NPR

ia801310 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 7:34 pm Surely the league can't afford to lose 2 teams, some way must be found to keep them going. I thought that there was someone interested in Worcester?

I like neeps wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:46 pm Is anyone able to give a top line overview on why wasps went into so much debt to move to Coventry?

Iain(bobbity) wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 9:37 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 6:12 pm

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:40 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 3:42 pm Guess I'll have to find a new way to be disappointed most weekends.

Support Bath

Woah there, I said disappointed not plunged into depression.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 10:22 pm

I like neeps wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:46 pm Is anyone able to give a top line overview on why wasps went into so much debt to move to Coventry?

Remember reading at the time on the Wasps forum a bloke who seemed to have an inside scoop from Wasps and some sort of business background who judged it was all an attempt to asset strip the club whilst using them as a vehicle to take over the casino at the Ricoh

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 7:39 pm

ia801310 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 7:34 pm Surely the league can't afford to lose 2 teams, some way must be found to keep them going. I thought that there was someone interested in Worcester?

There's been a rumour doing the rounds for a while, before Covid, that the club owners want some clubs to fail. Ideally, the Premiership will have just 10 clubs but if it's 10 clubs still operating as they have done with 12/13 then it's only a matter of time before more fail. The whole model is fundamentally flawed.

shaggy wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 2:11 pm

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 7:39 pm

ia801310 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 7:34 pm Surely the league can't afford to lose 2 teams, some way must be found to keep them going. I thought that there was someone interested in Worcester?

There's been a rumour doing the rounds for a while, before Covid, that the club owners want some clubs to fail. Ideally, the Premiership will have just 10 clubs but if it's 10 clubs still operating as they have done with 12/13 then it's only a matter of time before more fail. The whole model is fundamentally flawed.

… says the supporter of the club that weaponised the financial model for English club rugby …

shaggy wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 2:11 pm

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 7:39 pm

ia801310 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 7:34 pm Surely the league can't afford to lose 2 teams, some way must be found to keep them going. I thought that there was someone interested in Worcester?

There's been a rumour doing the rounds for a while, before Covid, that the club owners want some clubs to fail. Ideally, the Premiership will have just 10 clubs but if it's 10 clubs still operating as they have done with 12/13 then it's only a matter of time before more fail. The whole model is fundamentally flawed.

… says the supporter of the club that weaponised the financial model for English club rugby …

inactionman wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 12:26 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 6:12 pm

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:40 pm


Support Bath

Woah there, I said disappointed not plunged into depression.

You'll be thrilled to hear that - assuming Wasps remain a going concern for the next 30 hours or so - it's Bath vs Wasps on the TV tomorrow night.

Enjoy the 5 points.

weegie01 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 7:42 am Brian Moore makes a fairly obvious general point in the Telegraph today, which I had missed to be frank.

Many people advocate reducing subs for various reasons, but as Moore points out, if there are fewer subs, squads are smaller and therefore more affordable. Of itself this will not save struggling clubs, but it would help.

weegie01 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 7:42 am Brian Moore makes a fairly obvious general point in the Telegraph today, which I had missed to be frank.

Many people advocate reducing subs for various reasons, but as Moore points out, if there are fewer subs, squads are smaller and therefore more affordable. Of itself this will not save struggling clubs, but it would help.

SaintK wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:20 am A mate of mine is down at Glaws doing a session this morning. Glaws have been told there's virtually 0% their match against Worcester will go ahead next weekend.
All Worcester staff have been told to collect any personal possessions by 4:30pm today as all the gates will be locked at 5:00pm
They are done for.

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 2:55 pm

shaggy wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 2:11 pm

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 7:39 pm



There's been a rumour doing the rounds for a while, before Covid, that the club owners want some clubs to fail. Ideally, the Premiership will have just 10 clubs but if it's 10 clubs still operating as they have done with 12/13 then it's only a matter of time before more fail. The whole model is fundamentally flawed.

… says the supporter of the club that weaponised the financial model for English club rugby …

Not really. Virtually all the best players at Saracens were developed by Saracens from their teenage years. And doesn't a little bit of you think it's actually a good idea to encourage players to start their own businesses, be entrepreneurial and have interests outside of rugby?

We need more clubs that look after their players properly, not less. You'd have to be a real hater not to acknowledge that Saracens are probably the best club in the league at developing players.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 9:57 am

weegie01 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 7:42 am Brian Moore makes a fairly obvious general point in the Telegraph today, which I had missed to be frank.

Many people advocate reducing subs for various reasons, but as Moore points out, if there are fewer subs, squads are smaller and therefore more affordable. Of itself this will not save struggling clubs, but it would help.

You still need to be able to do opposed training and keep enough players to cover multiple competitions and injuries.

Plus, putting more players out of work shouldn't be the answer here.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:11 am BCM's point around salaries compared to cricket and league is the better one. There's been runaway growth in them, the game doesn't seem to have understood it's TV deal is a pawn in the football rights game.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 9:57 am

weegie01 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 7:42 am Brian Moore makes a fairly obvious general point in the Telegraph today, which I had missed to be frank.

Many people advocate reducing subs for various reasons, but as Moore points out, if there are fewer subs, squads are smaller and therefore more affordable. Of itself this will not save struggling clubs, but it would help.

You still need to be able to do opposed training and keep enough players to cover multiple competitions and injuries.

Plus, putting more players out of work shouldn't be the answer here.

SaintK wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:20 am A mate of mine is down at Glaws doing a session this morning. Glaws have been told there's virtually 0% their match against Worcester will go ahead next weekend.
All Worcester staff have been told to collect any personal possessions by 4:30pm today as all the gates will be locked at 5:00pm
They are done for.

eldanielfire wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:27 am

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 2:55 pm

shaggy wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 2:11 pm

… says the supporter of the club that weaponised the financial model for English club rugby …

Not really. Virtually all the best players at Saracens were developed by Saracens from their teenage years. And doesn't a little bit of you think it's actually a good idea to encourage players to start their own businesses, be entrepreneurial and have interests outside of rugby?

We need more clubs that look after their players properly, not less. You'd have to be a real hater not to acknowledge that Saracens are probably the best club in the league at developing players.

Not quite, Sarries imported loads of experienced players to generate a platform for success and coach/teach/role model the development of younger players. It wasn't exactly all internal development. Likewise the money factor isn't always about bringing in players, but about keeping them to maintain or build upon successs. But the issue people have with Sarries isn't that they encourage players to have outside interests.

SaintK wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:20 am A mate of mine is down at Glaws doing a session this morning. Glaws have been told there's virtually 0% their match against Worcester will go ahead next weekend.
All Worcester staff have been told to collect any personal possessions by 4:30pm today as all the gates will be locked at 5:00pm
They are done for.

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:59 am

eldanielfire wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:27 am

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 2:55 pm



Not really. Virtually all the best players at Saracens were developed by Saracens from their teenage years. And doesn't a little bit of you think it's actually a good idea to encourage players to start their own businesses, be entrepreneurial and have interests outside of rugby?

We need more clubs that look after their players properly, not less. You'd have to be a real hater not to acknowledge that Saracens are probably the best club in the league at developing players.

Not quite, Sarries imported loads of experienced players to generate a platform for success and coach/teach/role model the development of younger players. It wasn't exactly all internal development. Likewise the money factor isn't always about bringing in players, but about keeping them to maintain or build upon successs. But the issue people have with Sarries isn't that they encourage players to have outside interests.

Given the outside interests were pretty much exclusively why they broke the cap then I suggest you're mistaken. Saracens never paid more in salaries than the cap allowed.

And you're wrong about imports as well, or at least it was never as high as you think. For example, Sale have imported far more South Africans in the last few years than Saracens every did except with Sale the Saffas are already fully capped test players. With Saracens, many of the imported players were not capped, a few actually played for England you might recall. But Sale don't get criticised largely because they don't win anything. Great coaching and a great culture are why Saracens won things.

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 11:06 am

SaintK wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:20 am A mate of mine is down at Glaws doing a session this morning. Glaws have been told there's virtually 0% their match against Worcester will go ahead next weekend.
All Worcester staff have been told to collect any personal possessions by 4:30pm today as all the gates will be locked at 5:00pm
They are done for.

I just hope the owners get what's coming to them. They really are scumbags. Apparently, the players and staff and no doubt a few fans, drank the club bars dry on Friday night after the match. I doubt any money changed hands.

weegie01 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:53 am

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 9:57 am

weegie01 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 7:42 am Brian Moore makes a fairly obvious general point in the Telegraph today, which I had missed to be frank.

Many people advocate reducing subs for various reasons, but as Moore points out, if there are fewer subs, squads are smaller and therefore more affordable. Of itself this will not save struggling clubs, but it would help.

You still need to be able to do opposed training and keep enough players to cover multiple competitions and injuries.

Plus, putting more players out of work shouldn't be the answer here.

On the first point, if there are fewer players needed per game squad, fewer will be needed overall to cover competitions and injuries. I do not know what the relationship between English pro teams and others is compared to up here, but if there is a shortage for training Scottish clubs use academy players, and if there is still not enough, they bring in players from affiliated semi pro clubs.

Either income has to go up dramatically, or costs need to be significantly cut back, or a combination of the two. In the absence of the first, players are going to feel some pain either in lower salaries, or fewer players employed. Neither are great, but rather lose something than everything if a club goes to the wall.

For clarity, I am not saying the players take all the pain, just that some is likely.

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:56 am

SaintK wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:20 am A mate of mine is down at Glaws doing a session this morning. Glaws have been told there's virtually 0% their match against Worcester will go ahead next weekend.
All Worcester staff have been told to collect any personal possessions by 4:30pm today as all the gates will be locked at 5:00pm
They are done for.

Awful for the staff, they've done nothing wrong.

Obviously this has a financial implication for all teams who've yet to play a home fixture against Worcester, but Glaws must feel particularly irked having had a fixture cancelled last season too.

Iain(bobbity) wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 12:09 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:56 am

SaintK wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:20 am A mate of mine is down at Glaws doing a session this morning. Glaws have been told there's virtually 0% their match against Worcester will go ahead next weekend.
All Worcester staff have been told to collect any personal possessions by 4:30pm today as all the gates will be locked at 5:00pm
They are done for.

Awful for the staff, they've done nothing wrong.

Obviously this has a financial implication for all teams who've yet to play a home fixture against Worcester, but Glaws must feel particularly irked having had a fixture cancelled last season too.

You probaby saw, but the ground caretaker lives on site and will have to move out by tonight.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 11:38 am
Any solution that doesn't address the fundamental governnance of the sport and the pyramid itself is a waste of time.

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 12:18 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 11:38 am
Any solution that doesn't address the fundamental governnance of the sport and the pyramid itself is a waste of time.

Yep, 100%.

However, CVC are now taking nearly 30% of the commercial income that the Premiership generates. And in return for that they have to do nothing. Zip. There's now simply not enough pie left after their cut to split 13 ways. Even 10 ways is probably too much. CVC will effectively replace about 4 clubs. Now, this might be 4D chess and all part of the CVC masterplan, who knows, but what I do know is that commercially, English professional rugby is being massively undersold.

robmatic wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 12:25 pm

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 12:18 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 11:38 am
Any solution that doesn't address the fundamental governnance of the sport and the pyramid itself is a waste of time.

Yep, 100%.

However, CVC are now taking nearly 30% of the commercial income that the Premiership generates. And in return for that they have to do nothing. Zip. There's now simply not enough pie left after their cut to split 13 ways. Even 10 ways is probably too much. CVC will effectively replace about 4 clubs. Now, this might be 4D chess and all part of the CVC masterplan, who knows, but what I do know is that commercially, English professional rugby is being massively undersold.

The TV deal for the Premiership must be relatively poor.

Iain(bobbity) wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 12:09 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:56 am

SaintK wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:20 am A mate of mine is down at Glaws doing a session this morning. Glaws have been told there's virtually 0% their match against Worcester will go ahead next weekend.
All Worcester staff have been told to collect any personal possessions by 4:30pm today as all the gates will be locked at 5:00pm
They are done for.

Awful for the staff, they've done nothing wrong.

Obviously this has a financial implication for all teams who've yet to play a home fixture against Worcester, but Glaws must feel particularly irked having had a fixture cancelled last season too.

You probaby saw, but the ground caretaker lives on site and will have to move out by tonight.

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 12:18 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 11:38 am
Any solution that doesn't address the fundamental governnance of the sport and the pyramid itself is a waste of time.

Yep, 100%.

However, CVC are now taking nearly 30% of the commercial income that the Premiership generates. And in return for that they have to do nothing. Zip. There's now simply not enough pie left after their cut to split 13 ways. Even 10 ways is probably too much. CVC will effectively replace about 4 clubs. Now, this might be 4D chess and all part of the CVC masterplan, who knows, but what I do know is that commercially, English professional rugby is being massively undersold.

Sorry, you've got that a bit backwards. Fewer subs means players playing more minutes, which means more players required overall to be able to compete in multiple competitions. More workload on individuals during matches means more injuries, more fatigue, and even more need for rest and rotation.

I think we also need to clarify whether "fewer subs" means "fewer substitutions allowed during a match" or "fewer substitutes on the bench". The latter has increased danger to players during a match and is more damaging to players careers. Messing with subs has a real knock on effect with regards to player welfare and the justification for it has always been pretty thin, be it an attempt to make players smaller (it won't make much difference and whatever gains you make will be lost when injured players are under pressure to play on) or to cut costs.

Either income has to go up dramatically, or costs need to be significantly cut back, or a combination of the two. In the absence of the first, players are going to feel some pain either in lower salaries, or fewer players employed. Neither are great, but rather lose something than everything if a club goes to the wall.

For clarity, I am not saying the players take all the pain, just that some is likely.

PornDog wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 12:56 pm

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 12:18 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 11:38 am
Any solution that doesn't address the fundamental governnance of the sport and the pyramid itself is a waste of time.

Yep, 100%.

However, CVC are now taking nearly 30% of the commercial income that the Premiership generates. And in return for that they have to do nothing. Zip. There's now simply not enough pie left after their cut to split 13 ways. Even 10 ways is probably too much. CVC will effectively replace about 4 clubs. Now, this might be 4D chess and all part of the CVC masterplan, who knows, but what I do know is that commercially, English professional rugby is being massively undersold.

I get where you're coming from, but you can't really argue it was undersold when the entire project was massively loss making long before CVC got involved. They paid a large amount of money for something that loses money every year.

The clubs/prl most definitely mortgaged their futures, and it may prove to be a mortgage they can't afford, but I don't think you can argue the deal itself was an unfair one.

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:59 am

eldanielfire wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:27 am

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 2:55 pm



Not really. Virtually all the best players at Saracens were developed by Saracens from their teenage years. And doesn't a little bit of you think it's actually a good idea to encourage players to start their own businesses, be entrepreneurial and have interests outside of rugby?

We need more clubs that look after their players properly, not less. You'd have to be a real hater not to acknowledge that Saracens are probably the best club in the league at developing players.

Not quite, Sarries imported loads of experienced players to generate a platform for success and coach/teach/role model the development of younger players. It wasn't exactly all internal development. Likewise the money factor isn't always about bringing in players, but about keeping them to maintain or build upon successs. But the issue people have with Sarries isn't that they encourage players to have outside interests.

Given the outside interests were pretty much exclusively why they broke the cap then I suggest you're mistaken. Saracens never paid more in salaries than the cap allowed.

And you're wrong about imports as well, or at least it was never as high as you think. For example, Sale have imported far more South Africans in the last few years than Saracens every did except with Sale the Saffas are already fully capped test players. With Saracens, many of the imported players were not capped, a few actually played for England you might recall. But Sale don't get criticised largely because they don't win anything. Great coaching and a great culture are why Saracens won things.

Staff have been told to collect their items from Sixways before gates to the ground are locked at 16:30 BST.

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 1:23 pm

PornDog wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 12:56 pm

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 12:18 pm


Yep, 100%.

However, CVC are now taking nearly 30% of the commercial income that the Premiership generates. And in return for that they have to do nothing. Zip. There's now simply not enough pie left after their cut to split 13 ways. Even 10 ways is probably too much. CVC will effectively replace about 4 clubs. Now, this might be 4D chess and all part of the CVC masterplan, who knows, but what I do know is that commercially, English professional rugby is being massively undersold.

I get where you're coming from, but you can't really argue it was undersold when the entire project was massively loss making long before CVC got involved. They paid a large amount of money for something that loses money every year.

The clubs/prl most definitely mortgaged their futures, and it may prove to be a mortgage they can't afford, but I don't think you can argue the deal itself was an unfair one.

The Premiership club owners have put in about £500m since 1996. CVC were buying a chunk of that. CVC haven't done anything wrong but what they have bought doesn't have an end date or any commitment in the same way a club owner has to commit - they get 27% now come what may. The Premiership is a distressed asset and CVC saw a chance to buy. The frustrating thing about all this is that collectively, the Premiership has access to some of the smartest business IP in England - they just don't talk to each other let alone look out for each other.

Iain(bobbity) wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 12:09 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:56 am

SaintK wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:20 am A mate of mine is down at Glaws doing a session this morning. Glaws have been told there's virtually 0% their match against Worcester will go ahead next weekend.
All Worcester staff have been told to collect any personal possessions by 4:30pm today as all the gates will be locked at 5:00pm
They are done for.

Awful for the staff, they've done nothing wrong.

Obviously this has a financial implication for all teams who've yet to play a home fixture against Worcester, but Glaws must feel particularly irked having had a fixture cancelled last season too.

You probaby saw, but the ground caretaker lives on site and will have to move out by tonight.