Is the bubble bursting for the PRL ?

by LordDowlais Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:21 pm

So Mark McCafferty has started piping up again, and started moaning about things again. But his he just trying to deflect the issues that are going on within his own organisation ? The PRL was unable to find a new title sponsor last summer, prompting Aviva to extend its agreement for a final season at a reduced price.

Only one of PRL’s members, Exeter Chiefs, made a profit in the last tax year.

Worcester lost £8m, London Irish £3m. new English champions Saracens are about £45m in the red while independent auditors have cast a shadow of doubt on the future of Wasps after the club’s latest filed accounts revealed it was relying on shareholder cash to stay afloat.

Only one English club – Saracens – made it to the knockout stage of Europe’s showpiece Champions Cup, losing to Leinster in the quarter-finals.

Also, there's the debacle with Europe, who are once again, sponsored by Heineken, at a lower price than they were previously. Where are all these new sponsors we were promised ? Where is all this money we were supposed to be swimming in by now on the back of it ?

I know it is the WOL, but this makes for an interesting read:-

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/dont-blame-wales-lions-major-14748559

How long will it be before the PRL ruin things altogether ?

by Stone Motif Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:26 pm

Andy Howell publishes this pretty much exactly then same time Dowellais publishes this thread.

Food for thought?

by formerly known as Sam Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:33 pm

Money aside the revamped European competitions are both more watchable than their predecessors. That's a Tigers fan saying that as well and we've been shocking.

One bad season for English clubs doesn't really worry me overly. had Healy got the red card he deserved then the Chiefs win in Dublin and probably make the knock out stages and make it through, fine margins etc.

Very few if any of the AP clubs ever turn a profit. Most aim to break even. I know Tigers spend pretty much up to their income. With the money only increasing in France the PRL do need to keep their house in order and keep the salary cap operating tight. Most have wealthy backers funding them instead of the union like in the Pro.

McCaffery moaning isn't unusual. Him and Craig love a whine.

by Stone Motif Wed Jun 06, 2018 5:50 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
Stone Motif wrote:Andy Howell publishes this pretty much exactly then same time Dowellais publishes this thread.

Food for thought?

Why can't you just debate like an adult ?

Why can't you just admit you're Andy Howell, Andy?

by No 7&1/2 Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:04 pm

No. It's swings and roundabouts. Just as english clubs have dominated in the past as have the Irish and the french they'll all come round again.

by Brendan Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:26 pm

If someone has a job they have to be looking to do it. If the PRL is seen to have had a bad year he needs to be seen to doing something about it.

Maybe the Pro 14 boss should mention about some extra teams who could boost some needed revenue. Might get more sponsors from Europe if they could include SA and maybe get a SA sponsor too.

by **RDW** Thu Jun 07, 2018 8:52 am

Stone Motif wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
Stone Motif wrote:Andy Howell publishes this pretty much exactly then same time Dowellais publishes this thread.

Food for thought?

Why can't you just debate like an adult ?

Why can't you just admit you're Andy Howell, Andy?

This really doesn't add anything Stone Motif - please stop.

by yappysnap Thu Jun 07, 2018 9:07 am

PRL or is rugby in general struggling? If the showpiece event is struggling for sponsors then that's not good for anyone.

As to the guys named having a whinge, their Muppet.

by Cardiff Dave Thu Jun 07, 2018 9:28 pm

Anyone know if PRW is still operational?

http://prorugbywales.com/about-us/

by **LondonTiger** Thu Jun 07, 2018 10:18 pm

Cardiff Dave wrote:Anyone know if PRW is still operational?

http://prorugbywales.com/about-us/

Still exist and making s loss according to accounts to June 2017

by Cyril Thu Jun 07, 2018 10:27 pm

Maybe an SA side would be a good addition on a few years if they prove themselves. The Italians should be nowhere near the comp until they deserve it. Heineken is horrible, even for a lager. It’s like Guinness, a drink for people who don’t know any better.

by TJ Fri Jun 08, 2018 7:07 am

I do believe very strongly that this deficit funding should be banned. It is unsustainable to make year on year losses that can only be covered if yo have a rich benefactor and it distorts the "market" in players.

by No 7&1/2 Fri Jun 08, 2018 7:53 am

If it's unsustainable clubs will go under. Look at football since the game really began the vast majority of clubs have operated at a loss.

by LordDowlais Fri Jun 08, 2018 9:52 am

Cyril wrote:Maybe an SA side would be a good addition on a few years if they prove themselves. The Italians should be nowhere near the comp until they deserve it. Heineken is horrible, even for a lager. It’s like Guinness, a drink for people who don’t know any better.

I know my lagers, trust me I do. Wink

But to say Heineken is horrible, is a massive disrespect. Of all the Lagers, it is probably one of the nicest you can get on draft. I bet you are a craft beer type of guy.

by Cardiff Dave Fri Jun 08, 2018 11:06 am

LondonTiger wrote:
Cardiff Dave wrote:Anyone know if PRW is still operational?

http://prorugbywales.com/about-us/

Still exist and making s loss according to accounts to June 2017

Good show. Assume they're doing something then to incur a loss, whatever that something is. Wonder if they have a view on Wales' out of window matches?

by **LondonTiger** Fri Jun 08, 2018 11:25 am

I must admit that the accounts are abbreviated so only show a simple balance sheet - thus I assumed they were making a loss as the deficit had increased by about £60k. Not huge sums but does suggest something is happening.

by Cardiff Dave Fri Jun 08, 2018 12:18 pm

Biscuit tariffs?
Just noticed that the WRU owned Drags chairman is also on the PRW board alongside the other 3. How's that work then?

by PhilBB Fri Jun 29, 2018 9:47 am

Cardiff Dave wrote:Biscuit tariffs?
Just noticed that the WRU owned Drags chairman is also on the PRW board alongside the other 3. How's that work then?

It's very simple.

PRW has one full time employee - Mark Davies - and one part time PR employee - Antonia Lamont.

http://prorugbywales.com/about-us/

Davies represents the Welsh clubs at PrO'14 and European level. He was part of the three man team that got the SA teams on board, for example.

Whilst the WRU own the Dragons, they claim to have no involvement in running the Dragons. This is why Buttress replaced Phillips on the PRW Board, once Buttress got involved.

by formerly known as Sam Fri Jun 29, 2018 10:23 am

LordDowlais wrote:
Cyril wrote:Maybe an SA side would be a good addition on a few years if they prove themselves. The Italians should be nowhere near the comp until they deserve it. Heineken is horrible, even for a lager. It’s like Guinness, a drink for people who don’t know any better.

I know my lagers, trust me I do.

But to say Heineken is horrible, is a massive disrespect. Of all the Lagers, it is probably one of the nicest you can get on draft. I bet you are a craft beer type of guy.

Now personally I like a Guinness. Heineken is a poor man's premium larger isn't it? If I have to go the larger route (unusual for me) it's Morretti, San Miguel or Mongoose. Nowt wrong with craft beer either, as Heineken are quickly realising it's the coming thing.

by splenetic Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:35 pm

Even as a teenager Heineken and Export were known as rat p!ss, with probably only Carling and XXXX on lower rungs in the pub. You had to be pretty desperate and devoid of options to stump up money for it. Most times you couldn't even give it away to drunk people. If someone brought a pack to a party, it was usually the last beer still in the fridge come the morning. It would then be tucked away until the next party, or it could be dumped on someone else.

by Guest Fri Jun 29, 2018 2:44 pm

I think some people are thinking of the 'old' Heineken in the UK. Used to be around 3% and no-one would touch it. But it was always a premium lager on the continent and more like 5%. It's the premium stuff that's sold in the UK now, after a realisation from Heineken I expect, not the old watery stuff like in the 90s.

by formerly known as Sam Fri Jun 29, 2018 2:45 pm

The Oracle wrote:I think some people are thinking of the 'old' Heineken in the UK. Used to be around 3% and no-one would touch it. But it was always a premium lager on the continent and more like 5%. It's the premium stuff that's sold in the UK now, after a realisation from Heineken I expect, not the old watery stuff like in the 90s.

As I was born in 86 I wasn't drinking the watery rubbish. It's been the "premium" for me. Still wouldn't touch it in anything less than a last resort. Would prefer to drink water than the likes of Carling.

by Geordie Fri Jun 29, 2018 10:33 pm

Old Speckled Hen for me.

Give me the old traditional ales!

by formerly known as Sam Sat Jun 30, 2018 11:11 am

GeordieFalcon wrote:Old Speckled Hen for me.

Give me the old traditional ales!

Always go cask before keg.

by SecretFly Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:06 am

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Now personally I like a Guinness. Heineken is a poor man's premium larger isn't it? If I have to go the larger route (unusual for me) it's Morretti, San Miguel or Mongoose. Nowt wrong with craft beer either, as Heineken are quickly realising it's the coming thing.

'Home Made Whistle

' Heineken from their new Chinese plant that employs 69,000 people and 20,000 robots?

Oh yeah!!! Let's be having some of that craft.

by Exiledinborders Tue Jul 03, 2018 9:02 pm

splenetic wrote:Even as a teenager Heineken and Export were known as rat p!ss, with probably only Carling and XXXX on lower rungs in the pub.

If Heineken is rat's piss then Tenants must come from a rat with the plague.

by doctor_grey Wed Jul 04, 2018 4:37 am

As you know, I am a medical professional trained as an orthpaedist but with my army training and experience I am also a specialist as applies to catastrophic trauma conditions and treatment. Field surgery under fire is another of those 'mothers of invention'. None of that prepared me for dealing with Heineken. Ratpiss indeed.

Depending on my mood or the time of year, gimmee a Boddington's (our equivalent to Lucozade or PowerAde back in the day - gotta hydrate). Old Speckled Hen, as Geordie says, is good stuff, too. When the weather turns a bit nippy, it can be time for a proper Stout. A couple of real good beers are the Mexican Negra Modelo and Dos Equis.

And all of that means the business model of the Premiership is just as out of control as it was 20 years ago. no change to that or to the beers I prefer. But to paraphrase Mark Twain "Rumours of its demise are greatly exaggerated".

by lostinwales Wed Jul 04, 2018 12:06 pm

doctor_grey wrote:..

Depending on my mood or the time of year, gimmee a Boddington's (our equivalent to Lucozade or PowerAde back in the day - gotta hydrate). Old Speckled Hen, as Geordie says, is good stuff, too. When the weather turns a bit nippy, it can be time for a proper Stout. A couple of real good beers are the Mexican Negra Modelo and Dos Equis.

...

Negra Modelo is indeed wonderful stuff, but better in Mexico than the UK. What I never understood was how American beer is so bad when their southern neighbours are so good at making it. It is a while since I have been to the States but I do appreciate that the microbrewery thing has improved local beers no end, but the mainstream stuff is appalling.

I used to travel often to Salt Lake city for business and there was a microbrewery that produced (amongst other beers) Polygamy Porter which had the slogan 'Why have just one?

by RugbyFan100 Wed Jul 04, 2018 1:26 pm

TJ wrote:I do believe very strongly that this deficit funding should be banned.

No Munster then.

by Brendan Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:32 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
TJ wrote:I do believe very strongly that this deficit funding should be banned.

No Munster then.

Deficit funding is a difficult one and has worked and failed in many cases. Soccer is an easier case study because the numbers are so big the effects are easier to see.

I am in favour of it when used for the following resaons/situations
1. To build a stadium (brings in income and grows assets)
2. For short term startigic plan that has a set amount for a set period (I have no problem with people trying to grow/improve over 3-5 years as long as they have a plan and they are willing to go back to smaller costs if finances can't sustain it)
3. Short term if drop in revenues (Sometimes you have bad years that are going to result in losses due to commitments)
4. To cover wages for staff and players (excluding owners) because people don't need the hassle of money troubles at work and home

I am not in favour for the following reasons/situations
1. Once wages is 100% plus of turnover (how will it ever work if wages are taking everything coming in and there is nothing left. If players are paid from other places I could't care if the wage bill is 50m a year as long as the club isn't paying more than it can afford)
2 When debt is 200% of secured assets with no personal commitment to wipe debt owed to the owner. (This figure might be too high but owners have to commit to wipe out some of the debt they hold if it gets to a certain level.)
3. .When the owners investment is given at better terms than other debt. (If it goes belly up the owner should be the one holding the bag not other people who had no say in the running)

Solutions can be things like
1. Wages can't exceed X% of turnover for the last 3 years (or 2 if extra income has been secured)
2. Assets v debts should have a % limit and once over 100% owners should have to "donate" a % of any money given to the club
3. Owners should have a limit on money they can invest over 3 years

If clubs broke them the club doesn't get money from competitions and deducted points. The money held back should only be given to pay down debt of the club. Each year the club gets signed off accounts which is the legal debts of the club and all off book debt is assumed by the owner.

by Recwatcher16 Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:14 pm

There appears to be several unusual conclusions on this site with regards to assets & debt on a balance sheet and revenue & costs on an annual return.

Saracens are often quoted on here as being 'horrifically' in debt, but now that they have achieved ownership of a stadium in north London, (no mean feat) and the revenue supports that investment, then they will be just fine.

As an aside, the UK has been in deficit since the middle ages and is (currently) one of the wealthiest nations globally.
That said, there are other countries as tax havens, living off others, that per capita are doing pretty well too - depends what you choose to focus on.

by formerly known as Sam Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:30 pm

SecretFly wrote:
formerly known as Sam wrote:

Now personally I like a Guinness. Heineken is a poor man's premium larger isn't it? If I have to go the larger route (unusual for me) it's Morretti, San Miguel or Mongoose. Nowt wrong with craft beer either, as Heineken are quickly realising it's the coming thing.

'Home Made ' Heineken from their new Chinese plant that employs 69,000 people and 20,000 robots?

Oh yeah!!! Let's be having some of that craft.

Yes Heineken have developed the idea that if what you brew tastes like piss then you should just buy the small time brewers who know what they're doing. I see Beavertown cans are now everywhere and their new £40m brewery paid will only boost their availability and Heineken sales.

by doctor_grey Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:57 am

SecretFly wrote:
formerly known as Sam wrote:

Now personally I like a Guinness. Heineken is a poor man's premium larger isn't it? If I have to go the larger route (unusual for me) it's Morretti, San Miguel or Mongoose. Nowt wrong with craft beer either, as Heineken are quickly realising it's the coming thing.

'Home Made ' Heineken from their new Chinese plant that employs 69,000 people and 20,000 robots?

Oh yeah!!! Let's be having some of that craft.

So, if I understand you, it takes 69000 people in their China factory to piss into all those cans of Heineken sold around the world. I would have expected at least 100000.

by **LondonTiger** Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:15 am

Big bladders

by RugbyFan100 Mon Jul 16, 2018 12:43 pm

Brendan wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
TJ wrote:I do believe very strongly that this deficit funding should be banned.

No Munster then.

Deficit funding is a difficult one and has worked and failed in many cases. Soccer is an easier case study because the numbers are so big the effects are easier to see.

I am in favour of it when used for the following resaons/situations
1. To build a stadium (brings in income and grows assets)
2. For short term startigic plan that has a set amount for a set period (I have no problem with people trying to grow/improve over 3-5 years as long as they have a plan and they are willing to go back to smaller costs if finances can't sustain it)
3. Short term if drop in revenues (Sometimes you have bad years that are going to result in losses due to commitments)
4. To cover wages for staff and players (excluding owners) because people don't need the hassle of money troubles at work and home

I am not in favour for the following reasons/situations
1. Once wages is 100% plus of turnover (how will it ever work if wages are taking everything coming in and there is nothing left. If players are paid from other places I could't care if the wage bill is 50m a year as long as the club isn't paying more than it can afford)
2 When debt is 200% of secured assets with no personal commitment to wipe debt owed to the owner. (This figure might be too high but owners have to commit to wipe out some of the debt they hold if it gets to a certain level.)
3. .When the owners investment is given at better terms than other debt. (If it goes belly up the owner should be the one holding the bag not other people who had no say in the running)

Solutions can be things like
1. Wages can't exceed X% of turnover for the last 3 years (or 2 if extra income has been secured)
2. Assets v debts should have a % limit and once over 100% owners should have to "donate" a % of any money given to the club
3. Owners should have a limit on money they can invest over 3 years

If clubs broke them the club doesn't get money from competitions and deducted points. The money held back should only be given to pay down debt of the club. Each year the club gets signed off accounts which is the legal debts of the club and all off book debt is assumed by the owner.

So why should owners of private businesses be confined to restrictions like this? Those ideas are preposterous. If these restrictions were in place, rugby would go back to being an amateur sport as nobody would invest in it, and there would be barely any money to pay players.

by Brendan Mon Jul 16, 2018 10:36 pm

Exeter and Leicester seem to do fine as I think Saints too.

As I said I'm not against investment just not reckless spending that causes the club to be solely dependant on its owner and are effectively on life support.

I think you would find more better run clubs not clubs with no money. Exeter, Saints and Leicester have built up a strong base of fans that are able to fund their plans. I think you might find more teams like in France where clubs have grown to be at the heart of the city/town.

by RugbyFan100 Tue Jul 17, 2018 10:20 am

Brendan wrote:Exeter and Leicester seem to do fine as I think Saints too.

As I said I'm not against investment just not reckless spending that causes the club to be solely dependant on its owner and are effectively on life support.

I think you would find more better run clubs not clubs with no money. Exeter, Saints and Leicester have built up a strong base of fans that are able to fund their plans. I think you might find more teams like in France where clubs have grown to be at the heart of the city/town.

But Exeter are £13m in debt. They might make a profit, but they still owe £13m to their creditors.

What you see as "reckless", an owner of a business sees as vital to be competitive. They can afford it. So they spend it.

You are basically telling owners of companies not to invest in high quality employees, even though they can afford it. It's completely barking mad.

by formerly known as Sam Tue Jul 17, 2018 12:03 pm

Tigers owe more than the £13m Exeter do. They have secured the debt against long term loans which they can afford to repay. That's the cost of the stadium redevelopment and land purchases they've made. Unfortunately they can't seem to source the funding for a decent training ground at the minute.

by RugbyFan100 Tue Jul 17, 2018 12:08 pm

formerly known as Sam wrote:Tigers owe more than the £13m Exeter do. They have secured the debt against long term loans which they can afford to repay. That's the cost of the stadium redevelopment and land purchases they've made. Unfortunately they can't seem to source the funding for a decent training ground at the minute.

It's funny how some people are quick to label Exeter as good guys, as they make a profit, but they don't apply the same logic to Toulon who also make a profit (most seasons).

by PhilBB Tue Jul 17, 2018 1:47 pm

Brendan wrote:Exeter and Leicester seem to do fine as I think Saints too.

As I said I'm not against investment just not reckless spending that causes the club to be solely dependant on its owner and are effectively on life support.

I think you would find more better run clubs not clubs with no money. Exeter, Saints and Leicester have built up a strong base of fans that are able to fund their plans. I think you might find more teams like in France where clubs have grown to be at the heart of the city/town.

Erm, that's EXACTLY what all four Irish teams are.

As for France, I'd suggest that you read up a little on DNACG, the role of tax relief on local sponsorship and the cash put in by local councils.

by St John The Enforcer Tue Jul 17, 2018 4:35 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
formerly known as Sam wrote:Tigers owe more than the £13m Exeter do. They have secured the debt against long term loans which they can afford to repay. That's the cost of the stadium redevelopment and land purchases they've made. Unfortunately they can't seem to source the funding for a decent training ground at the minute.

It's funny how some people are quick to label Exeter as good guys, as they make a profit, but they don't apply the same logic to Toulon who also make a profit (most seasons).

I think people like and respect Exeter because they perform so well without a serious number of star players and play above their "level" due to good coaching and team spirit. I doubt people care whether they balance their books or not. (at least I don't) Toulon are perceived (rightly or wrongly) as a side that bought in a team rather than developed one. And that is why people don't like them as much. Having been down there on a few occasions would have coloured my opinion of them. It is a real blue collar town surrounded by the poshest parts of the French Med. They don't have a lot going for them apart from the sun the navy and Rugby.

I don't buy into the notion that there is a right or a wrong way to fund a Rugby team. Whatever works is good for me. As an Irish Rugby fan I am happy with how it is working out for us at the moment. But if it made sense for the Provinces to become private teams with their own finances that would be fine too. I just want to watch the game.

I also like to see the different approaches play out at international level also. Union run countries v countries who have private clubs. Some times it favors one approach sometimes another.

I don't particularly hate sugar daddies running things either. Nigel Wray for example has been funding Saracens since the dawn of the pro game in one way or another. He cops a lot of hate but sure he is obviously a big fan of the game and happy to fund it. so GO HIM! And Mad Mourad too.

It can be risky if loads of debt piles up and then the owner pulls out and wants his cash back. But how often has that happened? Not often in practice. They usually have to cut their losses.

by Sin é Tue Jul 17, 2018 4:54 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
TJ wrote:I do believe very strongly that this deficit funding should be banned.

No Munster then.

That would probably rule out a lot of clubs who actually own their own stadium (not to mention owning 2 and a new training centre)!

by formerly known as Sam Tue Jul 17, 2018 6:46 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
formerly known as Sam wrote:Tigers owe more than the £13m Exeter do. They have secured the debt against long term loans which they can afford to repay. That's the cost of the stadium redevelopment and land purchases they've made. Unfortunately they can't seem to source the funding for a decent training ground at the minute.

It's funny how some people are quick to label Exeter as good guys, as they make a profit, but they don't apply the same logic to Toulon who also make a profit (most seasons).

Did I label anybody good guys? I just made a point about how sometimes you need to fund long term projects with credit. The key is to acquire credit at decent rates that allow you to repay it in line with cashflow expectations (I'm looking at you Coventry Wasps).

by RugbyFan100 Wed Jul 18, 2018 9:22 am

formerly known as Sam wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
formerly known as Sam wrote:Tigers owe more than the £13m Exeter do. They have secured the debt against long term loans which they can afford to repay. That's the cost of the stadium redevelopment and land purchases they've made. Unfortunately they can't seem to source the funding for a decent training ground at the minute.

It's funny how some people are quick to label Exeter as good guys, as they make a profit, but they don't apply the same logic to Toulon who also make a profit (most seasons).

Did I label anybody good guys? I just made a point about how sometimes you need to fund long term projects with credit. The key is to acquire credit at decent rates that allow you to repay it in line with cashflow expectations (I'm looking at you Coventry Wasps).

I was agreeing with you!

by RugbyFan100 Wed Jul 18, 2018 9:25 am

St John The Enforcer wrote:

I think people like and respect Exeter because they perform so well without a serious number of star players and play above their "level" due to good coaching and team spirit. I doubt people care whether they balance their books or not.

That's literally the opposite of everything that is being discussed in this thread.

Toulon are perceived (rightly or wrongly) as a side that bought in a team rather than developed one. And that is why people don't like them as much. Having been down there on a few occasions would have coloured my opinion of them. It is a real blue collar town surrounded by the poshest parts of the French Med. They don't have a lot going for them apart from the sun the navy and Rugby.

It is indeed a great rugby city. With a great rugby academy.

I don't buy into the notion that there is a right or a wrong way to fund a Rugby team. Whatever works is good for me. As an Irish Rugby fan I am happy with how it is working out for us at the moment. But if it made sense for the Provinces to become private teams with their own finances that would be fine too. I just want to watch the game.

I also like to see the different approaches play out at international level also. Union run countries v countries who have private clubs. Some times it favors one approach sometimes another.

I don't particularly hate sugar daddies running things either. Nigel Wray for example has been funding Saracens since the dawn of the pro game in one way or another. He cops a lot of hate but sure he is obviously a big fan of the game and happy to fund it. so GO HIM! And Mad Mourad too.

It can be risky if loads of debt piles up and then the owner pulls out and wants his cash back. But how often has that happened? Not often in practice. They usually have to cut their losses.

Well that's a fair enough point.

by LordDowlais Wed Jul 18, 2018 9:41 am

Sin é wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
TJ wrote:I do believe very strongly that this deficit funding should be banned.

No Munster then.

That would probably rule out a lot of clubs who actually own their own stadium (not to mention owning 2 and a new training centre)!

Do Munster own the two grounds and training facilities ?

by PhilBB Wed Jul 18, 2018 9:46 am

LordDowlais wrote:
Sin é wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
TJ wrote:I do believe very strongly that this deficit funding should be banned.

No Munster then.

That would probably rule out a lot of clubs who actually own their own stadium (not to mention owning 2 and a new training centre)!

Do Munster own the two grounds and training facilities ?

Now you've opened a can of worms.

Independent (Musgrave) Park is owned by the Munster Branch IRFU.

The players of Munster Branch IRFU are owned by the IRFU.

Nice, eh?

by LordDowlais Wed Jul 18, 2018 10:12 am

So the IRFU own them ? Not the local council ? Or private owners ?

by PhilBB Wed Jul 18, 2018 10:14 am

LordDowlais wrote:So the IRFU own them ? Not the local council ? Or private owners ?

Pretty much, yes.

by SecretFly Wed Jul 18, 2018 12:57 pm

As an old sage once said: "The rich win".

Hats off to Munster and their IRFU sugardaddy.

by Sponsored content