PRO12 has new Managing Director and he isn't Irish :D :yahoo:

First topic message reminder :

Welcome Martin Anayi, you are going to have your hands full.

Read more at http://www.pro12rugby.com/news/17587.php#kJPQdWr0F2UKZ8DF.99

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

They didn't need to be involved in the Euro negotiations. Comment removed* Why can't you understand that? They could, and they did, help influence the negotiations by their actions. They played their part in the uncertainty over the Euro (Siding with PRL. Threatening to walk out of PRO12, etc.). That is all I have claimed.

It's easy to see why a few of you are so caught up in nonsense conspiracy theories. You make it up as you drift along....

* I removed a comment as it was both unnecessary and false.

P.s the same 'prize ****' that offered the Regions a loan to help ensure they didn't fold? The WRU had their part to play in all this. I'm not denying that.

Wrong again: there was no uncertainty about Europe once the French and English gave notice. All that happened after that was the Irish blazers and Lewis dragging out a slow death as they were outplayed by the club owners.

Lewis had to offer a loan to ensure no action against the WRU.

You really don't have events in Wales as well understood as you think you do, sorry.

Go and have a wee cup of tea, Phil. Get your thinking head on and come back to debate. If you have read the 4 points I highlighted from the RWW, you will know that it is RRW claiming 'uncertainty', as there was:

The following fundamental elements of the Regions' businesses remain unconfirmed, even as at today;

* The existence and structure of any European Competition for the Period 14/15 to 18/19

* The income and distribution from any such competition over that period.

* The number of teams participating in the Pro12 league over the period 14/15 to 18/19

* The income and distribution from the Pro12 league over that period, or even the confirmation of a main sponsor.

That uncertainty that they were as much a part of as anyone.

Phil, do a bit more reading before posting. It will save all of us a little time, and help prevent having to rehash old arguments.

But then maybe your just trying to move the goalposts.

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Somewhere amongst my comments is one that states that I wasn't really wanting to get into the rights and wrongs of it. My point about them complaining was that they were as much a part of what they were complaining about as anyone else. Right or wrong.

There were times that I thought the same as you. That the WRU wanted to close down the Regions. If the WRU could have afforded to close down the Regions they probably would have, but I don't believe they could. Why would they give the loan to the Regions if they wanted them shut down? The WRU could also have been held liable, by PRO12, if they failed to enter teams in the PRO12. So as much as the Regions hand was being forced by time, so to the WRU.

In answer to your question, 'what would you have done?', I would fight tooth and nail for my business. Whether you agree with it or not, the Regions could have opted to continue on with the remaining 5 years of the PA. It's my opinion that they tried to take advantage of the fallout in Europe, and I strongly suspect that PRL were behind that. That is purely my opinion though.

In the end, the Regions didn't really get a good deal with the WRU, or with the new Euro competition.

They were not a part of what they were complaining about as - and this is the bit you don't get - they were unable to control any of it as they were not shareholders. Their Directorship of ERC was a gift from the WRU, one they gave up because of the obvious conflict of interest. They were not able, because of Lewis, to affect change so they were not 'part of it'.

If you'd actually viewed the Press Conference on You Tube then you would see that there was a real attempt by the Union (well, Lewis) to shut down RRW teams. He failed. Why did he give them the loan? Because of the ERC witholding of income.

As for teams entering the Pro12 - you've completely ignored the information in the thread about Lewis promising to go to tender on January 1st for Pro12 teams to play the following September. Why do you ignore the evidence that disproves your opinion?

RRW could NOT have opted to carry on the remaining 5 year term as the payment method included therein was not certain. It would have more than likely broken their fiduciary duty.

In the end, RRW got rid of Lewis, got rid of Pickering, got a nice sum off BT Sport to see them through Lewis' time and now we're about to enter a new time with a new CEO and, more than likely, a tweaked new agreement. It was the best deal possible.

Again with the 'they were not signatories'. They didn't need to be signatories, Phil. This is your strawman.

To claim that RRW were not part of what they were complaining about is simply ridiculous...

Munchkin wrote:

Go and have a wee cup of tea, Phil. Get your thinking head on and come back to debate. If you have read the 4 points I highlighted from the RWW, you will know that it is RRW claiming 'uncertainty', as there was:

The following fundamental elements of the Regions' businesses remain unconfirmed, even as at today;

* The existence and structure of any European Competition for the Period 14/15 to 18/19

* The income and distribution from any such competition over that period.

* The number of teams participating in the Pro12 league over the period 14/15 to 18/19

* The income and distribution from the Pro12 league over that period, or even the confirmation of a main sponsor.

That uncertainty that they were as much a part of as anyone.

Phil, do a bit more reading before posting. It will save all of us a little time, and help prevent having to rehash old arguments.

But then maybe your just trying to move the goalposts.

Sigh.

You've conflated the RRW statement on being unable to commit to a 5 year contract with YOUR claim of their involvement in the uncertainty. That's particularly interesting, if you're being genuine, as you've tied yourself into a position whereby you cannot separate your interpretation from the actions of others.

To help you out with RRW's points: they could not sign the extension of the PA because of the points you have copied. Which of those points did they influence? None. Here's why:

* The existence and structure of any European Competition for the Period 14/15 to 18/19: their point was to delay the deadline of extension of the PA until this was known. Had you read their submission to the Senedd that I posted earlier in this thread then you would know that.

* The income and distribution from any such competition over that period: again, this was the reason to renegotiate the PA or to push back the December 31st deadline. Consider the fiduciary duty of the Directors in this period, if you can.

* The number of teams participating in the Pro12 league over the period 14/15 to 18/19: this was as much to do with the Italian teams as anything else. Remember how they were threatened with expulsion if they didn't pay to enter? Yes?

* The income and distribution from the Pro12 league over that period, or even the confirmation of a main sponsor: look at the word 'or'. Consider that. And then remember that RRW were unable to influence that income so this was a move AGAIN to push back the December 31st deadline.

It seems that you cannot understand the motive for the letter to the Senedd. It's almost as though you're commenting on something that you're clueless about but lack the grace to admit it.

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

If you had read my replies, you would know the context of my use of 'reasonable'. I did say that 'all Unions interfere with selection'. So yes, it would be polite to continue the discussion within context. There is no strawman.

No you didn't mention reasonable. I did, and the reason I did was because I had already pointed out that all Unions interfere. Meaning that all Unions select club players for training and playing internationals. I did state this earlier.

Rather than me needing to keep within the context, maybe you should actually read my replies, or at least refresh your memory.....

Yes, I know how this worked. I wrote 'they interfere', you reply 'no they don't interfere unreasonably'. You see, your response doesn't negate my point. Your straw man was the 'reasonable' addition.

You've even contradicted yourself in that very post on that very point but the bit in bold is comedy, zero self awareness, Gold.

You're still wrong. You right they interfere, and I replied that al Unions interfere. The point being that IRFU doesn't interfere any more than any other 6N Union, including WRU. In fact, unlike the WRU, the IRFU does not have 4 AI's!

SecretFly wrote:Where's Chunky?  On Holiday?

Phil appears - Chunky disappears..... Although I don't think they both support Scarlets.

Munchkin wrote:

Again with the 'they were not signatories'. They didn't need to be signatories, Phil. This is your strawman.

To claim that RRW were not part of what they were complaining about is simply ridiculous...

Bloody hell, this is painful.

You clearly cannot follow this multi faceted issue.

The signatories is not the straw man as it was all about securing their future - they couldn't influence the matters highlighted so that was their tactic to put pressure back on to Lewis. He was trying to get them to agree to something that he couldn't guarantee.

He was the cause of the problem. Had he controlled the situation properly, by agreeing to move the 31st December deadline, none of that would have played out.

Munchkin wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

If you had read my replies, you would know the context of my use of 'reasonable'. I did say that 'all Unions interfere with selection'. So yes, it would be polite to continue the discussion within context. There is no strawman.

No you didn't mention reasonable. I did, and the reason I did was because I had already pointed out that all Unions interfere. Meaning that all Unions select club players for training and playing internationals. I did state this earlier.

Rather than me needing to keep within the context, maybe you should actually read my replies, or at least refresh your memory.....

Yes, I know how this worked. I wrote 'they interfere', you reply 'no they don't interfere unreasonably'. You see, your response doesn't negate my point. Your straw man was the 'reasonable' addition.

You've even contradicted yourself in that very post on that very point but the bit in bold is comedy, zero self awareness, Gold.

You're still wrong. You right they interfere, and I replied that al Unions interfere. The point being that IRFU doesn't interfere any more than any other 6N Union, including WRU. In fact, unlike the WRU, the IRFU does not have 4 AI's!

How can I be wrong when all I noted was that they interfere and you've agreed that they interfere?

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Again with the 'they were not signatories'. They didn't need to be signatories, Phil. This is your strawman.

To claim that RRW were not part of what they were complaining about is simply ridiculous...

Bloody hell, this is painful.

You clearly cannot follow this multi faceted issue.

The signatories is not the straw man as it was all about securing their future - they couldn't influence the matters highlighted so that was their tactic to put pressure back on to Lewis. He was trying to get them to agree to something that he couldn't guarantee.

He was the cause of the problem. Had he controlled the situation properly, by agreeing to move the 31st December deadline, none of that would have played out.

It would be painful reading your obvious strawman if it wasn't entertaining, in a funny way.

It is you that is either missing the context, or engaging in deliberate deflection. The RRW had a battle with WRU. Agreed? This battle with WRU added to the uncertainty of both the PRO12 and the Euro competition. Agreed? They didn't need to be signatories (your weak strawman). If RRW had signed the PA there wouldn't have been that element of uncertainty. Agreed?
Now, I know you can say that RRW shouldn't have signed the existing PA, and agreed to continue for the remaining 5 years, but the fact is that they could have. If you had bothered reading my replies you would find that I wasn't laying all the blame on RRW, or even wanting to get into the rights and wrongs of each side. I was pointing to the fact that they were complaining about something that they had a part in. They obviously did, regardless of your precious protestations.

Munchkin wrote:
It is you that is either missing the context, or engaging deliberate deflection. The RRW had a battle with WRU. Agreed? This battle with WRU added to the uncertainty of both the PRO12 and the Euro competition. Agreed? They didn't need to be signatories (your weak strawman). If RRW had signed the PA there wouldn't have been that element of uncertainty. Agreed?
Now, I know you can say that RRW shouldn't have signed the existing PA, and agreed to continue for the remaining 5 years, but the fact is that they could have. If you had bothered reading my replies you would find that I wasn't laying all the blame on RRW, or even wanting to get into the rights and wrongs of each side. I was pointing to the fact that they were complaining about something that they had a part in. They obviously did, regardless of your precious protestations.

Eh? They couldn't have signed the extension. That's the very point you're missing. To do so would have allowed Lewis to shut them down as their income was unknown. In fact, and please address this very point, it would more than likely have been a breach of their fiduciary roles to have done so.

What you're continuing to miss is that all Lewis had to do was to push back the December 31st deadline (which was what RRW requested and what you'd understand had you read the Senedd document) then RRW would not have raised those issues. You've conflated the reasons for them doing so with the actions of Lewis (in pushing the deadline), the Pr'O12 (in messing about the Italians) and PRL giving notice on ERC (hence the end of the HEC).

Their 'complaint' was the Deadline. Do you now understand that?

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Again with the 'they were not signatories'. They didn't need to be signatories, Phil. This is your strawman.

To claim that RRW were not part of what they were complaining about is simply ridiculous...

Bloody hell, this is painful.

You clearly cannot follow this multi faceted issue.

The signatories is not the straw man as it was all about securing their future - they couldn't influence the matters highlighted so that was their tactic to put pressure back on to Lewis. He was trying to get them to agree to something that he couldn't guarantee.

He was the cause of the problem. Had he controlled the situation properly, by agreeing to move the 31st December deadline, none of that would have played out.

I didn't follow the over all gist of this debate, but it seems like it's a re-heating of a very old microwave dinner so I think I'm pretty up to date with the basics.

I guess the point of any debate between an Irish rugby supporter and a Welsh one is that overall, an Irish rugby supporter isn't going to be overly concerned about the internal shenanigans of Regional Rugby in Wales.  We're not all that concerned about the detail of the major wars that have gone on over there between the 'Regions' (some still consider themselves clubs) and the WRU.

So when you say WHY the Regions were threatening this and that during the European Championship War, when you say that their posturing was directed at Lewis and the WRU, that's unfortunately immaterial to us as observers.  

All we saw was that the Regions were threatening to take down the Pro12, were threatening to go it alone with the English and in the end helped secure a new Europe that might involve more money for Regional execs but actually has less room at the top table of the Sport itself (Champions Cup) for the Welsh Regions.
So in a sense, what the Regions helped secure was to have more money fed to them by the Great Ones of Europe (France and England) and less real chance of earning their own money (sponsorship etc) from the High End competition itself.  The Pro12 have been paid off to have less influence.  And to a great extent, the internal rumbling of the Regions and the WRU - that divided the single platform negotiating strength of the Pro12 nations - helped pave the way for that outcome.  The English and French divided and then conquered.

That outcome displeases some of us and therefore we're not too concerned why the Regions didn't feel compelled to stand with their Pro12 partners against the French and English, we simply remember who stood where.

SecretFly wrote:

I guess the point of any debate between an Irish rugby supporter and a Welsh one is that overall, an Irish rugby supporter isn't going to be overly concerned about the internal shenanigans of Regional Rugby in Wales.  We're not all that concerned about the detail of the major wars that have gone on over there between the 'Regions' (some still consider themselves clubs) and the WRU.

So when you say WHY the Regions were threatening this and that during the European Championship War, when you say that their posturing was directed at Lewis and the WRU, that's unfortunately immaterial to us as observers.  

All we saw was that the Regions were threatening to take down the Pro12, were threatening to go it alone with the English and in the end helped secure a new Europe that might involve more money for Regional execs but actually has less room at the top table of the Sport itself (Champions Cup) for the Welsh Regions.
So in a sense, what the Regions helped secure was to have more money fed to them by the Great Ones of Europe (France and England) and less real chance of earning their own money (sponsorship etc) from the High End competition itself.  The Pro12 have been paid off to have less influence.  And to a great extent, the internal rumbling of the Regions and the WRU - that divided the single platform negotiating strength of the Pro12 nations - helped pave the way for that outcome.  The English and French divided and then conquered.

That outcome displeases some of us and therefore we're not too concerned why the Regions didn't feel compelled to stand with their Pro12 partners against the French and English, we simply remember who stood where.

Quite right. But, unfortunately, this thread has a few Irish contributors who think that they understand the events and reasons behind them in Wales.

Their own output, of course, proves only their self delusion.

The High End competition income, to repeat, is lessened now in the knock out stages. Whilst Lewis was financially strangling the four Pro Teams here (you can call them that, if you like) they knew they were never going to reach the knock out stages. A bird in the hand etc.

There is a lot of self-delusion on this thread.

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:
It is you that is either missing the context, or engaging deliberate deflection. The RRW had a battle with WRU. Agreed? This battle with WRU added to the uncertainty of both the PRO12 and the Euro competition. Agreed? They didn't need to be signatories (your weak strawman). If RRW had signed the PA there wouldn't have been that element of uncertainty. Agreed?
Now, I know you can say that RRW shouldn't have signed the existing PA, and agreed to continue for the remaining 5 years, but the fact is that they could have. If you had bothered reading my replies you would find that I wasn't laying all the blame on RRW, or even wanting to get into the rights and wrongs of each side. I was pointing to the fact that they were complaining about something that they had a part in. They obviously did, regardless of your precious protestations.

Eh? They couldn't have signed the extension. That's the very point you're missing. To do so would have allowed Lewis to shut them down as their income was unknown. In fact, and please address this very point, it would more than likely have been a breach of their fiduciary roles to have done so.

What you're continuing to miss is that all Lewis had to do was to push back the December 31st deadline (which was what RRW requested and what you'd understand had you read the Senedd document) then RRW would not have raised those issues. You've conflated the reasons for them doing so with the actions of Lewis (in pushing the deadline), the Pr'O12 (in messing about the Italians) and PRL giving notice on ERC (hence the end of the HEC).

Their 'complaint' was the Deadline. Do you now understand that?

No, it isn't the point I'm missing.

I will just post this article in its entirety:

Wales' rugby regions have failed to meet the Welsh Rugby Union's 31 December deadline to reach a new legal agreement over the game's future.

Regional Rugby Wales  (RRW) has instead given the WRU until the end of January 2014 to settle their differences.
The WRU responded strongly  by hinting it could set up new teams for "sanctioned" games.
This raises the possibility of players being forced to choose between new WRU teams or existing regions.
However, it is understood a new agreement involving the unions and the current regions could still be established.
A row over the future of European competitions sparked the dispute between Wales' regions and their governing body.

Cardiff Blues, Scarlets, Newport Gwent Dragons and Ospreys continue to back England's top-flight clubs in wanting a revamped European competition, the Rugby Champions Cup (RCC).

A full-blown Anglo-Welsh league has also been mooted and is among the options Wales' regions are keen to explore.


An exodus of top Welsh players to higher-paying clubs in England and France has also formed the backdrop to the dispute over who controls the professional game in Wales and the money generated by it.
The WRU had given the regions until 17:30 GMT on Tuesday to re-affirm their commitment to the participation agreement that has underpinned their relationship since 2009 and which expires in June 2014.

The WRU had given the regions until 17:30 GMT on Tuesday to re-affirm their commitment to the participation agreement that has underpinned their relationship since 2009 and which expires in June 2014.
The deal would tie the regions into playing in the Pro12 and Heineken Cup and making players available for international matches, while setting out the funding coming from the WRU for the next five years.

The deal would tie the regions into playing in the Pro12 and Heineken Cup and making players available for international matches, while setting out the funding coming from the WRU for the next five years.

RRW, which represents the regions, has urged the WRU to ensure the four teams' future funding can match the finances available to their English, French, Scottish and Irish counterparts.

The regions stated: "A solution must be reached by the end of January 2014.

"Should this not be possible, the regions will have no choice but to pursue further competition options immediately."

RRW added: "It continues to be the absolute intent and strong desire of RRW and the regions to work with the WRU in progressing such a positive position for the next five years of professional rugby in Wales, or indeed to discuss any proposals WRU themselves may have that could provide an even stronger platform for sustainable and competitive professional rugby across Wales.

"Without change, professional rugby in Wales will fall further and further behind the rest of the European game."

The WRU has a legally binding obligation to enter four Welsh teams into the Pro12 and Heineken Cup next season and without the regions, it would have to develop new sides capable of competing in those tournaments.

Reacting to the regions' statement, the WRU said Welsh "teams" would play in the Heineken Cup and the Pro12 next season, and any cross-border competition would need to be approved by the relevant unions.

The WRU will now draw up a new participation agreement "focused on recognising and rewarding regions which identify, develop and retain players capable of challenging for international honours with Wales". (RegionsPartInEuroUncertainty





There's a few things I would like to point out in this article, but I have a very busy day, and might get back to it later.
For now I will point this out: "Without change, professional rugby in Wales will fall further and further behind the rest of the European game." This is the RRW speaking. They don't mention any threat about being closed down, and they do envisage a future as Regions. Seemingly contrary to your claims. They could have signed Phil. They did threaten to leave the competition. End of.

This thread is giving me diabetes.

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

They didn't need to be involved in the Euro negotiations. Comment removed* Why can't you understand that? They could, and they did, help influence the negotiations by their actions. They played their part in the uncertainty over the Euro (Siding with PRL. Threatening to walk out of PRO12, etc.). That is all I have claimed.

It's easy to see why a few of you are so caught up in nonsense conspiracy theories. You make it up as you drift along....

* I removed a comment as it was both unnecessary and false.

P.s the same 'prize ****' that offered the Regions a loan to help ensure they didn't fold? The WRU had their part to play in all this. I'm not denying that.

Wrong again: there was no uncertainty about Europe once the French and English gave notice. All that happened after that was the Irish blazers and Lewis dragging out a slow death as they were outplayed by the club owners.

Lewis had to offer a loan to ensure no action against the WRU.

You really don't have events in Wales as well understood as you think you do, sorry.

Actually, what happened was that the French were not too bothered - they had their own problems with the FFR. The PRL realised this so decided to stir it up with the Welsh because it looked like they were out of European competition. The PRL were looking for games and the Welsh regions fell for the ploy thinking that the PRL would take them into the Aviva than than some Anglo-Welsh cup type thingy

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
So are you saying the Regions are successful business ventures?

They've just survived a period where they financially underpinned the WRU, whilst the WRU tried to shut them down.

They could be worse. They could owe their Union millions and then renegotiate to pay it off over a significantly longer term. You know, like Munster. Or they could get the State to provide them with an upgraded stadium for free, like the team in Northern Ireland.

etc.

What kind of clown thinks that there is something wrong with having a €9m mortgage on a  26K redeveloped stadium which cost 48m to redevelop 6 years ago? Its not as if it prevented them from redeveloping their 2nd stadium in Cork and are about to get their new custom built training centre next year (with 25m swimming pool).

edit: the IRFU have given an interest free loan of about 35m to the Aviva Stadium company in Lansdowne Rd which is very generous of them, since they have paid off their share of it.

Munchkin wrote:
There's a few things I would like to point out in this article, but I have a very busy day, and might get back to it later.
For now I will point this out: "Without change, professional rugby in Wales will fall further and further behind the rest of the European game." This is the RRW speaking. They don't mention any threat about being closed down, and they do envisage a future as Regions. Seemingly contrary to your claims. They could have signed Phil. They did threaten to leave the competition. End of.

Two things: have you seen the Press Conference? have you read the letter to the Senedd?

You seem to believe that one article not mentioning 'closing down' means that no such threat existed. Would you like to confirm that is your belief?

They could not have signed and maintained fiduciary duty. Do you understand that?

Sin é wrote:

Actually, what happened was that the French were not too bothered - they had their own problems with the FFR. The PRL realised this so decided to stir it up with the Welsh because it looked like they were out of European competition. The PRL were looking for games and the Welsh regions fell for the ploy thinking that the PRL would take them into the Aviva than than some Anglo-Welsh cup type thingy

Your viewpoint is not supported by the chronology of events - do you understand that?

PRL and RRW Directors have been 'in bed' since the Rebel Season at the end of the last bloody century.

It was PRL who gave notice on ERC, thankfully. You do realise that, yes? PRL already had 'games' with RRW teams as the LV= could have been upgraded and expanded.

You've got this so wilfully wrong.

Sin é wrote:

What kind of clown thinks that there is something wrong with having a €9m mortgage on a  26K redeveloped stadium which cost 48m to redevelop 6 years ago? Its not as if it prevented them from redeveloping their 2nd stadium in Cork and are about to get their new custom built training centre next year (with 25m swimming pool).

edit: the IRFU have given an interest free loan of about 35m to the Aviva Stadium company in Lansdowne Rd which is very generous of them, since they have paid off their share of it.

There's nothing wrong with having a mortgage. There's everything wrong with not being able to pay it so it has to be completely, embarrassingly, renegotiated.

I can imagine Munster are the envy of every professional rugby team in Europe as they have a 25metre swimming pool.

PhilBB wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Actually, what happened was that the French were not too bothered - they had their own problems with the FFR. The PRL realised this so decided to stir it up with the Welsh because it looked like they were out of European competition. The PRL were looking for games and the Welsh regions fell for the ploy thinking that the PRL would take them into the Aviva than than some Anglo-Welsh cup type thingy

It was PRL who gave notice on ERC, thankfully. You do realise that, yes? PRL already had 'games' with RRW teams as the LV= could have been upgraded and expanded.

You've got this so wilfully wrong.

I know exactly what happened.
1. PRL & French offered notices that they were quitting ERC
2. PRL sold off their rights to BT
3. LNR felt obliged to support PRL (but really were more interested in their own problems with FFR in France).
4. FFR were forcing LNR to stay with ERC.
5. RFU were worried about no European rugby for their clubs.
6. Accusaton of bribery
7. Accusation of bribery

Sin forgot the word 'Allegedly'. Which he insisted privately to me he forgot to include. And I'll say so in court.....


Next........................

PhilBB wrote:

Sin é wrote:

What kind of clown thinks that there is something wrong with having a €9m mortgage on a  26K redeveloped stadium which cost 48m to redevelop 6 years ago? Its not as if it prevented them from redeveloping their 2nd stadium in Cork and are about to get their new custom built training centre next year (with 25m swimming pool).

edit: the IRFU have given an interest free loan of about 35m to the Aviva Stadium company in Lansdowne Rd which is very generous of them, since they have paid off their share of it.

There's nothing wrong with having a mortgage. There's everything wrong with not being able to pay it so it has to be completely, embarrassingly, renegotiated.

I can imagine Munster are the envy of every professional rugby team in Europe as they have a 25metre swimming pool.

Bearing in mind the financial crisis in Ireland where Limerick was particulary hard hit (14% unemployment at one stage), I think it is remarkable that Munster have redeveloped their 2nd stadium and will have a brand new training centre next year (ps - as well as the swimming pool, they are also getting an altitude training facility)!

Sin é wrote:
Bearing in mind the financial crisis in Ireland where Limerick was particulary hard hit (14% unemployment at one stage), I think it is remarkable that Munster have redeveloped their 2nd stadium and will have a brand new training centre next year (ps - as well as the swimming pool, they are also getting an altitude training facility)!

Bearing in mind it's Dublin money paying for it, I'm not surprised at all.

PhilBB wrote:

Sin é wrote:
Bearing in mind the financial crisis in Ireland where Limerick was particulary hard hit (14% unemployment at one stage), I think it is remarkable that Munster have redeveloped their 2nd stadium and will have a brand new training centre next year (ps - as well as the swimming pool, they are also getting an altitude training facility)!

Bearing in mind it's Dublin money paying for it, I'm not surprised at all.

'The project will be funded through existing capital development funds allocated to Musgrave Park, a National Lottery grant already in place, the sale of a plot of land on the east side of the ground and funding from the MRSC. The existing pitches are unaffected.'

'Munster Rugby plans to sell a 1.1 acre development site to help fund redevelopment at Musgrave Park, its Cork city rugby stadium.'

http://www.munsterrugby.ie/news/18070.php#.Veg24WdRGM8

http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Home/News/Munster+Rugby+to+sell+site+at+Musgrave+Park/id/19410615-5218-514b-20ee-9fdbe5046167

Sooooo this is awkward

marty2086 wrote:
Sooooo this is awkward

Did you miss the point about the 'mortgage' being renegotiated by €900,000 a year?

PhilBB wrote:

Sin é wrote:
Bearing in mind the financial crisis in Ireland where Limerick was particulary hard hit (14% unemployment at one stage), I think it is remarkable that Munster have redeveloped their 2nd stadium and will have a brand new training centre next year (ps - as well as the swimming pool, they are also getting an altitude training facility)!

Bearing in mind it's Dublin money paying for it, I'm not surprised at all.

Nope.

Sin é wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Sin é wrote:
Bearing in mind the financial crisis in Ireland where Limerick was particulary hard hit (14% unemployment at one stage), I think it is remarkable that Munster have redeveloped their 2nd stadium and will have a brand new training centre next year (ps - as well as the swimming pool, they are also getting an altitude training facility)!

Bearing in mind it's Dublin money paying for it, I'm not surprised at all.

Nope.

So now Munster Rugby is being back its owners the full, original, fee it promised it would?

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
Sooooo this is awkward

Did you miss the point about the 'mortgage' being renegotiated by €900,000 a year?

That doesn't make it 'Dublins money' paying for anything

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
Sooooo this is awkward

Did you miss the point about the 'mortgage' being renegotiated by €900,000 a year?

So?

Would it be better if the mortgage was from some building society / bank down in Cork? How many organisations do you know of who pay for the development of a new stadium up front. The Millenium Stadium cost 100m x 15 years ago and your still paying it off. Thomond Park close to half of that and it will be paid off before it.

The man himself:

http://www.the42.ie/martin-anayi-pro12-managing-director-2308271-Sep2015/

Interesting comment from the new MD:

“That started to change last year with Judgement Day and the key part is Martyn Philips coming into the WRU (as chief executive) and Mark Davies, head of the clubs (chief exec. of Regional Rugby Wales), are now relying on each other.

If those two are aligned, the union and the regions, can you imagine how big this thing can become? There’s huge potential.

He seems to think there is a problem with the Welsh.

marty2086 wrote:

That doesn't make it 'Dublins money' paying for anything

Where should that €900,000 be going?

Where did the McDonald's money come from?

Where is the Lottery based?

Where is the Irish Independent based?

Sin é wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
Sooooo this is awkward

Did you miss the point about the 'mortgage' being renegotiated by €900,000 a year?

So?

Would it be better if the mortgage was from some building society / bank down in Cork?  How many organisations do you know of who pay for the development of a new stadium up front. The Millenium Stadium cost 100m x 15 years ago and your still paying it off. Thomond Park close to half of that and it will be paid off before it.

So? Lovely question. I'll borrow money but who cares if I cannot pay it back? It's not like my business will fold because it's not a proper business, it's just a subsidiary.

PhilBB wrote:

That doesn't make it 'Dublins money' paying for anything

Where should that €900,000 be going? Sitting in a bank? Freebies for the Blazers?

Where did the McDonald's money come from? Sale of land. (for the record, there are McDonald's in Cork and Limerick

Where is the Lottery based? You can buy lottery tickets all over Ireland

Where is the Irish Independent based? They sell newspapers all over Ireland. For the record, the chairman of Independent News & Media is from Cork and is a Munster fan (he is on Munster's Commercial Board).

PhilBB wrote:

Sin é wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
Sooooo this is awkward

Did you miss the point about the 'mortgage' being renegotiated by €900,000 a year?

So?

Would it be better if the mortgage was from some building society / bank down in Cork?  How many organisations do you know of who pay for the development of a new stadium up front. The Millenium Stadium cost 100m x 15 years ago and your still paying it off. Thomond Park close to half of that and it will be paid off before it.

So? Lovely question. I'll borrow money but who cares if I cannot pay it back? It's not like my business will fold because it's not a proper business, it's just a subsidiary.

The loan will be paid off (most of it in 2018 when the 10 year tickets will be on sale again).

Sin é wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

That doesn't make it 'Dublins money' paying for anything

Where should that €900,000 be going?       Sitting in a bank? Freebies for the Blazers?

Where did the McDonald's money come from? Sale of land.  (for the record, there are McDonald's in Cork and Limerick  

Where is the Lottery based?   You can buy lottery tickets all over Ireland

Where is the Irish Independent based?  They sell newspapers all over Ireland. For the record, the chairman of Independent News & Media is from Cork and is a Munster fan (he is on Munster's Commercial Board).

Oh my.

The €900,000 should be going back to Dublin.
Where did the McDonald's money come FROM? Not what it went on.
Where is the Lottery based? Dublin.
For the record, the Irish Independent is based in Dublin.

Lots of Dublins in there.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

That doesn't make it 'Dublins money' paying for anything

Where should that €900,000 be going?

Where did the McDonald's money come from?

Where is the Lottery based?

Where is the Irish Independent based?

So your problem is with the city?

Lets not split hairs you were inferring that the IRFU was funding it now your producing your stupid questions to make it seem like you were meaning the city. Guess what Dublin is the biggest city on the island, its where most major corporations base themselves

Wheres Munster based?? Wheres MRSC based?

The IRFU are still being repaid just over a longer period, Im sure if you look closer there'll be a bank loan or two too that have been negotiated. Its what most businesses do when they are investing in projects as Im sure your well aware

Sin é wrote:

The loan will be paid off (most of it in 2018 when the 10 year tickets will be on sale again).

That's made easier by not having to fund the operating losses at subsidiary level. €9.66m still owed with €200k being paid off interest free a year. So, by 2018, that means €9m will still be owed.

10 year tickets will realise €4.5m?

Thats a really weird thought process you have there. As a matter of interest do you think that Wales just gets handouts from London?

marty2086 wrote:
So your problem is with the city?

Lets not split hairs you were inferring that the IRFU was funding it now your producing your stupid questions to make it seem like you were meaning the city. Guess what Dublin is the biggest city on the island, its where most major corporations base themselves

Wheres Munster based?? Wheres MRSC based?

The IRFU are still being repaid just over a longer period, Im sure if you look closer there'll be a bank loan or two too that have been negotiated. Its what most businesses do when they are investing in projects as Im sure your well aware

My 'problem' was with the drivel Sin wrote about Limerick funding the expansion.

When you combine that with the drivel he/she wrote earlier in the thread about the 'regions' not being sustainable businesses then you can see the level of hypocrisy being spouted.

Sin é wrote:Thats a really weird thought process you have there. As a matter of interest do you think that Wales just gets handouts from London?

If that's what you consider the Barnett Formula to be then so be it, but it's hardly analogous to your claim of Limerick paying for the stadium expansion.

Sin é wrote:

He seems to think there is a problem with the Welsh.

He's right when it comes to the supporters. Most have no time for the Pr'O12 at all. It's an horrific competition for us in Wales.

PhilBB wrote:

Sin é wrote:

The loan will be paid off (most of it in 2018 when the 10 year tickets will be on sale again).

That's made easier by not having to fund the operating losses at subsidiary level. €9.66m still owed with €200k being paid off interest free a year. So, by 2018, that means €9m will still be owed.

10 year tickets will realise €4.5m?

Munster managed to raise and pay off €35m 8 years ago - with all other projects finished now, I doubt if it will be too much of a problem.

Sin é wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Sin é wrote:

The loan will be paid off (most of it in 2018 when the 10 year tickets will be on sale again).

That's made easier by not having to fund the operating losses at subsidiary level. €9.66m still owed with €200k being paid off interest free a year. So, by 2018, that means €9m will still be owed.

10 year tickets will realise €4.5m?

Munster managed to raise and pay off  €35m 8 years ago - with all other projects finished now, I doubt if it will be too much of a problem.

From 10 year tickets? Link please.

Plus, let's not forget its €40m still owed.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
So your problem is with the city?

Lets not split hairs you were inferring that the IRFU was funding it now your producing your stupid questions to make it seem like you were meaning the city. Guess what Dublin is the biggest city on the island, its where most major corporations base themselves

Wheres Munster based?? Wheres MRSC based?

The IRFU are still being repaid just over a longer period, Im sure if you look closer there'll be a bank loan or two too that have been negotiated. Its what most businesses do when they are investing in projects as Im sure your well aware

My 'problem' was with the drivel Sin wrote about Limerick funding the expansion.

When you combine that with the drivel he/she wrote earlier in the thread about the 'regions' not being sustainable businesses then you can see the level of hypocrisy being spouted.

I didn't say Limerick funded it*. Munster is more than Limerick!

*In fairness, Limerick City Council did make a fairly decent contribution to its redevelopment (along with Shannon Development).

When the Regions develop and fund their own stadium with some loans from the WRU, then you can compare them.

Sin é wrote:
When the Regions develop and fund their own stadium with some loans from the WRU, then you can compare them.

No, my friend, the comparison can only be made once the IRFU sell off the pro teams and make them stand on their own two feet.

http://www.mrsc.ie/files/downloads/agm2014.pdf That lot think that there €1.2m of 'external funding', too.

If only you did actually stand on your own two feet.

PhilBB wrote:

Sin é wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Sin é wrote:

The loan will be paid off (most of it in 2018 when the 10 year tickets will be on sale again).

That's made easier by not having to fund the operating losses at subsidiary level. €9.66m still owed with €200k being paid off interest free a year. So, by 2018, that means €9m will still be owed.

10 year tickets will realise €4.5m?

Munster managed to raise and pay off  €35m 8 years ago - with all other projects finished now, I doubt if it will be too much of a problem.

From 10 year tickets? Link please.

Plus, let's not forget its €40m still owed.

I didn't say it all came from the sale of 10 year tickets. It raised the finance from various sources (like Limerick City Council, Shannon Development, JP McManus (always very generous to sport in Limerick) and lets not forget a stadium with double the capacity it had prior to 2008.

Sin é wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Sin é wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Sin é wrote:

The loan will be paid off (most of it in 2018 when the 10 year tickets will be on sale again).

That's made easier by not having to fund the operating losses at subsidiary level. €9.66m still owed with €200k being paid off interest free a year. So, by 2018, that means €9m will still be owed.

10 year tickets will realise €4.5m?

Munster managed to raise and pay off  €35m 8 years ago - with all other projects finished now, I doubt if it will be too much of a problem.

From 10 year tickets? Link please.

Plus, let's not forget its €40m still owed.

I didn't say it all came from the sale of 10 year tickets. It raised the finance from various sources (like Limerick City Council, Shannon Development, JP McManus (always very generous to sport in Limerick) and lets not forget a stadium with double the capacity it had prior to 2008.

Thought not.

So can you please explain your previous comment - bolded above - about how most of it will be repaid in 2018?

PhilBB wrote:

Sin é wrote:
When the Regions develop and fund their own stadium with some loans from the WRU, then you can compare them.

No, my friend, the comparison can only be made once the IRFU sell off the pro teams and make them stand on their own two feet.

http://www.mrsc.ie/files/downloads/agm2014.pdf That lot think that there €1.2m of 'external funding', too.

If only you did actually stand on your own two feet.

What a load of bs, if the regions or most clubs in world rugby had to stand on their own two feet they'd be bust, who bailed out the Dragons? who lent the regions money earlier this year because £165k less in funding meant they were short of cash?

It doesn't matter what the ownership structure is its in unions best interests to develop the clubs/regions/provinces

marty2086 wrote:

What a load of bs, if the regions or most clubs in world rugby had to stand on their own two feet they'd be bust, who bailed out the Dragons? who lent the regions money earlier this year because £165k less in funding meant they were short of cash?

It doesn't matter what the ownership structure is its in unions best interests to develop the clubs/regions/provinces

English and French and Welsh clubs stand on their own two feet. Director's loans are just a form of doing that.

In Ireland, it's murky and mucky and skews the league. It shouldn't be allowed, if you're interested in having a fair and transparent league.

PhilBB wrote:

Sin é wrote:
When the Regions develop and fund their own stadium with some loans from the WRU, then you can compare them.

No, my friend, the comparison can only be made once the IRFU sell off the pro teams and make them stand on their own two feet.

http://www.mrsc.ie/files/downloads/agm2014.pdf That lot think that there €1.2m of 'external funding', too.

If only you did actually stand on your own two feet.

Its normal in this country for the Irish Government to support sporting infrastructure. For instance, the Irish gov. contributed about 50% of the cost of the Aviva (in Dublin )

How much does the Liberty cost the Ospreys to hire?