Worcester-Sixways, LI and Wasps, WTF?

First topic message reminder :

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

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

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

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

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

I don't think it will work Geoff. In theory its nice but part of the issue in the Premiership is to maintain standards. Given money is an issue for everyone and only a couple of teams in the Championship are even full time with the majority being part time it would lead to those teams getting battered by 70 odd points playing Premiership teams. That wouldn't help the league or the teams in it.

In order for the league to grow stronger the standard must remain high. If you look at the Premiership historically it managed to keep standards by bringing in high quality overseas players to keep strong squads and first teams throughout every side in the Premiership which in turn improved all the players playing in there.

The clear issue now is that the Top14 and Japan have basically taken up the mantle of this method. And given their finances, crowds and massive budgets, I don't think the Premiership can bridge this gap to return to this model.

I actually think reducing the team count and reducing matches is the correct course of action for a few reasons. Firstly squads and players will be better rested which in turn will reduce cost to clubs because they won't have to hire such big squads. I genuinely think England has to many "pro players" who genuinely make a living from the sport and probably are not good enough. They need to make sure competition remains high in each club so you don't end up with stagnating professional rugby players.

10 teams and 18 games will go some way to making that happen.

I actually think (and I appreciate a lot of people hate this idea) that the future of English rugby could be better served reducing that further to 4-6 and joining the URC. But if you did this you would have to reduce the amount of overseas players who are able to play for this side. I don't think this would ever happen given the club investments from a lot of the CEO's but actually for me this would make the most sense.

Thanks for the reply and your comments.

I think the English teams have two ways to go.

Either even out the standard over more than one division with viable promotion and relegation or, as you suggest become part of a wider URC.

I do not hold a lot of faith in 10 teams in a locked in league.
Looking at the clubs debts 10 this years could become 8 in one or two years.
It is a league dying in its current format.

They seem to be talking up promotion and relegation for 24/25.
Under the current format any of the current championship teams would get hammered as you suggest.
My idea is the second tier would become more attractive to players, and there are a fair few players going spare at the moment, and would lessen the number of one sided games.
The current plans offer no viable way to have promotion and relegation.

I know everyone keeps reiterating the need for relegation to improve the league but doesn't that make the finances even shakier? i.e. team going down loses out on tv money, has to accrue debt for recruitment, big stars try to get signed for another prem team in the meantime etc.

Or is that balanced out by packed stadiums during the relegation games? (again seems like a wierd one, if your team is cr*p why are you forking out money for those games?)

Just as an aside relegation was paused due to covid and is being brought back. And the salary cap is due to rise again.

The issue is the Championship needs work and not further neglect. It's often the breeding ground to talent that doesn't make an easy step from academy to first team. Not just for England either.

Proper televised games and sponsorship are a must for them this off season. Hopefully the newly created cup competition will help get those teams some proper recognition.

formerly known as Sam wrote:The issue is the Championship needs work and not further neglect. .

Nailed it.

Without change Promotion and relegation is just hot air.
The funding of the Championship means semi-pro teams are the norm.
No team can get promoted because of their ground size.
Any team in the current championship that did get promoted would be hammered ala London Welsh.

Unless the jump to the Premiership is viable it is window dressing.
All it will mean is one of the top 10/11 will spend a year on the naughty step for being last.
It will compromise their finances and for the team promoted promoted will be far more trouble than it is worth, especially
if they have shelled out to bring their ground up to the required capacity.

Teams can get promoted. Doncaster Knights are one of them that if they won would be allowed. May well be hammered in the prem. Doesn't always happen though, Bristol and Exeter have made a fairly good stab at it.

No 7&1/2 wrote:They have indeed been given another week, but need to pay the players and staff tomorrow, so it'll be a seesaw week.

I thought they had to pay players today, to get the 1 week extension? I also thought I read the RFU back-tracked as not all the criteria was met, so it's paid in full today or LI are going down.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Teams can get promoted. Doncaster Knights are one of them that if they won would be allowed. May well be hammered in the prem. Doesn't always happen though, Bristol and Exeter have made a fairly good stab at it.

Bristol were always the Premiership side in the Championship - exception to the rule
The world has long since moved on since Exeter were promoted 13 years ago.

I see Doncaster do meet the criteria but sadly that does not mean they would be anything more than whipping boys.
The gap between the divisions needs to be closer in order for promotion and relegation to be anything more than window dressing.

mikey_dragon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:They have indeed been given another week, but need to pay the players and staff tomorrow, so it'll be a seesaw week.

I thought they had to pay players today, to get the 1 week extension? I also thought I read the RFU back-tracked as not all the criteria was met, so it's paid in full today or LI are going down.

When I said tomorrow it was yesterday, so yes it came with clauses.

geoff999rugby wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Teams can get promoted. Doncaster Knights are one of them that if they won would be allowed. May well be hammered in the prem. Doesn't always happen though, Bristol and Exeter have made a fairly good stab at it.

Bristol were always the Premiership side in the Championship - exception to the rule
The world has long since moved on since Exeter were promoted 13 years ago.

I see Doncaster do meet the criteria but sadly that does not mean they would be anything more than whipping boys.
The gap between the divisions needs to be closer in order for promotion and relegation to be anything more than window dressing.
 

So apart from the sides which would be allowed up and the guys who have proven in the past it can be done, it can't be done. I'm there.

I'm all for the RFU to put a bit of pressure on the sides to get a bit more for the national side, while lifting some financial burdens but think it's important that we get the basics of what's available at the moment right (in terms of factually correct).

Staff meeting on at the mo. That doesn't sound great.

So to clarify in your world:

- There is no difference between what Exeter did 13 years ago - went from Tier 3 to Tier 1 and survived and now
- There is nothing exceptional about Bristol's position of how they contrived to snatch defeat out of the hands of victory year on year finishing top of the league the last 4 times they were in that division,. Also having been in the top level 18 years prior to those years. Bristol were an outlier in many ways and anyone who follows rugby knows it.
- OK so I did not pick up on the fact the rules were changed to allow teams to get promoted if they had planning permissions for 10,000. That in no way alters the fact that ground size is a barrier to nearly every team wishing to get into the Premiership because they have to commit to a huge financial outlay before they secure promotion.

The reality is their is a widening chasm between Tier 1 and Tier 2 which makes promotion a pipe dream both in terms of finances and in terms standard. This is a chasm made worse by the reduced funding for the championship.

Promotion and Relegation under the current structure is, I repeat, pointless window dressing.
Unless there is more drastic restructuring it remains, effectively a closed shop which could well see its size reduce further when another 'sugar daddy' decides to retire. It simply not sustanable and a grown up conversation is needed to how it can be made so.
This time last year the talk was of a 14 team Premiership - next year it could be 10
Its time to wake up and smell the coffee

Hence my suggestion - not sayings its the be all and end all but it is the type of conversation that needs to be had.

geoff999rugby wrote:So to clarify in your world:

- There is no difference between what Exeter did 13 years ago - went from Tier 3 to Tier 1 and survived and now
- There is nothing exceptional about Bristol's position of how they contrived to snatch defeat out of the hands of victory year on year finishing top of the league the last 4 times they were in that division,. Also having been in the top level 18 years prior to those years. Bristol were an outlier in many ways and anyone who follows rugby knows it.
- OK so I did not pick up on the fact the rules were changed to allow teams to get promoted if they had planning permissions for 10,000. That in no way alters the fact that ground size is a barrier to nearly every team wishing to get into the Premiership because they have to commit to a huge financial outlay before they secure promotion.

The reality is their is a widening chasm between Tier 1 and Tier 2 which makes promotion a pipe dream both in terms of finances and in terms standard. This is a chasm made worse by the reduced funding for the championship.

Promotion and Relegation under the current structure is, I repeat, pointless window dressing.
Unless there is more drastic restructuring it remains, effectively a closed shop which could well see its size reduce further when another 'sugar daddy' decides to retire. It simply not sustanable and a grown up conversation is needed to how it can be made so.
This time last year the talk was of a 14 team Premiership - next year it could be 10
Its time to  wake up and smell the coffee

Hence my suggestion - not sayings its the be all and end all but it is the type of conversation that needs to be had.

To clarify after pointing out that perhaps your point wasn't that accurate you changed the parameters so I was just pulling your leg.

So point 1 doesn't stand any longer as it already exists. Point 2 well lose enough interest and if the English are forced into an expanded urc...well that's not good for us it just means we're desperate. Probably means much less funding too as has been gone through countless times with Phil.

I put forward an idea to address, what I believe, are the serious problems English rugby has at the moment.
Three people made meaningful contributions.
Sadly due to one minor factual error it has degenerated into a tedious and pointless respond.

I have no idea what Point 1 and Point 2 you refer to even are, and to be honest I am not interested.
This is a difficult, interesting and important issue that needs addressing.

Negativity without any positivity is boring ..bye

'Nailed it.

Without change Promotion and relegation is just hot air.
The funding of the Championship means semi-pro teams are the norm.
No team can get promoted because of their ground size.
Any team in the current championship that did get promoted would be hammered ala London Welsh.

Unless the jump to the Premiership is viable it is window dressing.
All it will mean is one of the top 10/11 will spend a year on the naughty step for being last.
It will compromise their finances and for the team promoted promoted will be far more trouble than it is worth, especially
if they have shelled out to bring their ground up to the required capacity.'

Your first point was about promotion and relegation and then if it was there teams would not survive. Bar the relegation and promotion coming back following an pause with covid, and that teams could be promoted meeting the minimum criteria abd also that teams like Bristol and exeter have gone on to progress. Sorry to be positive for you, that's Brill the league agrees with you, or you already agree with what they're doing.

The second point re expanded urc, recycled discussions from rugby phil. Surely you must have seen those threads. I really dont see any posiitvity in that as it would mean that the english clubs have all gone under the rfu haven't managed to do anything.

Sorry for not patting you on the head enough for your ego.

The rfu bend on the original agreement with 1 week extension but only 50 per cent of the wage paid after an agreement with the players.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The rfu bend on the original agreement with 1 week extension but only 50 per cent of the wage paid after an agreement with the players.

I presume people involved with the negotiations have missed the irony of the deal ending on D-Day.

I think a genuine threat that isn't being talked about in terms of this discussion is French Rugby. The way it has grown in the last 10 years has played a role in what is happening in English rugby (and other leagues as well). If French rugby keeps on its course of increased income and wealth it only increases costs for leagues everywhere else with sides struggling to offer matching deals to their best home grown players.

What's worse is that French clubs are now trying to exploit the JIFF system and go after the best young talent.

When you put this in context the issue is their isn't enough money to keep up with this player inflation driven in France under control. So it gets difficult to solve because unless the Premiership can somehow find a massive pot of money they will have to reduce the spread of that funding. It's why I think national league rugby won't get invested in. I still think promotion and relegation should exist but what really needs to be looked at is the parachute payments to relegated sides.

The wider issue for English rugby though is how many pro sides can England actually maintain good attendance numbers. A side like Sale for example regardless of its success will simply struggle for supporters purely based on its location in the country. That simply will always hold the league back in terms of growing it. As per my earlier thread given the French growth and the utter dominance of football in England I suspect that real terms number is somewhere around 6 pro clubs. It's why I think England may be better of long term joining the URC (which granted will never happen).

Who are the 6? Bath, Leicester, Northampton, harlequins, Bristol and  Gloucester? In terms of growing the league it'd probably do more to concentrate interest geographically?

At this point the RFU either needs to invest in the lower divisions to try to build French-style depth, or really go all-in on a ringfenced franchise model. More than enough people in England, both general population and rugby players, that it should be possible for a 12-14 team league to exist alongside the EPL.

Lowlandbrit wrote:At this point the RFU either needs to invest in the lower divisions to try to build French-style depth, or really go all-in on a ringfenced franchise model. More than enough people in England, both general population and rugby players, that it should be possible for a 12-14 team league to exist alongside the EPL.

RFU have missed the boat at this stage if they are trying to replicate the French model. They don't have the capital at this moment in time so that's not an option. Also the landscape after the concussion case may bring most Unions to their knees.

I think ringfencing has its merits and I totally think reducing the teams to 10 would be a better scenario for the Premiership although I hope it doesn't come at the demise of another club in London Irish.

As for the other point, yes in principal with over 58 million people in England it should be enough of a population to make rugby successful. But in reality there is one major problem here as I pointed out before. Very few people go watch both football and rugby on a regular basis. Due to them essentially having the same seasonal schedules they are trying to get the same fan pools from each other. Given the Football viewing and attendance figures it's not hard to see exactly why geographically this matters to some rugby clubs more than others. This is fundamentally different to France where large parts of their country have rugby as primary (and in some cases only) option. My point with Sale for example they could get a world 15 into their team and it won't make a difference as they have the some of the biggest football clubs in England playing there and I don't think anyone would argue that Manchester is a football city.

At the end of the day football in England totally has dominated the sporting market place. Now they could move it to the summer which would at least have them less overlapping but given football seasons have become so long at this point their off seasons are virtually non existent and they won't change this now given the money involved.

It's an area the USA have been clever with in terms of major sporting events having windows and then going on breaks. It allows a better cross over for fans who can then enjoy more than one sport.

Welshmushroom wrote:
 A side like Sale for example regardless of its success will simply struggle for supporters purely based on its location in the country.  That simply will always hold the league back in terms of growing it.  As per my earlier thread given the French growth and the utter dominance of football in England I suspect that real terms number is somewhere around 6 pro clubs.  It's why I think England may be better of long term joining the URC (which granted will never happen).

Sale are a good side to have in the league because rugby is still a presence in the north west, sure football is massive but there's plenty of rugby clubs in that neck or the woods and they produce a lot of good quality pro players. Scotland and Ireland have benefited from that academy as well as England.

Years of running on a small budget and of moving between stadia hashed them back. They are getting more supporters in now there's better rugby to watch, the brutal point of professional sport is that success sells.

I don't think there's any interest in Prem clubs joining the URC. The Prem as an offering is very marketable, the issues being faced by the clubs are a mix of ownership issues and Covid hitting finances hard.

So now the government is stepping in to help 'stabilise' Premiership Rugby. Not sure whether to appreciate the effort or make a snide comment. In the interest of hope, I will take the former, but have my bad jokes lined up just in case.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2023/06/02/london-irish-crisis-government-premiership-rugby-financial/

Sounds like the government are getting involved from next season in some sort of financial oversight role. I mean the tories getting involved....i think i trust Saracens accountant more.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sounds like the government are getting involved from next season in some sort of financial oversight role. I mean the tories getting involved....i think i trust Saracens accountant more.

Wondering which of Mrs Sunak's companies are going to get the contract...

Financial oversight sounds great in theory, it seems badly needed, but given the levels of debt in an average prem club it’s happening ten years too late.

That the salary cap is due to be increased again is one of the craziest decisions that I’ve ever heard. Is it only one or two clubs that are driving this and if so how can their vote outweigh that of all the others? If all of them want the salary cap increased then can someone please explain why? As a group that’s drowning in debt I can’t understand why they’d want this. Where is the logic behind this decision?

From what I’ve read this week it seems likely that LI will fold. How many other prem clubs are on the brink?

Intotouch wrote:Financial oversight sounds great in theory, it seems badly needed, but given the levels of debt in an average prem club it’s happening ten years too late.

That the salary cap is due to be increased again is one of the craziest decisions that I’ve ever heard. Is it only one or two clubs that are driving this and if so how can their vote outweigh that of all the others? If all of them want the salary cap increased then can someone please explain why? As a group that’s drowning in debt I can’t understand why they’d want this. Where is the logic behind this decision?

From what I’ve read this week it seems likely that LI will fold. How many other prem clubs are on the brink?

To compete in Europe. There isn't a minimum spend.

Seems like the memo didn't reach HMRC...

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Intotouch wrote:Financial oversight sounds great in theory, it seems badly needed, but given the levels of debt in an average prem club it’s happening ten years too late.

That the salary cap is due to be increased again is one of the craziest decisions that I’ve ever heard. Is it only one or two clubs that are driving this and if so how can their vote outweigh that of all the others? If all of them want the salary cap increased then can someone please explain why? As a group that’s drowning in debt I can’t understand why they’d want this. Where is the logic behind this decision?

From what I’ve read this week it seems likely that LI will fold. How many other prem clubs are on the brink?

To compete in Europe. There isn't a minimum spend.

Even without any salary cap there are only a couple of English clubs who could spend much more money to compete in Europe. The majority are in debt and have no new generous owners wanting to splash cash on them. This is what I mean by only a couple of clubs are driving this. Why does the majority not get to decide what the cap is?

https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/65797622

It looks like it’s too late for London Irish. A winding up petition has been issued by revenue. Horrible news.

We had almost 30 years to flush the amateur era management approaches out of the system and get the Premiership right and run like a pro sport. Now here we are with the world teetering on the brink of recession (if we are not in one now) and have to restructure, install real financial transparency rules and obligations, and develop real long term plans all with the sword hanging over our heads. All because nothing of significance was done when we had the chance. Mind boggling.

Intotouch wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Intotouch wrote:Financial oversight sounds great in theory, it seems badly needed, but given the levels of debt in an average prem club it’s happening ten years too late.

That the salary cap is due to be increased again is one of the craziest decisions that I’ve ever heard. Is it only one or two clubs that are driving this and if so how can their vote outweigh that of all the others? If all of them want the salary cap increased then can someone please explain why? As a group that’s drowning in debt I can’t understand why they’d want this. Where is the logic behind this decision?

From what I’ve read this week it seems likely that LI will fold. How many other prem clubs are on the brink?

To compete in Europe. There isn't a minimum spend.

Even without any salary cap there are only a couple of English clubs who could spend much more  money to compete in Europe. The majority are in debt and have no new generous owners wanting to splash cash on them. This is what I mean by only a couple of clubs are driving this. Why does the majority not get to decide what the cap is?

The majority do. That's why Saracens were moaning a few years back, they wanted more to compete (legally) with the big spenders elsewhere.

I do find this quite interesting in how the clubs, unions etc go about getting the balance. It does tend to go in circles aligning it with the international team. Do you want the league packed with journey men (who possibly, or quite likely, don't qualify for England)? Do we want positions blocked off from youngsters, do these youngsters weaken the league and impact the league quality? Do we want a large disparity between top and bottom of the league? Do we want our clubs to be dominating the latter stages of Europe even if it means larger spending? Do you grow the league by hoarding all the top players and hoping to grow your reach abroad rather than just through the English spectators.

Sounds bad for LI and getting worse by the day. The RFU are going to get stick but what are they supposed to do with the current situation? Probably easier for them to just focus on the middle distance and keep their fingers crossed these Americans come up with the cash?

D-day for Lon Irish....there is nothing new in the press this morning or yesterday!
I don't know if that's a good or bad thing!

propdavid_london wrote:D-day for Lon Irish....there is nothing new in the press this morning or yesterday!
I don't know if that's a good or bad thing!

No rumblings of a deal being done, usually you see some tweets saying it's hopefully being done, very worrying.

Deadline is 4pm today.

Getting close to the deadline now and still nothing reported in the news.

Must be bad news as you would have thought any positive news would have been reported in the lunchtime news wave. Either that or they are really cutting it fine.

Wonder with the possibility of a 10 team league being on the cards now, will the PRL redistribute its funds to 10/11 sides instead of the current 14. Should at least make a little more cash available to each Premiership sides - at least until any of the sponsorship and tv deals come up for renewal, at which point they may end up with less if they reduce at all.

So reports now that Irish are done....and Exeter and Tigers are in financial trouble...

Geordie wrote:So reports now that Irish are done....and Exeter and Tigers are in financial trouble...

That's the Ruck recycling news stories that are several months old in regards, Tigers and Chiefs.

Bad news for LI. Can only hope no other clubs go same way
Looking grim

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Geordie wrote:So reports now that Irish are done....and Exeter and Tigers are in financial trouble...

That's the Ruck recycling news stories that are several months old in regards, Tigers and Chiefs.

Is it?

Geordie wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Geordie wrote:So reports now that Irish are done....and Exeter and Tigers are in financial trouble...

That's the Ruck recycling news stories that are several months old in regards, Tigers and Chiefs.

Is it?

Yeah, Tigers had issues back end of last year. Quite a few weeks with no home games after Wuss and Wasps went under. Two of their largest shareholders opted to buy more shares, had by law to present the plans publicly. The funds from the share purchase was enough to tide the club over for a few years, if it didn't go ahead then there would have been issues.

Whilst Tigers have a more successful model than most it's still reliant on Tom Scott and Peter Tom just to a lesser degree than many other clubs and their owners. Before covid those main shareholders (Scott was in the high 40% area and Tom just under 10% last I looked) felt they didn't want to put money in for redevelopments so looked to sell but couldn't find a buyer. Then they put said money in and invested again to get the club through covid and subsequently bought shares more recently as Sam mentions above.

Basically, Tigers are closer to a sustainable model than many as they have good matchday turnover and good support generally leads to decent sponsorship as domestic rugby goes. Even so it's still a model reliant on two very wealthy owners just to a less precarious extent than others.

I'm in a rush just now but will add my tuppence later, possibly tomorrow, on Chiefs and how their model that was working very well pre covid is a good example of how unstable the Prem as a whole is.

Also some further thoughts on LIs sad fate.

Would be interesting to see how many sports teams are completely living within their means. The more some earn the more they spend across a range of sports and countries. The rfu are getting a kicking across the board, still a great time to be looking at some central contracts etc.

Such a sad state of affairs. I always see Irish as a bit similar to Falcons....(good youth products, always seem to struggle despite the odd good year), so it's hit home more than others somehow.

Thoughts are with you Irish brethren

I'm assuming this means Bristol will now take their place in the Champions Cup.

Given it has now turned into a 10 team league they will need to review European Qualification because you can't have a scenario where a smaller league (ie less teams) qualifies the same amount of places.

Sad news for LI. Looks like another 50 odd players who will struggle to find clubs now that there are already so many players still out of contract at the moment. There will be a handful I would imagine who will find something but not sure how many of those will be able to retain their current salaries.

So many top 14 sides already have their Non Jiff players locked in so they don't have a lot of room for overseas players at this point. Could leave a lot of players playing in the Pro D2 instead.

Will certainly be interesting to see if the URC and the French can, or want to get some concessions with Europe.

It would appear a fair challenge on the number of English clubs now qualifying in a 24 club competition. There was a move a few years back to lower the number but the URC in a previous incarnation rejected it.

Commercial reality will kick in, given it is French and English TV audiences that fund the competition. Less English clubs, less TV money. Also given French and English clubs have had to accept SA clubs in the competition and the subsequent logistical costs, it would be a bit rich for subsequent demands when there have been changes to the English league.

Gutted for the players and long serving staff at LI.
They are well and truly shafted.
The club was living beyond it's means.
Opportunities squandered.