 |
| 
 |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 951 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2008 | 17 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Oct 2024 | Oct 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Horatio Yed"If the next 'Tomkins' was found in Hull, you're telling me that Wigan, Saint, Wire even Leeds and Hudds wouldn't try to recruit him for their team?'"
No we'd certainly all be after the same player without a doubt,but the Rhinos wouldn't win the race if it was purely based on the money offered.
Although the Rhinos have learnt how to win major trophies and on a regular basis too without having to do this | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 1871 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2010 | 15 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Mar 2017 | Mar 2017 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="DaveO"In RU the deal with BT Vision to take the sport away from Sky is what is funding their ambition to pay players more money. They want to pay the level of soccers fist division clubs to attract the talent but the key point is they are getting the money into the sport in general and dividing it up. Not relying on sugar daddies to provide the cash. '"
I disagree, Rugby Union is far more reliant on sugar daddies than Rugby League and most clubs would not be paying anywhere near the salary cap in that sport if it wasnt for them. The RU clubs on the whole lose vast amounts of money and most would be out of business if it wasnt for their sugar daddies. Even some clubs that are now holding their heads above water are only doing so because of the vast amounts of money that has been spent in previous years by their sugar daddies to get them to that position. | | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 15457 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jul 2005 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Dec 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Horatio Yed"Rather than have exemption of youth coming through, have it on proximity to said club, it stops the rich clubs going across the country hoovering up the best talent.'"
Meanwhile good youngsters outside the heartlands struggle to get picked up at the expense of worse players near SL clubs who wouldn't count against the cap. | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Moderator | 14395 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| May 2024 | May 2022 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
Moderator
|
| Quote ="Famous"I disagree, Rugby Union is far more reliant on sugar daddies than Rugby League and most clubs would not be paying anywhere near the salary cap in that sport if it wasnt for them. The RU clubs on the whole lose vast amounts of money and most would be out of business if it wasnt for their sugar daddies. Even some clubs that are now holding their heads above water are only doing so because of the vast amounts of money that has been spent in previous years by their sugar daddies to get them to that position.'"
Do a Google search on the BT Vision deal with RU and you will soon see the idea Ru is reliant on sugar daddies is yesterdays news. Clubs are going to get a 50% increase in income right from the off.
RU administrators have stated they intend to use the cash from BT Vision deal exactly as I said to allow their clubs to pay higher wages.
It is a £152m deal over three years.
That is the sort of cash injection required in RL to allow it to increase the salary cap by a meaningful amount to allow it to compete for talent long term. My point is it won't get anything like that amount from RL's so-called sugar daddies. | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 8155 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
I'm pretty sure IL said at a fans forum that when there is a vote on the SC he votes for an increase in line with the rate of inflation.
| | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 1871 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2010 | 15 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Mar 2017 | Mar 2017 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="DaveO"Do a Google search on the BT Vision deal with RU and you will soon see the idea Ru is reliant on sugar daddies is yesterdays news. Clubs are going to get a 50% increase in income right from the off.
RU administrators have stated they intend to use the cash from BT Vision deal exactly as I said to allow their clubs to pay higher wages.
It is a £152m deal over three years.
That is the sort of cash injection required in RL to allow it to increase the salary cap by a meaningful amount to allow it to compete for talent long term. My point is it won't get anything like that amount from RL's so-called sugar daddies.'"
I dont think that this TV deal is anywhere near as good as you seem to think and there are still an awful lot of unanswered questions about it, even the figure of £152m is disputed with some saying that it doesnt mean £152m in cash but overall value with things like marketing, technical support and community schemes included. The deal is also for £152m over 4 years, not the 3 that you state, and it is for far more than just the Rugby Union Premiership, including things like European competition and sevens. Also they will not get a 50% increase in income, like you state, right from the off. Broadcast revenue may go up but that is totally different to total overall income and I would definately take all the PR spin that the likes of Mark McCafferty come out with with a pinch of salt.
The deal includes a 3 year deal for all European matches that involve English clubs which means bye, bye Heinekan Cup and either a Heinekan Cup under a different name (if they can get the other nations on board which seeing they are all peeved off with this deal is up for debate) or at worst an Anglo French cup. However whatever they do they are setting a 1/3 of this 152m aside to split with the Celtic Nations and/or French to try and get them on board, which is obviously going to divert a good chunk of the TV deal away from the English clubs. In particular the ones that cant get into Europe and are already struggling financially, i.e the ones that need it the most and are already reliant on benefactors, will be hardest hit. The rich may indeed get richer but the vast majority of English clubs will fall further and further behind.
This TV deal has an awful lot of implications for RU and most certainly do not seem to think that it is a good deal, there are very few fans who are keen on this deal and most seem to think it is no where near as good as it may initially seem. The contract is also disputed by European Rugby Cup, who oversee the Heineken and Amlin Challenge Cup tournaments and the RFU have also refused to ratify the deal.
RU will still be reliant on sugar daddies and this TV deal will do little to change that. The last lot of figures that I can find show that out of the 12 RU clubs 7 lost well more than a million with 10 of the 12 making losses. Any extra money from TV revenue wont even cover these losses, never mind paying for the salary cap to go up. The sugar daddies walk away and the majority of RU clubs would go bust with or without this new TV deal. In a way though I suppose the RU clubs were pushed into this as Sky offered RU less money than the last TV deal and the RU clubs are desperate for money. | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 6124 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Oct 2004 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Jul 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Good informative post.
I suppose one thing that Union are good at is bigging up their sponsorship deals so that, at least to the untrained eye, they look brilliant. That way, when they come to the next round of negotiations with other sponsors, they've got a strong platform. They build an impression that they have got a product worth throwing millions at - even if it's boring s***.
The RFL give away their sponsorship for nothing then tell every man and his dog about it  | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Moderator | 14395 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| May 2024 | May 2022 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
Moderator
|
| Quote ="Famous"I dont think that this TV deal is anywhere near as good as you seem to think and there are still an awful lot of unanswered questions about it, even the figure of £152m is disputed with some saying that it doesnt mean £152m in cash but overall value with things like marketing, technical support and community schemes included. The deal is also for £152m over 4 years, not the 3 that you state, and it is for far more than just the Rugby Union Premiership, including things like European competition and sevens. Also they will not get a 50% increase in income, like you state, right from the off. Broadcast revenue may go up but that is totally different to total overall income and I would definately take all the PR spin that the likes of Mark McCafferty come out with with a pinch of salt.'"
Yes your right it is four years note three. It is for 69 Arriva premiership games a year and European games featuring UK sides from 2014 and the rights to screen matches from a sevens competition.
It's still £38m a year going into the sport and it is definitely going to be used to increase their salary cap.
"It will mean an increase of 50% in television revenue for our clubs and means we can look at the salary cap [which is £4.5m plus add-ons for the season after next. Our aim has for a long time been to put ourselves on a par with football's [second tier Championship and we are well on our way."
From here
[urlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/sep/12/premiership-rugby-bt-deal-broadcast[/url
Quote RU will still be reliant on sugar daddies and this TV deal will do little to change that. '"
Rubbish. A 50% increase in TV revenue and the amount of money this will inject into the game means exactly the opposite.
It doesn't really matter though from an RL point of view. The fact remains in order to compete with RU and NRL salary caps RL needs to find a lot of cash from outside the sport because RL's sugar daddies are not going to bankroll the sport to the required extent. You can seek crumbs of comfort on RU clubs balance sheets if you want but they aren't going away. | | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 6124 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Oct 2004 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Jul 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Another new investor at Bradford to give the club a six figure sum.
[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/21699726[/url
Disgraceful, the sport doesn't want these kind of sugar daddy offerings  | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 8155 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Another thing which I have noticed in recent years re the salary cap is that on club's accounts the Salaries figure goes up each year. So if the top 25 playing staff have theirs fixed at £1.65m then the increase is coming from the non playing staff.
Can't think of much dafter than that which leave us in no doubt that the SC needs either a radical improvement or better still its abolition.
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Board Member | 20471 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2003 | 22 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Orrell Lad"Another new investor at Bradford to give the club a six figure sum.
[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/21699726[/url
Disgraceful, the sport doesn't want these kind of sugar daddy offerings
'"
Sugar Mummy?  | | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 1871 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2010 | 15 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Mar 2017 | Mar 2017 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="DaveO"Yes your right it is four years note three. It is for 69 Arriva premiership games a year and European games featuring UK sides from 2014 and the rights to screen matches from a sevens competition.
It's still £38m a year going into the sport and it is definitely going to be used to increase their salary cap.
"It will mean an increase of 50% in television revenue for our clubs and means we can look at the salary cap [which is £4.5m plus add-ons for the season after next. Our aim has for a long time been to put ourselves on a par with football's [second tier Championship and we are well on our way."
From here
[urlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/sep/12/premiership-rugby-bt-deal-broadcast[/url
Rubbish. A 50% increase in TV revenue and the amount of money this will inject into the game means exactly the opposite.
It doesn't really matter though from an RL point of view. The fact remains in order to compete with RU and NRL salary caps RL needs to find a lot of cash from outside the sport because RL's sugar daddies are not going to bankroll the sport to the required extent. You can seek crumbs of comfort on RU clubs balance sheets if you want but they aren't going away.'"
You should really do a little research before denouncing other people's posts as rubbish. Just spouting nonsense like, “A 50% increase in TV revenue and the amount of money this will inject into the game means exactly the opposite”, without having any grasp of the figures involved and just making presumptions based on PR spin is really what is rubbish. I also don’t see why you are so quick to believe the PR spin anyway from a Rugby Premiership that is desperately trying to get people on board and sell a very unpopular deal. I am sure you would be a damn site more critical if the RFL or Super League made such statements.
The English RU clubs lost £16.2m for the year ending June 2011 and £21m in 2010. The profit and losses for each club, for their last set of figures, are shown below:
Club Operating Profit/loss ()
Bath (1.8m)
Exeter Chiefs 0.9m
Gloucester 0.6m
Harlequins (1.6m)
Leicester Tigers 0.6m
London Irish (1.1m)
London Wasps* (3.1m)
Newcastle Falcons (1.6m)
Northampton Saints 0.9m
Sale Sharks* (1.6m)
Saracens (5.6m)
Worcester Warriors (2.8m)
Therefore 7 clubs reported a deficit of more than £1.5 million. At the very, very best, and with all the PR spin to try and sell this BT deal to the fans, the RFU, the ERC and the Welsh, Scottish, Irish, French and Italians (all of which are against the deal), it is reported that this deal may be worth up to an extra million per club at best. It will probably be a lot less when they put even more in the European pot to placate these nations.
Therefore please tell me how Rugby Union clubs won’t need sugar daddies to make up what is still a significant shortfall on even their current spending? How will they be able to raise the salary cap without sugar daddies providing the extra? Various clubs don’t even spend anywhere near the current salary cap as it is and various owners have scaled back their backing because they can’t sustain it. How will these clubs fund spending an ever bigger cap without a sugar daddy?
As for the Rugby Union Premiership matching even Championship football don’t make me laugh. Attendances don’t even compare and the average salary is £85,000 per year in the Premiership compared to £250,000 in Football’s Championship. It is as far away now as it was years ago when it first started to make such statements. | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Moderator | 14395 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| May 2024 | May 2022 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
Moderator
|
| Quote ="Famous"You should really do a little research before denouncing other people's posts as rubbish. Just spouting nonsense like, “A 50% increase in TV revenue and the amount of money this will inject into the game means exactly the opposite”, without having any grasp of the figures involved and just making presumptions based on PR spin is really what is rubbish. I also don’t see why you are so quick to believe the PR spin anyway from a Rugby Premiership that is desperately trying to get people on board and sell a very unpopular deal. I am sure you would be a damn site more critical if the RFL or Super League made such statements. '"
Well given I have given you links to illustrate my point and all I see from you is unsubstantiated opinion I think the one who needs to do some research as you put it is you.
You also are ignoring the core point that is regardless of where the money comes from RU and the NRL operate salary caps far higher than ours and that, as I have said, is the fundamental issue.
If you want to live in a dream world where RU suddenly implodes I really don't care because it isn't going to. Not only do they have the cash from the BT Vision deal they have the cash from the RFU that comes from the Internationals.
I also know, first hand, what the later means. As you may know my son played for Chester RU and I know for a fact the RFU are matching investment by the club pound for pound to purchase additional training fields and that will cost a six figure sum. This is way off Premiership RU so when it comes to money and RU you need to wake up and smell the coffee.
Quote Therefore 7 clubs reported a deficit of more than £1.5 million.'"
7 x 1.5 = 10.5. Bit Vision = 38. What is your point?
Quote At the very, very best, and with all the PR spin to try and sell this BT deal to the fans, the RFU, the ERC and the Welsh, Scottish, Irish, French and Italians (all of which are against the deal), it is reported that this deal may be worth up to an extra million per club at best. It will probably be a lot less when they put even more in the European pot to placate these nations. '"
A million at best? 38 goes down to 12? So the premiership clubs left Sky to go to BT for less money? That is what you are saying here which is obviously completely bonkers.
Quote Therefore please tell me how Rugby Union clubs won’t need sugar daddies to make up what is still a significant shortfall on even their current spending? How will they be able to raise the salary cap without sugar daddies providing the extra? Various clubs don’t even spend anywhere near the current salary cap as it is and various owners have scaled back their backing because they can’t sustain it. How will these clubs fund spending an ever bigger cap without a sugar daddy?
As for the Rugby Union Premiership matching even Championship football don’t make me laugh. Attendances don’t even compare and the average salary is £85,000 per year in the Premiership compared to £250,000 in Football’s Championship. It is as far away now as it was years ago when it first started to make such statements.'"
Attendances don't matter a jot. Have you not realised that yet? How much money does Wigan Athletic get from gate receipts as opposed to TV revenue?
Honestly, you don't think you know what you are talking about when it comes to the finances of pro sport. You just can't seem to grasp two things. 1. The RU and NRL salary caps are what they are and so whether you think RU clubs are bankrupt in all but name doesn't matter. And 2. Both the NRL and RU are only able to afford these high salary caps not because of sugar daddies but because of external sponsorship which is in the most part direct from TV deals. | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 1871 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2010 | 15 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Mar 2017 | Mar 2017 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote ="DaveO"Well given I have given you links to illustrate my point and all I see from you is unsubstantiated opinion I think the one who needs to do some research as you put it is you.
'"
Your initial post was factually incorrect and your subsequent posts have been incorrect and instead of just admitting you were wrong, something which you always seem reluctant to do, you are now attempting to compare apples with oranges. You selectively quote to get out of answering difficult points and constantly try to shift the argument from what it was I originally disagreed with. You have given one link and made a whole lot of presumptions which are not actually based upon any facts in that link. I have provided facts and figures to back up what I say and everything I have posted is freely available, if you had researched it I am very surprised you haven’t come across it.
Quote ="DaveO"7 x 1.5 = 10.5. Bit Vision = 38. What is your point?
A million at best? 38 goes down to 12? So the premiership clubs left Sky to go to BT for less money? That is what you are saying here which is obviously completely bonkers.'"
That is not what I am saying and this is just typical nonsense from yourself which shows you have absolutely no understanding of what you are talking about and it does make me wonder if you are just being deliberately obtuse. Where did I say anything about a reduction in money or clubs only getting a million? To save you the trouble of actually reading, and understanding, what I posted I said that this deal may be worth up to an extra million at best.
You seem to be under the illusion that the Rugby Union Premiership clubs don’t currently have a TV deal for the Premiership and Heineken Cup and that any BT Vision money is new money. Well sorry it doesn’t work like that and when your idol Mark McCafferty talks about a 50% increase in TV revenue (Of course there is no PR spin with that figure) he is talking about an increase on what they currently get and the new deal is just an increase on this, not an extra £38 million like you seem to think going by your illustration above. Depending on success English clubs could have got anywhere from £8.7 million to £14 million a year from the Heineken Cup anyway and a further £18 million for the Premiership.
www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyu ... -deal.html
www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/de ... ship-rugby
Also as I have said at least a 1/3 of this BT Vision money is going into the European pot to placate the Welsh, Scottish, Irish, French and Italians and get them on board so its not all going to go to English clubs and so English clubs will have considerably less than £38 million to share each year. Sky offered less money to Rugby Union this time around than the last deal and I suspect, based on everything that I have read, that there is an awful lot of PR spin to try and sell this deal to the fans, RFU, other European Nations and some Premiership clubs and that it is not as good as the headline figure that Mark McCafferty is spouting. I certainly would be just as critical if Nigel Wood was making the same claims with the same facts.
I said that 7 clubs reported a deficit of more than £1.5 million, another was £1.1 million and the combined losses were £16.2 million for the year ending June 2011.
www.espnscrum.com/premiership-20 ... 64350.html
Quite why you think it’s just a case of 7 x 1.5 million I have no idea but I suppose it is just another example of a lack of understanding. As I said previously this deal is worth an extra £1 miilion to clubs
www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyu ... -flat.html
Therefore as I asked previously, if this deal is worth up to £1 million per club how will they no longer be reliant on sugar daddies when this amount doesn’t even cover their current losses? How can they afford an even bigger salary cap without a sugar daddy?
Quote ="DaveO"Attendances don't matter a jot. Have you not realised that yet? How much money does Wigan Athletic get from gate receipts as opposed to TV revenue? '"
I never said they did but this is just another example of you arguing for arguments sake. What are you even trying to argue here? Its just another example of you comparing apples and oranges. In my post I just did some research, instead of blindly following PR statements from the head of Premiership Rugby Union, and am just giving two examples of why the Rugby Union clubs are no where near matching Championship Football clubs. Do wages not matter either then? When a Rugby Union club spends £30+ million on wages and when the average wage is anywhere near that of Championship Football clubs, never mind attendances, then maybe they can argue. Quite what Wigan Athletic have got to do with it I don’t know but if average wages and attendances are both a damn site higher then that suggests turnover is too. Oh by the way the current Football League deal is £195 over 3 years and that is a deal signed pre BT Vision with no competitiors. I cant even think of a single area where Premiership Rugby Union clubs have the edge over Championship Football clubs.
Quote ="DaveO"Honestly, you don't think you know what you are talking about when it comes to the finances of pro sport. '"
Based on your posts on this thread this surely has to be a joke. |
|
Quote ="DaveO"Well given I have given you links to illustrate my point and all I see from you is unsubstantiated opinion I think the one who needs to do some research as you put it is you.
'"
Your initial post was factually incorrect and your subsequent posts have been incorrect and instead of just admitting you were wrong, something which you always seem reluctant to do, you are now attempting to compare apples with oranges. You selectively quote to get out of answering difficult points and constantly try to shift the argument from what it was I originally disagreed with. You have given one link and made a whole lot of presumptions which are not actually based upon any facts in that link. I have provided facts and figures to back up what I say and everything I have posted is freely available, if you had researched it I am very surprised you haven’t come across it.
Quote ="DaveO"7 x 1.5 = 10.5. Bit Vision = 38. What is your point?
A million at best? 38 goes down to 12? So the premiership clubs left Sky to go to BT for less money? That is what you are saying here which is obviously completely bonkers.'"
That is not what I am saying and this is just typical nonsense from yourself which shows you have absolutely no understanding of what you are talking about and it does make me wonder if you are just being deliberately obtuse. Where did I say anything about a reduction in money or clubs only getting a million? To save you the trouble of actually reading, and understanding, what I posted I said that this deal may be worth up to an extra million at best.
You seem to be under the illusion that the Rugby Union Premiership clubs don’t currently have a TV deal for the Premiership and Heineken Cup and that any BT Vision money is new money. Well sorry it doesn’t work like that and when your idol Mark McCafferty talks about a 50% increase in TV revenue (Of course there is no PR spin with that figure) he is talking about an increase on what they currently get and the new deal is just an increase on this, not an extra £38 million like you seem to think going by your illustration above. Depending on success English clubs could have got anywhere from £8.7 million to £14 million a year from the Heineken Cup anyway and a further £18 million for the Premiership.
www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyu ... -deal.html
www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/de ... ship-rugby
Also as I have said at least a 1/3 of this BT Vision money is going into the European pot to placate the Welsh, Scottish, Irish, French and Italians and get them on board so its not all going to go to English clubs and so English clubs will have considerably less than £38 million to share each year. Sky offered less money to Rugby Union this time around than the last deal and I suspect, based on everything that I have read, that there is an awful lot of PR spin to try and sell this deal to the fans, RFU, other European Nations and some Premiership clubs and that it is not as good as the headline figure that Mark McCafferty is spouting. I certainly would be just as critical if Nigel Wood was making the same claims with the same facts.
I said that 7 clubs reported a deficit of more than £1.5 million, another was £1.1 million and the combined losses were £16.2 million for the year ending June 2011.
www.espnscrum.com/premiership-20 ... 64350.html
Quite why you think it’s just a case of 7 x 1.5 million I have no idea but I suppose it is just another example of a lack of understanding. As I said previously this deal is worth an extra £1 miilion to clubs
www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyu ... -flat.html
Therefore as I asked previously, if this deal is worth up to £1 million per club how will they no longer be reliant on sugar daddies when this amount doesn’t even cover their current losses? How can they afford an even bigger salary cap without a sugar daddy?
Quote ="DaveO"Attendances don't matter a jot. Have you not realised that yet? How much money does Wigan Athletic get from gate receipts as opposed to TV revenue? '"
I never said they did but this is just another example of you arguing for arguments sake. What are you even trying to argue here? Its just another example of you comparing apples and oranges. In my post I just did some research, instead of blindly following PR statements from the head of Premiership Rugby Union, and am just giving two examples of why the Rugby Union clubs are no where near matching Championship Football clubs. Do wages not matter either then? When a Rugby Union club spends £30+ million on wages and when the average wage is anywhere near that of Championship Football clubs, never mind attendances, then maybe they can argue. Quite what Wigan Athletic have got to do with it I don’t know but if average wages and attendances are both a damn site higher then that suggests turnover is too. Oh by the way the current Football League deal is £195 over 3 years and that is a deal signed pre BT Vision with no competitiors. I cant even think of a single area where Premiership Rugby Union clubs have the edge over Championship Football clubs.
Quote ="DaveO"Honestly, you don't think you know what you are talking about when it comes to the finances of pro sport. '"
Based on your posts on this thread this surely has to be a joke. | |
|
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Moderator | 14395 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| May 2024 | May 2022 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
Moderator
|
|
Quote ="Famous":fy7gmbqfYour initial post was factually incorrect and your subsequent posts have been incorrect and instead of just admitting you were wrong, something which you always seem reluctant to do, you are now attempting to compare apples with oranges. You selectively quote to get out of answering difficult points and constantly try to shift the argument from what it was I originally disagreed with. You have given one link and made a whole lot of presumptions which are not actually based upon any facts in that link. I have provided facts and figures to back up what I say and everything I have posted is freely available, if you had researched it I am very surprised you haven’t come across it.'" :fy7gmbqf
Utter tripe.
Quote :fy7gmbqfThat is not what I am saying and this is just typical nonsense from yourself which shows you have absolutely no understanding of what you are talking about and it does make me wonder if you are just being deliberately obtuse. Where did I say anything about a reduction in money or clubs only getting a million? To save you the trouble of actually reading, and understanding, what I posted I said that this deal may be worth up to an extra million at best.'" :fy7gmbqf
It is exactly what you are saying. If a sponsorship deal worth £38m a year is only really worth £1m a year to the clubs given there are 12 clubs in the RU premiership £26m has just vanished. Thus is a ludicrous position on your part. You also have nothing to back this up. It is just opinion.
Quote :fy7gmbqfYou seem to be under the illusion that the Rugby Union Premiership clubs don’t currently have a TV deal for the Premiership and Heineken Cup and that any BT Vision money is new money. Well sorry it doesn’t work like that and when your idol Mark McCafferty talks about a 50% increase in TV revenue (Of course there is no PR spin with that figure) he is talking about an increase on what they currently get and the new deal is just an increase on this, not an extra £38 million like you seem to think going by your illustration above. Depending on success English clubs could have got anywhere from £8.7 million to £14 million a year from the Heineken Cup anyway and a further £18 million for the Premiership.'" :fy7gmbqf
It's £38 million a year that if going to give them a 50% increase on TV revenue over and above their current Sky deal. They ere going to use it to increase their salary cap. Do you deny that fact?
Trying to suggest McCafferty is spinning it is not an argument. It's just another unsubstantiated opinion of yours.
Quote :fy7gmbqfwww.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/9538027/English-clubs-in-the-dock-over-152m-BT-deal.html
www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/de ... ship-rugby
Also as I have said at least a 1/3 of this BT Vision money is going into the European pot to placate the Welsh, Scottish, Irish, French and Italians and get them on board so its not all going to go to English clubs and so English clubs will have considerably less than £38 million to share each year. Sky offered less money to Rugby Union this time around than the last deal and I suspect, [u:fy7gmbqfbased on everything that I have read, that there is an awful lot of PR spin[/u:fy7gmbqf to try and sell this deal to the fans, RFU, other European Nations and some Premiership clubs and that it is not as good as the headline figure that Mark McCafferty is spouting. I certainly would be just as critical if Nigel Wood was making the same claims with the same facts.'" :fy7gmbqf
Based on what you have read there is an awful lot of PR spin [u:fy7gmbqfin your opinion[/u:fy7gmbqf is what you meant to say surely.
Quote :fy7gmbqfI said that 7 clubs reported a deficit of more than £1.5 million, another was £1.1 million and the combined losses were £16.2 million for the year ending June 2011.
www.espnscrum.com/premiership-20 ... 64350.html
Quite why you think it’s just a case of 7 x 1.5 million I have no idea but I suppose it is just another example of a lack of understanding. As I said previously this deal is worth an extra £1 miilion to clubs'" :fy7gmbqf
I simply used the only figures you gave and so you know exactly what I did. The debt is more than covered by the revenue from the TV deal and you are ignoring other sources of revenue such as from the RFU itself.
[code:fy7gmbqfhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/wales/9735565/The-future-of-Welsh-rugby-union-is-at-stake-as-the-Heineken-Cup-falls-flat.html[/code:fy7gmbqf
This is a deal for Premiership clubs. I should imagine the Scots clubs are pretty broke as well. So what?
Quote :fy7gmbqfTherefore as I asked previously, if this deal is worth up to £1 million per club how will they no longer be reliant on sugar daddies when this amount doesn’t even cover their current losses? How can they afford an even bigger salary cap without a sugar daddy? '" :fy7gmbqf
It is only in your mind its worth a mere £1m per club. All you have done is try to construct a scenario that fits in with the conclusion you want to draw. It's all McCafferty spin if it is too inconvenient for your position is your latest tack.
Quote :fy7gmbqf I never said they did but this is just another example of you arguing for arguments sake.'" :fy7gmbqf
So why say "As for the Rugby Union Premiership matching even Championship football don’t make me laugh. Attendances don’t even compare ..."
If attendances don't matter? What point were you trying to make by mentioning attendances? None? I think it was quite fair to infer you felt they were relevant to this debate which is about the amount of money available, otherwise why did mention them?
Quote :fy7gmbqf What are you even trying to argue here? Its just another example of you comparing apples and oranges. In my post I just did some research, instead of blindly following PR statements from the head of Premiership Rugby Union, and am just giving two examples of why the Rugby Union clubs are no where near matching Championship Football clubs.'" :fy7gmbqf
What you did is find chose to believe what you wanted. The alternative view is now classed by you as PR statements or spin. That is not research nor is it formulating an argument.
Quote :fy7gmbqfDo wages not matter either then? When a Rugby Union club spends £30+ million on wages and when the average wage is anywhere near that of Championship Football clubs, never mind attendances, then maybe they can argue. Quite what Wigan Athletic have got to do with it I don’t know but if average wages and attendances are both a damn site higher then that suggests turnover is too. Oh by the way the current Football League deal is £195 over 3 years and that is a deal signed pre BT Vision with no competitiors. I cant even think of a single area where Premiership Rugby Union clubs have the edge over Championship Football clubs.
Based on your posts on this thread this surely has to be a joke.'" :fy7gmbqf
You can read as well ans anyone and when McCafferty says Championship and we are well on our way."
It's plain English. He doesn't they ARE on a par with footballs Championship but this puts them on their way to that ambition but they WILL be increasing their salary cap.
As to Wigan Athletic I simply don't believe you didn't understand the connection with the rest of my point which was to use them to illustrate that attendances are not a huge source of revenue for sports that pay high wages and that TV sponsorship is.
You arguments seem to based on what you say is correct and what McCafferty, a top RU Premiership official, is just spin. Who to believe? The Chief Executive of RU Premiership Rugby or you? |
|
Quote ="Famous":fy7gmbqfYour initial post was factually incorrect and your subsequent posts have been incorrect and instead of just admitting you were wrong, something which you always seem reluctant to do, you are now attempting to compare apples with oranges. You selectively quote to get out of answering difficult points and constantly try to shift the argument from what it was I originally disagreed with. You have given one link and made a whole lot of presumptions which are not actually based upon any facts in that link. I have provided facts and figures to back up what I say and everything I have posted is freely available, if you had researched it I am very surprised you haven’t come across it.'" :fy7gmbqf
Utter tripe.
Quote :fy7gmbqfThat is not what I am saying and this is just typical nonsense from yourself which shows you have absolutely no understanding of what you are talking about and it does make me wonder if you are just being deliberately obtuse. Where did I say anything about a reduction in money or clubs only getting a million? To save you the trouble of actually reading, and understanding, what I posted I said that this deal may be worth up to an extra million at best.'" :fy7gmbqf
It is exactly what you are saying. If a sponsorship deal worth £38m a year is only really worth £1m a year to the clubs given there are 12 clubs in the RU premiership £26m has just vanished. Thus is a ludicrous position on your part. You also have nothing to back this up. It is just opinion.
Quote :fy7gmbqfYou seem to be under the illusion that the Rugby Union Premiership clubs don’t currently have a TV deal for the Premiership and Heineken Cup and that any BT Vision money is new money. Well sorry it doesn’t work like that and when your idol Mark McCafferty talks about a 50% increase in TV revenue (Of course there is no PR spin with that figure) he is talking about an increase on what they currently get and the new deal is just an increase on this, not an extra £38 million like you seem to think going by your illustration above. Depending on success English clubs could have got anywhere from £8.7 million to £14 million a year from the Heineken Cup anyway and a further £18 million for the Premiership.'" :fy7gmbqf
It's £38 million a year that if going to give them a 50% increase on TV revenue over and above their current Sky deal. They ere going to use it to increase their salary cap. Do you deny that fact?
Trying to suggest McCafferty is spinning it is not an argument. It's just another unsubstantiated opinion of yours.
Quote :fy7gmbqfwww.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/9538027/English-clubs-in-the-dock-over-152m-BT-deal.html
www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/de ... ship-rugby
Also as I have said at least a 1/3 of this BT Vision money is going into the European pot to placate the Welsh, Scottish, Irish, French and Italians and get them on board so its not all going to go to English clubs and so English clubs will have considerably less than £38 million to share each year. Sky offered less money to Rugby Union this time around than the last deal and I suspect, [u:fy7gmbqfbased on everything that I have read, that there is an awful lot of PR spin[/u:fy7gmbqf to try and sell this deal to the fans, RFU, other European Nations and some Premiership clubs and that it is not as good as the headline figure that Mark McCafferty is spouting. I certainly would be just as critical if Nigel Wood was making the same claims with the same facts.'" :fy7gmbqf
Based on what you have read there is an awful lot of PR spin [u:fy7gmbqfin your opinion[/u:fy7gmbqf is what you meant to say surely.
Quote :fy7gmbqfI said that 7 clubs reported a deficit of more than £1.5 million, another was £1.1 million and the combined losses were £16.2 million for the year ending June 2011.
www.espnscrum.com/premiership-20 ... 64350.html
Quite why you think it’s just a case of 7 x 1.5 million I have no idea but I suppose it is just another example of a lack of understanding. As I said previously this deal is worth an extra £1 miilion to clubs'" :fy7gmbqf
I simply used the only figures you gave and so you know exactly what I did. The debt is more than covered by the revenue from the TV deal and you are ignoring other sources of revenue such as from the RFU itself.
[code:fy7gmbqfhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/wales/9735565/The-future-of-Welsh-rugby-union-is-at-stake-as-the-Heineken-Cup-falls-flat.html[/code:fy7gmbqf
This is a deal for Premiership clubs. I should imagine the Scots clubs are pretty broke as well. So what?
Quote :fy7gmbqfTherefore as I asked previously, if this deal is worth up to £1 million per club how will they no longer be reliant on sugar daddies when this amount doesn’t even cover their current losses? How can they afford an even bigger salary cap without a sugar daddy? '" :fy7gmbqf
It is only in your mind its worth a mere £1m per club. All you have done is try to construct a scenario that fits in with the conclusion you want to draw. It's all McCafferty spin if it is too inconvenient for your position is your latest tack.
Quote :fy7gmbqf I never said they did but this is just another example of you arguing for arguments sake.'" :fy7gmbqf
So why say "As for the Rugby Union Premiership matching even Championship football don’t make me laugh. Attendances don’t even compare ..."
If attendances don't matter? What point were you trying to make by mentioning attendances? None? I think it was quite fair to infer you felt they were relevant to this debate which is about the amount of money available, otherwise why did mention them?
Quote :fy7gmbqf What are you even trying to argue here? Its just another example of you comparing apples and oranges. In my post I just did some research, instead of blindly following PR statements from the head of Premiership Rugby Union, and am just giving two examples of why the Rugby Union clubs are no where near matching Championship Football clubs.'" :fy7gmbqf
What you did is find chose to believe what you wanted. The alternative view is now classed by you as PR statements or spin. That is not research nor is it formulating an argument.
Quote :fy7gmbqfDo wages not matter either then? When a Rugby Union club spends £30+ million on wages and when the average wage is anywhere near that of Championship Football clubs, never mind attendances, then maybe they can argue. Quite what Wigan Athletic have got to do with it I don’t know but if average wages and attendances are both a damn site higher then that suggests turnover is too. Oh by the way the current Football League deal is £195 over 3 years and that is a deal signed pre BT Vision with no competitiors. I cant even think of a single area where Premiership Rugby Union clubs have the edge over Championship Football clubs.
Based on your posts on this thread this surely has to be a joke.'" :fy7gmbqf
You can read as well ans anyone and when McCafferty says Championship and we are well on our way."
It's plain English. He doesn't they ARE on a par with footballs Championship but this puts them on their way to that ambition but they WILL be increasing their salary cap.
As to Wigan Athletic I simply don't believe you didn't understand the connection with the rest of my point which was to use them to illustrate that attendances are not a huge source of revenue for sports that pay high wages and that TV sponsorship is.
You arguments seem to based on what you say is correct and what McCafferty, a top RU Premiership official, is just spin. Who to believe? The Chief Executive of RU Premiership Rugby or you? | |
|
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 15801 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jun 2005 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 1704 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Aug 2011 | 13 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Oct 2023 | Dec 2020 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
current TV deal + 50% = £38m BT deal.
£25.33m + 50% = £38
so the clubs get an extra £12.67m per year.......this will have to be shared with their French partners in an Anglo/French so they wont get much more each and if they have run up debts over £12m already there wont be much left to increase the cap with.........Still need the wealthy backers to fund their spending sprees
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 1871 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2010 | 15 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Mar 2017 | Mar 2017 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="pie.warrior"current TV deal + 50% = £38m BT deal.
£25.33m + 50% = £38
so the clubs get an extra £12.67m per year.......this will have to be shared with their French partners in an Anglo/French so they wont get much more each and if they have run up debts over £12m already there wont be much left to increase the cap with.........Still need the wealthy backers to fund their spending sprees'"
Exactly it is so straight forward even a child could understand. | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 6124 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Oct 2004 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Jul 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="DaveO"Who to believe? The Chief Executive of RU Premiership Rugby or you?'"
You make it sound like people involved at the top of Yawnion only speak the truth  | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Board Member | 32361 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Oct 2002 | 22 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Dec 2024 | Dec 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="DaveO"
You arguments seem to based on what you say is correct and what McCafferty, a top RU Premiership official, is just spin. Who to believe? The Chief Executive of RU Premiership Rugby or you?'"
I remember the CEO at Saints telling all and sundry that their new town shop was like going to Wembley every year.
Do you know what happened?
The shop lost a fortune and they had to move it to a smaller place tucked back in the precinct. | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 1871 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2010 | 15 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Mar 2017 | Mar 2017 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote ="DaveO"It is exactly what you are saying. If a sponsorship deal worth £38m a year is only really worth £1m a year to the clubs given there are 12 clubs in the RU premiership £26m has just vanished. Thus is a ludicrous position on your part. You also have nothing to back this up. It is just opinion. '"
Sorry I gave you far too much credit when I asked if you were being obtuse, you obviously don’t have the intelligence to be. If you can’t even understand why what you have wrote in reply is so foolish then I am not going to pretty much repeat myself for nothing, you may as well read what you are quoting again and try to understand, maybe get your son to help you. Where have I said £26m has disappeared? Do you not currently think that Rugby Union clubs get TV revenue? Can you really not see, or understand, that any increase in money from a new TV deal is just an increase on what they got in the old deal and is not all just new money?
Quote ="DaveO"It's £38 million a year that if going to give them a 50% increase on TV revenue over and above their current Sky deal. They ere going to use it to increase their salary cap. Do you deny that fact?'"
For some reason you do seem rather hung up on this 50% figure which in isolation is rather meaningless. If you read your first sentence again you may understand why your post previously was so stupid. I don’t know what they are going to do, maybe they are just going to use it to reduce their already vast losses so that the sugar daddies dont need to plough quite as much money in.
Quote ="DaveO"Trying to suggest McCafferty is spinning it is not an argument. It's just another unsubstantiated opinion of yours.
Based on what you have read there is an awful lot of PR spin [uin your opinion[/u is what you meant to say surely. '"
Of course the head of Premiership Rugby union is never going to spin a hugely unpopular deal that hasn’t got RFU approval, ERC approval or approval from the Welsh, Scottish, Irish, French or Italians. He is certainly not going to make it sound attractive as possible to get these nations on board and not have to lose over a 1/3 of the £152m which is for the European element of this deal.
Quote ="DaveO"I simply used the only figures you gave and so you know exactly what I did. The debt is more than covered by the revenue from the TV deal and you are ignoring other sources of revenue such as from the RFU itself.'"
I suggest you learn to read a little better. I gave you a breakdown club by club of profits and losses which showed exactly what each club made or lost. By saying that 7 clubs lost more than £1.5 million I was trying to make it as simple as possible for you to understand and to illustrate that clubs getting an extra £1 million will mean they will still lose money. Seems this wasnt simple enough for you though. Also the debt is not covered by the extra TV revenue as I have shown.
Quote ="DaveO"[codehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/wales/9735565/The-future-of-Welsh-rugby-union-is-at-stake-as-the-Heineken-Cup-falls-flat.html[/code
This is a deal for Premiership clubs. I should imagine the Scots clubs are pretty broke as well. So what?
It is only in your mind its worth a mere £1m per club. All you have done is try to construct a scenario that fits in with the conclusion you want to draw. It's all McCafferty spin if it is too inconvenient for your position is your latest tack. ?'"
Is this for real? If you bothered to read the article that I gave you, and which you quote above it says, “English clubs expect to get roughly £1 million more per club as part of their £152 million deal with BT Vision.” Here is a different link for you, that shows they expect to get £1 million more per club, as you struggled to read and understand that one:
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/19585839
As for the rest of your post when I read nonsense like that it is obvious you are just being pedantic and arguing for arguments sake, with absolutely no basis. Your waffle about the Football Championship is a prime example of that. Turnover, wages, attendences, facilities, TV revenue are all far higher in the Football Championship so what are you even arguing about here. You dont even provide a counter argument apart from its an ambition. Well its my ambition to be a multi billionaire but just because my pay went up a little last year it doesnt mean its going to happen.
I dont really care if you believe what I have said or not, I am just stating facts and figures, which are fairly easy to interpret and my arguments are based on this. You have links to what the deal is worth per club and you have links to profits and losses of all clubs of all Premiership Rugby Union clubs. In the one link you have posted there is absolutely nothing that suggests that RU clubs will no longer be dependant on sugar daddies or match Championship Footballs wages. You can say TV revenue is going up 50% until the cows come home, or alternative true statements like the sky is blue, which may also be correct, but it has absolutely no relevance to backing up your claims. |
|
Quote ="DaveO"It is exactly what you are saying. If a sponsorship deal worth £38m a year is only really worth £1m a year to the clubs given there are 12 clubs in the RU premiership £26m has just vanished. Thus is a ludicrous position on your part. You also have nothing to back this up. It is just opinion. '"
Sorry I gave you far too much credit when I asked if you were being obtuse, you obviously don’t have the intelligence to be. If you can’t even understand why what you have wrote in reply is so foolish then I am not going to pretty much repeat myself for nothing, you may as well read what you are quoting again and try to understand, maybe get your son to help you. Where have I said £26m has disappeared? Do you not currently think that Rugby Union clubs get TV revenue? Can you really not see, or understand, that any increase in money from a new TV deal is just an increase on what they got in the old deal and is not all just new money?
Quote ="DaveO"It's £38 million a year that if going to give them a 50% increase on TV revenue over and above their current Sky deal. They ere going to use it to increase their salary cap. Do you deny that fact?'"
For some reason you do seem rather hung up on this 50% figure which in isolation is rather meaningless. If you read your first sentence again you may understand why your post previously was so stupid. I don’t know what they are going to do, maybe they are just going to use it to reduce their already vast losses so that the sugar daddies dont need to plough quite as much money in.
Quote ="DaveO"Trying to suggest McCafferty is spinning it is not an argument. It's just another unsubstantiated opinion of yours.
Based on what you have read there is an awful lot of PR spin [uin your opinion[/u is what you meant to say surely. '"
Of course the head of Premiership Rugby union is never going to spin a hugely unpopular deal that hasn’t got RFU approval, ERC approval or approval from the Welsh, Scottish, Irish, French or Italians. He is certainly not going to make it sound attractive as possible to get these nations on board and not have to lose over a 1/3 of the £152m which is for the European element of this deal.
Quote ="DaveO"I simply used the only figures you gave and so you know exactly what I did. The debt is more than covered by the revenue from the TV deal and you are ignoring other sources of revenue such as from the RFU itself.'"
I suggest you learn to read a little better. I gave you a breakdown club by club of profits and losses which showed exactly what each club made or lost. By saying that 7 clubs lost more than £1.5 million I was trying to make it as simple as possible for you to understand and to illustrate that clubs getting an extra £1 million will mean they will still lose money. Seems this wasnt simple enough for you though. Also the debt is not covered by the extra TV revenue as I have shown.
Quote ="DaveO"[codehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/wales/9735565/The-future-of-Welsh-rugby-union-is-at-stake-as-the-Heineken-Cup-falls-flat.html[/code
This is a deal for Premiership clubs. I should imagine the Scots clubs are pretty broke as well. So what?
It is only in your mind its worth a mere £1m per club. All you have done is try to construct a scenario that fits in with the conclusion you want to draw. It's all McCafferty spin if it is too inconvenient for your position is your latest tack. ?'"
Is this for real? If you bothered to read the article that I gave you, and which you quote above it says, “English clubs expect to get roughly £1 million more per club as part of their £152 million deal with BT Vision.” Here is a different link for you, that shows they expect to get £1 million more per club, as you struggled to read and understand that one:
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/19585839
As for the rest of your post when I read nonsense like that it is obvious you are just being pedantic and arguing for arguments sake, with absolutely no basis. Your waffle about the Football Championship is a prime example of that. Turnover, wages, attendences, facilities, TV revenue are all far higher in the Football Championship so what are you even arguing about here. You dont even provide a counter argument apart from its an ambition. Well its my ambition to be a multi billionaire but just because my pay went up a little last year it doesnt mean its going to happen.
I dont really care if you believe what I have said or not, I am just stating facts and figures, which are fairly easy to interpret and my arguments are based on this. You have links to what the deal is worth per club and you have links to profits and losses of all clubs of all Premiership Rugby Union clubs. In the one link you have posted there is absolutely nothing that suggests that RU clubs will no longer be dependant on sugar daddies or match Championship Footballs wages. You can say TV revenue is going up 50% until the cows come home, or alternative true statements like the sky is blue, which may also be correct, but it has absolutely no relevance to backing up your claims. | |
|
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Moderator | 14395 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| May 2024 | May 2022 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
Moderator
|
|
Quote ="Famous"Sorry I gave you far too much credit when I asked if you were being obtuse, you obviously don’t have the intelligence to be. If you can’t even understand why what you have wrote in reply is so foolish then I am not going to pretty much repeat myself for nothing, you may as well read what you are quoting again and try to understand, maybe get your son to help you. Where have I said £26m has disappeared? Do you not currently think that Rugby Union clubs get TV revenue? Can you really not see, or understand, that any increase in money from a new TV deal is just an increase on what they got in the old deal and is not all just new money? '"
Of course they get TV revenue. A lot of it. They now get even more. That is why they moved from Sky to BT.
Quote For some reason you do seem rather hung up on this 50% figure which in isolation is rather meaningless. If you read your first sentence again you may understand why your post previously was so stupid. I don’t know what they are going to do, maybe they are just going to use it to reduce their already vast losses so that the sugar daddies dont need to plough quite as much money in.'"
Well at least you are now acknowledging they are getting more money not from the sugar daddy route. Their salary cap is currently £4.5m. The TV deal is worth £38m a year. Divided by 12 that is £3m a year so £1.5m to find. They also get about £730K from the RFU per season. So that leaves £770K to find which is bugger all given sponsorships, prize money, gate receipts merchandise and so on. Far less than what Wigan has to find off its own bat for example to fund our much smaller cap and run the club.
Quote I suggest you learn to read a little better. I gave you a breakdown club by club of profits and losses which showed exactly what each club made or lost. By saying that 7 clubs lost more than £1.5 million I was trying to make it as simple as possible for you to understand and to illustrate that clubs getting an extra £1 million will mean they will still lose money. Seems this wasnt simple enough for you though. Also the debt is not covered by the extra TV revenue as I have shown.
'"
See above. You make it sound as if this their only income which it if course is not. In a previous post I said this (which is what you disagreed with):
"In RU the deal with BT Vision to take the sport away from Sky is what is funding their ambition to pay players more money. They want to pay the level of soccers fist division clubs to attract the talent but the key point is they are getting the money into the sport in general and dividing it up. Not relying on sugar daddies to provide the cash. "
All that is perfectly true. It IS their [iambition[/i to pay players more money aiming to[i towards[/i soccer first division and they ARE getting more money into the sport to divide up and this money is NOT reliant on sugar daddies as it is coming from the increased TV revenue.
Quote Is this for real? If you bothered to read the article that I gave you, and which you quote above it says, “English clubs expect to get roughly £1 million more per club as part of their £152 million deal with BT Vision.” Here is a different link for you, that shows they expect to get £1 million more per club, as you struggled to read and understand that one:
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/19585839'"
It doesn't matter how much more they are getting, the net amount is what matters and where it is all coming from. It's clear they are getting a shed load off BT and a hand out off the RFU similar in amount to what we get off Sky.
Quote As for the rest of your post when I read nonsense like that it is obvious you are just being pedantic and arguing for arguments sake, with absolutely no basis. Your waffle about the Football Championship is a prime example of that. Turnover, wages, attendences, facilities, TV revenue are all far higher in the Football Championship so what are you even arguing about here. You dont even provide a counter argument [uapart from its an ambition[/u. Well its my ambition to be a multi billionaire but just because my pay went up a little last year it doesnt mean its going to happen.'"
Given all I ever said it was it was their stated [uambition[/u what on earth do I have to counter? I never said it was anything else [iother[/i than an ambition. So if there is any waffle here its from you arguing as if [iI[/i had said something completely different.
Quote I dont really care if you believe what I have said or not, I am just stating facts and figures, which are fairly easy to interpret and my arguments are based on this. You have links to what the deal is worth per club and you have links to profits and losses of all clubs of all Premiership Rugby Union clubs. In the one link you have posted there is absolutely nothing that suggests that RU clubs will no longer be dependant on sugar daddies or match Championship Footballs wages. You can say TV revenue is going up 50% until the cows come home, or alternative true statements like the sky is blue, which may also be correct, but it has absolutely no relevance to backing up your claims.'"
I never said it would allow them to match championship wages and the quotes in the links do not say that either. "Our aim has for a long time been to put ourselves on a par with football's [second tier Championship [uand we are well on our way[/u". Does not mean they are about to match championship wages and I never said it would. So it's no use arguing I did.
What I also said ages ago was this in relation to the whole thing:
"It doesn't really matter though from an RL point of view. The fact remains in order to compete with RU and NRL salary caps RL needs to find a lot of cash from outside the sport because RL's sugar daddies are not going to bankroll the sport to the required extent. You can seek crumbs of comfort on RU clubs balance sheets if you want but they aren't going away."
And that remains the case. |
|
Quote ="Famous"Sorry I gave you far too much credit when I asked if you were being obtuse, you obviously don’t have the intelligence to be. If you can’t even understand why what you have wrote in reply is so foolish then I am not going to pretty much repeat myself for nothing, you may as well read what you are quoting again and try to understand, maybe get your son to help you. Where have I said £26m has disappeared? Do you not currently think that Rugby Union clubs get TV revenue? Can you really not see, or understand, that any increase in money from a new TV deal is just an increase on what they got in the old deal and is not all just new money? '"
Of course they get TV revenue. A lot of it. They now get even more. That is why they moved from Sky to BT.
Quote For some reason you do seem rather hung up on this 50% figure which in isolation is rather meaningless. If you read your first sentence again you may understand why your post previously was so stupid. I don’t know what they are going to do, maybe they are just going to use it to reduce their already vast losses so that the sugar daddies dont need to plough quite as much money in.'"
Well at least you are now acknowledging they are getting more money not from the sugar daddy route. Their salary cap is currently £4.5m. The TV deal is worth £38m a year. Divided by 12 that is £3m a year so £1.5m to find. They also get about £730K from the RFU per season. So that leaves £770K to find which is bugger all given sponsorships, prize money, gate receipts merchandise and so on. Far less than what Wigan has to find off its own bat for example to fund our much smaller cap and run the club.
Quote I suggest you learn to read a little better. I gave you a breakdown club by club of profits and losses which showed exactly what each club made or lost. By saying that 7 clubs lost more than £1.5 million I was trying to make it as simple as possible for you to understand and to illustrate that clubs getting an extra £1 million will mean they will still lose money. Seems this wasnt simple enough for you though. Also the debt is not covered by the extra TV revenue as I have shown.
'"
See above. You make it sound as if this their only income which it if course is not. In a previous post I said this (which is what you disagreed with):
"In RU the deal with BT Vision to take the sport away from Sky is what is funding their ambition to pay players more money. They want to pay the level of soccers fist division clubs to attract the talent but the key point is they are getting the money into the sport in general and dividing it up. Not relying on sugar daddies to provide the cash. "
All that is perfectly true. It IS their [iambition[/i to pay players more money aiming to[i towards[/i soccer first division and they ARE getting more money into the sport to divide up and this money is NOT reliant on sugar daddies as it is coming from the increased TV revenue.
Quote Is this for real? If you bothered to read the article that I gave you, and which you quote above it says, “English clubs expect to get roughly £1 million more per club as part of their £152 million deal with BT Vision.” Here is a different link for you, that shows they expect to get £1 million more per club, as you struggled to read and understand that one:
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/19585839'"
It doesn't matter how much more they are getting, the net amount is what matters and where it is all coming from. It's clear they are getting a shed load off BT and a hand out off the RFU similar in amount to what we get off Sky.
Quote As for the rest of your post when I read nonsense like that it is obvious you are just being pedantic and arguing for arguments sake, with absolutely no basis. Your waffle about the Football Championship is a prime example of that. Turnover, wages, attendences, facilities, TV revenue are all far higher in the Football Championship so what are you even arguing about here. You dont even provide a counter argument [uapart from its an ambition[/u. Well its my ambition to be a multi billionaire but just because my pay went up a little last year it doesnt mean its going to happen.'"
Given all I ever said it was it was their stated [uambition[/u what on earth do I have to counter? I never said it was anything else [iother[/i than an ambition. So if there is any waffle here its from you arguing as if [iI[/i had said something completely different.
Quote I dont really care if you believe what I have said or not, I am just stating facts and figures, which are fairly easy to interpret and my arguments are based on this. You have links to what the deal is worth per club and you have links to profits and losses of all clubs of all Premiership Rugby Union clubs. In the one link you have posted there is absolutely nothing that suggests that RU clubs will no longer be dependant on sugar daddies or match Championship Footballs wages. You can say TV revenue is going up 50% until the cows come home, or alternative true statements like the sky is blue, which may also be correct, but it has absolutely no relevance to backing up your claims.'"
I never said it would allow them to match championship wages and the quotes in the links do not say that either. "Our aim has for a long time been to put ourselves on a par with football's [second tier Championship [uand we are well on our way[/u". Does not mean they are about to match championship wages and I never said it would. So it's no use arguing I did.
What I also said ages ago was this in relation to the whole thing:
"It doesn't really matter though from an RL point of view. The fact remains in order to compete with RU and NRL salary caps RL needs to find a lot of cash from outside the sport because RL's sugar daddies are not going to bankroll the sport to the required extent. You can seek crumbs of comfort on RU clubs balance sheets if you want but they aren't going away."
And that remains the case. | |
|
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 1871 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2010 | 15 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Mar 2017 | Mar 2017 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="DaveO"Snip'"
I was going to pull this to pieces, as I have with all of your replies, but to be honest Right DaveO enough is enough, you are boring me now and I am not going to go round in circles anymore because the one thing I have learned on these forums is that DaveO always has to have the last word and will never admit he is wrong. I really do have better things to do than argue with a clueless fool who just argues for arguments sake, based on their own opinion, with no facts or figures to back them up. I have provided facts and figures why RU clubs will still be reliant on sugar daddies with this new TV deal, even if the salary cap remains the same never mind if it increases. I have educated you about the BT Vision deal, which you seemed to know nothing about, for example you didn’t even know the correct length of it and what it consisted of, and said why this deal is not as attractive or popular as you seem to think. I have also shown why Premiership RU is nowhere near Championship Football. In reply you have shown an alarming grasp of professional sport, finance, mathematics and I really hope you don’t look after the money in your household.
Your latest response consists of yet more drivel and instead of just admitting you were wrong and acknowledging how stupid some of your posts have been you are now trying to change the argument and throw different things into the mix. Some of your replies are also trying to wash over some of the drivel you have wrote over the last 2 pages. You have consistently ignored points that disprove you and jump on minor points that you think you have some semblance of an argument on in an effort to try and detract from your more stupid arguments of yours that I have disproved. You have shown a complete lack of understanding on this thread of most of the points made and have been proved wrong time again with facts and links and any right minded person will read the last few pages and just think you are more than just a little foolish. You have your opinion but on every post I have ever read from you you just keep repeating the same garbage ad nueseam, no matter what evidence or facts that people show, and try to dress it up like it is based on some sort of fact and I have yet to see you acknowledge you were wrong. When presented with facts you argue by comparing apples and oranges and come back with things that have absolutely nothing to do with the points being made. There is no point wasting time arguing with people like that and I would prefer a proper debate with someone with a little more intellect to be honest. I have to say though you have amused me with your complete lack of understanding and failure to read simple links, facts and articles properly but it is just all too easy and is a little like shooting fish in a barrel. You aren’t related to comical Ali are you? The head in the sand approach in spouting the same garbage despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary is remarkably similar. | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Board Member | 1661 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2003 | 22 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Mar 2018 | Oct 2017 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Waiting for the reply is a bit like waiting for the white smoke from the vatican.
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 15801 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jun 2005 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Im waiting for the 'quotathon' reply from DaveO.....
| | | |
| |
All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or its subsites.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.
RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.
Copyright 1999 - 2025 RLFANS.COM
You must be 18+ to gamble, for more information and for help with gambling issues see https://www.begambleaware.org/.
Please Support RLFANS.COM
|
|
