• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

English rugby clubs ‘heading for disaster’ after mounting £300m in debts

so, for the franchises being run by existing clubs, theyre not tapping into new or wider income streams....so too become more financially stable theyre going to be reliant on the RFU, so on the back on the international game?....literally trickle down economics, once again thats what we have in NZ and its going down the gurgler
 
Kiwiwomble said:
so, for the franchises being run by existing clubs, theyre not tapping into new or wider income streams....so too become more financially stable theyre going to be reliant on the RFU, so on the back on the international game?....literally trickle down economics, once again thats what we have in NZ and its going down the gurgler
Click to expand...
It would depend how it's done IMO. Taking Doncaster as an example, if they applied for and were granted a franchise in a new franchise-based league and continued playing as Doncaster Knights at Castle Park, then I'd agree with you. Hopefully, in order to be granted a franchise, teams would have to demonstrate how this would grow their business. For example changing their name to the Yorkshire Puddings, playing at different grounds around the county and working to improve links with lower-tier teams in the county.

Cornish Pirates are a decent case study in doing this within the English game. Until some point in the early/mid 2000s, they were Penzance/Newlyn RFC and played their matches at the Mennaye Field in Penzance. They then rebranded as Cornish Pirates and moved their home games to Truro (capital of Cornwall, centralish population wise) and then the Camborne (a rugby town within Cornwall's rugby heartland). Following a fallout with their landlords in Camborne, they moved back to Penzance (geographically isolated at the extreme of the peninsula) and their attendance has declined to (less than?) half of the averages they were hitting. I'm sure there's more factors than pure geography at play, but it is at least an indication of what can be achieved by embracing a franchise approach.
 
RedruthRFC said:
It would depend how it's done IMO. Taking Doncaster as an example, if they applied for and were granted a franchise in a new franchise-based league and continued playing as Doncaster Knights at Castle Park, then I'd agree with you. Hopefully, in order to be granted a franchise, teams would have to demonstrate how this would grow their business. For example changing their name to the Yorkshire Puddings, playing at different grounds around the county and working to improve links with lower-tier teams in the county.

Cornish Pirates are a decent case study in doing this within the English game. Until some point in the early/mid 2000s, they were Penzance/Newlyn RFC and played their matches at the Mennaye Field in Penzance. They then rebranded as Cornish Pirates and moved their home games to Truro (capital of Cornwall, centralish population wise) and then the Camborne (a rugby town within Cornwall's rugby heartland). Following a fallout with their landlords in Camborne, they moved back to Penzance (geographically isolated at the extreme of the peninsula) and their attendance has declined to (less than?) half of the averages they were hitting. I'm sure there's more factors than pure geography at play, but it is at least an indication of what can be achieved by embracing a franchise approach.
Click to expand...
Doncaster could at least be the South Yorkshire Knights, leaving a resurgent Leeds to take West Yorkshire area.
What about Darlington MP?
Just take a look at the major urban areas in England and see how much is left untapped.
 
RedruthRFC said:
It would depend how it's done IMO. Taking Doncaster as an example, if they applied for and were granted a franchise in a new franchise-based league and continued playing as Doncaster Knights at Castle Park, then I'd agree with you. Hopefully, in order to be granted a franchise, teams would have to demonstrate how this would grow their business. For example changing their name to the Yorkshire Puddings, playing at different grounds around the county and working to improve links with lower-tier teams in the county.

Cornish Pirates are a decent case study in doing this within the English game. Until some point in the early/mid 2000s, they were Penzance/Newlyn RFC and played their matches at the Mennaye Field in Penzance. They then rebranded as Cornish Pirates and moved their home games to Truro (capital of Cornwall, centralish population wise) and then the Camborne (a rugby town within Cornwall's rugby heartland). Following a fallout with their landlords in Camborne, they moved back to Penzance (geographically isolated at the extreme of the peninsula) and their attendance has declined to (less than?) half of the averages they were hitting. I'm sure there's more factors than pure geography at play, but it is at least an indication of what can be achieved by embracing a franchise approach.
Click to expand...
....but that goes back too my first point and what weve seen in NZ...you start loosing your original fanbase...."thats not the team ive supported since 197...." etc

hell a more personal example, wimbledon moves to MK....the vast majority of fan dont follow the franchise team...they start a new one...that wears blue and yellow, has a two headed eagle on its crest....and eventually plays at a ground on plough lane in Wimbledon

you have to keep the core
 
New Zealand's way made no sense to me. Completely ignored established brands and the lack of geographical names makes it really confusing for international fans. Also the old provincial logos are really cool. Very similar to the old timey American teams. Now all the teams look like they were created by focus groups.

I think eventually they'll set up a system that makes a professional rugby more stable. Stable enough for people to come in and buy the licensing to clubs and get a "franchise" in the pro system. I imagine Leeds will be on of the first teams to sell.
 
TRF_Olyy said:
Weren't they one of the clubs complaining about the cap before?
Times must be tough
Click to expand...

At the end of the article in the times he's quoted as saying the cap should be raised to £10m! No idea why he would think that's a good idea.
 
You could call them the Yorkshire Tea - Baggers and still nobody in Lancashire would follow them.
 
Mind, it's such a big increase, it'd be easily possible to spend significantly more than the current cap and still spend "not up to the cap"
There's also something to be said for keeping enough in reserve to cover next year's extensions. You'd only really expect anyone to spend the full new cap if their entire squad was up for new contracts this summer (or they were getting in significant temporary options on 1 year contracts).

TBH, I was also always a fan of Hooper's tactic of keeping £500k or so in reserve for mid-season signings - covering injuries and unexpectedly available stars.
And I say that as someone who was never a fan of Hooper.
 
Vieux Talonneur said:
Here's who I can see in the top 14 courtesy of all.rugby:

Stade Francais: Zack Henry, Joe Marchant.

Toulouse: Jack Willis

Racing 92: Junior Kpoku, Henry Arundell

La Rochelle: Jack Nowell

Bordeaux Begles: None

Toulon: Kieran Brookes, Jack Singleton, Dave Ribbans

Pau: Dan Robson, Joe Simmonds

Castres: None (well bar the dead to me Henry Thomas).

Perpignan: Ali Crossdale

Bayonne: None

Clermont: None

Lyon: Joel Kpoku

Montpellier: Harry Williams, Sam Simmonds

Oyonnax: None

In D2:

Harry Glynn, Myles Edwards, Harrison Obatoyinbo, Brett Heron, Pierce Phillips, Beau Farrance, Richard Barrington, Joe Maksymiw, Zak Farrance, Harry Sloan, Henry Purdy, Cam Dodson, Darrell Dyer,
George Worth, William Greatbanks, Alfie Petch, Charlie Matthews, Billy Searle, Jonathan Joseph, Zach Kibirige, Lewis Bean, Karl Wilkins, Toby Salmon & Will Witty.

I doubt that's 100% but gives a flavour. Obviously some big names heading to France next year in Farrell, Manu, Lawes, Sinckler & Ludlam.

The England national team aren't losing out too too badly, nonetheless we'd still be better for having Willis, Arundell and Marchant in the conversation, Farrell would be picked and the likes of Ludlam and Ribbans would at least be keeping other, probably better, players honest. No problem with those past their peak / never good enough / not good enough yet going to France to boost their bank accounts or further their rugby education.
Click to expand...

Missed Will Collier at Castres. Interesting interview in the Grauniad.

You can see why fringe players could be tempted. With the way things are maybe even an outside chance that Collier himself might have got back in the conversation but he doesn't seem to have too many regrets.

www.theguardian.com

‘I’m loving it’: why so many English players feel the pull of French rugby

The former Quins prop Will Collier tells Robert Kitosn he is revelling in Castres fans’ passion and other benefits of life in southern France
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Vieux Talonneur said:
Missed Will Collier at Castres. Interesting interview in the Grauniad.

You can see why fringe players could be tempted. With the way things are maybe even an outside chance that Collier himself might have got back in the conversation but he doesn't seem to have too many regrets.

www.theguardian.com

‘I’m loving it’: why so many English players feel the pull of French rugby

The former Quins prop Will Collier tells Robert Kitosn he is revelling in Castres fans’ passion and other benefits of life in southern France
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
It was a good interview. Makes me want to visit southern France even more. See a game at each of the top 3 levels just take in the emotions of the fans.
 
Any strong opinions on this?

Premiership Rugby's salary cap should be "set independently" rather than by the clubs says Gloucester owner Martin St Quinton.
Click to expand...

"At the moment it's the clubs who decide what the salary cap should be and the clubs have proved year after year completely incapable of setting a sensible salary," St Quinton told BBC Radio 5 Live.

"It should be set independently from the PRB [Professional Rugby Board] with some input from the DCMS [Department for Culture, Media and Sport] what is the right amount of money that we can afford to play our club players?"
Click to expand...

It definitely makes sense IMO.
 
The league is massively competitive currently I don't think lowering it will do any good for the league at this moment.

At some point you just got to let some clubs make their bed.
Bristol and Bath both have way better support bases than Worcester, Irish and Wasps so I wouldn't compare them.

Falcons is a worry but reality is they spend their limits.
 
I would absolutely agree that it should be set by an independent panel; ideally with an element of financial fair play - but only an element.
I'd personally be looking for better "cap discounts" for home-grown players; but that's me.

Where the cap is at the moment? Doesn't seem too far off to me - clubs seem to be losing money because they choose to lose money.
If you're bringing in £20M a year; then the difference between £5.5M and £6.0M is what's making you run a loss of £2M a year, then it's not the salary cap that's at fault - especially when another club bringing in £12M a year is making a broadly similar loss.

Currently, Prem clubs can compete well against each other, the salary cap isn't what kept Gloucester down last year, and the rise isn't what brought them to the top 4 12 months later. Prem clubs can compete in Europe against all but the Galacticos - which is very much cyclic (bearing in mind I'm using "compete" not "expect to beat")
 
Never liked the blunt tool salary cap. I get the logic, but I've just got a bit more of a market forces mindset.

From a viability perspective, much rather it was based on a % of revenue or similar metric and signed off on by that club's auditor.

Would that make the Prem less competitive? Possibly, but I don't think you'd necessarily see totally dominant super clubs emerging. And if they did, that would force the others to up their game by ways other than a wallet arms race and probably make us more consistently competitive in Europe. As football has shown, established spending power really helps but it's not the be all and end all.
 
The problem with those is that you've got to be very careful with what you call rugby revenue.
Would Leicester(?) be allowed to include their income from the car park? Would Exeter be allowed their income from the hotel (since sold)? How about conference facilities? or an attached casino (wasps-as-was)? of if Bath get theirs built and have a row of riverside shops and cafes? Then maybe Steve Lansdown decides to donate some shares in his investment company to Bristol Sports? or Bruce Craig decided to buy a couple of pharmacies and run then as a subsidiary of the rugby club?
There's a line to be drawn somewhere, but I'm buggered if I know where it should be.

I also feel that having an absolute in terms of the cap prevents over-reach.

Personally, I'd like us to emulate the French model as much as we possibly can - but that'll never happen, because they reached that by deciding to be collaborative with each other to grow a bigger pie, having council-owned community stadia, and most of the owners being businesses rather than individuals. We've gone for private ownership (club and ground), a combative approach, and being hyper-protective of their slice of the pie, and screw how big or high-quality the pie itself is.
 
Which Tyler said:
The problem with those is that you've got to be very careful with what you call rugby revenue.
Would Leicester(?) be allowed to include their income from the car park? Would Exeter be allowed their income from the hotel (since sold)? How about conference facilities? or an attached casino (wasps-as-was)? of if Bath get theirs built and have a row of riverside shops and cafes? Then maybe Steve Lansdown decides to donate some shares in his investment company to Bristol Sports? or Bruce Craig decided to buy a couple of pharmacies and run then as a subsidiary of the rugby club?
There's a line to be drawn somewhere, but I'm buggered if I know where it should be.

I also feel that having an absolute in terms of the cap prevents over-reach.

Personally, I'd like us to emulate the French model as much as we possibly can - but that'll never happen, because they reached that by deciding to be collaborative with each other to grow a bigger pie, having council-owned community stadia, and most of the owners being businesses rather than individuals. We've gone for private ownership (club and ground), a combative approach, and being hyper-protective of their slice of the pie, and screw how big or high-quality the pie itself is.
Click to expand...

Good post.

The one point I'd go back on is the over reach one. Clubs have very different (for ease let's call it) revenues. Don't know the numbers, but Falcons spending half the cap may be more draining on them than Tigers paying the full whack.

And if it does prevent over reach then it will also mean some clubs who are capable of more are 'under reaching' which does go against my instincts.

But as with everything in the English game there are no perfect answers.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Latest posts

Top