have decreased with reduced gate monies.  

Well Munster have debt that they cannot pay off don't they ?

Also, you cannot tell me that Connacht can sustain their current squad/coaching team ect.... with the crowds they are getting ?

Connacht have one of the worst squads in the URC and their head coach was an absolute nobody before joining Connacht... Strange to think they are running up a massive debt like Munster have.

I havent said they are running up debt.

What I will say though, is that if they were not union funded, they would be around where Zebre are at the minute.

Connacht have much better attendances and sponsors than Zebre have though? Zebre are also Union funded btw.

Aren't Zebre Union funded because they went bust? Like the Dragons and one of the South African teams?

Aironi went bust alright, not 100% sure on Zebre but there are constant talks of them being replaced by Padova, a club team

I believe that English clubs wouldn't go bust if the Irish didn't overspend on teams like Leinster, etc.

LordDowlais wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

TJ wrote:

That’s largely because for most of the URC teams a much bigger share of their cost is borne by their respective unions.

Point missed.  URC teams cannot run deficits.  they have a budget and have to live with that.  Premiership clubs outspend their income which is unsustainable

So do the URC teams.

Connacht and Munster do not spend within their means for example.

How do you know this?   Their budget/accounts are not published.   If anything, it's evident they have had to cut their costs in recent years as their budgets have decreased with reduced gate monies.  

Well Munster have debt that they cannot pay off don't they ?

Also, you cannot tell me that Connacht can sustain their current squad/coaching team ect.... with the crowds they are getting ?

Munster have a debt on capital expenditure on their stadium. Under their revised loan agreement, they are meeting their payments.   Their playing budget has been cut because they are not generating sufficient revenues from gates, etc.  Any foreign-capped players they bring in like Fekitoa are paid 100% through private sector funding which forms part of their budget agreed with IRFU.

Connacht can only offer rolling one-year contracts to many of their players. Those players are lower cost because they are lower quality.  They have the lowest playing budget because their gate revenues are the lowest.   Look at how many academy players they have brought in over the last few years.  

Since 2015, when IRFU reduced monies for foreign players and invested instead in the 4 academies, the four provinces have averaged 20 academy player promotions over the last five years.  That’s resulted in over 100 players now in the system out of 184 senior players total at a much lower cost/player than the 20-30 additional imported players they used to have.  
2012: 55 foreign-born players, most NIQ/NIE.  
2022: 11 foreign players NIE through being capped elsewhere.

TJ wrote:

The Scottish Rugby Union spent £32,000,000 on pro players and management last season. They have two domestic professional rugby teams. You are spouting absolute nonsense again and again

Yes - and that includes academys and age grades sevens and women all management and grounds.  Equates to about 10 million a year for each pro team. equates to 7 - 9 million on players each pro team ie less than the premiership

Oh dear. Oh dear, dear, dear.

Pot Hale wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

TJ wrote:

That’s largely because for most of the URC teams a much bigger share of their cost is borne by their respective unions.

Point missed.  URC teams cannot run deficits.  they have a budget and have to live with that.  Premiership clubs outspend their income which is unsustainable

So do the URC teams.

Connacht and Munster do not spend within their means for example.

How do you know this?   Their budget/accounts are not published.   If anything, it's evident they have had to cut their costs in recent years as their budgets have decreased with reduced gate monies.  

Well Munster have debt that they cannot pay off don't they ?

Also, you cannot tell me that Connacht can sustain their current squad/coaching team ect.... with the crowds they are getting ?

Munster have a debt on capital expenditure on their stadium. Under their revised loan agreement, they are meeting their payments.  

They went from an agreed payment of 3m Euros per year, which they couldn't afford, to 100,000 Euros a year. It will take them 60 years to pay off their stadium. Munster are a financial basket case. There is not a team in England and Wales for instance, that would be able to secure that sort of financial repayment package.

It is financial doping.

But yeah the English are the bad guys.

mikey_dragon wrote:I believe that English clubs wouldn't go bust if the Irish didn't overspend on teams like Leinster, etc.

I think the English clubs have more problems from trying to keep up with the French clubs than the Irish.

TJ wrote:Edinburgh and Glasgow spend much less than the premiership cap - well known and well proven

Last time I checked the premiership cap is set at 5 million on players plus 2 marque players - so even if you have it 2 1 million quid earners the max salary spend in the Prem will be 7 million. And lets be realistic there is probably hardly any team offering players that money aside from maybe Saracens and Bristol. So the likely hood is playing budget salaries are probably around 6million.

The Scottish I have it on good authority are spending in excess of 7 million a piece. In fact at the start of the season a lot of Premiership clubs have come out to say they can't match some of the playing budgets in the URC.

The only ones on less are the South African sides, 1 Welsh Side, 1 Italian side.