Revealed! The world's best paid rugby players whose salaries dwarf those even of Leigh Halfpenny and Jamie Roberts

First topic message reminder :

Christ on a bike, there's some money to be earned in France, and Japan by the looks of things. How are Wasps going to stay under the salary cap if they are going to pay Pocock £1.4 million+ a season ? 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/11300999/Rugbys-rich-list-the-highest-paid-players-in-the-world.html?frame=3576484


the IRFU are paying Sexton and Puitua 500k each a year, that's massive money. I reckon the salary caps in Europe will disappear in time, where is all this money coming from.

Sin é wrote:
You will be hopping mad then at the £65m that the GAA (HQ Dublin) have got from the NI Executive to develop Casement Park in Belfast (though the difference here is that GAA HQ are also funding the Ulster GAA 15m towards the development costs.  

The long and the short of it is that the British Government have invested very little money in sporting facilities in NI and are now making up for their lack of investment. You seem to forget that the IRFU (and GAA) are Not-for-Profit organisations so that everything that is generated will be remain in the sport. There will also be agreements that sport has to be played at Ravenhill, otherwise the money will have to be returned.

Other ROI based companies that would be in receipt of funding from NI Executive are the owners of the Titanic Centre, Harcourt Development which is a Dublin based company.

Wonderfully accepting, yes. It makes a mockery of competition, however. From what I gather, GAA isn't played against teams outside of the island.

marty2086 wrote:
Fixed that for you Prof Phil from the Friedman School of Economics, as others clearly disagree as there are many tangible and intangible benefits to the redevelopment

Benefits that could also have been raised elsewhere.

marty2086 wrote:
Its not wholly wrong just partially or muddying the waters slightly as both are under the definition a subsidiary

How so?

marty2086 wrote:

I've previously clearly stated that the IRFU own Ravenhill and as theres no mention of the IRFU receiving money to redevelop it or for the naming rights from Kingspan so this would point to Ulster Rugby being in control of it just as it would seem to be the case with Musgrave Park

marty, why are you failing to understand that 'Ulster Rugby' doesn't exist outside of the IRFU?

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Notch wrote:
Ulster have one of the most valuable kit sponsorship deals in Europe. We benefit from Kukri concentrating so much of their resources on one team as opposed to the big kit suppliers who tend to spread themselves over a huge number of different teams and sports. 1 million over two years would be a small fraction of that.

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/sport/rugby-news/ulster-rugby-and-kukri-sign-off-on-record-breaking-deal-1-5479865

Fiona Hampton, Head of Sales and Marketing for Ulster Rugby said: “The kit partnership is one of the most vital within the club in terms of provision of top class performance sportswear and also financial income. The deal with Kukri represents the largest sponsorship deal ever done by the club and takes us to the top 4 club kit deals within our sport in the UK and Ireland.”

Your claim seems somewhat unfounded, Notch.

Maybe its still early but that quote seems to at least partly back up what he said

Top 4 in UK & Ireland doesn't equate to 'one of the most valuable kit sponsorship deals in Europe'.

It also doesn't provide any evidence that '1 million over two years would be a small fraction of that'.

The UA deal with the WRU is £33m over 9 years, for some context.

PhilBB wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:And nice use of gerrymandering.

It's true, however. The four branches aren't allowed to employ who they want to.

Er what's that got to do with the "worthless " league?

PhilBB wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:And nice use of gerrymandering.

It's true, however. The four branches aren't allowed to employ who they want to.

No one is, we had a few issues around that in this country previously and there is plenty of local, national and international law preventing

Munchkin wrote:
Not all money flows from Ravenhill to the IRFU. The IRFU doesn't get all ticket money, hospitality monies, and so on. The IRFU want the Provinces to be self-sustaining.

Are you sure about that? If so, which company receives all of the ticket money 'and so on' from Ravenhill?

As a clue, it's not Ulster Rugby Ltd.

So, which one is it?

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
Fixed that for you Prof Phil from the Friedman School of Economics, as others clearly disagree as there are many tangible and intangible benefits to the redevelopment

Benefits that could also have been raised elsewhere.

But they chose this way, you don't like it guess what that's just tough so unbunch those panties

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

I've previously clearly stated that the IRFU own Ravenhill and as theres no mention of the IRFU receiving money to redevelop it or for the naming rights from Kingspan so this would point to Ulster Rugby being in control of it just as it would seem to be the case with Musgrave Park

marty, why are you failing to understand that 'Ulster Rugby' doesn't exist outside of the IRFU?

Wow this is awkward

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/NI032360

carpet baboon wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:And nice use of gerrymandering.

It's true, however. The four branches aren't allowed to employ who they want to.

Er what's that got to do with the "worthless " league?

Because a league is only valuable if everybody can win it off the back of their own efforts.

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

I've previously clearly stated that the IRFU own Ravenhill and as theres no mention of the IRFU receiving money to redevelop it or for the naming rights from Kingspan so this would point to Ulster Rugby being in control of it just as it would seem to be the case with Musgrave Park

marty, why are you failing to understand that 'Ulster Rugby' doesn't exist outside of the IRFU?

Wow this is awkward

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/NI032360

For you, yes, as you didn't click on 'filing history'

marty2086 wrote:

But they chose this way, you don't like it guess what that's just tough so unbunch those panties

Sure, but the idea of you holding up this investment as something worthwhile stands to no opportunity cost scrutiny.

As long as we are all clear on that.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
Its not wholly wrong just partially or muddying the waters slightly as both are under the definition a subsidiary

How so?

Which element are you querying?

If its te subsidiary part well I previously answered that but I will one more time for those slow on the uptake, to be a subsidiary you have to be at least 50% owned by another company, Ulster is 100% owned by the IRFU, Dragons 50% by the WRU

Phil are you a "truther"? Conspiracy everywhere kinda guy?

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:And nice use of gerrymandering.

It's true, however. The four branches aren't allowed to employ who they want to.

No one is, we had a few issues around that in this country previously and there is plenty of local, national and international law preventing

Yep, all non Union owned teams are free to employ who they want. There's a registration issue, but that's separated from the context of the IRFU gerrymandering its own teams.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

But they chose this way, you don't like it guess what that's just tough so unbunch those panties

Sure, but the idea of you holding up this investment as something worthwhile stands to no opportunity cost scrutiny.

As long as we are all clear on that.

In its tangible elements it does, tax, jobs etc but not the quality of life benefits, added tourism, increased marketing for the region and the potential RWC games etc in the future

carpet baboon wrote:Phil are you a "truther"? Conspiracy everywhere kinda guy?

No, I'm a kinda 'educate the Irish on how their own rugby system is set up' kinda guy.

How about you?

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

But they chose this way, you don't like it guess what that's just tough so unbunch those panties

Sure, but the idea of you holding up this investment as something worthwhile stands to no opportunity cost scrutiny.

As long as we are all clear on that.

In its tangible elements it does, tax, jobs etc but not the quality of life benefits, added tourism, increased marketing for the region and the potential RWC games etc in the future

Erm, tangible benefits for the wider population would easily outweigh those, hence the opportunity cost comment, had the money been spent elsewhere.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:And nice use of gerrymandering.

It's true, however. The four branches aren't allowed to employ who they want to.

No one is, we had a few issues around that in this country previously and there is plenty of local, national and international law preventing

Yep, all non Union owned teams are free to employ who they want. There's a registration issue, but that's separated from the context of the IRFU gerrymandering its own teams.

So its about signing players now? Actually the regions and Top 14 teams can't there are restrictions on them too, there are incentives for the AP teams to have English players not to mention being able to afford them

I'm a laugh at the angry my team are rubbish and its everyone else fault but our own kinda guy, and my word your delivering in spades

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

But they chose this way, you don't like it guess what that's just tough so unbunch those panties

Sure, but the idea of you holding up this investment as something worthwhile stands to no opportunity cost scrutiny.

As long as we are all clear on that.

In its tangible elements it does, tax, jobs etc but not the quality of life benefits, added tourism, increased marketing for the region and the potential RWC games etc in the future

Erm, tangible benefits for the wider population would easily outweigh those, hence the opportunity cost comment, had the money been spent elsewhere.

Money from a sports budget to be spent elsewhere?

marty2086 wrote:

If its te subsidiary part well I previously answered that but I will one more time for those slow on the uptake, to be a subsidiary you have to be at least 50% owned by another company, Ulster is 100% owned by the IRFU, Dragons 50% by the WRU

OK, I'm slow on the uptake. Here's the Companies Act 2006:

1159Meaning of “subsidiary” etc

(1)A company is a “subsidiary” of another company, its “holding company”, if that other company—

(a)holds a majority of the voting rights in it, or

(b)is a member of it and has the right to appoint or remove a majority of its board of directors, or

(c)is a member of it and controls alone, pursuant to an agreement with other members, a majority of the voting rights in it,

or if it is a subsidiary of a company that is itself a subsidiary of that other company.
(2)A company is a “wholly-owned subsidiary” of another company if it has no members except that other and that other's wholly-owned subsidiaries or persons acting on behalf of that other or its wholly-owned subsidiaries.

(3)Schedule 6 contains provisions explaining expressions used in this section and otherwise supplementing this section.

(4)In this section and that Schedule “company” includes any body corporate.

Please explain to me how the WRU / NGD relationship meets that criteria.

Thanks in advance.

carpet baboon wrote:I'm a laugh at the angry my team are rubbish and its everyone else fault but our own kinda guy, and my word your delivering in spades

Ah, so you are a 'dumbo who sees only what he wants to see' kinda guy, in reality. Understood.

Phil explain to me why your so upset?

Thanks in advanced

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:And nice use of gerrymandering.

It's true, however. The four branches aren't allowed to employ who they want to.

No one is, we had a few issues around that in this country previously and there is plenty of local, national and international law preventing

Yep, all non Union owned teams are free to employ who they want. There's a registration issue, but that's separated from the context of the IRFU gerrymandering its own teams.

So its about signing players now? Actually the regions and Top 14 teams can't there are restrictions on them too, there are incentives for the AP teams to have English players not to mention being able to afford them

What restrictions are on T14 and 'regions', please?

Being able to afford is not a restriction, if you're being honest (which you're not, as you've entered face saving mode). Bath could employ a squad full of 40 Portuguese players, if they wanted to. Ulster can't. Ulster have to do what a bloke in Dublin tells them to do.

carpet baboon wrote:Phil explain to me why your so upset?

Thanks in advanced

I'm not upset. Thanks for the projection.

I'm enjoying educating Ulster supporters on the set up of their rugby.

Wow Phil. Your great. Such a giving guy. Always trying to educate people. Your doing a spiffing job.
Keep it up.
Happy to learn me

carpet baboon wrote:Wow Phil. Your great. Such a giving guy. Always trying to educate people. Your doing a spiffing job.
Keep it up.
Happy to learn me

That would make you unique, judging by this thread.

Unique. A word you hear a lot

carpet baboon wrote:Unique. A word you hear a lot

Ah, play the man.

PhilBB wrote:What restrictions are on T14 and 'regions', please?

Being able to afford is not a restriction, if you're being honest (which you're not, as you've entered face saving mode). Bath could employ a squad full of 40 Portuguese players, if they wanted to. Ulster can't. Ulster have to do what a bloke in Dublin tells them to do.

No face saving needed this end but feel free to enter that mode yourself as the regions are restricted to 6 NWQ, the Top 14 I'm not sure of the exact numbers but their squads have to have so many players from academies in France

marty2086 wrote:
No face saving needed this end but feel free to enter that mode yourself as the regions are restricted to 6 NWQ, the Top 14 I'm not sure of the exact numbers but their squads have to have so many players from academies in France

No, the 'regions' are not restricted to 6 nWq. The Os have played 10 this season already.

There is a payment from the WRU if a target number is hit and that payment diminishes as more are played.

The same payment system is in the T14 for hitting the JIFF target.

Again, marty, you're commenting on something that you clearly are out of your depth on. Please, take a step back and realise that.

PhilBB wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:And nice use of gerrymandering.

It's true, however. The four branches aren't allowed to employ who they want to.

Er what's that got to do with the "worthless " league?

Because a league is only valuable if everybody can win it off the back of their own efforts.

That rules out the Top14, Premiership and Super Rugby too then. All have clubs or teams that are subsidised by different kinds outside investment. Feck Ulster are hardly alone in the Pro12 in terms of local government investing in Stadia never mind Europe...

No-one in life ever achieves anything off the back of their own efforts alone. Unless they were raised by wolves and have never met another human being- and even then you'd have to say they owe a great debt to the wolves. People getting rich by the 'sweat of their brow' is just not the way the universe works. It's a reductive mindset. Through life you get opportunities or the door slammed in your face, you find yourself in advantageous and disadvantageous situations, and you can choose how to play the hand you are dealt. That's your effort. But without people willing to give you a chance and invest in you you'll get nowhere.

Same is true for an organisation- you have to persuade other people that you are going in a positive direction, that them investing in you is worthwhile. Think some people in Ulster Rugby have done a great job in doing just that and we are where we are because of some really good business decisions and competent management that makes these things happen for us.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
No face saving needed this end but feel free to enter that mode yourself as the regions are restricted to 6 NWQ, the Top 14 I'm not sure of the exact numbers but their squads have to have so many players from academies in France

No, the 'regions' are not restricted to 6 nWq. The Os have played 10 this season already.

There is a payment from the WRU if a target number is hit and that payment diminishes as more are played.

The same payment system is in the T14 for hitting the JIFF target.

Again, marty, you're commenting on something that you clearly are out of your depth on. Please, take a step back and realise that.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/sport-opinion/foreign-players-welsh-rugby-weve-7448833

'The current limit is for six non-Welsh per region, plus two time-servers – players serving the three-year residency qualification. There also have to be 17 Welsh qualified players in a 23 match-day squad.'

Ok Phil you're right, I'm wrong

Notch wrote:

That rules out the Top14, Premiership and Super Rugby too then. All have clubs or teams that are subsidised by different kinds outside investment. Feck Ulster are hardly alone in the Pro12 in terms of local government investing in Stadia never mind Europe...

No-one in life ever achieves anything off the back of their own efforts alone. Unless they were raised by wolves and have never met another human being- and even then you'd have to say they owe a great debt to the wolves. People getting rich by the 'sweat of their brow' is just not the way the universe works. It's a reductive mindset. Through life you get opportunities or the door slammed in your face, you find yourself in advantageous and disadvantageous situations, and you can choose how to play the hand you are dealt. That's your effort. But without people willing to give you a chance and invest in you you'll get nowhere.

Same is true for an organisation- you have to persuade other people that you are going in a positive direction, that them investing in you is worthwhile. Think some people in Ulster Rugby have done a great job in doing just that and we are where we are because of some really good business decisions and competent management that makes these things happen for us.

No, it doesn't rule out T14 or the Premiership as those clubs live or fail by their own efforts and carry their own risk and reward.

Thanks for the social history lesson in the rest of the post but I don't see why you're deliberately trying to change the context of discussion. You know full well the context that Ulster can be boosted by the efforts of the IRFU whereas clubs like Worcester, London Irish and co have no such gerrymandered blanket.

marty2086 wrote:

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/sport-opinion/foreign-players-welsh-rugby-weve-7448833

'The current limit is for six non-Welsh per region, plus two time-servers – players serving the three-year residency qualification. There also have to be 17 Welsh qualified players in a 23 match-day squad.'

Ok Phil you're right, I'm wrong

As I told you, the Ospreys have already gone beyond that this season. Simon Thomas has tweeted of the confusion from how the announcement was made under Lewis. Practice has disproven that link, sorry.

What team do you support PhilBB?

yappysnap wrote:What team do you support PhilBB?

Cardiff.

PhilBB wrote:

Notch wrote:

That rules out the Top14, Premiership and Super Rugby too then. All have clubs or teams that are subsidised by different kinds outside investment. Feck Ulster are hardly alone in the Pro12 in terms of local government investing in Stadia never mind Europe...

No-one in life ever achieves anything off the back of their own efforts alone. Unless they were raised by wolves and have never met another human being- and even then you'd have to say they owe a great debt to the wolves. People getting rich by the 'sweat of their brow' is just not the way the universe works. It's a reductive mindset. Through life you get opportunities or the door slammed in your face, you find yourself in advantageous and disadvantageous situations, and you can choose how to play the hand you are dealt. That's your effort. But without people willing to give you a chance and invest in you you'll get nowhere.

Same is true for an organisation- you have to persuade other people that you are going in a positive direction, that them investing in you is worthwhile. Think some people in Ulster Rugby have done a great job in doing just that and we are where we are because of some really good business decisions and competent management that makes these things happen for us.

No, it doesn't rule out T14 or the Premiership as those clubs live or fail by their own efforts and carry their own risk and reward.

Thanks for the social history lesson in the rest of the post but I don't see why you're deliberately trying to change the context of discussion. You know full well the context that Ulster can be boosted by the efforts of the IRFU whereas clubs like Worcester, London Irish and co have no such gerrymandered blanket.

Dia ár sábháil!

Clubs like Worcester, London Irish don't but I notice you strenuously avoid mentioning Bath, Saracens and Wasps! The IRFU wouldn't be willing to run up £45 million in debt in the running of one team! Ulster are boosted by the IRFU, which is good, because thats exactly what the IRFU should be spending their money on. Other clubs are boosted by private backers who are willing to let the club run at a massive loss. Other clubs are boosted by location. Other clubs are boosted by being lucky enough to have a rich and interesting history which serves as a selling point.

We are shameless about this because to feel shame is counter-productive and self hating. We are proud to support a team that brings people of different backgrounds together both across the border and across the social borders that still exist in Northern Ireland. We are proud to support a team that promotes good health, exercise and rugby values such as respect and fair competition to kids in Northern Ireland. No one is going to feel the slightest bit of shame that the local government feels that a sport which works hard to achieve all those things is worth investing in. We are just going to enjoy it.

PhilBB wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:Unique. A word you hear a lot

Ah, play the man.

I made a comment how the word unique is used a lot, which is funny as to its meaning.
Stop protecting Phil.

PhilBB wrote:

yappysnap wrote:What team do you support PhilBB?

Cardiff.

Ah fair enough

Notch wrote:Clubs like Worcester, London Irish don't but I notice you strenuously avoid mentioning Bath, Saracens and Wasps! The IRFU wouldn't be willing to run up £49 million in debt in the running of one team! Ulster are boosted by the IRFU, which is good, because thats exactly what the IRFU should be spending their money on. Other clubs are boosted by private backers who are willing to let the club run at a massive loss. Other clubs are boosted by location. Other clubs are boosted by being lucky enough to have a rich and interesting history which serves as a selling point.

We are shameless about this because to feel shame is counter-productive and self hating. We are proud to support a team that brings people of different backgrounds together both across the border and across the social borders that still exist in Northern Ireland. We are proud to support a team that promotes good health, exercise and rugby values such as respect and fair competition to kids in Northern Ireland. No one is going to feel the slightest bit of shame that the local government feels that a sport which works hard to achieve all those things is worth investing in. We are just going to enjoy it.

Bath, Saracens and Wasps are just like Worcester and London Irish. There was no need to mention all 12 AP teams.

The private backers who run the clubs put the risk / reward on to the club. The IRFU do not do this with their branches. That is the key difference here.

That final paragraph is utterly irrelevant to this debate. Ulster Rugby could be owned by the people of Ulster or by some Sheikh and still be able to do all that you mentioned.

Do you have the same feelings toward the new Zealand super rugby teams?

carpet baboon wrote:Do you have the same feelings toward the new Zealand super rugby teams?

I have got to be honest, if they were playing in the Pro12, then I would, but they aren't so they are irrelevant to this debate.

Well I was asking Phil. But thanks for joining in.

Your not Phil to are you LD?

PhilBB wrote:

Notch wrote:Clubs like Worcester, London Irish don't but I notice you strenuously avoid mentioning Bath, Saracens and Wasps! The IRFU wouldn't be willing to run up £49 million in debt in the running of one team! Ulster are boosted by the IRFU, which is good, because thats exactly what the IRFU should be spending their money on. Other clubs are boosted by private backers who are willing to let the club run at a massive loss. Other clubs are boosted by location. Other clubs are boosted by being lucky enough to have a rich and interesting history which serves as a selling point.

We are shameless about this because to feel shame is counter-productive and self hating. We are proud to support a team that brings people of different backgrounds together both across the border and across the social borders that still exist in Northern Ireland. We are proud to support a team that promotes good health, exercise and rugby values such as respect and fair competition to kids in Northern Ireland. No one is going to feel the slightest bit of shame that the local government feels that a sport which works hard to achieve all those things is worth investing in. We are just going to enjoy it.

Bath, Saracens and Wasps are just like Worcester and London Irish. There was no need to mention all 12 AP teams.

The private backers who run the clubs put the risk / reward on to the club. The IRFU do not do this with their branches. That is the key difference here.

That final paragraph is utterly irrelevant to this debate. Ulster Rugby could be owned by the people of Ulster or by some Sheikh and still be able to do all that you mentioned.

Indeed, we should scrap this horrible Union owned thing, and adapt the Regions wonderful model, or maybe the outstanding Sarries model that has them in debt of tens of millions.

You are deluded.

carpet baboon wrote:Do you have the same feelings toward the new Zealand super rugby teams?

The ones that are half privately owned?

LordDowlais wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:Do you have the same feelings toward the new Zealand super rugby teams?

I have got to be honest, if they were playing in the Pro12, then I would, but they aren't so they are irrelevant to this debate.

Exactly