The Welsh Regions and the URC

First topic message reminder :

I was reading the latest article on WOL the other day titled How to save Welsh rugby - The uncomfortable truth facing our game and the difficult solutions that need to be explored. There was the usual nonsense spouted, and the demonising of the semi pro game getting too many votes and the what not, but it did get me thinking, especially the bit about reducing the waste and fixing the pathways. Here is the link if any of you are interested:-

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/how-save-welsh-rugby-uncomfortable-23671119

What started me thinking was how the regions could live within their means and still be competitive, and to be honest, they cannot. Then I started thinking about the league since it's inception and the regions involvement, has it really been a success ?

Trophy wise you could argue a point, but then I started thinking a little more. Leinster and Ulster aside, the Welsh regions average about the same attendances as the rest, but on derby day the Welsh regions get full houses. So the question I wanted to ask, is the league a good thing for Welsh rugby ?

Wales is a small place, and the teams rely on ALL the fans, both home and away. Would playing in a Welsh league do more for Welsh rugby than the league they are in now ? The teams would get bigger crowds I would wager. It is far easier to travel from Newport to Llanelli than it is from any Welsh region to Glasgow or Dublin. Would we get a lot more "full" stadiums if it were Welsh teams playing Welsh teams every week ? At the moment, the regions just rely on their own fans turning up, and none of the regions have a massive city like Dublin, or a whole country like Ulster to back them up.

I know a Welsh league would struggle to get the TV money the URC can generate, but would the extra fans at the ground make up for it ? I don't know, I'm no expert in these things, all I can say is what I bare witness to, and the URC is not very popular here in Wales, even after the best part 20 odd years, it's been messed around with too much, and people do not know what they are following anymore, changes of structure, changes of tv companies ect.....

I would like to see a 8/10 team Welsh league, with the best players from "each region" playing in a 4 team end of season regional league, where the top two go into the the top tier Euro comp, and the bottom two go into the lower Euro comp. Yes the regions still compete in Europe, but the players also represent their clubs in the league, rekindle the old rivalries, which still have the embers burning by the way.

Also, I would like to see a shake-up of the coaches in Wales, there are far too many jobs for the boys, people getting highly paid at the regions to do jobs that most people volunteer to do in the leagues below. Even though most of the article is just personal opinion, there is a lot to surmise from reading it.

Also, can we please debate the article and the subject, and not me.

What are the thoughts of other fans on this subject ?

Not exactly getting round much though is it? They can spend what they want, not like they're cheating.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

MichaelT wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:What’s not adding up for you?  How much of Scarlets income comes from gates/sponsors?   Do they have any private backers supporting player salaries or providing commercial agreements?  That wouldn’t always have to be part of the Branch’s revenue.  Do the Scarlets have 6-7 players on central contracts that are paid directly by the WRU?  

Remember, the 34m includes approx 7m for 14 central contracts.  Not in provincial budgets.

I don't understand this bit. This reads like monies received specifically for the purpose of paying employees doesn't need to be included as income in the accounts of a company? Not sure thats legal. If you receive a grant from Enterprise Ireland for employing staff you still have to recognise it as income in your financial returns for example. Not sure what the difference is.

If players are receiving payment because of their employment as rugby players then it would be included in the English salary cap as Saracens found out.

Exactly. They get round it because the IRFU isn't incorporated or whatever the term is. Pot Hale claims that Munster's turnover is  €17m, but that doesn't include the €€€ that the IRFU pays for their central contracted players or the €€€ that the private owner paid for the 2 South African World Cup Winners Snyman and de Allende. What happens if that private backer decided to fund 10 Munster players? Millions of €€€€ not accounted for in the IRFU accounts.

I have seen more transparent dog turds.

Munster's turnover doesn't include the salaries of 3 current central contract players - Murray, O'Mahony, Earls, and from next season, Tadgh Beirne.
However, the private funds raised by the fundraising group - 1014 Club - are included in Munster's turnover. IRFU are not well disposed to funding foreign capped players anymore, so provinces have to find the monies themselves. Munster's gates have been falling, and thus the income from same. Private monies are filling the gap. The cost of these players is accounted for in the overall Player/Management costs in IRFU accounts. And the cost of the central contracts is also accounted for under the same heading in the IRFU accounts.

Commercial agreements whereby a player is paid by a commercial entity directly as a brand ambassador, etc, would not be included in the branch's turnover. That's a commercial transaction between the player and the entity. Other agreements, whereby a commercial entity might sponsor a Munster branch initiative or resource/facility would be included in their turnover.

As I said previously, it is the branches' income generation that ultimately determines the player/management budgets for each professional team. Central contracts and IRFU management of a small number of players was first introduced by Eddie O'Sullivan and Wigglesworth in 2004 IIRC - it is not a new idea. Indeed, at the outset, the IRFU was pretty much paying all of the players, and simply receiving all the cash from the provinces gates to offset that cost. The provinces sought to change that in 2003/4 I think, where they wanted to have greater control of their finances.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

The Oracle wrote:Plus the ability to generate so much income themselves. Which again is perhaps not something that all clubs in the league have the capacity to do to the same extent as Leinster. But something we can all work towards trying to achieve.

Thats easy to come by when Leinster are based in a city with 1.25 million people living there and no pro football to contend with.

It's the same with Ulster, they have a whole country behind them they do, and again, no pro football to contend with.

Is it only now "no pro football to contend with" ? I thought this was always the case, although football may be slightly more popular now in Wales than previously. The Irish like football too, but in the premier league. They also have their other sports like Gaelic football, that seems to be popular over there. Generating income would be easy to come by for Leinster though given how successful they are and where they are based. I can't see how it's sustainable if there are only a limited number of contracts, talk about producing too many quality players!

Hey Mikey, perhaps you need to do your research, the Gaelic calendar runs outside of the rugby season, and the Irish provinces are not in direct competition with any football team, Ospreys, Cardiff and Newport have football teams in the same city as them.

You're confusing the all Ireland championship with the "gaelic calendar" Gaelic is played and watched almost all year round.

Hey don't let facts get in the way... It's a moot point anyway, every nation competes on multiple sporting fronts. Especially those Aussies.

Pot Hale wrote: Do they have any private backers supporting player salaries or providing commercial agreements?  That wouldn’t always have to be part of the Branch’s revenue.

Pot Hale wrote: Commercial agreements whereby a player is paid by a commercial entity directly as a brand ambassador, etc, would not be included in the branch's turnover.  That's a commercial transaction between the player and the entity.  Other agreements, whereby a commercial entity might sponsor a Munster branch initiative or resource/facility would be included in their turnover.

You said private backers supporting players salaries does not always have to be included. Now you have changed it to being separate deals between a company and the player. Of course that shouldn't be included.

Are they salary supports for payments from one employer, the player just also has to wear something; or is the player getting paid by two employers for unrelated activities? like anyone else with a second job. therefore the second agreement is not relevant to a discussion on the budget/ payments of a rugby union to its players.

To me it reads like theres a conversation along the lines of 'for playing for us, we will give you 100, and then you can also get paid by this company for another 100, and this one, and this one, all because of your employment with us'.

Sounds like Nigel Wray!

RugbyFan100 wrote:

MichaelT wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:What’s not adding up for you?  How much of Scarlets income comes from gates/sponsors?   Do they have any private backers supporting player salaries or providing commercial agreements?  That wouldn’t always have to be part of the Branch’s revenue.  Do the Scarlets have 6-7 players on central contracts that are paid directly by the WRU?  

Remember, the 34m includes approx 7m for 14 central contracts.  Not in provincial budgets.

I don't understand this bit. This reads like monies received specifically for the purpose of paying employees doesn't need to be included as income in the accounts of a company? Not sure thats legal. If you receive a grant from Enterprise Ireland for employing staff you still have to recognise it as income in your financial returns for example. Not sure what the difference is.

If players are receiving payment because of their employment as rugby players then it would be included in the English salary cap as Saracens found out.

Exactly. They get round it because the IRFU isn't incorporated or whatever the term is. Pot Hale claims that Munster's turnover is  €17m, but that doesn't include the €€€ that the IRFU pays for their central contracted players or the €€€ that the private owner paid for the 2 South African World Cup Winners Snyman and de Allende. What happens if that private backer decided to fund 10 Munster players? Millions of €€€€ not accounted for in the IRFU accounts.

I have seen more transparent dog turds.

What about when Leinster had outside businessmen topping up/paying the wages of the players, I know Sexton was one, and I think Rocky Elsom might have been one, I cannot for sure say how many were though, anyway, does that count in the accounts ?

How does every conversation about Welsh rugby end up as "it's the fault of the Irish" ?

Irish Londoner wrote:How does every conversation about Welsh rugby end up as "it's the fault of the Irish" ?

Similarly, whenever people are discussing differences between clubs in a multi-nation league someone always jumps in and says 'why do the Welsh always say "it's the faulty of the Irish"'?!

You're currently at it's the fault of the Irish to be doing nothing against the rules but with comparisons to Saracens who cheated the league in England.

These Irish are bloody awful...

LordDowlais wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

MichaelT wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:What’s not adding up for you?  How much of Scarlets income comes from gates/sponsors?   Do they have any private backers supporting player salaries or providing commercial agreements?  That wouldn’t always have to be part of the Branch’s revenue.  Do the Scarlets have 6-7 players on central contracts that are paid directly by the WRU?  

Remember, the 34m includes approx 7m for 14 central contracts.  Not in provincial budgets.

I don't understand this bit. This reads like monies received specifically for the purpose of paying employees doesn't need to be included as income in the accounts of a company? Not sure thats legal. If you receive a grant from Enterprise Ireland for employing staff you still have to recognise it as income in your financial returns for example. Not sure what the difference is.

If players are receiving payment because of their employment as rugby players then it would be included in the English salary cap as Saracens found out.

Exactly. They get round it because the IRFU isn't incorporated or whatever the term is. Pot Hale claims that Munster's turnover is  €17m, but that doesn't include the €€€ that the IRFU pays for their central contracted players or the €€€ that the private owner paid for the 2 South African World Cup Winners Snyman and de Allende. What happens if that private backer decided to fund 10 Munster players? Millions of €€€€ not accounted for in the IRFU accounts.

I have seen more transparent dog turds.

What about when Leinster had outside businessmen topping up/paying the wages of the players, I know Sexton was one, and I think Rocky Elsom might have been one, I cannot for sure say how many were though, anyway, does that count in the accounts ?

Does it matter? My original point is that it is the revenue raising abilities of the province that is the most important and valuable in determining their playing budgets. The union monies are a relatively smaller part - particularly since they are met largely by using the Competition Income - about €3.5m each.

Pot Hale wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

MichaelT wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:What’s not adding up for you?  How much of Scarlets income comes from gates/sponsors?   Do they have any private backers supporting player salaries or providing commercial agreements?  That wouldn’t always have to be part of the Branch’s revenue.  Do the Scarlets have 6-7 players on central contracts that are paid directly by the WRU?  

Remember, the 34m includes approx 7m for 14 central contracts.  Not in provincial budgets.

I don't understand this bit. This reads like monies received specifically for the purpose of paying employees doesn't need to be included as income in the accounts of a company? Not sure thats legal. If you receive a grant from Enterprise Ireland for employing staff you still have to recognise it as income in your financial returns for example. Not sure what the difference is.

If players are receiving payment because of their employment as rugby players then it would be included in the English salary cap as Saracens found out.

Exactly. They get round it because the IRFU isn't incorporated or whatever the term is. Pot Hale claims that Munster's turnover is  €17m, but that doesn't include the €€€ that the IRFU pays for their central contracted players or the €€€ that the private owner paid for the 2 South African World Cup Winners Snyman and de Allende. What happens if that private backer decided to fund 10 Munster players? Millions of €€€€ not accounted for in the IRFU accounts.

I have seen more transparent dog turds.

What about when Leinster had outside businessmen topping up/paying the wages of the players, I know Sexton was one, and I think Rocky Elsom might have been one, I cannot for sure say how many were though, anyway, does that count in the accounts ?

Does it matter?   My original point is that it is the revenue raising abilities of the province that is the most important and valuable in determining their playing budgets.  The union monies are a relatively smaller part - particularly since they are met largely by using the Competition Income - about €3.5m each.  

No it doesn't matter, of course it doesn't, it's just when the questions are being asked, are these outside extras being taken into account, thats all. I couldn't give two hoots if Leinster are the biggest spenders in European rugby, I couldn't give two hoots if the other three provinces are spending beyond their means due to union supplementation, also and it's a BIG fact, people quoting, that it's ALL THE FAULT OF THE IRISH is just nonsense and an example of people trying to turn the debate into something else. I have not seen anybody blaming Ireland/Irish for anything.

Irish rugby is far from transparent with their finances, and if they had their provinces in any other league, they would more than likely get the same treatment as Saracens had, but they play in our league, and there are no restrictions, so carry on.

You do however come on here with lots and lots of facts and figures to back up your points, fair play to you, but when they are countered there is always a, yeah but no, but yeah, but no type of response from you. Again, I do not care, because I am not concerned with Irish rugby, I am concerned with Welsh rugby, but you do need to sometimes take on board what others are pointing out.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You're currently at it's the fault of the Irish to be doing nothing against the rules but with comparisons to Saracens who cheated the league in England.

'You're' as in....... who??? All of us? Or one or two?

Seems that some people are at cross purposes here. Some posters are trying to establish squad costs (i.e. wage bill) between the clubs of two nations, by way of comparison. Others are trying to explain how the Irish provinces generate their income. Those are two different conversations, and one does not really answer the other.

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You're currently at it's the fault of the Irish to be doing nothing against the rules but with comparisons to Saracens who cheated the league in England.

'You're' as in....... who???  All of us?  Or one or two?

Generality of where the thread is moving to. Think it was an England fan who started the Saracens comparison.

LordDowlais wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

MichaelT wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:What’s not adding up for you?  How much of Scarlets income comes from gates/sponsors?   Do they have any private backers supporting player salaries or providing commercial agreements?  That wouldn’t always have to be part of the Branch’s revenue.  Do the Scarlets have 6-7 players on central contracts that are paid directly by the WRU?  

Remember, the 34m includes approx 7m for 14 central contracts.  Not in provincial budgets.

I don't understand this bit. This reads like monies received specifically for the purpose of paying employees doesn't need to be included as income in the accounts of a company? Not sure thats legal. If you receive a grant from Enterprise Ireland for employing staff you still have to recognise it as income in your financial returns for example. Not sure what the difference is.

If players are receiving payment because of their employment as rugby players then it would be included in the English salary cap as Saracens found out.

Exactly. They get round it because the IRFU isn't incorporated or whatever the term is. Pot Hale claims that Munster's turnover is  €17m, but that doesn't include the €€€ that the IRFU pays for their central contracted players or the €€€ that the private owner paid for the 2 South African World Cup Winners Snyman and de Allende. What happens if that private backer decided to fund 10 Munster players? Millions of €€€€ not accounted for in the IRFU accounts.

I have seen more transparent dog turds.

What about when Leinster had outside businessmen topping up/paying the wages of the players, I know Sexton was one, and I think Rocky Elsom might have been one, I cannot for sure say how many were though, anyway, does that count in the accounts ?

Does it matter?   My original point is that it is the revenue raising abilities of the province that is the most important and valuable in determining their playing budgets.  The union monies are a relatively smaller part - particularly since they are met largely by using the Competition Income - about €3.5m each.  

No it doesn't matter, of course it doesn't, it's just when the questions are being asked, are these outside extras being taken into account, thats all. I couldn't give two hoots if Leinster are the biggest spenders in European rugby, I couldn't give two hoots if the other three provinces are spending beyond their means due to union supplementation, also and it's a BIG fact, people quoting, that it's ALL THE FAULT OF THE IRISH is just nonsense and an example of people trying to turn the debate into something else. I have not seen anybody blaming Ireland/Irish for anything.

Irish rugby is far from transparent with their finances, and if they had their provinces in any other league, they would more than likely get the same treatment as Saracens had, but they play in our league, and there are no restrictions, so carry on.

You do however come on here with lots and lots of facts and figures to back up your points, fair play to you, but when they are countered there is always a, yeah but no, but yeah, but no type of response from you. Again, I do not care, because I am not concerned with Irish rugby, I am concerned with Welsh rugby, but you do need to sometimes take on board what others are pointing out.

Did anyone counter what I was saying or were they asking for more information/clarification?

I don’t understand your yeah but no comment. Could you provide an example of what you’re talking about?

The Oracle wrote:Seems that some people are at cross purposes here.  Some posters are trying to establish squad costs (i.e. wage bill) between the clubs of two nations, by way of comparison.  Others are trying to explain how the Irish provinces generate their income.  Those are two different conversations, and one does not really answer the other.

Exactly.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You're currently at it's the fault of the Irish to be doing nothing against the rules but with comparisons to Saracens who cheated the league in England.

'You're' as in....... who???  All of us?  Or one or two?

Generality of where the thread is moving to. Think it was an England fan who started the Saracens comparison.

That was me who mentioned Saracens. Not sure why but it seems to have greatly offended you. I am very sorry.

MichaelT wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You're currently at it's the fault of the Irish to be doing nothing against the rules but with comparisons to Saracens who cheated the league in England.

'You're' as in....... who???  All of us?  Or one or two?

Generality of where the thread is moving to. Think it was an England fan who started the Saracens comparison.

That was me who mentioned Saracens. Not sure why but it seems to have greatly offended you. I am very sorry.

I take no offence to it. Just a comparison that doesn't work.

Pot Hale wrote:I don’t understand your yeah but no comment. Could you provide an example of what you’re talking about?

It's when RF100 counters your figures, and you come back with even more figures, that really do not explain what he is asking.

Look, I'm not the expert like you are with all your info, but it does not take a genius to work out, that with all the blue chip elite coaches Leinster have, and the massive squad Leinster have, and all the nice new state of the art facilities Leinster have, they are obviously spending more than what you reckon they are spending. The same as it was obvious Saracens were spending more than what people were saying.

The figures you present us with, are all very impressive, but when they are countered, you will come up with another answer.

Look, I do not care what Leinster are doing, nobody will ever know what Irish rugby spends on it's provinces, as they are not transparent with their dealings like every other club in the NH are. So what. Good for Irish rugby that they have all this money spent on them I say.

But one thing is for sure, and I do agree with RF100, is that they would not be allowed to get away with it in any other league, due to salary caps and the what not.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

MichaelT wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You're currently at it's the fault of the Irish to be doing nothing against the rules but with comparisons to Saracens who cheated the league in England.

'You're' as in....... who???  All of us?  Or one or two?

Generality of where the thread is moving to. Think it was an England fan who started the Saracens comparison.

That was me who mentioned Saracens. Not sure why but it seems to have greatly offended you. I am very sorry.

I take no offence to it. Just a comparison that doesn't work.

Yes it does. Well, for the other three provinces it does. Also, in any other league, Leinster would not be allowed to spend what they do due to the rules in the leagues. So I would say it's a very reasonable comparison.

It doesn't as the Irish aren't cheating.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

MichaelT wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You're currently at it's the fault of the Irish to be doing nothing against the rules but with comparisons to Saracens who cheated the league in England.

'You're' as in....... who???  All of us?  Or one or two?

Generality of where the thread is moving to. Think it was an England fan who started the Saracens comparison.

That was me who mentioned Saracens. Not sure why but it seems to have greatly offended you. I am very sorry.

I take no offence to it. Just a comparison that doesn't work.

In your opinion. I was trying to understand how third party payments were made to players as described, and provided an analogy of the payments Saracens made to their players.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It doesn't as the Irish aren't cheating.

No one has accused them of cheating.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It doesn't as the Irish aren't cheating.

But who has said that they are ? Not once anywhere has anyone said the Irish are cheating.

The comparison that is being made is, that the Irish provinces, and Leinster in particular are spending more than what people would have us believe they are. Now, where have we here'd this story before ? Oh yes, Saracens. The only difference is, that there is a rule in England where it is not allowed, and there is no such rule in the URC. So yes, there are comparisons to be made, whether you think so or not.

We'll go with an odd comparison then.

No 7&1/2 wrote:We'll go with an odd comparison then.

So you agree then, there is a comparison. Also, would you rescind your comment of people accusing the Irish are cheating ?

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:We'll go with an odd comparison then.

So you agree then, there is a comparison. Also, would you rescind your comment of people accusing the Irish are cheating ?

A bad comparison and no I won't as that was what clearly was being insinuated.

I think the point was simply that 3rd party salary contributions should be included in squad spend totals, which was how Saracens fell foul (I think). And by extension it would be useful in the comparison between teams in the URC if we include 3rd party salary contributions in the totals of squad spends so we can get a more accurate comparison.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:We'll go with an odd comparison then.

So you agree then, there is a comparison. Also, would you rescind your comment of people accusing the Irish are cheating ?

A bad comparison and no I won't as that was what clearly was being insinuated.

No it wasn't, you bizarre individual!

The Oracle wrote:I think the point was simply that 3rd party salary contributions should be included in squad spend totals, which was how Saracens fell foul (I think).  And by extension it would be useful in the comparison between teams in the URC if we include 3rd party salary contributions in the totals of squad spends so we can get a more accurate comparison.

Not hard is it ?

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:We'll go with an odd comparison then.

So you agree then, there is a comparison. Also, would you rescind your comment of people accusing the Irish are cheating ?

A bad comparison and no I won't as that was what clearly was being insinuated.

No it wasn't, you bizarre individual!

No need for that at all.

Well stop accusing people of something without any basis what so ever.

MichaelT wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:What’s not adding up for you?  How much of Scarlets income comes from gates/sponsors?   Do they have any private backers supporting player salaries or providing commercial agreements?  That wouldn’t always have to be part of the Branch’s revenue.  Do the Scarlets have 6-7 players on central contracts that are paid directly by the WRU?  

Remember, the 34m includes approx 7m for 14 central contracts.  Not in provincial budgets.

I don't understand this bit. This reads like monies received specifically for the purpose of paying employees doesn't need to be included as income in the accounts of a company? Not sure thats legal. If you receive a grant from Enterprise Ireland for employing staff you still have to recognise it as income in your financial returns for example. Not sure what the difference is.

If players are receiving payment because of their employment as rugby players then it would be included in the English salary cap as Saracens found out.

Now these 2 things are key for me in the view I think Michael is insinuating things. Asking a question if what Leinster are doing above board then pointing out what he thinks they are doing was done by Saracens with a nod and wink. Now you guys may sit back and say he hasn't said they're cheating....Well I've got a bridge to sell you in that case.

LordDowlais wrote:Well stop accusing people of something without any basis what so ever.

I haven't.  If you disagree with my thoughts ask yourself why Saracens were really brought up in that post. And it's a great bridge. Yours for a million quid.

LordDowlais wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:I don’t understand your yeah but no comment. Could you provide an example of what you’re talking about?

It's when RF100 counters your figures, and you come back with even more figures, that really do not explain what he is asking.

Look, I'm not the expert like you are with all your info, but it does not take a genius to work out, that with all the blue chip elite coaches Leinster have, and the massive squad Leinster have, and all the nice new state of the art facilities Leinster have, they are obviously spending more than what you reckon they are spending. The same as it was obvious Saracens were spending more than what people were saying.

The figures you present us with, are all very impressive, but when they are countered, you will come up with another answer.

Look, I do not care what Leinster are doing, nobody will ever know what Irish rugby spends on it's provinces, as they are not transparent with their dealings like every other club in the NH are. So what. Good for Irish rugby that they have all this money spent on them I say.

But one thing is for sure, and I do agree with RF100, is that they would not be allowed to get away with it in any other league, due to salary caps and the what not.

RF100 did not counter my figures. He asked questions about them - I explained.

Capital expenditure on facilities do not come into the day to day spending on players' and coaches salaries that we have been discussing. Leinster has the same number of players in its senior squad - 45 - as other teams do. They are coached better - mainly from an age-grade level through to gaining status. That is the result of investment by the branch and by the IRFU in the overall pathway. I'm not disputing that in the slightest. The state of the art facilities that you refer to - UCD and the first of their provincial training centres of excellence located in Donnybrook - have largely been paid for by benefactors - namely David Shubotham and Ken Wall. Again that is widely publicised and known. But it's not reflected in the annual turnover of Leinster that we were discussing in the context of player and management budgets.

The point I was making was that Leinster gains revenue from many more private sources than it gets from the union. That's all.

There is nothing for them to "get away with". If Scarlets had the same level of revenue streams, they'd be spending likewise. No team is capped by the URC league in terms of its spending - any limits are determined by capacity to generate income and/or imposed limits on players at local level as practised in Wales and SA. There are no limits on capital expenditure or raising finances through various sources.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Well stop accusing people of something without any basis what so ever.

I haven't.  If you disagree with my thoughts ask yourself why Saracens were really brought up in that post. And it's a great bridge. Yours for a million quid.

I have already said why they have been brought up.

Because both are/were spending a lot more than what people would have us believe. Thats all.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Well stop accusing people of something without any basis what so ever.

I haven't.  If you disagree with my thoughts ask yourself why Saracens were really brought up in that post. And it's a great bridge. Yours for a million quid.

I have already said why they have been brought up.

Because both are/were spending a lot more than what people would have us believe. Thats all.

I take cheques or cash.

Pot Hale wrote:There is nothing for them to "get away with". If Scarlets had the same level of revenue streams, they'd be spending likewise. No team is capped by the URC league in terms of its spending - any limits are determined by capacity to generate income and/or imposed limits on players at local level as practised in Wales and SA. There are no limits on capital expenditure or raising finances through various sources.

Yes I know. I have also said:-

1. I do not care
2. Good for Irish rugby
3. The provinces are doing nothing wrong
4. Nobody is accusing anybody of anything

So I'm glad we can clear this up.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Well stop accusing people of something without any basis what so ever.

I haven't.  If you disagree with my thoughts ask yourself why Saracens were really brought up in that post. And it's a great bridge. Yours for a million quid.

I have already said why they have been brought up.

Because both are/were spending a lot more than what people would have us believe. Thats all.

I take cheques or cash.

I agree with Oracle. You are a very bizzare person.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

MichaelT wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:What’s not adding up for you?  How much of Scarlets income comes from gates/sponsors?   Do they have any private backers supporting player salaries or providing commercial agreements?  That wouldn’t always have to be part of the Branch’s revenue.  Do the Scarlets have 6-7 players on central contracts that are paid directly by the WRU?  

Remember, the 34m includes approx 7m for 14 central contracts.  Not in provincial budgets.

I don't understand this bit. This reads like monies received specifically for the purpose of paying employees doesn't need to be included as income in the accounts of a company? Not sure thats legal. If you receive a grant from Enterprise Ireland for employing staff you still have to recognise it as income in your financial returns for example. Not sure what the difference is.

If players are receiving payment because of their employment as rugby players then it would be included in the English salary cap as Saracens found out.

Now these 2 things are key for me in the view I think Michael is insinuating things. Asking a question if what Leinster are doing above board then pointing out what he thinks they are doing was done by Saracens with a nod and wink. Now you guys may sit back and say he hasn't said they're cheating....Well I've got a bridge to sell you in that case.

Let me seek to settle this as I was the one to make the original comment. I worded it badly. I intended to say that commercial agreements with a player would not always be included in the branch's turnover. Supports for a player salary from a specific individual or company would go through the branch's accounts.

Hope that clarifies for everyone. My bad wording.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

MichaelT wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:What’s not adding up for you?  How much of Scarlets income comes from gates/sponsors?   Do they have any private backers supporting player salaries or providing commercial agreements?  That wouldn’t always have to be part of the Branch’s revenue.  Do the Scarlets have 6-7 players on central contracts that are paid directly by the WRU?  

Remember, the 34m includes approx 7m for 14 central contracts.  Not in provincial budgets.

I don't understand this bit. This reads like monies received specifically for the purpose of paying employees doesn't need to be included as income in the accounts of a company? Not sure thats legal. If you receive a grant from Enterprise Ireland for employing staff you still have to recognise it as income in your financial returns for example. Not sure what the difference is.

If players are receiving payment because of their employment as rugby players then it would be included in the English salary cap as Saracens found out.

Now these 2 things are key for me in the view I think Michael is insinuating things. Asking a question if what Leinster are doing above board then pointing out what he thinks they are doing was done by Saracens with a nod and wink. Now you guys may sit back and say he hasn't said they're cheating....Well I've got a bridge to sell you in that case.

Nothing in there insinuates that the Irish provinces are cheating.

Anyway, I'm done with this. You are ruining the debate with your nonsense. Good evening.

Pot Hale wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

MichaelT wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:What’s not adding up for you?  How much of Scarlets income comes from gates/sponsors?   Do they have any private backers supporting player salaries or providing commercial agreements?  That wouldn’t always have to be part of the Branch’s revenue.  Do the Scarlets have 6-7 players on central contracts that are paid directly by the WRU?  

Remember, the 34m includes approx 7m for 14 central contracts.  Not in provincial budgets.

I don't understand this bit. This reads like monies received specifically for the purpose of paying employees doesn't need to be included as income in the accounts of a company? Not sure thats legal. If you receive a grant from Enterprise Ireland for employing staff you still have to recognise it as income in your financial returns for example. Not sure what the difference is.

If players are receiving payment because of their employment as rugby players then it would be included in the English salary cap as Saracens found out.

Now these 2 things are key for me in the view I think Michael is insinuating things. Asking a question if what Leinster are doing above board then pointing out what he thinks they are doing was done by Saracens with a nod and wink. Now you guys may sit back and say he hasn't said they're cheating....Well I've got a bridge to sell you in that case.

Let me seek to settle this as I was the one to make the original comment.  I worded it badly.   I intended to say that commercial agreements with a player would not always be included in the branch's turnover.   Supports for a player salary from a specific individual or company would go through the branch's accounts.  

Hope that clarifies for everyone.  My bad wording.

It wasn't bad wording for me, I understood where you were coming from.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Well stop accusing people of something without any basis what so ever.

I haven't.  If you disagree with my thoughts ask yourself why Saracens were really brought up in that post. And it's a great bridge. Yours for a million quid.

I have already said why they have been brought up.

Because both are/were spending a lot more than what people would have us believe. Thats all.

I take cheques or cash.

I agree with Oracle. You are a very bizzare person.

I won't be buying any rugs from you when I'm in Wales then.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

MichaelT wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:What’s not adding up for you?  How much of Scarlets income comes from gates/sponsors?   Do they have any private backers supporting player salaries or providing commercial agreements?  That wouldn’t always have to be part of the Branch’s revenue.  Do the Scarlets have 6-7 players on central contracts that are paid directly by the WRU?  

Remember, the 34m includes approx 7m for 14 central contracts.  Not in provincial budgets.

I don't understand this bit. This reads like monies received specifically for the purpose of paying employees doesn't need to be included as income in the accounts of a company? Not sure thats legal. If you receive a grant from Enterprise Ireland for employing staff you still have to recognise it as income in your financial returns for example. Not sure what the difference is.

If players are receiving payment because of their employment as rugby players then it would be included in the English salary cap as Saracens found out.

Now these 2 things are key for me in the view I think Michael is insinuating things. Asking a question if what Leinster are doing above board then pointing out what he thinks they are doing was done by Saracens with a nod and wink. Now you guys may sit back and say he hasn't said they're cheating....Well I've got a bridge to sell you in that case.

Nothing in there insinuates that the Irish provinces are cheating.

Anyway, I'm done with this. You are ruining the debate with your nonsense. Good evening.

It does. Hence going from questioning legality to a comparison on Saracens from nowhere. Maybe you really can't see it though. It takes all sorts.

LordDowlais wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:There is nothing for them to "get away with". If Scarlets had the same level of revenue streams, they'd be spending likewise. No team is capped by the URC league in terms of its spending - any limits are determined by capacity to generate income and/or imposed limits on players at local level as practised in Wales and SA. There are no limits on capital expenditure or raising finances through various sources.

Yes I know. I have also said:-

1. I do not care
2. Good for Irish rugby
3. The provinces are doing nothing wrong
4. Nobody is accusing anybody of anything

So I'm glad we can clear this up.

You said: "But one thing is for sure, and I do agree with RF100, is that they would not be allowed to get away with it in any other league, due to salary caps and the what not."

So either you believe they are "getting away" with something, or they are doing nothing wrong.

Which is it?

Its Michael's wording not yours Pot.
But he has clarified what he meant to convey and LD think he meant something else.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Its Michael's wording not yours Pot.
But he has clarified what he meant to convey and LD think he meant something else.

Fair enough so.

Pot Hale wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Its Michael's wording not yours Pot.
But he has clarified what he meant to convey and LD think he meant something else.

Fair enough so.

I was questionning your wording and as you have now said it was worded badly.

I have in no way said Leinster are cheating, any inference I did is ridiculous. I questioned accounting treatment which has been explained as poor wording now.

MichaelT wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Its Michael's wording not yours Pot.
But he has clarified what he meant to convey and LD think he meant something else.

Fair enough so.

I was questionning your wording and as you have now said it was worded badly.

I have in no way said Leinster are cheating, any inference I did is ridiculous. I questioned accounting treatment which has been explained as poor wording now.

That settles that then. All good.