Three Down, One To Go

PhilBB wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:So basically both models are unfair and phill is upset his team's been Poopie for years so cry's about how unfair it is, even though Cardiff have multiple millionaire backers., Much like a sad little child

Oh dear.

carpet baboon wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:So basically both models are unfair and phill is upset his team's been Poopie for years so cry's about how unfair it is, even though Cardiff have multiple millionaire backers., Much like a sad little child

Oh dear.

But phill that's what this is all about. Cardiff not having been at the races for years. It's your green eyed monster. It shines through with every attack on the pro12

Pot Hale wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:So basically both models are unfair and phill is upset his team's been Poopie for years so cry's about how unfair it is, even though Cardiff have multiple millionaire backers., Much like a sad little child

Oh dear.

But phill that's what this is all about. Cardiff not having been at the races for years. It's your green eyed monster. It shines through with every attack on the pro12

Not this season when they win the title.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The Welsh are subsidisedby their union as well. There really isn't much difference when push comes to shove.

carpet baboon wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:So basically both models are unfair and phill is upset his team's been Poopie for years so cry's about how unfair it is, even though Cardiff have multiple millionaire backers., Much like a sad little child

Oh dear.

But phill that's what this is all about. Cardiff not having been at the races for years. It's your green eyed monster. It shines through with every attack on the pro12

PhilBB wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:
That's why I want us to move towards it, as that way we still have a major obligation to developing the game in Wales and are stronger at club level. You seem to want to move towards the French model which is unsustainable (as shows by top teams getting relegated) and seems to hamper the international team. The Irish and NZ models are the best out there for me. I've no idea why the SRU thinks this is a good idea, unless it's just part of the clubs they are willing to sell?

Wow.

It seems that you think we can't have an independent professional tier and develop the game.

That seems odd.

mikey_dragon wrote:
That's correct, as I can't see where these moneymen are whom are willing to invest and likely not get money back. Unless you know them? Isn't this something you'd usually ask? If they decide to run (like Ebbw Vale back in the day) then there is no guarantee someone can fill the void. These moneymen also have no obligation to develop the game at any level, they could do a Toulon and buy the best players of course, but it's not going to last long. And remember how great the likes of Biarritz, Brive, etc used to be. Hence why think the union model is a good one.

It wouldn't hurt for you to see things from multiple perspectives Phil, you might learn something if you were to accept other ideas.

PhilBB wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:
That's correct, as I can't see where these moneymen are whom are willing to invest and likely not get money back. Unless you know them? Isn't this something you'd usually ask? If they decide to run (like Ebbw Vale back in the day) then there is no guarantee someone can fill the void. These moneymen also have no obligation to develop the game at any level, they could do a Toulon and buy the best players of course, but it's not going to last long. And remember how great the likes of Biarritz, Brive, etc used to be. Hence why think the union model is a good one.

It wouldn't hurt for you to see things from multiple perspectives Phil, you might learn something if you were to accept other ideas.

Again, you seem to think that an independent pro tier will prevent the Union from investing in grass roots and community rugby. What has led you to that belief?

I can accept all sensible ideas. I'll happily discuss all ideas.

In your Union owned model, what happens when the Union runs out of money?

mikey_dragon wrote:

I don't think that, I just don't see how it's a relationship that can work. If they were partly union owned and encouraged investment from wealthy backers, etc - then I don't see it being an issue.

I'm not sure - world rugby bail them out? Has this happened to any top tier union before? I'd be interested to know how they dealt with it. The thing is if they did run out of money, there's nowhere to go. Their obligation is to the game, so they find a way to make it work again. I'm a man who prioritizes international rugby on the world stage so to me privatization will harm that.

Pot Hale wrote:

profitius wrote:Apparently Ulster has the second highest turnover of the top teams in the UK and Ireland. Leinster feature fairly high up there too. Is that a bad thing? They're run like businesses anyway.


People make out like the unions are run like the public sector i.e. inefficiently. That's not the case at all. They're basically businesses themselves and care about results.


Obviously the unions are now looking to make the pro12 more competitive and self sufficient. Yes, I would agree that they should have been more proactive in the past but the pro12 is still a newish competition and growing.

Will the IRFU look for private investment? Possibly. Do they need to? Not for the time being. The stadium is paid off already and that's a cash cow for them. If the pro12 can become more self sufficient and have the potential to make money in the future then why would they want to sell any shares in the provinces. Investors will want to make a profit so if they do come in you could have a future scenario of money flowing out into private pockets. If wealthy people are feeling charitable then they can give without investing, like some already do.

I don't see it as an unfair advantage at all.    Some unions choose to sell off their teams to private investors, others don't.  

In Scotland, it looks the union is driving the potential involvement of private investment.  If it happens in Ireland, I think it will be more likely driven by some or all of the provinces pushing for it.

Ulster, in some ways, is probably best placed to do it, given their financial acumen, and a somewhat captive market.  From their annual report, it looks like they have less reliance on central IRFU monies, to keep their business running.   But as the Premiership teams are finding out, salaries are going to continue to gobble up much of the increases in revenues, and the net returns are less than expected.   Ulster acknowledge themselves, that their opportunities for further income generation are limited.   So bringing in an investor may be inevitable as player costs rise further, unless the PRO12 can deliver increased revenues for the teams.  Leinster are probably next in line.    Munster's stadium debt on their books - with interest only payments to the IRFU being made this year - makes them a less attractive proposition, or a cheaper alternative for investment if this reduces their market value.  Connacht will need to have a few more successful years under its belt, and need to be sustained.   As Browne has indicated previously, control of players would be paramount for the union in contemplating any private investment.  

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:The Welsh are subsidisedby their union as well. There really isn't much difference when push comes to shove.

Subsidised is the wrong word. They are paid for services, just as are French and English clubs.

PhilBB wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

I don't think that, I just don't see how it's a relationship that can work. If they were partly union owned and encouraged investment from wealthy backers, etc - then I don't see it being an issue.

I'm not sure - world rugby bail them out? Has this happened to any top tier union before? I'd be interested to know how they dealt with it. The thing is if they did run out of money, there's nowhere to go. Their obligation is to the game, so they find a way to make it work again. I'm a man who prioritizes international rugby on the world stage so to me privatization will harm that.

Why not? The relationship clearly works here.

The role of the Union is to invest in the grass roots and community clubs. The role of the pro teams is to be successful.

Yes, this has happened to a top tier Union before: the WRU.

Every Union in the world is opening up to private ownership bar the IRFU. That should tell you a story.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So the Welsh teams get use of players they would otherwise not be able to afford.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I didn't say they were LD. And yes I understand your points and haven't said anything to disagree with those. My point does still stand.

PhilBB wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:Isn't this quite old news?

No.

carpet baboon wrote:being this angry over sports can't be good for you

PhilBB wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

I don't think that, I just don't see how it's a relationship that can work. If they were partly union owned and encouraged investment from wealthy backers, etc - then I don't see it being an issue.

I'm not sure - world rugby bail them out? Has this happened to any top tier union before? I'd be interested to know how they dealt with it. The thing is if they did run out of money, there's nowhere to go. Their obligation is to the game, so they find a way to make it work again. I'm a man who prioritizes international rugby on the world stage so to me privatization will harm that.

Why not? The relationship clearly works here.

The role of the Union is to invest in the grass roots and community clubs. The role of the pro teams is to be successful.

Yes, this has happened to a top tier Union before: the WRU.

Every Union in the world is opening up to private ownership bar the IRFU. That should tell you a story.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I didn't say they were LD. And yes I understand your points and haven't said anything to disagree with those. My point does still stand.

Well your point is wrong. As the IRFU pay for ALL the wages of everybody and everything in Ireland. In Wales, and England, and France, this does not happen.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I didn't say they were LD. And yes I understand your points and haven't said anything to disagree with those. My point does still stand.

Well your point is wrong. As the IRFU pay for ALL the wages of everybody and everything in Ireland. In Wales, and England, and France, this does not happen.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So the Welsh teams get use of players they would otherwise not be able to afford.

I cannot believe I am going to debate this with you again, but here goes.

These players that the Welsh teams cannot afford, you know where they come from don't you ? Yes, the actual teams that they are playing for.

It's not as if the WRU are paying for the high caliber SH players are they ? The WRU pay for the access and use of the players that the regions have spent a fortune on developing from a young age. These players are where they are because of the regions, not because of the WRU, so it is only fair, like in other countries, that the unions pay the teams for the use of their players.

Sin é wrote:
Munster have rejected the private investor model and gone down the Patron route which you can read about it. In 2015, this initiative raised €2m. there are 2 large corporate patrons (I think Independent News & Media & Greencore) and about 30 individual patrons.

http://www.munsterrugby.ie/news/20311.php#.V-zmhCMrL-k

In the new High Performance Centre, they have a joint partnership with an American company running courses in Europe and then there is the Disapora initiative - for the last couple of years Munster organise a dinner in London every September. Its coming up against next month and so far they have sold 300 tickets and are having a silent auction to raise money.

http://www.munsterrugby.ie/news/20316.php#.V-zneSMrL-k

Incidentally, the new Director General of RTE is (or maybe was now) is on the Munster Commerical Board. She is a big Munster fan!

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:The Welsh are subsidisedby their union as well. There really isn't much difference when push comes to shove.

Subsidised is the wrong word. They are paid for services, just as are French and English clubs.

So the Welsh teams get use of players they would otherwise not be able to afford. Quibble on the word but overall a similar impact to the Irish union paying players surely?

Sin é wrote:
The role of the Union is to promote the sport of rugby. One way of doing that (which nearly every sport does) is tonhave visible role models (such as Warburton, AW Jones, North) that kids will aspire to be. All very well in Wales where rugby is the national sport and has a lot of success, but if Wales were not successful you would find a lot of Welsh kids looking to football for their role models.

carpet baboon wrote:Phil I doubt it's just me who sees it this way.
But facts are facts, the union approach is working in Ireland, and has been successfull.
Cardiff with their many wealthy backers havnt been a success.
And the PRL don't want the welsh regions.
I want all teams to be strong in the league to make sure all teams are sustainable.
Because it's about sustainability, which a wealthy sugar daddy is not.

But you won't agree as your so angry with your clubs failure. It's shown in every post you make. Which is sad as somethimes you actually make good points, but they are hidden under your snide comments and put downs.
I hope one day you find happiness, as being this angry over sports can't be good for you

Don Alfonso wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:Isn't this quite old news?

No.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/37128384

A super-fresh two months old.

mikey_dragon wrote:
Works where? I think I've been clear on why I believe it wouldn't work, especially in Wales where there is 60M less people than in England and France, there'd be a few wealthy backers in those populations let me tell you!

Grass roots, etc and pro teams work in tandem, they aren't at odds with each other. Successful on and off the field, yes I think I agree with that, but they also have a duty to support the global game.

How do you know? It doesn't tell me anything until I know more but as far as I can see the Irish model is working quite well for Irish rugby.

Munchkin wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I didn't say they were LD. And yes I understand your points and haven't said anything to disagree with those. My point does still stand.

Well your point is wrong. As the IRFU pay for ALL the wages of everybody and everything in Ireland. In Wales, and England, and France, this does not happen.

Not true.

PhilBB wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:Phil I doubt it's just me who sees it this way.
But facts are facts, the union approach is working in Ireland, and has been successfull.
Cardiff with their many wealthy backers havnt been a success.
And the PRL don't want the welsh regions.
I want all teams to be strong in the league to make sure all teams are sustainable.
Because it's about sustainability, which a wealthy sugar daddy is not.

But you won't agree as your so angry with your clubs failure. It's shown in every post you make. Which is sad as somethimes you actually make good points, but they are hidden under your snide comments and put downs.
I hope one day you find happiness, as being this angry over sports can't be good for you

No, the Union approached partly worked (past tense) in Ireland. It is no longer working (present tense) at domestic level.

We've had 20 years of sustainability with wealth sugar daddies in Wales, by the way.

That final paragraph? Should be beneath you, son.

Munchkin wrote:
The IRFU's contribution to Ulsters turnover is 15%.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

I completely disagree with you here.If the regions had to go out and fund grassroots rugby all over Wales then you could say that but it's the Union that does this.The regions are a finishing school but the WRU do all the work that gives them the raw materials to work with.If the worst comes to the worst and the regions disappeared tomorrow with no replacement then the WRU could still function (with a lot of difficulty).If the WRU disappeared with no replacement then rugby in Wales dies.

PhilBB wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

I completely disagree with you here.If the regions had to go out and fund grassroots rugby all over Wales then you could say that but it's the Union that does this.The regions are a finishing school but the WRU do all the work that gives them the raw materials to work with.If the worst comes to the worst and the regions disappeared tomorrow with no replacement then the WRU could still function (with a lot of difficulty).If the WRU disappeared with no replacement then rugby in Wales dies.

The Union gets the funds to pay for grassroots rugby by using the assets of the 'regions' when playing for Team Wales. It's a symbiotic relationship.

If the WRU disappeared, PRW would take control of the national team. It's that simple.

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

I completely disagree with you here.If the regions had to go out and fund grassroots rugby all over Wales then you could say that but it's the Union that does this.The regions are a finishing school but the WRU do all the work that gives them the raw materials to work with.If the worst comes to the worst and the regions disappeared tomorrow with no replacement then the WRU could still function (with a lot of difficulty).If the WRU disappeared with no replacement then rugby in Wales dies.

The Union gets the funds to pay for grassroots rugby by using the assets of the 'regions' when playing for Team Wales. It's a symbiotic relationship.

If the WRU disappeared, PRW would take control of the national team. It's that simple.

Its actually not that that simple

PhilBB wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

I completely disagree with you here.If the regions had to go out and fund grassroots rugby all over Wales then you could say that but it's the Union that does this.The regions are a finishing school but the WRU do all the work that gives them the raw materials to work with.If the worst comes to the worst and the regions disappeared tomorrow with no replacement then the WRU could still function (with a lot of difficulty).If the WRU disappeared with no replacement then rugby in Wales dies.

The Union gets the funds to pay for grassroots rugby by using the assets of the 'regions' when playing for Team Wales. It's a symbiotic relationship.

If the WRU disappeared, PRW would take control of the national team. It's that simple.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

I completely disagree with you here.If the regions had to go out and fund grassroots rugby all over Wales then you could say that but it's the Union that does this.The regions are a finishing school but the WRU do all the work that gives them the raw materials to work with.If the worst comes to the worst and the regions disappeared tomorrow with no replacement then the WRU could still function (with a lot of difficulty).If the WRU disappeared with no replacement then rugby in Wales dies.

The Union gets the funds to pay for grassroots rugby by using the assets of the 'regions' when playing for Team Wales. It's a symbiotic relationship.

If the WRU disappeared, PRW would take control of the national team. It's that simple.

Its actually not that that simple

Well, who could argue against that kind of detail?

PhilBB wrote:http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/munster-rugby/were-not-bank-of-last-resort-irfu-warning-after-confirming-each-province-will-get-1m-34710655.html

Pot Hale wrote:

PhilBB wrote:http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/munster-rugby/were-not-bank-of-last-resort-irfu-warning-after-confirming-each-province-will-get-1m-34710655.html

That's the wrong article to reference with its inaccurate headline and content.

marty2086 wrote:

You mean like the detail you gave when saying its that simple?

If the WRU were to disappear what ever is to take its place would have to be rubber stamped by World Rugby but if it was PRW then you would be in a quandary as to who you despise then

Pot Hale wrote:

PhilBB wrote:http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/munster-rugby/were-not-bank-of-last-resort-irfu-warning-after-confirming-each-province-will-get-1m-34710655.html

That's the wrong article to reference with its inaccurate headline and content.

PhilBB wrote:

Because it is that simple. A Union is just a Union of clubs.

World Rugby is just the Union of Unions.

carpet baboon wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

PhilBB wrote:http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/munster-rugby/were-not-bank-of-last-resort-irfu-warning-after-confirming-each-province-will-get-1m-34710655.html

That's the wrong article to reference with its inaccurate headline and content.

Ahh but that's who phill works. Reads something decides it agrees with his opinion then offers it as proof. It's fool proof dosent matter what it actually says. He's right. He knows he is

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

You mean like the detail you gave when saying its that simple?

If the WRU were to disappear what ever is to take its place would have to be rubber stamped by World Rugby but if it was PRW then you would be in a quandary as to who you despise then

Because it is that simple. A Union is just a Union of clubs.

World Rugby is just the Union of Unions.

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

You mean like the detail you gave when saying its that simple?

If the WRU were to disappear what ever is to take its place would have to be rubber stamped by World Rugby but if it was PRW then you would be in a quandary as to who you despise then

Because it is that simple. A Union is just a Union of clubs.

World Rugby is just the Union of Unions.

Its not but no point arguing irrelevance with someone like you

PhilBB wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

PhilBB wrote:http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/munster-rugby/were-not-bank-of-last-resort-irfu-warning-after-confirming-each-province-will-get-1m-34710655.html

That's the wrong article to reference with its inaccurate headline and content.

Ahh but that's who phill works. Reads something decides it agrees with his opinion then offers it as proof. It's fool proof dosent matter what it actually says. He's right. He knows he is

Mate, you've clearly got a personal issue with me. I've no idea what I've done to rile you so badly, but please accept my apologies as riling you wasn't on my radar.

Hopefully you can now let it go and the board can be filled with discussions about the topics rather than the views of posters on other posters.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

You mean like the detail you gave when saying its that simple?

If the WRU were to disappear what ever is to take its place would have to be rubber stamped by World Rugby but if it was PRW then you would be in a quandary as to who you despise then

Because it is that simple. A Union is just a Union of clubs.

World Rugby is just the Union of Unions.

Its not but no point arguing irrelevance with someone like you

No need to argue, you can just highlight my error for all to see. Please, go for it.

carpet baboon wrote:
Phill you don't bother me in the slightest. I just like to point out your debating style

marty2086 wrote:

Why? Because we end up going round in circles, you don't admit you are wrong then you disappear and come back a week later rehashing old arguments

So I don't think Ill bother, everyones onto you these days and knows what you are like