IRFU Investment into Its Branches

First topic message reminder :

"He puts the pudding on the table for slicing. “Let’s say a province is spending around €12m per annum. It’s P&L (profit and loss) comes from gates of, say €6-7m, there’s expenditure of around €12m which requires a subsidy from the IRFU of around €6-7m. They are rough figures, but we are subsiding the provinces to that tune each year."

"We put money in to each province in terms of players and technical staff. The Union is putting in at least 50% in terms of turnover into each of the provinces.”

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/rugby/philip-browne-interview-trying-to-spread-the-jam-evenly-387047.html

There we are then. That's that one put to bed. €25-28m spent each year on top of home grown income.

Munchkin wrote:

Stone Motif wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Sorry, been stuck in meetings all day with clients and have come back late to this discussion, to summarise, the gripe from non union controlled teams is that they have to live within their means, union controlled sides do not as they are backed by their unions, thus this causes an uneven playing field in the Pro12.

The question I would like to ask is, how much less would the union run teams be able to spend if they were run as private concerns without the backing of their unions ?

Yep, the Regions should have been Union owned from the beginning. Well, that would be the ideal, but don't think the WRU were in a position to afford to set up their own Regions.

Why should they?  Why would it?  Apart from the obvious contradiction between should and would and the ability of the WRU to actually do it, as you mention, the problem is that they abandoned the system they had since the year dot for a middle of the road sh6t sandwich merger model.  I can imagine the O'utrage on here if the IRFU suddenly abandoned the provincial system (aka the template for rugby admin in every country across the globe) in favour of a club model, just because it seems to work for England and France...

No contradiction at all, oh dimwitted one. Note the word, 'ideal'. Perhaps I should have added the word 'have been', or maybe use a virtual crayon. So it would read ' "Well, that would have been the ideal. Giving you more of a past tense, even though that was already provided for you; " ... I don't think the WRU were in a position...". Now because I stated that 'I don't think the WRU were in a position...', this means that although I think ideally they should have, I'm not sure they would have been in a position to do so.

Hope that clears things up for your poor muddled mind.

Righto, so you're back on default 'daub thread with excrement' setting are you Munch?As you were then. A happy St Paddy 'so day to you too like.

How something that would have bankrupted the WRU can be the ideal is beyond me, so go on get your green crayon out and have a go.

Looks like Stones spitting the dummy out. The WRU did not need to do 100% ownership, there are different models they could have used, though I sense those complaining on here would not have been happy no matter what they would have done

marty2086 wrote:Looks like Stones spitting the dummy out. The WRU did not need to do 100% ownership, there are different models they could have used, though I sense those complaining on here would not have been happy no matter what they would have done

Indeed, Stones strongest argument is abuse with foul language. Something that probably worked for him in the playground, but so transparent in the world of grown-ups.

Shows his level when he is spitting feathers about possible bankruptcy, when it was me that suggested that the WRU were probably not in a financial position to take full ownership of the Regions.

Sad, in a way, but very amusing in another

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Sorry, been stuck in meetings all day with clients and have come back late to this discussion, to summarise, the gripe from non union controlled teams is that they have to live within their means, union controlled sides do not as they are backed by their unions, thus this causes an uneven playing field in the Pro12.

The question I would like to ask is, how much less would the union run teams be able to spend if they were run as private concerns without the backing of their unions ?

LD, you should maybe read up on the AP finances. 7 of 12 are running at a loss and Bath and Saracens are having money pumped into them. Toulon are only self sufficient in the last few years because they set up a model to generate enough income to do what they are doing.

How many NEQ players are the AP teams restricted to? or NFQ in the Top 14?

marty, I do not care what teams in other leagues do, my only interest is what goes on in MY league, the Pro12. 

It is an example of what can happen in a league without union controlled teams though. Some will still spend outside of their means through private backers etc.

marty2086 wrote:Looks like Stones spitting the dummy out. The WRU did not need to do 100% ownership, there are different models they could have used, though I sense those complaining on here would not have been happy no matter what they would have done

No, I was challenging the insinuation that the Irish model,because it works for Ireland, must be the 'ideal' for Wales.

IMO so much that has gone wrong for pro rugby in Wales for the last decade is as a result of a similar assumption by the then WRU in 2003.

Munchkin wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Looks like Stones spitting the dummy out. The WRU did not need to do 100% ownership, there are different models they could have used, though I sense those complaining on here would not have been happy no matter what they would have done

Indeed, Stones strongest argument is abuse with foul language. Something that probably worked for him in the playground, but so transparent in the world of grown-ups.

Shows his level when he is spitting feathers about possible bankruptcy, when it was me that suggested that the WRU were probably not in a financial position to take full ownership of the Regions.

Sad, in a way, but very amusing in another

A brief trawl back through the thread shows you were asked a question, and immediately resorted to 'abuse' rather than and answer it, presumably because any answer might just challenge your narrative.

You're a lot less bright than you think you are. Kind of like the Irish model is a lot less perfect than you think it is.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Sorry, been stuck in meetings all day with clients and have come back late to this discussion, to summarise, the gripe from non union controlled teams is that they have to live within their means, union controlled sides do not as they are backed by their unions, thus this causes an uneven playing field in the Pro12.

The question I would like to ask is, how much less would the union run teams be able to spend if they were run as private concerns without the backing of their unions ?

LD, you should maybe read up on the AP finances. 7 of 12 are running at a loss and Bath and Saracens are having money pumped into them. Toulon are only self sufficient in the last few years because they set up a model to generate enough income to do what they are doing.

How many NEQ players are the AP teams restricted to? or NFQ in the Top 14?

marty, I do not care what teams in other leagues do, my only interest is what goes on in MY league, the Pro12. 

Well those examples highlight the gaping hole in your argument, privately owned clubs don't have to live within their means. The problem is the Regions chose to rely on the WRU to subsidise them while being privately owned but there is little difference these days in how the teams in Ireland and Wales are run except the Welsh do their bitching in public

Stone Motif wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Looks like Stones spitting the dummy out. The WRU did not need to do 100% ownership, there are different models they could have used, though I sense those complaining on here would not have been happy no matter what they would have done

Indeed, Stones strongest argument is abuse with foul language. Something that probably worked for him in the playground, but so transparent in the world of grown-ups.

Shows his level when he is spitting feathers about possible bankruptcy, when it was me that suggested that the WRU were probably not in a financial position to take full ownership of the Regions.

Sad, in a way, but very amusing in another

A brief trawl back through the thread shows you were asked a question, and immediately resorted to 'abuse' rather than and answer it, presumably because any answer might just challenge your narrative.

You're a lot less bright than you think you are. Kind of like the Irish model is a lot less perfect than you think it is.

And what abuse would that be? My cheeky comments to you and Phil? If the both of you could manage to post without being abusive I would respond in kind, but both of you seem to think that being abusive adds strength to your arguments...

I have made no claim of being bright, and so you really don't know what I think of my own intelligence, or lack of. Whoever, can think whatever of my intelligence, on these forums. Matters not a jot, to me.

As for your 'challenging my narrative'? I can honestly say that I have never felt challenged by anything you have posted on these forums. Never. I do like to learn, I am someone who is open to correction and I enjoy a challenge, but fail to see any challenge in the soup of froth and foul language.

How close to perfection do you think I believe the Irish model is? You couldn't possibly know. It isn't perfect, but it works for us, and it's evident that it works more for us than the Regions model works for them. The Irish model may not work for the Regions, but some variant of it might well do. Do you disagree? Do you believe the Regions model has advantages over the Irish model? If you do, what are those advantages?