What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025:09:16:11:54:24 by CoochieCoo.

As always there's some figures that to me just don't seem to add up with my O level scrape pass accounting

How do Briz manage to get about 50% of our turnover with almost 50% higher average gate than us?

Just as well I don't do my own business books!

At a guess gaz59 because Bears model is aimed at cheap tickets and trying to fill a big stadium with a limited amount of corporate whilst due to demand Bath are able to sell even their most rubbish seats for premium prices and charge even more for the rest.
Not sure it's anymore complex than that.

Paul
How do Saracens- with a smaller crowd capacity than Bath- get nearly £2M greater turnover?

PG

Saracens includes £4m of events and stadium activities. However Bath grew their revenue by £1m whilst Saracens rugby revenue fell by £1.5m.

It seems Saracens have now closed their events business (MBN Events - the old Lucy Wray business).

Re Bristol - I see their overheads are also lower - is this due to ground sharing - maybe they only get a proportion of the ticket sale booked as revenue but equally don't have the costs of the ground

Quote:

P G Tips
Paul
How do Saracens- with a smaller crowd capacity than Bath- get nearly £2M greater turnover?

PG

They have non Rugby income of £1.9m PG which compares with our £0m!

PG Events money from the StoneX plus rent from Middlesex Uni for their sports science unit that is "housed" in the West Stand.

I am surprised our rugby revenue has fallen that much. No home SF might be a factor but for sure not that big a one. Drop in attendances in an indifferent season too maybe.
Our finances seem a basket case to me.

In contrast Baths uplift likely largely due to Prem home SF and European QF.

I missed that the figures are from the season before last.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025:08:23:23:28:56 by PaulHerox.

Which accounts for the c £2M difference Coochie but does not then explain how the remainder is a similar figure derived from10k v 14k.

PG

Quote:

P G Tips
Which accounts for the c £2M difference Coochie but does not then explain how the remainder is a similar figure derived from10k v 14k.
PG

Not sure what your 10k and 14k figures refer to PG but that year 23/24 Sarries had a big game at Tottenham Stadium we didn’t have our Twickenham big game that year (apart from the final with Saints). Not sure how that game is counted in the home attendance figures of Premier rugby, which is my source.

However our published prem attendances are lower than Sarries and they have non rugby income increasing their revenue and yet they still make a £3m loss worse than us! Our finances are not good but theirs is diabolical!

Stadium capacity cc.
Stonex 10.5K, Rec 14.5K.

PG

Are these figures just for the men's team or do they include women's teams with the respective income and salary etc?

OK here is a question......

What does the Club/Company have to do to get to breakeven?

I'll start with build the new stadium and increase capacity to 18.000 which will lead to.......

Quote:

Bath Supporter Jack
OK here is a question......
What does the Club/Company have to do to get to breakeven?

I'll start with build the new stadium and increase capacity to 18.000 which will lead to.......

....tens of millions of pounds of debt from the planning and building of it?

I can't see a c25% increase in capacity making a huge difference in gates but the additional corporate, sponsorship, event opportunities etc should be the real payoff?

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

I don’t think the debt of the new stadium will be in Bath Rugby’s accounts. Arena 1865 is picking up the costs of design and planning and no doubt funding will be with that company who will pocket the naming rights etc. Bath Rugby will continue to be a lessee.

One big saving will be £1.2m or so in not having to put up and take down the temp stands every year. In fact that saving will be happening in this current financial year as a result of the planners allowing it to stay put!

There is no doubt that additional use of the stadium will also reduce the losses as well. However, what effect will R360 have on stadium use? It looks likely they are going for stadia such as Tottenham Hotspur for their games.

Quote:

CoochieCoo
I don’t think the debt of the new stadium will be in Bath Rugby’s accounts. Arena 1865 is picking up the costs of design and planning and no doubt funding will be with that company who will pocket the naming rights etc. Bath Rugby will continue to be a lessee.

Forgive my ignorance but presumably the person paying for it also get the profits? So if the debt of the new stadium isn't in Bath Rugby’s accounts then the profits from the stadium won't be (or shouldn't be) in them either? I guess my point is that someone will need to pay for it - say £30m for arguments sake - and presumably they will want that money back?

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

We haven’t been told who is going to fund the stadium but my feeling is that it will be north of £50m. The stadium will be built on land owned by the Rec Charity and Bath Rugby pay them rent of £250k at present. I assume that Charity will continue to own and lease the land to Bath Rugby on a long term basis.

We are in the dark as to who is putting the money up for the stadium but my guess is that some sort of philanthropy will be involved. The stadium is for community use as well so the accounting of that will have to be worked out.

All guess work at the moment!

Thanks CC.

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

More than likely to be the Dyson Stadium isn't it?

More than likely to be the Dyson Stadium isn't it?

I think that I could accept that, in a way that I never could another name for Twickenham Stadium!

I have always assumed that the Dyson Family would pay for the new stadium.

I believe it ticks all of their "boxes" for community, longevity and legacy.

The Dyson Stadium at the Rec has a very good ring to it!

I think that that just about fills the gap on its own!

It'll be "the Rec" just as, however hard they try, the Tiggers will always play at "Welford Road".

... IMHO, of course.

Now in Honolulu

Yes I am going to the Dyson rather then the Rec does not sound right...

Mind you in Arsenal's going to the Emirates, or in Coventry FC case going to the RICOH did and does work.

"The Dyson Stadium at the Rec" does work though

"Going to" and "building on" seem very different cases to me. Calling the Emirates "Highbury" would just be odd wouldn't it?

Quote:

Dan Wiley
"Going to" and "building on" seem very different cases to me. Calling the Emirates "Highbury" would just be odd wouldn't it?

Not the same at all, they are two entirely different locations!


Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Quote:

Bath Supporter Jack
Yes I am going to the Dyson rather then the Rec does not sound right...
Mind you in Arsenal's going to the Emirates, or in Coventry FC case going to the RICOH did and does work.

"The Dyson Stadium at the Rec" does work though

I still say "Highbury"...

... IMHO, of course.

Now in Honolulu

Quote:

joethefanatic

Quote:

Bath Supporter Jack
Yes I am going to the Dyson rather then the Rec does not sound right...
Mind you in Arsenal's going to the Emirates, or in Coventry FC case going to the RICOH did and does work.

"The Dyson Stadium at the Rec" does work though

I still say "Highbury"...

But... it's literally not Highbury. That's a different location.

Quote:

hasta

Quote:

joethefanatic

Quote:

Bath Supporter Jack
Yes I am going to the Dyson rather then the Rec does not sound right...
Mind you in Arsenal's going to the Emirates, or in Coventry FC case going to the RICOH did and does work.

"The Dyson Stadium at the Rec" does work though

I still say "Highbury"...

But... it's literally not Highbury. That's a different location.

….and they should be nowhere near as they hail from Woolwich! 😉

Quote:

CoochieCoo

Quote:

hasta

Quote:

joethefanatic

Quote:

Bath Supporter Jack
Yes I am going to the Dyson rather then the Rec does not sound right...
Mind you in Arsenal's going to the Emirates, or in Coventry FC case going to the RICOH did and does work.

"The Dyson Stadium at the Rec" does work though

I still say "Highbury"...

But... it's literally not Highbury. That's a different location.

….and they should be nowhere near as they hail from Woolwich! 😉

It literally doesn't matter where the physical location is that The Arsenal play their home games. Where-ever it is, that is "Highbury". Philosophically speaking.

... IMHO, of course.

Now in Honolulu

Would moving to a franchise model change the situation re breaking even/finances? We know Bruce is keen on it.

Quote:

Susanne
Would moving to a franchise model change the situation re breaking even/finances? We know Bruce is keen on it.

Not really, the franchise model proposed is as I see it designed to make sure that them Premiership clubs are all using the same management system. That means that clubs wouldn’t go bust due to mismanagement or disorganised structures.
There is no solution to income issues as currently there isn’t a successful model to copy.


Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Franchises do go bust despite having successful models to copy, so they aren't a panacea.

Just because there isn't a successful model in operation doesn't mean there isn't a solution to our income problem.

Quote:

Susanne
Would moving to a franchise model change the situation re breaking even/finances? We know Bruce is keen on it.

I believe Bruce’s keen on the Club franchise idea based on the IPL model because it will bring more financial stability as the threat of relegation being removed will allow long term planning. A ring fenced league that allows invites to add to the league in future will attract more stable investment and attract serious backers like Red Bull.

Our stadium redevelopment aligns with the franchise benchmarks like venue quality and fan experience. Our current successes and top-tier performance strengthens the case for franchisers to be attracted.

The club’s heritage and civic engagement become strategic assets and is ideal for this model as local support is vital. As was seen for the Open Top Bus celebrations there are a lot of supporters out there.

Franchising allows for centralised media and sponsorship deals which gives the clubs a financial base of revenue before any operations.

Without relegation pressure, clubs can focus on youth development, community programs, and long-term planning.

So to answer your question, Susanne, I believe there is a very good chance that the franchise model will reduce the dreadful losses that clubs are suffering at the moment. They will never get the fantastic super profits of the IPL simply because Rugby has not got the support of fans as IPL has in India.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025:08:31:15:45:10 by CoochieCoo.

Thanks for the responses - especially CC with that comprehensive response, really interesting and helpful.

I know it’s fashionable to bash franchises however, on a bleak Thursday night at the Oval 10 days ago 22,500 people turned up to watch Oval Invincibles come back from a losing position to win against Trent Rockets and Joe Root (77) with exciting attacking cricket.
1.6 million watched the opening game of The Hundred,
Northern Superchargers women were bottom of the table last year and have just won the final at Lords, courtesy of the draft. (Record crowd for a women’s game.)

Nothing to do with the IPL or Indian cricket these are English fans watching English cricket. (ECB still has a 51% stake.) I agree the sale of the 49% sale is partly down to IPL and its massive windfall bonus has been shared with the counties this week.

Rugby and it’s clubs have failed to become commercial, it doesn’t need to be a franchise but it does need to be something.

In response to the statement that ‘The Hundred’ is ruining cricket. This is from a financial report by Leonard Curtis.

“Cricket in England and Wales remains overly reliant on central distributions, TV rights, and international fixtures at a handful of Test grounds. While significant profits have been posted in isolated cases over the past ten years, they are exceptions to the rule. Without ECB support and income from The Hundred, it is questionable whether some counties could survive even for a single season.”

The current franchise proposal for the Prem simply makes bankruptcy less likely.


Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Quote:

Shipwrecked
The current franchise proposal for the Prem simply makes bankruptcy less likely.

Exactly and that has to be a good thing and give future clubs some financial security and confidence in the Prem. I think that is why Bruce is leading the way.

Quote:

CoochieCoo

Quote:

Shipwrecked
The current franchise proposal for the Prem simply makes bankruptcy less likely.

Exactly and that has to be a good thing and give future clubs some financial security and confidence in the Prem. I think that is why Bruce is leading the way.

Oh I agree completely CC, what I'd be interested in is whether there is any restriction on other commercial projects going forward. It's not the same thing but the WRU's proposal is to allow regions (whatever the number) to involve private investors for other commercial operations.

English clubs should have the same. Bath for example in 3 or 4 years time with have a magnificent new stadium in the centre of the city that would be used perhaps 25 times a year.
There have to be opportunities to exploit this resource. don't there?


Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

If the RFU or any other body are the central franchise operation like the BICC is for the IPL, wants this to work the revenue streams have to be numerous. Our new stadium is there to improve Bruce’s financing and Bath’s revenue. It’s the NIMBYS like PERA who realise they are behind the game and are trying to put in restraints on stadium activity now.

It is in the planning application that the stadium is not only for rugby.

Clubs like Quins have other commercial projects.

It's never really clear what people mean by franchises.

What I've got from all that is: franchises=ring fencing. Everything else is completely possible with our current system.

I don't buy this relegation means no investment, the league that's most successful in bringing in investment is top 14, with relegation.

The investment goes nowhere if it doesn't bring in more people. Making the league less interesting won't bring in more people.

Dan

Franchising isn’t just about ring-fencing—it’s about setting standards such as financial health, infrastructure, and community impact. Bath’s contribution to these standards are a committed owner, a city centre stadium (hopefully to be improved), and a very loyal fan base and rugby heritage.

Relegation doesn’t stop investment, but regretfully at present it means that it is like burning £50 notes as clubs overspend chasing survival. Top 14 works because of regional monopolies and public funding, not because relegation is inherently good. Didn’t they report losses double ours?

I think, and so do you and many others including Bruce, that the current model isn’t working. Stability might not be dramatic, but it’s what keeps clubs alive. Stability is key to the survival of Prem rugby.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025:08:31:21:26:57 by CoochieCoo.

Quote:

CC
it’s about setting standards such as financial health, infrastructure, and community impact

Right, exactly what the PRL can and should provide. If that's franchising we've already got mechanisms for it, so it comes back to ringfencing is what people are actually asking for.

Quote:

CC
Relegation doesn’t stop investment, but regretfully at present it means that it is like burning £50 notes as clubs overspend chasing survival.

No we're not, we're burning £50 notes to win the league, in the past not very successfully. I think BC is happy to do this and will continue to do so once ringfencing is in place. You are kidding yourself if you think that once ringfencing is in place we'll say "Don't need Finn anymore, its not like we can be relegated." We will carry on overspending, racking up debt against the club. We should strive for more investment, that's complete independent of ringfencing.

I've two feeling on the the current model:

1) No its not working we're racking up debt against clubs and yes the PRL should introduce some FFP to prevent that happening. The sort of turnover a most of the prem clubs bring in will sustain a professional sport.

2) The PRL is made up of club owners who have no interest in FFP they are quite happy pending as they like and sticking this debt on the clubs. They'd be happier still if they could continue to do that AND not have the jeopardy of relegation. That's why they want franchises and the implied ringfencing.

The salary cap is a financial control, but it’s not full FFP. It limits player wages, not overall club spending. A club can meet the cap and still rack up unsustainable debt as we know.

FFP—properly enforced—would link spending to revenue, there would be periodic audit controls (as conducted by BICC in the IPL), and penalise overspending. PRL has the tools but no appetite to use them. That’s why franchising matters. It forces minimum standards and accountability. Without that, we’re just watching clubs burn cash in different ways, whether chasing survival or chasing silverware.

This needs stability and ring fencing is key to that so that future investors have confidence. The fact that Red Bull has taken over Falcons with a £35m loan gives me hope that they have some how been assured of their investment.

Quote:

CC
PRL has the tools but no appetite to use them.

Given that BC is the one of the people pushing for franchises it seems apparent to me that he'll want to be a key influencer on that franchise owners. That's basically the situation he's in now. He and the other prem club owners ARE the PRL in effect. If the PRL don't want to limit spending then the new franchise won't either. A best we might get a subset of the PRL running the franchise, squeezing out some of the less pushy owners who don't want things like to raise the cap or introduce more marquees.

Other than ringfencing franchises seem to me to be a mechanism for certain people to gain more control.

Quote:

Dan Wiley
Given that BC is the one of the people pushing for franchises it seems apparent to me that he'll want to be a key influencer on that franchise owners.

Sorry but that implies Bruce Craig has little integrity. The model for the franchise would be based on mistakes made that led to other clubs going bankrupt. It would not be based on Bath or any current club but be the best version for club stability.
Relegation means loss of finances so hence ring fencing.


Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Quote:

Shipwrecked
Sorry but that implies Bruce Craig has little integrity.

I don't think it does. It's not my intention anyway. Which bit do you think is questioning his integrity? The bit about wanting to help form a franchise or the bit about him not wanting to introduce rules that stop clubs going bust?

He was integral to the increase in salary cap and the introduction of marquee players. Whatever the argument for those things they have definitely not helped keep clubs solvent.

I suspect he does want to have a fair amount of influence over any franchised option. He currently does have a fair amount of influence over PREM rugby, does he strike you as wanting to give that up?

Relegation could mean a wider spread of the finances and growing the game. Ring fencing means pulling up the drawbridge of pro rugby and locking everyone else out. IF anyone is ever let in again, it could only be two or three, it will be entirely on the franchises terms. Ring fencing kills off even the appearance of pro rugby below the PREM.

Quote:

Dan Wiley
He was integral to the increase in salary cap and the introduction of marquee players. Whatever the argument for those things they have definitely not helped keep clubs solvent.

It was simply to speculate to accumulate wasn't it? To keep the teams able to afford the best players and to be able to compete in Europe - which to be fair they have.

The problem, as we keep mentioning, is that rugby union just isn't attractive enough as a game to enough fee paying punters, which is why I think that it will never work. From that perspective franchising (i.e. to streamline the commercial side and leverage the power of the whole league) probably makes some sense, particularly for the less supported teams with the lower incomes. But ultimately - as you say - they as a group are borrowing more than the English pro league can generate.

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

I think if it was as simple as "we'll buy some decent players and people will start watching." That was fairly naive for some fairly decent businessmen. We could have literally all the world's stars and, without marketing the league, we'd go nowhere. On the other hand, we could have the current crop of players and market ourselves well and been a lot better off without having to spend millions on marquees. If the idea was to invest just in players it was a poor choice.

Franchising in general tries to put a "one size fits all" approach to a business. That works well in many areas, fast food being a pretty obvious one. You go into a McD's and get get exactly what you are expecting (its not good, but it is what you expected). I'm not sure such a model works with rugby. We're not like Tiggers, who aren't like Exeter who aren't like Newcastle. So I'm not sure that benefit of franchising is there.

A single entity deal with aspects of the business could be good, or not. How's the idea of Castore doing everyone's kit looking to you? On the other hand, the PREM already does have a central entity that makes deals across the whole PREM. Our TV agreement with TNT or the PGP deal with the RFU are examples of that. We've already got that aspect of franchising if we want it. Personally having all the kit deals for all clubs (for example) tied to one supply company sounds awful. At best terribly dull, probably ending in us getting kit that doesn't really suit us and very like incredibly expensive for the consumer. But if PREM rugby really wanted to do that they could.

Personally, if I were PREM rugby I'd take a percentage of the money from TNT and the RFU, not give it directly to clubs and invest that in marketing for the entire PREM. That could work.

Ringfencing is just protectionism. It's the sort of thing that has kept the Championship a bit part. The PREM has worked really hard to ensure the Champ doesn't grow. Ringfencing is just the ultimate expression of that, frankly its pretty much already in place with P shares and parachute payments. It will make the PREM pro rugby in England and everything else amateur. On the other hand, I think you could have a viable fully pro CHAMP, if you allowed to to become so. France has shown it is possible. If you had that you'd have massively grown rugby in England, probably raised income across the board. 10-12 pro clubs really doesn't make the most of the number of people potentially interested in rugby in England. Everyone could be better off but if we look at it insularly from the point of view of single clubs it can't happen.

Bruce clearly sees marketing and star players as essential—because without an audience, the league has no product.

His franchising model isn’t about uniformity; it’s about enforcing minimum standards. Clubs keep their identity, but must meet baseline criteria: financial health, infrastructure, and community engagement. That’s not McDonald’s—it’s sustainability.

Ringfencing isn’t anti-growth—it’s the foundation for it. Just look at the IPL. France succeeds with regional monopolies and public funding. The Premiership has neither. It’s burning cash, losing clubs, and relying on last-minute rescues like Red Bull. The numbers are grim, and the strategy is incoherent. Stability isn’t optional—it’s overdue.

The problem as you so eloquently state CC is that it’s stabilising decline not growth. It is however, a vital step.
As stated elsewhere a financial revolution is needed for rugby to become sustainable and remain pro.


Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Quote:

CC
Just look at the IPL

You might as well say look at NFL or Premier League. They are just totally different sporting economies and environments.

Quote:

CC
Clubs keep their identity, but must meet baseline criteria: financial health, infrastructure, and community engagement.

So all stuff that the PREM currently insist on except, as I've asked for, requiring financial health. Something that's well within their capacity to implement IF they wanted it. They don't and there's no reason to think that those forming the new franchise will either. They look like they'll be a subset of the same people.

As its stands the PREM have essentially ringfenced the league anyway, they've made it nearly impossible for a new club to establish themselves and almost guaranteed that a relegated club will pop straight back up. We've got ringfencing, it hasn't brought stability. It certainly hasn't brought growth. I see stagnation as a result. The only way the PREM make up has materially changed over the last 20 years is several clubs have gone bust, and Exeter I suppose.

There's a lot of scope to invest and develop the women's game much more to widen and deepen the paying fan base and income from merc

Would increase club income without workload impact on male players

Football is a great leading example of the potential untapped

Quote:

gaz59
There's a lot of scope to invest and develop the women's game much more to widen and deepen the paying fan base and income from merc
Would increase club income without workload impact on male players

Football is a great leading example of the potential untapped

I agree but it needs to be different otherwise all that will happen is it will copy the current failing system.


Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Also, it can't really be the women's game subsidizing the men's. There is scope for the two together bringing more growth than they would individually, but I don't think it's massive.

I would say I think the women's game is in good health, Bath just really dropped the ball there, they were dropping a lot of other balls at the time as well in fairness.

Quote:

Dan Wiley

Ringfencing is just protectionism. It's the sort of thing that has kept the Championship a bit part. The PREM has worked really hard to ensure the Champ doesn't grow. Ringfencing is just the ultimate expression of that, frankly its pretty much already in place with P shares and parachute payments. It will make the PREM pro rugby in England and everything else amateur. On the other hand, I think you could have a viable fully pro CHAMP, if you allowed to to become so. France has shown it is possible. If you had that you'd have massively grown rugby in England, probably raised income across the board. 10-12 pro clubs really doesn't make the most of the number of people potentially interested in rugby in England. Everyone could be better off but if we look at it insularly from the point of view of single clubs it can't happen.

There's the old cliché of the nose pressed on the outside of the window looking at the riches inside (or words to that effect).

That's how I feel reading the points made in this thread especially now that we at Worcester are impatiently waiting for the season to begin - in the Champ.

It seems to me that there are two possible ways forward for professional rugby in England: firstly there is the protectionist set up which is currently the PRL with aspirations to be honest and ringfence officially and secondly there is the idea of copying the French model with two fully professional leagues complete with promotion and relegation.

The second appears to be what the Champ management / RFU is trying to achieve - and why WW Mark 2 was needed and why in due course, they hope, I imagine, LI Mark 2 and Wasps Mark 2 will join.

There are however many hurdles to achieving that not the least of which is money - particularly the money which will have to come in from private / investor sources, the sort of money which keeps the majority of Prem clubs afloat.

Is that money available across the board to keep, say, 20 fully professional clubs going in the hope that some day, somehow all will be self sustainable?

I very much doubt it. It is after all why WW Mark 1 and LI Mark 1 failed and why Newcastle came very close, if rumours are true, to going the same way: private investors could not continue to finance those clubs.

Speaking insularly the implications of all of this for WW are I think quite clear. Life in the Prem cannot be afforded. The players salary bill this season is said to be somewhere between £1m and £1.5m which is just about affordable given secondary forms of income. A Prem salary bill would be five times that at least (?) and there would be the cost of buying a P share estimated at between £12m and £14m.

I have to say that I am very much in a minority amongst fellow WW supporters, many of whom talk about getting back into the Prem. The only time we will see Bath back at Sixways will, I think, be in a friendly such as that on the 19th. We are looking forward to that immensely as can be imagined after three years away. It's a sell out. But a path to a return to the Prem it is not.

The better run PREM teams bring in £20-25m with gates of around 15k. I think WW wouldn't be very far off that if well marketed. I believe that is enough to support a professional sports team. In some ways it has to be, that's pretty much what the game brings in whether you ringfence, franchise or whatever.

I don't really see that much growth in the game in terms of match day attendance. Those well run clubs are at capacity and charge huge amounts, we are at any rate. Building additional capacity is very expensive and there's got to be a clear market to fill it and I'm not sure that's there, not without reducing prices anyway.

TV growth is where the PREM should really target, hold back some of the money going to clubs and get more people watching on TV. There's growth there but its reliant on producing a good competitive product, not on creating an old boys club.

There's potentially more sponsorship money to bring in. I don't really see that as dependent on ringfencing.

What else are we looking for investment in? Are we just hoping someone will come along and just plow money into paying off our debt?

P shares are ringfencing by another name, although very slightly weaker they have much the same effect.

Quote:

A38
The second appears to be what the Champ management / RFU is trying to achieve - and why WW Mark 2 was needed and why in due course, they hope, I imagine, LI Mark 2 and Wasps Mark 2 will join.
There are however many hurdles to achieving that not the least of which is money - particularly the money which will have to come in from private / investor sources, the sort of money which keeps the majority of Prem clubs afloat.

Interesting post A38. Any home of a Pro Champ is remote without funding isn't it?

One of the biggest successes for Welsh rugby has been the SRC which is semi pro rugby. Its affordable for both clubs and fans alike. A semi pro Champ could be similar is that what you are thinking?


Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Quote:

shipwrecked

One of the biggest successes for Welsh rugby has been the SRC which is semi pro rugby. Its affordable for both clubs and fans alike. A semi pro Champ could be similar is that what you are thinking?

The problem is that the Champ's membership currently includes both full time and semi pro clubs, clubs with ambition to achieve promotion to the Prem and those who have no wish for promotion and clubs with grounds which are at or are very nearly at Prem criteria and those which are not.

But that's now with the theoretical prospect of one of the Champ clubs being promoted to the Prem at the end of the season.

Were ringfencing to happen - as distinct from the quasi situation now - then there would be no incentive, theoretical or actual, for Champ clubs to be other than semi-pro. I could see a situation where that might well come to pass as it would be a reflection on a sport which is in relative decline in terms of public interest.

My own view is that the way forward is for the Prem to expand beyond the present 10 clubs and that the jeopardy and interest of promotion / relegation should be re-introduced to generate far more general interest / headlines.

But that would appear to go against the interests of the present club owners, private and now corporate, who have no wish to find themselves with a second tier outfit.

So, we go round in circles - until another Prem club owner decides to invest elsewhere and looks for a buyer.

Chris Holland, WW's owner, warns strongly against the risks of his being "the single point of failure" by which he means that for the club to be sustainable going forward it cannot rely on him indefinitely and that there must be non-rugby streams of income generated to spread the risk.

How many Prem clubs do rely on that "single point of failure"? Worcester certainly did in the past!

Quote:

A38
But that would appear to go against the interests of the present club owners, private and now corporate, who have no wish to find themselves with a second tier outfit.

In a nutshell, this. Club owners talked up the cap and marquees, put the game in a situation where it couldn't exist without them and now want no one else to be allowed in on the basis that its untenable.

I do think the Champ needs to get itself together and sell itself properly, the PREM does it no favours here. But a big issue I think you identify is its just got too broader range of clubs. We saw in the cup last year everything from competitive with prem clubs to just nowhere near. That's not good for their chances of promotion (you're right some clubs don't want it) but it makes for a dull league anyway that would be hard to market even if they could.

I did suggest a much reduced Champ, of really competitive teams, and a the competitive prem we currently have, both with really vibrant leagues and a mixed cup competition, all on TV could be a really exciting rugby environment in England. One in which relegation wasn't the issue the ringfencing fanboyz think it is. It's didn't go down well on here and you can imagine the wailing from the Champ, it would be as bad as... well not as bad as Wales but pretty bad.

Ringfencing isn’t a closed shop, it’s a framework for stability. Just look at the IPL - teams like Kochi Tuskers and Pune Warriors came and went, while new franchises like Gujarat Titans and Lucknow Super Giants were added in 2022. Franchising can evolve without locking anyone out.

The Premiership isn’t shielding clubs from competition, it’s trying to stop them collapsing. Three have already gone under, and Red Bull had to step in to save another. Without reform, we’re not building a future, we’re firefighting decline. Franchising offers a way to stabilise the top tier and create space for a viable second tier. That’s not elitism, it’s survival.

Stability is the key. And in a franchise model, a well-supported, well-equipped club like the new Worcester could thrive—not be excluded.

Quote:

CC
Ringfencing isn’t a closed shop, it’s a framework for stability.

I've got some magic beans if you're interested.

Quote:

CC
The Premiership isn’t shielding clubs from competition

That is literally what it is doing, that's what you're saying its doing. It's creating "stability" by preventing other clubs taking the place of existing ones. How is that not "shielding clubs from competition?" If its not doing that then its not providing stability.

Rugby isn't like cricket, we can only play so many matches, the scope for expansion is very limited and its going to be on the terms of those running the franchise. People like BC. So the old boys clubs will stick around as long as their sugar daddy is happy to keep racking up debt against that club. New clubs might come along, perhaps briefly, if they pay the right subscription to the right people.

Quote:

CC
Stability is the key.

So people keeping saying. But is the league in such an unstable position? Financially sure, we're spending too much, but the thing ringfencing would bring, the same set of clubs year one year... well we're already there aren't we? We have been ringfenced for the last few years, but even when we weren't the change was glacial. The stability of league teams doesn't really seem to be the problem, indeed this stagnation could be part of the problem.

Quote:

DW
But is the league in such an unstable position? Financially sure, we're spending too much, but the thing ringfencing would bring, the same set of clubs year one year...

Please send your magic beans to all club owners! Of course the league is in an unstable position as financial losses of £36m is unsustainable and 7 of the 10 clubs are balance sheet insolvent. The total external debt owed by the clubs is £135m. Yes, the same clubs have largely stayed in the league, but not because the system is working. It’s because three have gone bust, one was rescued by Red Bull, and the rest are clinging on with mounting debt. That’s not stability

Ringfencing alone isn’t the solution. What’s missing is a framework that enforces financial health (which you agree is missing) infrastructure standards, and commercial strategy. Right now, we have ringfencing without reform, which just locks in fragility. Franchising offers a way to reset—not to freeze the league, but to rebuild it on solid ground.

Stability isn’t the problem—it’s the prerequisite. Without it, you can’t grow anything.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025:09:04:17:32:02 by CoochieCoo.

But, as I said, ring fencing will bring stability to the one area we have stability in. The set of teams involved.

Financial regulation will bring stability to Finances and we can have that regulation without ring fencing. Indeed, in the cap, we do have a form of financial regulation. It's just not quite the regulation we need.

Put another way, why do you need ring fencing to regulate the clubs?

It's just protectionism.

Quote:

CoochieCoo
What’s missing is...

..a lot more people interested enough in rugby union who want to throw money at it, either through bums on seats, replica kit or TV subscriptions... Otherwise its rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic.

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

For me, replica kit won't be a game changer. I can't see stadium expansion being the way forward either, its a large investment for a long term return and there's got to be the fans in place. Short term it could just reduce the demand for tickets. So, for me TV and advertising are the way to grow the money in the game. Neither of those require ringfencing.

I was wondering whether the RFU could rethink its distribution of money as well. The problem rugby has is that France disrupts an otherwise fair market. Players wages are inflated because they could go to France.

Currently they pay the clubs about £30m a year plus centrally contracting however many on about £200k. This money is basically given so they get better access to the players and they don't go off to France. Ignore the central contract pot for a second and think of the £30m.

Rather than just hand it out to the clubs why just contract the players the RFU actually want? Say :

Best 5 English players get £1m contracts*, they are going nowhere
The next 8 or so get £650k contracts*, again, going nowhere.
Then about 20 can get £500k*
The next 40 players offered £250k plus their club contracts.

*plus their club contract and probably a central contract

Taking one of these contracts means: you play for an English club and you are available for the additional training that England want to do outside international windows. Otherwise you're free to sign for who you want, albeit on a dramatically lower salary. If Itoje is getting £1.2m from England, how much does he really need from Sarries?

That 70 or so of the best English players playing in England for the £30m the RFU give the clubs anyway. England probably only have that sort of range of players on their radar. Given the JIFF rules, do the French want any of the 80th or so best players in England? If they do, do we really care that much?

Ok the clubs have lost £3m each (with 10 clubs, less if we expand) but the wage pressure in England has disappeared. In theory its zero sum, the RFU can give it to the clubs to give to players or it can give it directly to the players. The total amount the English players are paid remains the same except we've lost that external wage pressure.

Is the Prem viable with ten clubs?

If not, what is the optimum number? 12? 14? Are there enough gaps in the schedule given Internationals and Euro Cup games? Are larger squads needed to cope with extra attrition issues / number of games players can play?

There a few trade offs here. More teams means more home games and so more income.

But more teams also means:

- Splitting the TV money further.
- Splitting the RFU money further.
- More games, as you say, means more players and a bigger wage bill. It's not unreasonable for the players to want more money for more games either.
- Between, say, us an Briz there will be some competition for fans and sponsors.

We've broken this down a few times out the years, but we really don't want more than 40 game weeks during the season for the sake of player's health. So, 12 teams means:

- 24 : 22 Prem games plus two finals
- 13 : International weekends, 5 6N, 4 Summer, 4 AI. Yes you could play prem games here, but they are poor weeks well suited to a cup and a cup is a good thing to have anyway.
- 9 European. I just don't want to get my head around the current format, so 6 pool games, 3 finals.

Now, ok, not everyone plays in all of those, but the players we want to see do and we're up to 46 game weeks there.

I'd say 12 should be a fairly hard limit. Given the trade off above, more games doesn't necessarily mean more money, I'm not actually sure that 10 is so unviable.

My instinctive response is 12

Quote:

Bath Supporter Jack
My instinctive response is 12

+1


Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

12 seems natural to me, but that's probably because that's what I know and from there we've come down, which obviously doesn't feel good. As Wales are finding more isn't always better.

Quote:

Bath Supporter Jack
My instinctive response is 12

I like 10 as it means we don’t have annoying clashes with internationals. Also mid season break from league games works for me.

Quote:

OutsideBath

Quote:

Bath Supporter Jack
My instinctive response is 12

I like 10 as it means we don’t have annoying clashes with internationals. Also mid season break from league games works for me.

Agree. It also makes a competitive Champ league and promotion and relegation much more likely.

... IMHO, of course.

Now in Honolulu