IRFU must now think beyond Pro12

[Doodle Bug]

I really think folk, including Lenihan need to hold their nerve and wait and see where things are post the RWC. There is a truce in England but the Nigel's will throw their toys when there is a mass exodus of England players to France post 2015 as there was post 2011. The Gloucester side Munster played in January contained two Gloucester lads, English players have little to no club loyalty and will be off to fill their boots with no RWC to keep them in England. PRL and Ireland will not be able to compete with T14 but PRL will not accept that and that is all the rope they need to hang themselves. Ireland must keep doing what it has been doing until the RWC, after that all bets are off IMHO.

What mass exodus after 2011? The Armitage brothers? The biggest movement of English players to France happened in 2008 and 2009 before the RFU had started to enforce "Lancaster's law". Even then many of those that went subsequently returned to a England.

Also if "Lancaster's law" is maintained and the RFU and Premier Rugby can offer say 70% to 80% of what the French clubs are offering there won't be an exodus after 2015 either. If Premier Rugby are struggling to cope then the RFU will increase their funding. The age profile of the a England squad means most of the players should be able to make it to 2019 as well. Moving to France would jeopardise that possibility even if they could earn a bit more money.

[Thomond78]

The RWC is not run by the IRB, it is run by RWC Ltd, an IoM company, and the host union provides the necessary under an agreement with RWC Ltd.

The host pays a hosting fee to the RWC Ltd, which passes them on to the IRB.

RWC Limited sells the TV rights, etc, and passes the profits on to the IRB. All the host gets to keep is ticket revenue.

For 2011, the IRB (via RWC Ltd) demanded, and got, $150m upfront. It was, quite simply, incapable of making a loss from there. Only the NZRU could. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10750644

The 2011 RWC was underwritten by the NZ government.

RWC Ltd made a £90m profit - the second-highest of any RWC ever, just 3% less than the peak-of-the-boom 2007 RWC in France. £10m better than expected http://www.espn.co.uk/2011-rugby-wor...ry/161660.html

Quare class of uneconomic financial mess for the IRB when their subsidiary made such a huge profit. Basically, you're talking balls.

By the way, you're paying them £80m upfront for 2015. Enjoy the ticket prices the RFU have set to cover that. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rug...all-short.html

[Doodle Bug]

You've been pulled up on this before, Wasp. Paul Rees belatedly learned that the SRU had non-executive directors, put 2 and 2 together and got 50. The SRU decided to back the RCC because they thought they'd end up in crisis if European rugby stopped, not because some suit told them it was in their long-term interest.


This is just nonsense. There wasn't a "Celtic front" based on some shared Celticness, but the Celtic unions were very much united in their belief that a union-backed game was the best for rugby as a whole and for them individually. The PRL and its supporters have pointed to it time and time again.


I'm sure the Welsh will delighted to hear that they're basically English.


Nobody said they were. The unions all have their own individual interests. The IRFU have been clear in their support for a union-backed game because it has the interests of the worldwide community at heart and because it helps the minority against the majority.

What do you think non-executive directors do? They provide oversight and advice for the executive directors when they have to make big decisions and tend to come without any baggage, self interest or emotional and political attachments. Anyone rationally looking at position of the SRU would have told them to sign up for the Champions Cup. Which they duly did. If the SRU's governance structures were functioning properly then the non-executive directors would have been involved in terms of oversight and advice. You have no information to say that they weren't. All you know is that you don't like Paul Rees and you don't trust him.

Were the Celts "very much united"? They haven't seemed to be. The IRFU and the WRU pushed the negotiations to the brink but they predictably had to back down. RRW never towed the IRFU/WRU line and the SRU acted pragmatically and in their own interests. Rather than a front they were disunited shambles.

Throughout all these arguments over the European competitions there has been a very strong strain of thought on this message board and others that what is in the interests of the IRFU must be in the interests of the "greater good" and the whole of European rugby. That is self regarding tosh. The IRFU backed the ERC and the status quo not because it was in the "greater good" but because it was explicitly in their self interest to do so. The "greater good" angle was just shallow PR. About as shallow as Premier Rugby claiming they were motivated by a desire for "meritocracy".

[whimpersnap]

What do you think non-executive directors do? They provide oversight and advice for the executive directors when they have to make big decisions and tend to come without any baggage, self interest or emotional and political attachments.

Exactly, they advise and have no power. Do you have any evidence they advised the SRU to join the RCC? No? Great!

Anyone rationally looking at position of the SRU would have told them to sign up for the Champions Cup. Which they duly did. If the SRU's governance structures were functioning properly then the non-executive directors would have been involved in terms of oversight and advice. You have no information to say that they weren't. All you know is that you don't like Paul Rees and you don't trust him.

I don't trust him because I know who his sources are and how many times he's jumped the gun and said exactly what his sources have wanted to be the case. Anybody rationally looking at the position of the SRU could see their short-term interest was in ensuring they had a competition to play in and that their long-term interest was in ensuring they were competitive. They chose their short-term interest at the expense of their long-term interest, which will see them suffer more.

Were the Celts "very much united"? They haven't seemed to be. The IRFU and the WRU pushed the negotiations to the brink but they predictably had to back down. RRW never towed the IRFU/WRU line and the SRU acted pragmatically and in their own interests. Rather than a front they were disunited shambles.

The Celtic unions were united, yes. Not even the PRL deny that. The RRW aren't a union.

Throughout all these arguments over the European competitions there has been a very strong strain of thought on this message board and others that what is in the interests of the IRFU must be in the interests of the "greater good" and the whole of European rugby. That is self regarding tosh. The IRFU backed the ERC and the status quo not because it was in the "greater good" but because it was explicitly in their self interest to do so. The "greater good" angle was just shallow PR. About as shallow as Premier Rugby claiming they were motivated by a desire for "meritocracy".

The IRFU backed the ERC because they felt it was in the best interests of both European rugby and themselves. The IRFU know they are little guys and that a Europe dominated by the big countries will benefit nobody but the big countries. At least you acknowledge that Premier Rugby weren't motivated by a desire for "meritocracy", a big change on the position you've been putting forward for months.

[Doodle Bug]

The RWC is not run by the IRB, it is run by RWC Ltd, an IoM company, and the host union provides the necessary under an agreement with RWC Ltd.

The host pays a hosting fee to the RWC Ltd, which passes them on to the IRB.

RWC Limited sells the TV rights, etc, and passes the profits on to the IRB. All the host gets to keep is ticket revenue.

For 2011, the IRB (via RWC Ltd) demanded, and got, $150m upfront. It was, quite simply, incapable of making a loss from there. Only the NZRU could. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10750644

The 2011 RWC was underwritten by the NZ government.

RWC Ltd made a £90m profit - the second-highest of any RWC ever, just 3% less than the peak-of-the-boom 2007 RWC in France. £10m better than expected http://www.espn.co.uk/2011-rugby-wor...ry/161660.html

Quare class of uneconomic financial mess for the IRB when their subsidiary made such a huge profit. Basically, you're talking balls.

By the way, you're paying them £80m upfront for 2015. Enjoy the ticket prices the RFU have set to cover that. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rug...all-short.html

No. The New Zealand World Cup bid was fundamentally uneconomic. It was projected to make big losses and it duly did so.

http://www.espn.co.uk/2011-rugby-wor...ry/164816.html

Compared the financially and technically superior Japanese bid awarding the World Cup to New Zealand was a monumentally stupid decision. It cost the IRB a lot of money in projected revenue and the lost revenue meant less money available to development the game globally and beyond the Tier 1 countries. The fact that 2011 didn't exceed income for the IRB that the 2007 World Cup did is quite frankly a disgrace once you take inflation into account and the very reason why the World Cup should never have been awarded to New Zealand in the first place. Their bid was cr*p and it cost the IRB tens of millions in lost revenue.

I suggest you look into the reasons why the South Africans and the Celtic Unions decided to back the ramshackle New Zealand bid at the cost of ignoring the far superior Japanese one. It was a decision that would have made Jack Warner proud.

In terms of 2015 if I can't get reasonably priced tickets I won't be going. I am not a mug. The only reason it is being held in a England is to make as much money as possible to compensate for the lost revenue from 2011. That is well documented.

[whimpersnap]

No. The New Zealand World Cup bid was fundamentally uneconomic. It was projected to make big losses and it duly did so.

http://www.espn.co.uk/2011-rugby-wor...ry/164816.html

Compared the financially and technically superior Japanese bid awarding the World Cup to New Zealand was a monumentally stupid decision. It cost the IRB a lot of money in projected revenue and the lost revenue meant less money available to development the game globally and beyond the Tier 1 countries. The fact that 2011 didn't exceed income for the IRB that the 2007 World Cup did is quite frankly a disgrace once you take inflation into account and the very reason why the World Cup should never have been awarded to New Zealand in the first place. Their bid was cr*p and it cost the IRB tens of millions in lost revenue.

I suggest you look into the reasons why the South Africans and the Celtic Unions decided to back the ramshackle New Zealand bid at the cost of ignoring the far superior Japanese one. It was a decision that would have made Jack Warner proud.

In terms of 2015 if I can't get reasonably priced tickets I won't be going. I am not a mug. The only reason it is being held in a England is to make as much money as possible to compensate for the lost revenue from 2011. That is well documented.

Do you not feel a bit silly referring to the second-biggest grossing World Cup - which was unexpectedly disrupted by a massive earthquake - as "ramshackle"? I mean, do you not just step back and think for a moment?

[Doodle Bug]

Do you not feel a bit silly referring to the second-biggest grossing World Cup - which was unexpectedly disrupted by a massive earthquake - as "ramshackle"? I mean, do you not just step back and think for a moment?

No. Compared to Australia in 2003, France in 2007 and the rival Japanese bid the New Zealand World Cup bid was ramshackle. It was from the moment it was announced. New Zealand didn't have the population, the commercial market, the stadiums or the infrastructure to run the tournament properly or maximise revenues for the IRB. Just look at the venues where the games were played. Even Eden Park with its big and open temporary stands was the definition of the word ramshackle. Also the tickets sold figure and the crowd figures were weak. In terms of average crowds the 2011 World Cup was the worst supported since 1987. The total attendance was also the worst since 1995.

The fundamentals of the bid were unsound. That is why the New Zealand government had to subsidise it. The whole thing was a basket case.

[Thomond78]

Don't shift the goalposts. It made £90m for the IRB. You claim that was a financial disaster; you are wrong.

Your government is underwriting 2015, btw.

[Thomond78]

No. The New Zealand World Cup bid was fundamentally uneconomic. It was projected to make big losses and it duly did so.

http://www.espn.co.uk/2011-rugby-wor...ry/164816.html

Compared the financially and technically superior Japanese bid awarding the World Cup to New Zealand was a monumentally stupid decision. It cost the IRB a lot of money in projected revenue and the lost revenue meant less money available to development the game globally and beyond the Tier 1 countries. The fact that 2011 didn't exceed income for the IRB that the 2007 World Cup did is quite frankly a disgrace once you take inflation into account and the very reason why the World Cup should never have been awarded to New Zealand in the first place. Their bid was cr*p and it cost the IRB tens of millions in lost revenue.

I suggest you look into the reasons why the South Africans and the Celtic Unions decided to back the ramshackle New Zealand bid at the cost of ignoring the far superior Japanese one. It was a decision that would have made Jack Warner proud.

In terms of 2015 if I can't get reasonably priced tickets I won't be going. I am not a mug. The only reason it is being held in a England is to make as much money as possible to compensate for the lost revenue from 2011. That is well documented.

So far from backing NZ, South Africa were bidders for 2011.

You claimed 2011 made big losses for the IRB. It didn't. It made £90m for them. The only people who made a loss were the NZRU. So don't try to claim the profit made by RWCL/IRB is somehow the loss made by the NZRU. Because that is a lie.

[glorob]

Is this thread developing into a reincarnation of the "Future of the Heineken Cup in Doubt?" thread?

[Thomond78]

Is this thread developing into a reincarnation of the "Future of the Heineken Cup in Doubt?" thread?

Well, we have an interloper bull****ting for all he's worth, so...

[at henry]

Is this thread developing into a reincarnation of the "Future of the Heineken Cup in Doubt?" thread?

Can we just ban the Doodle Bug Wasp now before he derails the whole thing? It's clear he has no intention of conducting an honest debate, and is only interested in stirring ****e.

[Munsterboy]

Rowing in behind the PRL is not a solution to anything.
The IRFU have always operated on a model of resting top players in the league and playing them in the European Cup. We now have a structure where we can win the league at a canter with rotated sides and which presents the realistic opportunity for all 4 provinces to qualify for Europe every year. It's ideal unless the IRFU are willing to ditch the player management scheme, which according to our top internationals is the primary reason they're choosing to stay in Ireland over going to France.

So, I'm going to ignore Doodle Wasps spoofing and try to bring this back on topic.

I have been entirely against having anything to do with the PRL up until this point because they are a bunch of untrustworthy spivs.

However, since RRW and the SRU were too self-interested / short-sighted to hold the line recently, I don't much trust them either.

Let's face it, the PRL strategy did succeed in dividing and, to an extent, conquering (the unions did manage to retain majority control of the European Cup at least). If the Rabo could decline and still survive, we could use it as a development league, qualify for Europe every year and be grand.

However, the Welsh and Scots have probably signed their own death warrants and the league won't survive for long as things stand. Hence my call for them to get their **** together and figure out a way to recover. If they can't, the league will eventually collapse. It's imperative that the IRFU don't wait until that happens (when they'll be in a very weak position) to look for alternatives. Our provinces are still strong enough and attractive enough participants to be welcomed into most competitions.

I'd give our Celtic friends about 12-18 months to show us that we have a future together. If things aren't looking up at that stage, we start talking to others about what comes after.

[mr chips]

Is this thread developing into a reincarnation of the "Future of the Heineken Cup in Doubt?" thread?

I agree. This thread is a suitable vehicle for people to discuss the best way for Irish rugby and the Pro12 to move forward. Any efforts at derailing it into a rehash of old arguments will be quashed.

[rathbaner]

I agree. This thread is a suitable vehicle for people to discuss the best way for Irish rugby and the Pro12 to move forward. Any efforts at derailing it into a rehash of old arguments will be quashed.

If pro rugby is being driven by TV money then surely the IRFU need to consider where they can get the most money for the provinces.

Now it could be that a resurgence of Welsh and Scottish rugby combined with a growing appetite for the game in Italy will do the trick. But, right now, neither of those two possibilities seems likely.

If the Pro 12 ends up over the next few seasons being between the four provinces and Glasgow - with maybe Ospreys keeping a hand in it, we are in trouble. Sky may not remain interested in that either.

Alongside this the current European deal means that the PRL and LNR will serve notice to quit in six years' time. That's the time frame for the next guaranteed big shake up in the pro game. The Irish game cannot survive outside that tent.

So sooner or later we have to consider where the future of the provinces lie.