S African teams can't compete financially with Irish due to no salary cap

https://www.news24.com/sport/rugby/unitedrugbychampionship/nothing-we-could-do-no-irish-salary-cap-ultimately-contributed-to-kitshoff-ulster-move-20221112

Stormers coach has his say on the Kitshcoff deal with Ulster:

What it essentially means is different contracting rules for different sides competing in the same competition, which is something that Stormers coach John Dobson acknowledges might be teething problems of the South African move up north.

"Because of the cap in England, we can actually compete with those numbers. But when it comes to the Irish clubs or France or Japan, it just blows you out the water.

"There is no way we can compete with that kind of money, and that's quite sad. Kitsy will immerse himself there and will be superb for them, but it does sit a little bit in the gullet that we were just blown away financially by Irish rugby.

"I think the cap is a good thing because it means we have to be fiscally responsible and produce our own talent. We don't go buy Irish players because it's a very different model here and we try to produce our guys.

Anyone signing him in England would do so by sitting it outside the cap. That's if they're even playing to the cap, cough cough.

We all knew this was an issue prior to the URC starting. The Stormers and Lions in particular have a financial challenge as they don't yet have PE.

But joining the URC must be seen as a long term project. Eventually the revenue will come.

In the meantime they SA franchises need to market the URC aggressively, get more bums on seats and improve retail on merchandising

At 20 Rand to Sterling, the unlimited spend in the URC is the least of the SA franchises problems.

URC should pay the bill's but no-one should be in any doubt the real target is access to European & 6N money and access to French and English audiences that pay for it.

Recwatcher16 wrote:At 20 Rand to Sterling, the unlimited spend in the URC is the least of the SA franchises problems.

URC should pay the bill's but no-one should be in any doubt the real target is access to European & 6N money and access to French and English audiences that pay for it.

Whilst the goal will be the European champions Cup, the reality is the SA teams need to compete against the Irish teams to get into the Champions Cup. So the Rand's weakness is a problem.

Old Man wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:At 20 Rand to Sterling, the unlimited spend in the URC is the least of the SA franchises problems.

URC should pay the bill's but no-one should be in any doubt the real target is access to European & 6N money and access to French and English audiences that pay for it.

Whilst the goal will be the European champions Cup, the reality is the SA teams need to compete against the Irish teams to get into the Champions Cup. So the Rand's weakness is a problem.

Yes you are right, I didnt mean to be flippant but I think sometimes in the NH fans don't realise the economic challenges SARFU face with retaining elite players. Whilst SA have an amazing production line of players, Test matches require experienced players used to test match standards and by retaining them in your own structure (which costs money) can be managed accordingly. I don't think anyone doubts the SA franchises will be successful in the URC and if they are successful in the European cup, then the calls for 6N inclusion become harder to resist and the big TV money awaits. Some might say the URC for short term gain have let in a Trojan horse to European rugby.

The current 12 month season for SA test players is simply not sustainable.

Recwatcher16 wrote:

Old Man wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:At 20 Rand to Sterling, the unlimited spend in the URC is the least of the SA franchises problems.

URC should pay the bill's but no-one should be in any doubt the real target is access to European & 6N money and access to French and English audiences that pay for it.

Whilst the goal will be the European champions Cup, the reality is the SA teams need to compete against the Irish teams to get into the Champions Cup. So the Rand's weakness is a problem.

Yes you are right, I didnt mean to be flippant but I think sometimes in the NH fans don't realise the economic challenges SARFU face with retaining elite players. Whilst SA have an amazing production line of players, Test matches require experienced players used to test match standards and by retaining them in your own structure (which costs money) can be managed accordingly. I don't think anyone doubts the SA franchises will be successful in the URC and if they are successful in the European cup, then the calls for 6N inclusion become harder to resist and the big TV money awaits. Some might say the URC for short term gain have let in a Trojan horse to European rugby.

The current 12 month season for SA test players is simply not sustainable.

Agree, playin in the RC extents their season to all year round rugby

What do you mean can't compete?
Early stages of a new league set-up and they are already 3 of the top 6 spots. Ireland are also 3 of the top 6 spots.
They brought/bought Eben! back to SA.
They are into European fixtures now (soon to start, exciting).
They are getting used to playing/commuting north for multi-round fixture trips/tours.

This is lazy/populist journalism.

SA sides have settled into the URC quite quickly and have shown they can already compete successfully in the URC.

Recwatcher16 wrote:Some might say the URC for short term gain have let in a Trojan horse to European rugby.

The current 12 month season for SA test players is simply not sustainable.

It's not 12 months, as currently, the SA test players don't play in the early rounds of the URC to recover from the Rugby Championship. Yet another reason why the URC is an appalling competition.

You're right about the trojan horse though. SA are now here, they've already entered teams into European competition without even qualifying, and they will enter the 6N at some point. Which is probably when I'll switch off if I've not done so before.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

This is lazy/populist journalism.

.

Those are quotes from the head coach you plum.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:Some might say the URC for short term gain have let in a Trojan horse to European rugby.

The current 12 month season for SA test players is simply not sustainable.

It's not 12 months, as currently, the SA test players don't play in the early rounds of the URC to recover from the Rugby Championship. Yet another reason why the URC is an appalling competition.

You're right about the trojan horse though. SA are now here, they've already entered teams into European competition without even qualifying, and they will enter the 6N at some point. Which is probably when I'll switch off if I've not done so before.

Not entirely correct, Cheetahs were invited, the rest qualified.

Old Man wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:Some might say the URC for short term gain have let in a Trojan horse to European rugby.

The current 12 month season for SA test players is simply not sustainable.

It's not 12 months, as currently, the SA test players don't play in the early rounds of the URC to recover from the Rugby Championship. Yet another reason why the URC is an appalling competition.

You're right about the trojan horse though. SA are now here, they've already entered teams into European competition without even qualifying, and they will enter the 6N at some point. Which is probably when I'll switch off if I've not done so before.

Not entirely correct, Cheetahs were invited, the rest qualified.

Yes, thatn's right they didn't qualify.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Old Man wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:Some might say the URC for short term gain have let in a Trojan horse to European rugby.

The current 12 month season for SA test players is simply not sustainable.

It's not 12 months, as currently, the SA test players don't play in the early rounds of the URC to recover from the Rugby Championship. Yet another reason why the URC is an appalling competition.

You're right about the trojan horse though. SA are now here, they've already entered teams into European competition without even qualifying, and they will enter the 6N at some point. Which is probably when I'll switch off if I've not done so before.

Not entirely correct, Cheetahs were invited, the rest qualified.

Yes, thatn's right they didn't qualify.

They, as in Cheetahs?

The story is nonsense.

Ulster have a playing budget linked to their revenue generation that they have to stay within. Same as other Irish provinces.

They also have quota limits on the number and position of foreign capped players.

The Stormers coach or article writer don’t say that foreign players Carter, Vermuelen, Toomaga-Allen etc will be leaving thereby creating budget room to hire a player like Kitshoff.

This is not nonsense:

Kitshoff's annual salary with the Irish giants is astronomically higher - around 50% - than the Stormers could offer.

Looking at the SA squad for the game against Ireland, it seems Japan is their biggest problem. It's great to see Japan on the way to having a full time professional league, but it will mean a lot of players will be lured over there.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

This is lazy/populist journalism.

.

Those are quotes from the head coach you plum.

Strange. I thought the story was written, given oxygen and publicised by a journalist/reporter Lloyd Burnard using lazy quotes to create a populist narrative?


Mmmmm, tasty plums
%^&*(@~@:>:@:?@:{

LeinsterFan4life wrote:Looking at the SA squad for the game against Ireland, it seems Japan is their biggest problem. It's great to see Japan on the way to having a full time professional league, but it will mean a lot of players will be lured over there.

Japan already have a significant impact.

Squad that played against Wales in June

Japanese Clubs 7 players
premiership Clubs 5 players
French Clubs 7 players
Irish Clubs 1 player (Snyman and Vermeulen not available)
SA local players 23

Old Man wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:Looking at the SA squad for the game against Ireland, it seems Japan is their biggest problem. It's great to see Japan on the way to having a full time professional league, but it will mean a lot of players will be lured over there.

Japan already have a significant impact.

Squad that played against Wales in June

Japanese Clubs 7 players
premiership Clubs 5 players
French Clubs 7 players
Irish Clubs 1 player (Snyman and Vermeulen not available)
SA local players 23

I know a lot have already gone over but my point was the Japanese league is still not even fully professional, despite them rebranding the league. I think their aim is for all teams to be fully pro by the 2027 world cup. Looking at the crowds they are getting for their national side and the crowds they are already getting domestically (33,604 Tokyo Sungoliath vs. Saitama Wild Knights) we should all be worried (and delighted if you love seeing new emerging nations like me) about what their sides can pay for salaries. It's an incredibly exciting development as it could open doors in Asia, there's constant talk of a Korean franchise joining their leagues for instance.

RugbyFan100 wrote:This is not nonsense:

Kitshoff's annual salary with the Irish giants is astronomically higher - around 50% - than the Stormers could offer.

Irish giants? Ulster Rugby? The Stormers have won more titles than them in the last ten years.

The article says that the maximum that Stormers could pay - even with 3rd party assistance - is 9 million rand. It doesn't say why that is the individual limit they could pay the player.

It concludes with the assertion from the Stormers coach that having no salary cap is the reason why Ulster can pay more for a single player - complete nonsense.
Particularly when that same coach knows Ulster Rugby's contracts with Vermuelen, Toomaga-Allen, Sutherland, and Carter run until end of season and whose collective costs are "astronomically higher" than the cost of Kitshoff.

Why are Irish rugby fans so reluctant to acknowledge their huge spending power compared to other nations? You should be proud of the structure that seems right for you. You should be proud that you can wrestle top players away from their own countries with huge financial sums.

Intsead it seems to almost be denied.

RugbyFan100 wrote:Why are Irish rugby fans so reluctant to acknowledge their huge spending power compared to other nations? You should be proud of the structure that seems right for you. You should be proud that you can wrestle top players away from their own countries with huge financial sums.

Intsead it seems to almost be denied.

You know what the original post said was incorrect regarding the English on that point though. And it's not exactly if the French can't afford to splash the cash.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:Why are Irish rugby fans so reluctant to acknowledge their huge spending power compared to other nations? You should be proud of the structure that seems right for you. You should be proud that you can wrestle top players away from their own countries with huge financial sums.

Intsead it seems to almost be denied.

You know what the original post said was incorrect regarding the English on that point though. And it's not exactly if the French can't afford to splash the cash.

I'd expect the Stormers head coach to be more correct than "No 7&1/2" from 606v2 on the internet.

And yet you know he's made a bit of a fundamental error don't you? What is the upper limit in total that the English clubs can spend on their 2 Excluded Players (whose entire salary is excluded from the salary cap)? The clue is in brackets.

He says he can compete [for signing of players] with English clubs. But not Irish or Japanese clubs.

Take it up with Mr Dobson if you think he's lying. They're not my quotes.

RugbyFan100 wrote:He says he can compete [for signing of players] with English clubs. But not Irish or Japanese clubs.

Take it up with Mr Dobson if you think he's lying. They're not my quotes.

'Because of the cap in England, we can actually compete with those numbers. But when it comes to the Irish clubs or France or Japan, it just blows you out the water.'

Well let's focus on the quote he gave. 1 it's interesting that you choose your title to focus in on the Irish. 2. from that quote why would you say he thinks he can compete with English clubs? I read it that he thinks there is an upper limit that those clubs have to play to, wouldn't you? And yet we both know that the English clubs have no limits to how much they can pay 2 members of their squad. I'm not saying he's lying, as much as he just doesn't know the rules around the salary cap.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:He says he can compete [for signing of players] with English clubs. But not Irish or Japanese clubs.

Take it up with Mr Dobson if you think he's lying. They're not my quotes.

'Because of the cap in England, we can actually compete with those numbers. But when it comes to the Irish clubs or France or Japan, it just blows you out the water.'

Well let's focus on the quote he gave. 1 it's interesting that you choose your title to focus in on the Irish. 2. from that quote why would you say he thinks he can compete with English clubs? I read it that he thinks there is an upper limit that those clubs have to play to, wouldn't you? And yet we both know that the English clubs have no limits to how much they can pay 2 members of their squad. I'm not saying he's lying, as much as he just doesn't know the rules around the salary cap.

1. The title of the actual article, literally includes the words "No Irish salary cap".

2. Because he says "Because of the cap in England, we can actually compete with those numbers".

Fair enough on the first point and that plays to the comment above on the lazy nature of the original article, if you choose to just copy that it's up to you, but clearly the quotes are wider.

On the second point you've not answered the questions really. Do you think he's correct in saying the salary cap means that the English clubs can't compete for individual players with high wages? I really can't figure out how the rules around that would stop an English club from outbidding the likes of Ulster if they so chose to: can you explain how it does please, as I just don't know.

RugbyFan100 wrote:Why are Irish rugby fans so reluctant to acknowledge their huge spending power compared to other nations? You should be proud of the structure that seems right for you. You should be proud that you can wrestle top players away from their own countries with huge financial sums.

Intsead it seems to almost be denied.

I've never denied Leinster's spending power. We are one of the biggest spenders in world rugby and rightfully so.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:Why are Irish rugby fans so reluctant to acknowledge their huge spending power compared to other nations? You should be proud of the structure that seems right for you. You should be proud that you can wrestle top players away from their own countries with huge financial sums.

Intsead it seems to almost be denied.

I've never denied Leinster's spending power. We are one of the biggest spenders in world rugby and rightfully so.

Thank you. Glad to see it acknowledged.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
On the second point you've not answered the questions really. Do you think he's correct in saying the salary cap means that the English clubs can't compete for individual players with high wages? I really can't figure out how the rules around that would stop an English club from outbidding the likes of Ulster if they so chose to: can you explain how it does please, as I just don't know.

I believe he means that for players like Kitschoff, English clubs aren't in for them. They spend their money elsewhere. When was the last time a big name test player from a South African team signed directly for an English club? (I genuinely don't know the answer, but Irish teams have signed at least three SA World Cup Winners in recent seasons). That is key. If the English salary cap was £15,000,000 - then maybe Sarries and Bristol would have a few South African world cup winners.

Due to the cap, it seems to me that English teams prefer to spend their marquee money on English players or home nations players as they won't be missing until October every season. There are no rules against English clubs signing SA players (nobody has claimed this, so I'm unsure why you've brought that up). The mentioning of the Cap is in regards to squad spend being half of what the top Irish teams spend. So the focus is elsewhere.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
On the second point you've not answered the questions really. Do you think he's correct in saying the salary cap means that the English clubs can't compete for individual players with high wages? I really can't figure out how the rules around that would stop an English club from outbidding the likes of Ulster if they so chose to: can you explain how it does please, as I just don't know.

I believe he means that for players like Kitschoff, English clubs aren't in for them. They spend their money elsewhere. When was the last time a big name test player from a South African team signed directly for an English club? (I genuinely don't know the answer, but Irish teams have signed at least three SA World Cup Winners in recent seasons). That is key. If the English salary cap was £15,000,000 - then maybe Sarries and Bristol would have a few South African world cup winners.

Due to the cap, it seems to me that English teams prefer to spend their marquee money on English players or home nations players as they won't be missing until October every season. There are no rules against English clubs signing SA players (nobody has claimed this, so I'm unsure why you've brought that up). The mentioning of the Cap is in regards to squad spend being half of what the top Irish teams spend. So the focus is elsewhere.

Yeah I think he means something unrelated to the salary cap too.

I didn't bring up that the English clubs have a rule against signing SA players, have you misread something?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
On the second point you've not answered the questions really. Do you think he's correct in saying the salary cap means that the English clubs can't compete for individual players with high wages? I really can't figure out how the rules around that would stop an English club from outbidding the likes of Ulster if they so chose to: can you explain how it does please, as I just don't know.

I believe he means that for players like Kitschoff, English clubs aren't in for them. They spend their money elsewhere. When was the last time a big name test player from a South African team signed directly for an English club? (I genuinely don't know the answer, but Irish teams have signed at least three SA World Cup Winners in recent seasons). That is key. If the English salary cap was £15,000,000 - then maybe Sarries and Bristol would have a few South African world cup winners.

Due to the cap, it seems to me that English teams prefer to spend their marquee money on English players or home nations players as they won't be missing until October every season. There are no rules against English clubs signing SA players (nobody has claimed this, so I'm unsure why you've brought that up). The mentioning of the Cap is in regards to squad spend being half of what the top Irish teams spend. So the focus is elsewhere.

Yeah I think he means something unrelated to the salary cap too.

I didn't bring up that the English clubs have a rule against signing SA players, have you misread something?

Yeah, the bit when you brought up the rules of the salary cap:

"I really can't figure out how the rules around that would stop an English club from outbidding the likes of Ulster"

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
On the second point you've not answered the questions really. Do you think he's correct in saying the salary cap means that the English clubs can't compete for individual players with high wages? I really can't figure out how the rules around that would stop an English club from outbidding the likes of Ulster if they so chose to: can you explain how it does please, as I just don't know.

I believe he means that for players like Kitschoff, English clubs aren't in for them. They spend their money elsewhere. When was the last time a big name test player from a South African team signed directly for an English club? (I genuinely don't know the answer, but Irish teams have signed at least three SA World Cup Winners in recent seasons). That is key. If the English salary cap was £15,000,000 - then maybe Sarries and Bristol would have a few South African world cup winners.

Due to the cap, it seems to me that English teams prefer to spend their marquee money on English players or home nations players as they won't be missing until October every season. There are no rules against English clubs signing SA players (nobody has claimed this, so I'm unsure why you've brought that up). The mentioning of the Cap is in regards to squad spend being half of what the top Irish teams spend. So the focus is elsewhere.

Yeah I think he means something unrelated to the salary cap too.

I didn't bring up that the English clubs have a rule against signing SA players, have you misread something?

Yeah, the bit when you brought up the rules of the salary cap:

"I really can't figure out how the rules around that would stop an English club from outbidding the likes of Ulster"

That's just relating to this particular transfer, hence 'the likes of' in there. As pointed out the 2 excluded players, albeit moving to 1 mean that there are no rules there that would mean an English club couldn't outbid anyone should they choose and plan to do so.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
On the second point you've not answered the questions really. Do you think he's correct in saying the salary cap means that the English clubs can't compete for individual players with high wages? I really can't figure out how the rules around that would stop an English club from outbidding the likes of Ulster if they so chose to: can you explain how it does please, as I just don't know.

I believe he means that for players like Kitschoff, English clubs aren't in for them. They spend their money elsewhere. When was the last time a big name test player from a South African team signed directly for an English club? (I genuinely don't know the answer, but Irish teams have signed at least three SA World Cup Winners in recent seasons). That is key. If the English salary cap was £15,000,000 - then maybe Sarries and Bristol would have a few South African world cup winners.

Due to the cap, it seems to me that English teams prefer to spend their marquee money on English players or home nations players as they won't be missing until October every season. There are no rules against English clubs signing SA players (nobody has claimed this, so I'm unsure why you've brought that up). The mentioning of the Cap is in regards to squad spend being half of what the top Irish teams spend. So the focus is elsewhere.

Yeah I think he means something unrelated to the salary cap too.

I didn't bring up that the English clubs have a rule against signing SA players, have you misread something?

Yeah, the bit when you brought up the rules of the salary cap:

"I really can't figure out how the rules around that would stop an English club from outbidding the likes of Ulster"

That's just relating to this particular transfer, hence 'the likes of' in there. As pointed out the 2 excluded players, albeit moving to 1 mean that there are no rules there that would mean an English club couldn't outbid anyone should they choose and plan to do so.  

No rules no. Just the financial constraints as per the very nature and remit of a cap.

So just a little bit of misunderstanding of that from Dobson which is fair enough as he's not needing to be on top of that sort of thing. South Africa are always going to be on the back foot on a financial basis, unless the entire UK economy goes down the toilet.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So just a little bit of misunderstanding of that from Dobson which is fair enough as he's not needing to be on top of that sort of thing.

Don't think so, no.

Would the URC benefit from introducing a salary cap ?

I suppose it would even the playing field, so in my opinion. Yes.

The whole point of SA moving North is that they no longer subsidise NZ Super rugby under SANZAR and access to Sterling/Euros in European competitions and ultimately 6N money. This will mean they will have ample financial resources to retain elite players, but that hasn't happened yet and will take time but with CVC in the background, it will happen.

NZ have made a huge strategic error and will ultimately simply have to settle for the occasional three match tour from the Springboks, per the rest of the NH sides - like the old days.

As far as URC goes, when SA start to retain test players plus second tier players currently in France or England, - (the Paul Willemse' s of SA rugby), the days of some URC sides only playing second string teams will be over. I would be surprised if the SA franchises don't dominate the URC over time. That will probably finish Welsh regional rugby.

Recwatcher16 wrote:That will probably finish Welsh regional rugby.

Why ?

Recwatcher16 wrote:

NZ have made a huge strategic error and will ultimately simply have to settle for the occasional three match tour from the Springboks, per the rest of the NH sides - like the old days.

Even with their SilverLake deal?

Fair play LD, if you believe welsh sides will remain competitive against fully rostered SA sides - you might be right, but not sure I see that happening, over the next few seasons and the implications for attendances and participation.

The Silver Lake deal is precisely because they have lost the SANZAR revenue and have had to sell a percentage of their asset but I was also thinking in terms of competitive matches.

When it comes to NZ, the NZRU stated they wouldn't come to Twickenham unless they got a bigger share of the £10M receipts that the RFU get from the game.
NZ are here this weekend, guess who has blinked....

Recwatcher16 wrote:When it comes to NZ, the NZRU stated they wouldn't come to Twickenham unless they got a bigger share of the £10M receipts that the RFU get from the game.
NZ are here this weekend, guess who has blinked....

The RFU might blink first in the period leading up the RWC, as Eddie will want a game against the AB's for the competition starts, but after 2023 they don't need one - and can fill Twickenham playing anyone.

Irish Londoner wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:When it comes to NZ, the NZRU stated they wouldn't come to Twickenham unless they got a bigger share of the £10M receipts that the RFU get from the game.
NZ are here this weekend, guess who has blinked....

The RFU might blink first in the period leading up the RWC, as Eddie will want a game against the AB's for the competition starts, but after 2023 they don't need one - and can fill Twickenham playing anyone.

Somewhat strange then that NZ are playing SA at Twickenham, sw London, next summer as a RWC 'warm up' or is it just a money making exercise.....

Recwatcher16 wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:When it comes to NZ, the NZRU stated they wouldn't come to Twickenham unless they got a bigger share of the £10M receipts that the RFU get from the game.
NZ are here this weekend, guess who has blinked....

The RFU might blink first in the period leading up the RWC, as Eddie will want a game against the AB's for the competition starts, but after 2023 they don't need one - and can fill Twickenham playing anyone.

Somewhat strange then that NZ are playing SA at Twickenham, sw London, next summer as a RWC 'warm up' or is it just a money making exercise.....

Check the ticket prices it's a money making exercise ! Good earned for the RFU as well, percentage of the ticket sales, executive boxes and the food and drink concessions.

Recwatcher16 wrote:Fair play LD, if you believe welsh sides will remain competitive against fully rostered SA sides - you might be right, but not sure I see that happening, over the next few seasons and the implications for attendances and participation.

The Silver Lake deal is precisely because they have lost the SANZAR revenue and have had to sell a percentage of their asset but I was also thinking in terms of competitive matches.

I never said they would did I ? What a strange thing to say.

But you have said it would probably finish Welsh regional rugby, I am just asking why ?

I want to know why you are assuming this would be the end for us. Heaven forbid it actually forces the hands of the regions and the WRU to start acting more professionally. It might be the making of Welsh rugby.

To be clear the 443,00 is Kitshoff's salary at Ulster not the salary Stormers were prepared to pay.
The article is so slanted it is little more than a deliberate distorted lie.

Next year he will be one of only two non Irish players in the squad (possible thirds player on a low wage as a TH squad filler)
Two foreign players is well below the vast majority of NH teams.

As others have said lazy journalism - Ulster were not prepared to match Coetzee's offer from a South African side.
For that player the South African side outbid the Irish one.
Teams make priorities and decide where they want to prioritise their cash.

There is no real difference between Ulster and Munster total salary packages than the top of the Premiership.
Connacht are nearer the bottom of Premiership salary levels

Only Leinster compete with the majority of Top 14 sides and that is in large part the very high number of Central Contracts.
As we all know there is no formal Salary cap in Ireland.
Irish salaries are determined by what is affordable on a Province by Province basis rather than an imposed cap.
If the Premiership teams spent what is economically affordable them maybe teams would not be going to the wall.

geoff999rugby wrote:

Next year he will be one of only two non Irish players in the squad (possible thirds player on a low wage as a TH squad filler)
Two foreign players is well below the vast majority of NH teams.

What has the place of birth of a player got to do with anything?

As others have said lazy journalism - Ulster were not prepared to match Coetzee's offer from a South African side.
For that player the South African side outbid the Irish one.
Teams make priorities and decide where they want to prioritise their cash.

Coetze is old now isn't he? Are you sure they just wanted to put resources into other atreas of the squad? I.e. - Nucifora'd again?

There is no real difference between Ulster and Munster total salary packages than the top of the Premiership.

The IRFU just spent €54,219,837 on pro player and management costs in the last year. That is alot of money falling into a black hole if Munster and Ulster are only costing €7m per year each

Only Leinster compete with the majority of Top 14 sides and that is in large part the very high number of Central Contracts.

It's not just because of central contracts. It's because they have 50 - 60 odd players on good money.

Irish salaries are determined by what is affordable on a Province by Province basis rather than an imposed cap.

So pray tell, how are Munster being funded up to and beyond the English premeirship cap, when they couldn't afford to pay their stadium refurbishment back and still owe the IRFU over €6m ?  How is Munster's squad "affordable" if they owe so much money?

If the Premiership teams spent what is economically affordable them maybe teams would not be going to the wall.

What does economically affordable mean? If you mean no benefactors throwing money at them, then there would be no professional domestic rugby in England.

REMINDER: The English league is the only league to drastically reduce their salary cap to curb spending.

DOUBLE REMINDER: The URC is the only pro league in Europe that doesn't have a salaray cap and therefore has a massive uneven playing field leading to huge disparity between teams at the bottom and teams at the top

"50-60 players on good money" don't be rediculous now, academy lads are on as low as 3k a year. Most players coming out of the academy would be on very low salaries.