Are Premiership clubs over-dependent on central funding from English RFU?

“We’re not a standalone industry,” he added. “Every industry is going through it, but our business relies on people coming through the gates.
“Central funding has been cut enormously because the RFU is making no money and you can’t live off your TV money. The TV money that comes in is far less than what the salary cap is.
“We’re all in a very poor state. Everybody is haemorrhaging money and the haemorrhage is going to be too excessive for some clubs. It is a dire situation.
“We’ve already cut players’ wages. They have not done that in football. All the staff have taken pay-cuts and you can’t keep doing that. There has to be some sort of termination or some help.”
Steve Diamond - Director of Rugby and interim CEO, Sale Sharks

They generally spend to their means. They will need bailing out though after this.

Most football clubs did take pay cuts as far as I am aware.

The EPS was going to e £225m over 8 years which is about £28m a year. The second half of the 8 years was subject to financial performance of the RFU, and at the time it was implied most likely the second 4 years would be higher. Now due to Covid that is going to drop dramatically you would assume (given also the reduction in payments to championship clubs from about 500k to 50k.

How many clubs can take a reduction of 1m to the EPS.

If less than 1k fans on average per game are allowed over next season then we will see at least 1 club fold. For some of the bigger teams if it was less than 5k they might still be in trouble. The lesser attended teams like Sale and Irish might be able to ride it out better but not sure about Quinn's, Tigers etc who are use to 14k at a game

wum-chat to deflect from IRFU gerrymandering the provinces

We'll all be watching the Beijing Tigers and Wuhan Saracens in 10 years by the sounds of things.

Brendan wrote:.  The lesser attended teams like Sale and Irish might be able to ride it out better but not sure about Quinn's, Tigers etc who are use to 14k at a game

For Tigers it's more like 20k a game. I don't know how long the club can be sustainable just on sponsorship and TV revenue. The clubs lives within its means, we don't have a rich backer that pumps in money to meet day to day expenditure. The club is in the lucky position that it used the CVC money to ensure there is no debt in the club with some cash left over but that won't last.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Brendan wrote:.  The lesser attended teams like Sale and Irish might be able to ride it out better but not sure about Quinn's, Tigers etc who are use to 14k at a game

For Tigers it's more like 20k a game. I don't know how long the club can be sustainable just on sponsorship and TV revenue. The clubs lives within its means, we don't have a rich backer that pumps in money to meet day to day expenditure. The club is in the lucky position that it used the CVC money to ensure there is no debt in the club with some cash left over but that won't last.

There is something to be admired about professional clubs like that.

Yes they may not have the money to buy success, however they can build loyalty from their staff and players and use team culture, keeping wives and children happy, making players happy to play at the club, once in a while they will punch above their weight and win the odd trophy.

I would rather support a club like that than any other.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Brendan wrote:.  The lesser attended teams like Sale and Irish might be able to ride it out better but not sure about Quinn's, Tigers etc who are use to 14k at a game

For Tigers it's more like 20k a game. I don't know how long the club can be sustainable just on sponsorship and TV revenue. The clubs lives within its means, we don't have a rich backer that pumps in money to meet day to day expenditure. The club is in the lucky position that it used the CVC money to ensure there is no debt in the club with some cash left over but that won't last.

Tigers are probably in a healthly position to be able to take on debt to see them through the year.  They have shown they can live within their means and have assets to put up.  I don't know what the fan appetite would be for say 5/10 year tickets or something like that to get future money to see them through.  Teams carrying debt will be in a much more difficult situation, I doubt any team have any money put aside before and what they did is gone

With doubts over the Championship starting what happens next year with the Premership would be up in the air. Surely they can't relegate Sarries to no competition

quinsforever wrote:wum-chat to deflect from IRFU gerrymandering the provinces

The provinces have been what they are for 800 years. There was no redrawing boundaries of the provinces to take in extra/favourable people. Last gerrymandering was done at the end of the sword by people like Brian Bru and other power hungry men.

If you are talking about players I guess every Union is trying to get the most players from that country into their teams.

IRFU are very upfront about what they do which is why there is so much info on it. Just because people don't like it doesn't mean it's wrong or different to other Unions. Is England's refusal to pick overseas gerrymandering as they redrew the map of where you have to play you club game to be an international

On the topic at hand is the Funding from the RFU more or less per team and per quailifed player compared to the IRFU. The 4 provinces are filled with mainly IQ players and the %IQ quailifed v any other 6N union would more than likely be a higher % than most if not all (happy to be proved wrong).

quinsforever wrote:wum-chat to deflect from IRFU gerrymandering the provinces

The IRFU are more powerful than I thought, I didn't realise they drew up the county/provincial boundaries. WOW !

I think that with the financial slashing going on by the RFU it is a legitimate question. If the RFU were to half the EPS payments and keep the you can only play in England rule what are the club's or players going to do.

The club's need the RFU money more the the RFU need the club's. RFU can tell players to get it out into their contact that they have to be released for RFU stuff if called up.

Play cap has been reduced by the club's and they know they had to do it as Bristol and Sarries could have vetoed it

For the Irish provinces, the issue is are they over dependent on gate income? Leinster earned €8.5m through their gates for PRO14 and European games. Munster increased their gates for 2019 but have now fallen through a hole. Competition Income of 12-13m for all four may remain the same but IRFU can’t plug the gap.

What a really, really, really odd thread title.

The RFU earns 85% of its income using the assets of PRL

So who is over reliant on whom?

PhilBB wrote:What a really, really, really odd thread title.

The RFU earns 85% of its income using the assets of PRL

So who is over reliant on whom?

Wasn't aware that the PRL was into slave ownership.

I work two jobs. My second employer doesn't earn money off my first employers assets.

RFU earn money off their own assets that they pay good money to.

[quote="Brendan"]

PhilBB wrote:What a really, really, really odd thread title.

The RFU earns 85% of its income using the assets of PRL

So who is over reliant on whom?

Wasn't aware that the PRL was into slave ownership./quote]

"Swing low..."

rugby racing and beer wrote:

Brendan wrote:

PhilBB wrote:What a really, really, really odd thread title.

The RFU earns 85% of its income using the assets of PRL

So who is over reliant on whom?

Wasn't aware that the PRL was into slave ownership./quote]

"Swing low..."

Very good

Brendan wrote:

PhilBB wrote:What a really, really, really odd thread title.

The RFU earns 85% of its income using the assets of PRL

So who is over reliant on whom?

Wasn't aware that the PRL was into slave ownership.

I work two jobs.  My second employer doesn't earn money off my first employers assets.

RFU earn money off their own assets that they pay good money to.

You'd have a problem if your first job prevented you from working a second.