Merger of URC & English Prem considered

First topic message reminder :

Tuesday 8 October 2024

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/two-choices-tabled-urc-english-30094854

A merger of the United Rugby Championship and English Premiership split into two divisions with promotion and relegation is being considered.

Both competitions are looking at ways of increasing the value of future broadcasting deals with neither the URC or the Gallagher Premiership achieving the level of commercial success it wants. Talks are taking place between the relevant powerbrokers from both competitions, along with private equity firm CVC, who own a 27% share on the Premiership and 28% of the URC.

One option being seriously considered is merging both leagues into two divisions with promotion and relegation. All sides would play each other home and away with play-offs at the end of the season.

The other option is an Anglo-Welsh conference sitting within the URC where Wales' four professional clubs - Cardiff, Dragons, Ospreys and Scarlets - would essentially play English sides throughout the season until the end of season play-offs. One potential sticking point here could be the number of Welsh clubs, with some English sides favouring two and others three.

WalesOnline understands there is a difference of opinion among the English clubs with some preferring the Anglo-Welsh conference and others wanting regular fixtures against heavyweight Irish provinces, while there are also those who would prefer not to have Italian or South African sides involved. Wales' clubs would prefer an Anglo-Welsh conference because it would cut out travelling, reignite historic rivalries and potentially lead to improved attendances while there is also a salary cap in England which would increase the chances of the Welsh sides being competitive.

The stadium brings them hugh profits from non rugby activities there as well which probably counts for quite a bit of that im guessing. But that probably comes with higher staff fees to support the events etc.....

But more concerning is they went from 60 odd million on the books to 40 million in one season. They can't keep losing money at that rate....

Its also a big turnaround from a few years back when the scots clubs were poor relations in the old league and we looked enviously at the welsh and irish levels of funding. Even just a couple of years ago there was parity .

I wonder if Glasgow and Edinburgh even get equal shares. Glasgow look like they have a much stronger squad all round so I wonder if the SRU have intentionally boosted one of the sides to get Leinster style success, which early doors does seem to be unfolding on the field.....

Remotely and semi-regularly attending Saints board meetings and I have never heard anyone mention it is a good thing for teams to go under.  When there were the initial indications Wasps and Warriors could fail, the discussions were about whether anyone could be found to help keep them afloat.  

When London Irish were about to go under, there were discussions about players, but that was when it was already clear what was going to happen.  But it was obvious no one wanted it.  

Dan Biggar had suggested and tried to recruit Fin Smith to Saints management before Worcester failed.  

I can't speak for other clubs, but I guess most clubs were the same. Again, I don't know about other clubs, but I would expect a club like Tigers would be about the same.

TJ wrote:Have all those tops up gone in Wales?  that effectively means a huge cut for the Scarlets and Ospreys does it not?  2 years ago they were outspending the Scots teams!  Or like england are contracts agreed earlier disregarded?

What does the welsh union do with the money?  We have the same revenue streams

Yes there’s been a huge cut and lots of players retiring and leaving. Some internationals have left or retired because they were being offered embarrassingly low contracts (it was reported that one ex Lion was offered something like 30k to re-sign). The regions have also been asked to trim squad size too and fill gaps with the next tier and academy, which they should do anyway but which is bound to affect quality.

Little bit off topic. But I don't really consider salary caps to be equal all that important.

Every country has a different setup in whether the National Union has ownership in their clubs or there is private ownership etc.

The SA teams have a salary cap of 3.5£ Which is the highest it has ever been. They seem to be competitive with that even though it is likely some of the lowest in the league. As long as the clubs can afford to pay those salaries, then fine. They just must not fall into the trap of trying to outbid higher funded teams.

Welshmushroom wrote:I wonder if Glasgow and Edinburgh even get equal shares.  Glasgow look like they have a much stronger squad all round so I wonder if the SRU have intentionally boosted one of the sides to get Leinster style success, which early doors does seem to be unfolding on the field.....

I don't think so - certainly a year or two ago Glasgow were favoured but it was supposed to be evened out again.

They just must not fall into the trap of trying to outbid higher funded teams.

This to me is the key.  Lower funded teams have to offer something else apart from money and if they get outbid for a player then they have to just wave them goodbye.  Its a bit frustrating but take Bill Mata as an example - we gave him his first real pro contract ie taking a bit of a gamble.  It paid off but once he proved his value he got offered more money elsewhere so had to follow it.

the other aspect is if you overpay for a star then you are left with not enough cash for depth in your squad.  You will note that Glasgow and Edinburgh do not do this.  We just do not try to sign superstars instead looking for youngsters on the upside of their career or gambling on guys that are dissatisfied at their current club or out of contract.

TJ wrote:

They just must not fall into the trap of trying to outbid higher funded teams.

This to me is the key.  Lower funded teams have to offer something else apart from money and if they get outbid for a player then they have to just wave them goodbye.  Its a bit frustrating but take Bill Mata as an example - we gave him his first real pro contract ie taking a bit of a gamble.  It paid off but once he proved his value he got offered more money elsewhere so had to follow it.

the other aspect is if you overpay for a star then you are left with not enough cash for depth in your squad.  You will note that Glasgow and Edinburgh do not do this.  We just do not try to sign superstars instead looking for youngsters on the upside of their career or gambling on guys that are dissatisfied at their current club or out of contract.

The Lions are very much in the same boat. Johan Ackerman developed a squad that made the Super Rugby final three years in a row only a few years after the Lions was dropped out of Super Rugby in 2012/13, he took a bunch of unknown players and in a few years they were top SA franchise and then the players left for greener pastures. Has been a trend for the most part of the pro era.

I expect the Lions will continue to see an exodus as they don't have the money the other SA teams do.

Here is a solution to keep everyone happy / make everyone equally unhappy that gives the most folk most of what they want. The welsh can go and join the English league, the URC takes 4 top teams from the English league to make space for the Welsh and to keep the league numbers the same ( Bath, Bristol, Tigers And Sale ( not Sarries tho ever - we don't want them )

* this post is a joke *

TJ wrote:Here is a solution to keep everyone happy / make everyone equally unhappy that gives the most folk most of what they want.  The welsh can go and join the English league, the URC takes 4 top teams from the English league to make space for the Welsh and to keep the league numbers the same ( Bath, Bristol, Tigers And Sale ( not Sarries tho ever - we don't want them   )

* this post is a joke *

Wow, you're rolling a grenade into the Prem fanbase picking that top 4

I don't think any fans want a change in competition and most would probably just like a period of enjoying the rugby on the pitch.

Its the top 4 at the moment excluding Sarries

TJ wrote:Its the top 4 at the moment excluding Sarries

Four games doesn't a season make. Even if I find it funny that the reigning champions are being missed out.

If we are having 4 from the PRL it would have to be Gloucester Bath Bristol and Exeter, just for the comedy of watching the loud Anglo Welsh contingent loose there poop

Old Man wrote:Little bit off topic. But I don't really consider salary caps to be equal all that important.

Every country has a different setup in whether the National Union has ownership in their clubs or there is private ownership etc.

The SA teams have a salary cap of 3.5£ Which is the highest it has ever been. They seem to be competitive with that even though it is likely some of the lowest in the league. As long as the clubs can afford to pay those salaries, then fine. They just must not fall into the trap of trying to outbid higher funded teams.

If that's the cap then how are Bulls and Sharks affording the top SA players? Both have a host of them. Are the players also paid privately via investors, with all the additional sponsorship money to top up their standard wage? Is it case of, for some, "I've earned my money in France/Japan, now I want to go home."?

I do not know the specifics here but not all players do everything for money. Some other factors may keep them where they are
Increased chance of international games
Not wanting to leave their home country
Better player welfare
Loyalty
Being comfortable where they are
Being a big fish in a small pond

SA teams have a lower salary cap, but cost of living is a lot lower, that salary can still afford a nice big fancy house/farm etc.

The Oakwell report said that the SA salary cap was worth around €7.5m in purchasing power.

Agree with Kingshu, the caps mean different things in different countries

Ireland and France have tax benefits for players that the UK lacks for example.

Generally speaking, a merger would come with problems and would require an immense amount of willpower (and screwing over the Italians and South Africans) to work. I doubt we will see it as much as it might make sense geographically.

I would also point out that the SRU are in financial bother though we have some runway before it really hurts. Murrayfield needs an expensive update, Glasgow needs a new stadium and we are losing money annually without sitting on a gigantic pile of cash. We binned a player pathway, the Super Six, to preserve money and are now relying on an expanded "A" side programme to get games for our youngsters. Some sensible money making is being pushed (additional November international vs Fiji, an "A" game vs Chile, Glasgow derby game at Hampden (50k+ capacity) instead of Scostoun (8k)) along with the cuts and we have next to no debt so it could be worse.

Old Man wrote:

TJ wrote:

They just must not fall into the trap of trying to outbid higher funded teams.

This to me is the key.  Lower funded teams have to offer something else apart from money and if they get outbid for a player then they have to just wave them goodbye.  Its a bit frustrating but take Bill Mata as an example - we gave him his first real pro contract ie taking a bit of a gamble.  It paid off but once he proved his value he got offered more money elsewhere so had to follow it.

the other aspect is if you overpay for a star then you are left with not enough cash for depth in your squad.  You will note that Glasgow and Edinburgh do not do this.  We just do not try to sign superstars instead looking for youngsters on the upside of their career or gambling on guys that are dissatisfied at their current club or out of contract.

The Lions are very much in the same boat. Johan Ackerman developed a squad that made the Super Rugby final three years in a row only a few years after the Lions was dropped out of Super Rugby in 2012/13, he took a bunch of unknown players and in a few years they were top SA franchise and then the players left for greener pastures. Has been a trend for the most part of the pro era.

I expect the Lions will continue to see an exodus as they don't have the money the other SA teams do.

I may have suggested this before, but one clear way to deal with the different business and compensation processes in the constituent countries is to focus on, and balance, net total compensation per player.  Obviously an accountants dream, but can and does already work:  
Establish the net compensation accounting rules for Rugby, then a net comp total for every team and drill it down to each player.  A player's compensation may be derived from national unions and/or hybrid contracts and/or club coffers, and so on, as long as all are measured in standardised units of measure, whether €, £, R, etc., as long as the same units are used.  Personal appearances and adverts, if not indicated in the playing contract (and therefore not technically considered part of that contract for accounting purposes) are exempt.  Then utilise a commonly used currency standardisation calculation from global public sources, such as Citibank (CVC), PwC, and so on.  The additional compensation for International players are calculated the same way, but raises a player's compensation package.  And, finally, a COLA adjustment for each team in a manner large companies have been using for decades, to auto correct comp from a lower cost-of-living area to a higher one.  

I know this is a lot, but would tell us true compensation and importantly how teams are spending on a comparative basis to ensure more of a level compensation field.  Ultimately it will enable a more - not perfect - balanced maximum compensation by team and by league.  To be clear, this is not remotely new.  Major League Baseball and the National Basketball Association have this with a team in Canada, but with both actively exploring expansion to other countries (MLB in Mexico most likely the soonest).  The National Hockey League is far ahead of the other leagues with about 25% of the teams based in Canada with the rest in America.  It can be done and is not breaking new ground, except with some details.    

To me, by far the most significant obstacles will be teams/leagues/supporters being concerned (ie. fear) about how/scope/whether they are over, or otherwise in violation of the new ceiling (let's avoid calling it a cap).  Also if/when a deeper dive into all clubs finances by the agreed neutral party, will reveal other forms of violation of either the current or new rules.  I would expect >75% of the clubs to have something, so most everyone is not squeaky clean, but would give a three year amnesty for everyone to get under the new rules with no sanctions unless something is grievous.  And I further expect most violations to be of a minor variety.  
The other main obstacle is fear of an unknown future, frequently under the guise of privacy (or other tosh like that).  We are no longer in the 1990s or 2000s.  Time to move forward with the times or get passed over (as in run over), and the sport weakens further, and we screw our sport in the name of......what?    

By the way, I expect no one will agree with me.  But I think by the end of the decade, if the planet lasts that long intact, much of this will have been implemented.  

If you have lasted this far with me, I will leave you with this comment which is not at all original with me:  The NFL owners, almost all billionaires, have been characterised as Capitalists who, in the NFL, act like Socialists.  This is not intended to be extreme or political, but the point is on the money.

Personal appearances and adverts, if not indicated in the playing contract (and therefore not technically considered part of that contract for accounting purposes) are exempt

Major flaw easily exploited. Want an Itoje but no room in your cap? - then simply give him a million pounds a year in cash for personal appearances / advertising from your sponser.

TJ wrote:

Personal appearances and adverts, if not indicated in the playing contract (and therefore not technically considered part of that contract for accounting purposes) are exempt

Major flaw easily exploited.  Want an Itoje but no room in your cap? - then simply give him a million pounds a year in cash for personal appearances / advertising from your sponser.

Not at all.  Each of the American sport contracts describe the what-is and what-is-not allowed.  Almost all of this is clearly exposed during the independent audits, currently performed by PwC.  I should have mentioned the independent audits which are a requirement for this, and for me should be part of every sports team.  Almost no one tries to skirt their player contracts in this manner since it is kiss-simple for an accountant to identify.  This is what the people who perform the auditing tell me.  And, of course, every contract has to be approved for compliance by a team including the league, player's association, and their auditors.  

By the way, most personal appearances are not included in contracts, per league rules, and are therefore not considered part of the contract. As you said, the most obvious place to cheat.  Anomalous payments to players are investigated deeply.  The genesis of this was/is an attempt to prevent organised crime (ie. wagering) from potentially causing a player from doing something which could influence the outcome, score, or winning margin of a game.  This works in each of the major American sports where revenues are in the billons, and can work for little Rugby.

I am not in favour of any system that dictates a ceiling for compensation from one country to the next.

Every nation would have an already established system that may have already been implimented since the start of the proffesional era. Depending on whether Home Unions have a shareholding or ownership part in their clubs they will have varying philosophies of how players are compensated.

Therefor it is nigh on impossible to get "equality" between clubs in a club competition where clubs from different countries compete.

Even when all things aren't created equal within a particular country.

I love that the Lions are the Cinderella team in South Africa, they face different challenges than the Bulls or Sharks.

I also don't mind that a team like Leinster seems to be "favoured" financially ahead of the Irish provinces, it makes for different narratives from each team.

The one thing I think should not be allowed is sugar daddies pumping money in. All teams should be solvent ie expenditure only as much as income - no "loans" that allow them to spend beyond their means. This is why the english clubs have gone bust.

TJ wrote:The one thing I think should not be allowed is sugar daddies pumping money in.  All teams should be solvent ie expenditure only as much as income - no "loans" that allow them to spend beyond their means.  This is why the english clubs have gone bust.

My question here is if "no loans" or excess spending is allowed outside of income levels why is private ownership be required. You would have thought at that point the Unions would run them alone given nobody outside the game is putting anything into the clubs/regions.

TJ wrote:The one thing I think should not be allowed is sugar daddies pumping money in.  All teams should be solvent ie expenditure only as much as income - no "loans" that allow them to spend beyond their means.  This is why the english clubs have gone bust.

Surely that must include loans/monies from unions too then? E.g. for things like stadia, etc? Unions are the biggest ‘sugar daddies’ out there, often with government backing and support.

the question is do you want stable teams that do not go bust on the whim of one individual or do you want teams to outspend their income thus remaining reliant on rich individuals pumping money in?

Unless this is stopped then more teams will go bust.
The idea that its the same with union funded teams shows a fundamental misunderstanding.

TJ wrote:the question is do you want stable teams that do not go bust on the whim of one individual or do you want teams to outspend their income thus remaining reliant on rich individuals pumping money in?  

Unless this is stopped then more teams will go bust.
The idea that its the same with union funded teams shows a fundamental misunderstanding.  

Well in fairness you weren’t clear on the basis for your opposition to ‘sugar daddies’, TJ. On the above point, you make a valid point re stability. But in doing so you also highlight how it’s not a level playing field when some teams are reliant on a single private owner and others are owned by a whole union or national governing body. If Dragons, for example, have a problem with their pitch then they need to raise, say, £1m to get it fixed either through a bank loan or a loan from one of their investors. And this then impacts their other business such as affording player salaries, etc. But how else are they meant to do it??? But I guess it’s a normal cost and risk with running a business that you have to take into account and set aside reserves, etc. On the other hand, if Glasgow for example had a problem with their pitch I would imagine the SRU would stump up a load of cash and Glasgow can go about their business without a care in the world! Look at Munster recently not able to afford to pay their stadium loan. Not a problem! The union will splash the cash. Very nice.

People talk about solvency but I very much doubt that Glasgow and Edinburgh generate enough money on their own through tickets and merchandise to fully cover their costs (stadium, squad salaries, travel, coaching, physio, gym facilities, insurance, strength and conditioning, etc). So they’re probably being topped up. Same same, surely??

All clubs get monies from the unions - a variety of ways but all are supported from the unions

Al Kellock mentioned in rugbypass that we need to work together as a sport to compete with other sports rather than solve localised problems. I totally agree! Perhaps a way to progress a new league would be to rotate season to season? URC one season then the B&I league the next while SA teams return to super rugby for a season?

bsando wrote:Al Kellock mentioned in rugbypass that we need to work together as a sport to compete with other sports rather than solve localised problems. I totally agree! Perhaps a way to progress a new league would be to rotate season to season? URC one season then the B&I league the next while SA teams return to super rugby for a season?

I suspect if you look at that from a broadcaster's perspective, that's not a format that's easy to sell to an audience, and the main aim of the move is to create a package that will attract bigger tv revenues.

I think there's potential mileage in an NFL-style conference model, where the teams are divided into manageable groups who play each other every season, but there is a rotation of out-of-conference fixtures that provide enough games in the schedule while adding some variety.

Given France are unlikely to be a part of this, I imagine the ERCC would continue in some form - though again the draw might focus on pairing teams with teams from outside their conference.

We need to face the reality that regardless of a british irish league, a URC or even French top 14, there is a limit to what revenue per match broadcasting rights bring.

When I was still seriously following the ins and outs of rugby the stark reality that test match rugby subsidises club rugby and that club rugby cannot stand on its own financially I would expect remains like that today.

I come back to what I said earlier in this thread.

Rugby is trying too hard to be a sport than can pay million pounds to players. It cannot, rugby is not football and never will be.

Look at what Japanese league is paying players and look at the tv revenue, it isn't even close.

The owners spend heavily on those clubs.

If the Europeans want SA out of the URC to placate the English, so be it. Just make the decision quickly, no benefit in us spending time building rivalries and relationships if there is no future.

I just hope to hell we don't partner up with NZ and OZ again, nor anyone else.

Just a last thought. Conferences kill tournaments, however you want to set up any league, it has to be head to head, everyone playes everyone.

If for example England joins the URC woth all ten teams, and URC is now 26 teams, then you play a single round robin and finals.

It might already be a couple of weeks too long. But that is the only solution to provide credibility to a league.

That is something I could follow.

Even as the URC stands now, I would much prefer a single round robin for fifteen weeks and then finals.

There is alreadppy too much rugby. An 18 week URC would bring in less money, but players will play a handfull less matches, revenue per match will likely remain similar to now.

Problem here is CVC don't care two hoots about player welfare and will drain every bit of blood out of them.

Old Man wrote:We need to face the reality that regardless of a british irish league, a URC or even French top 14, there is a limit to what revenue per match broadcasting rights bring.

When I was still seriously following the ins and outs of rugby the stark reality that test match rugby subsidises club rugby and that club rugby cannot stand on its own financially I would expect remains like that today.

I come back to what I said earlier in this thread.

Rugby is trying too hard to be a sport than can pay million pounds to players. It cannot, rugby is not football and never will be.

Look at what Japanese league is paying players and look at the tv revenue, it isn't even close.

The owners spend heavily on those clubs.

If the Europeans want SA out of the URC to placate the English, so be it. Just make the decision quickly, no benefit in us spending time building rivalries and relationships if there is no future.

I just hope to hell we don't partner up with NZ and OZ again, nor anyone else.

Just a last thought. Conferences kill tournaments, however you want to set up any league, it has to be head to head, everyone playes everyone.

If for example England joins the URC woth all ten teams, and URC is now 26 teams, then you play a single round robin and finals.

It might already be a couple of weeks too long. But that is the only solution to provide credibility to a league.

That is something I could follow.

Even as the URC stands now, I would much prefer a single round robin for fifteen weeks and then finals.

There is alreadppy too much rugby. An 18 week URC would bring in less money, but players will play a handfull less matches, revenue per match will likely remain similar to now.

Problem here is CVC don't care two hoots about player welfare and will drain every bit of blood out of them.

Sensible comments although not sure I understand what Unions want to placate the English or even if the English want to be placated ! There is no English fan appetite for games with no away fans or having to catch a plane for a league match.
Agree if SA don't get access to the 6N in the next round of tournament negotiations, it will be interesting if SA go it alone or NZ come cap in hand and let SA keep is own tv revenues to rejoin Super rugby which is undoubtedly where SA rugby finances have picked up in recent times.
I don't think the current 12 month season is sustainable for the top players.

The French league which has been built bottom up doesn't depend on Union financing and is an outlier compared to most top down Union controlled structures.

Lastly, CVC are private equity and in my own professional experience are financial vampires. They cut costs to increase profit but rarely increase real inherent value beyond market prices.

Recwatcher16 wrote:

Old Man wrote:We need to face the reality that regardless of a british irish league, a URC or even French top 14, there is a limit to what revenue per match broadcasting rights bring.

When I was still seriously following the ins and outs of rugby the stark reality that test match rugby subsidises club rugby and that club rugby cannot stand on its own financially I would expect remains like that today.

I come back to what I said earlier in this thread.

Rugby is trying too hard to be a sport than can pay million pounds to players. It cannot, rugby is not football and never will be.

Look at what Japanese league is paying players and look at the tv revenue, it isn't even close.

The owners spend heavily on those clubs.

If the Europeans want SA out of the URC to placate the English, so be it. Just make the decision quickly, no benefit in us spending time building rivalries and relationships if there is no future.

I just hope to hell we don't partner up with NZ and OZ again, nor anyone else.

Just a last thought. Conferences kill tournaments, however you want to set up any league, it has to be head to head, everyone playes everyone.

If for example England joins the URC woth all ten teams, and URC is now 26 teams, then you play a single round robin and finals.

It might already be a couple of weeks too long. But that is the only solution to provide credibility to a league.

That is something I could follow.

Even as the URC stands now, I would much prefer a single round robin for fifteen weeks and then finals.

There is alreadppy too much rugby. An 18 week URC would bring in less money, but players will play a handfull less matches, revenue per match will likely remain similar to now.

Problem here is CVC don't care two hoots about player welfare and will drain every bit of blood out of them.

Sensible comments although not sure I understand what Unions want to placate the English or even if the English want to be placated ! There is no English fan appetite for games with no away fans or having to catch a plane for a league match.
Agree if SA don't get access to the 6N in the next round of tournament negotiations, it will be interesting if SA go it alone or NZ come cap in hand and let SA keep is own tv revenues to rejoin Super rugby which is undoubtedly where SA rugby finances have picked up in recent times.
I don't think the current 12 month season is sustainable for the top players.

The French league which has been built bottom up doesn't depend on Union financing and is an outlier compared to most top down Union controlled structures.

Lastly, CVC are private equity and in my own professional experience are financial vampires. They cut costs to increase profit but rarely increase real inherent value beyond market prices.

To clarify, I don't want SA to join the six nations. I prefer our trst scheduling to align with the SH where we play the RC and then play European teams at home in June and then away in November.

I do think the test windows and club windows can be better aligned though. Considering test rugby brings them most money per match it makes sense to me that for rugby to be more sustainable the focus should be to ensure test rugby is the focus so all players must be available to represent their nations (thinking mostly of France here)

We don't need more tests per year, but we do need club rugby to be more and better managed. Haven't done the math, but if you consider one global test window of say four months it provides national teams enough time to align their players, get the mojo up and then play their tweleve or so test matches.

That leaves seven months for R&R and club rugby.

If the Europeans want SA out of the URC to placate the English, so be it. Just make the decision quickly, no benefit in us spending time building rivalries and relationships if there is no future.

We don't. the only folk promoting this idea are the english as they look to the successful URC and their failing league and want to take us over. Its not going to happen ( I hope)

TJ wrote:

If the Europeans want SA out of the URC to placate the English, so be it. Just make the decision quickly, no benefit in us spending time building rivalries and relationships if there is no future.

We don't.  the only folk promoting this idea are the english as they look to the successful URC and their failing league and want to take us over.  Its not going to happen ( I hope)

Which English?  I haven't seen that or heard that before now, so wondering who is saying that?

Which English? This whole discussion started with an article in the Telegraph saying that at a meeting the English clubs (PRL) were considering options to increase revenue, the favoured one being a B&I league.

Intotouch wrote:Which English? This whole discussion started with an article in the Telegraph saying that at a meeting the English clubs (PRL) were considering options to increase revenue, the favoured one being a B&I league.

That included kicking out the South African teams? And who in any England capacity indicated that was remotely desirable? No one asked me, not that I am currently connected with England or are terribly desirable....

Which English? The ones in England, surely?

TJ wrote:

If the Europeans want SA out of the URC to placate the English, so be it. Just make the decision quickly, no benefit in us spending time building rivalries and relationships if there is no future.

We don't.  the only folk promoting this idea are the english as they look to the successful URC and their failing league and want to take us over.  Its not going to happen ( I hope)

COVID caused problems in the Prem. Clubs run as businesses as opposed to arms of the RFU struggled with no income. The Prem is a fantastic watch this season, the URC not so great a watch for me so many games with either the best players rested or poor teams who are uncompetitive. If the URC moves to a two tier league then it could be a genuinely intriguing competition.

I don't want the English clubs involved in it in anyway I would say.

doctor_grey wrote:

Intotouch wrote:Which English? This whole discussion started with an article in the Telegraph saying that at a meeting the English clubs (PRL) were considering options to increase revenue, the favoured one being a B&I league.

That included kicking out the South African teams?  And who in any England capacity indicated that was remotely desirable?  No one asked me, not that I am currently connected with England or are terribly desirable....

SA teams and Italian teams.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

TJ wrote:

If the Europeans want SA out of the URC to placate the English, so be it. Just make the decision quickly, no benefit in us spending time building rivalries and relationships if there is no future.

We don't.  the only folk promoting this idea are the english as they look to the successful URC and their failing league and want to take us over.  Its not going to happen ( I hope)

COVID caused problems in the Prem. Clubs run as businesses as opposed to arms of the RFU struggled with no income. The Prem is a fantastic watch this season, the URC not so great a watch for me so many games with either the best players rested or poor teams who are uncompetitive. If the URC moves to a two tier league then it could be a genuinely intriguing competition.

I don't want the English clubs involved in it in anyway I would say.

the english league is not a sustainable model and has been in financial difficulties before and since covid. I'll give you the standard of games I have watched has been better this year - nearly up to the standard of the URC. Its a myth that there are more noncompetitive teams - every team in the URC has won at least one game - the same cannot be said for the english league English players complain about playing too much so rotation is both essential and all teams do it.

But as you say - its really a non starter. there is nothing for the URC teams in having the english teams coming in. the PRL want it as they want the money the URC have - thats all. No one in the URC wants them.

Who are these players being rested in the URC? I'm genuinely intrigued as Leinster are usually the worst for rotating but we've selected very strong squads up till now.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:Who are these players being rested in the URC? I'm genuinely intrigued as Leinster are usually the worst for rotating but we've selected very strong squads up till now.

The general standard of the URC is higher now.

Sides will catch a cold if they go to weak into a fixture, Leinster may have been guilty of that last year and then had to travel for a very difficult semi.

They don't seem to be making that mistake this year and it seems, understandable, want a home run to the finals.

BigGee wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:Who are these players being rested in the URC? I'm genuinely intrigued as Leinster are usually the worst for rotating but we've selected very strong squads up till now.

The general standard of the URC is higher now.

Sides will catch a cold if they go to weak into a fixture, Leinster may have been guilty of that last year and then had to travel for a very difficult semi.

They don't seem to be making that mistake this year and it seems, understandable, want a home run to the finals.

The standard of the URC is insanely high right now. Higher than it's ever been, hence Leinster sending out near full squads out every round. The days of walkover games are nearly over.

I would have to agree about the standard in the URC.

It's why I hope Welsh Ruby doesnt try to leave. Ireland and South African rugby right now are clearly the best 2 nations in world rugby. Our players will only improve playing against the better teams and players.

I dont think English rugby at the moment would help Welsh rugby to get better. In fact I think it would take us further away from being prepared for international rugby.

Fans of English Premiership rugby don't want a merger as they are happy with their league at present and have a series of red herrings as to why the URC isn't good enough. Fans of the URC don't want a merger as they are happy with their league at present and have a series of red herrings as to why the Premiership isn't good enough. The only people wanting a merger are the money managers who think they can make a quick killing out of such a move. However bad the RFU, IRFU, WRU, SRU, etc are I think money managers are a worse option. CVC did nothing for the reach or popularity of Formula 1 and I haven't seen them do anything positive for rugby so far.

doctor_grey wrote:

Intotouch wrote:Which English? This whole discussion started with an article in the Telegraph saying that at a meeting the English clubs (PRL) were considering options to increase revenue, the favoured one being a B&I league.

That included kicking out the South African teams?  And who in any England capacity indicated that was remotely desirable?  No one asked me, not that I am currently connected with England or are terribly desirable....

Here is the headline and link to the article

“Premiership considering merger with URC to form British and Irish league
Exclusive: English clubs understood to be leaning towards new competition without South African and Italian clubs involved”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2024/09/12/premiership-considering-proposal-anglo-welsh-league/

Does that clarify things?

There are many things that worry me about a URC / prem merger. Right now I think it won’t be the life jacket that will stop English clubs from drowning in debt and that establishing a new league will be pointless.

If the prem salary cap had some link to each clubs turnover/ income then the continual pattern of borrowing and spending more than they earn might stop. But if they keep the same business model then even if this new super league is a success their debt levels will keep rising. The problem imo is the business model of the prem not what league they’re in. Earning more money won’t stop clubs from spending more than a they earn. I know the French have a strict policy around which clubs can take part in their leagues based on their solvency and responsible business practices but I can’t remember now where I read the details of this. But this model does exist. It’s more restrictive and precise than a flat salary cap.