Super Caley go ballistic...

[whatisthejava]

its difficult to say how far away a 3rd team is,

eventually another millionaire will want to own a scottish rugby team, Glasgow must be a decent prospect once Scotoun is extended to 10K, if Edinburgh could sort out a decent stadium combined with decent performances i dont see why Ed couldnt also go up to around that mark and then there would be cash available for a dev side, also with the EPL looking more and more like a closed shop we may get LW, LS & LI moving to the Pro17 1/2 at one point ,


Id like to see the pro 12 extend to conver the smaller european nations with 2 conferences made up of south and north europe and possibly America, and dont forget South Africa, Namibia, Alaska, and the 17 penguins that want to play in the archepelego off the Falklands

[whatisthejava]

Id like to see the pro 12 extend to conver the smaller european nations with 2 conferences made up of south and north europe and possibly America, and dont forget South Africa, Namibia, Alaska, and the 17 penguins that want to play in the archepelego off the Falklands

Abnd every one of those except the Alaskans and penguins have been investigated at one point

[Big D]

3rd pro team would need to almost exclusively be private owned (or Edinburgh or Glasgow compltely sold off).

The SRU have a finite amount of money for pro rugby (approx 10million last year) they/Dodson won't allow a debt to be run up like there was before "just" for 3rd pro team.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Selling off a successful team that you have control of would be madness. The only thing that could possibly justify it would be a ludicrous amount of money and anyone prepared to pay that would immediately have demonstrated themselves unfit to run the club.

[Big D]

Selling off a successful team that you have control of would be madness. The only thing that could possibly justify it would be a ludicrous amount of money and anyone prepared to pay that would immediately have demonstrated themselves unfit to run the club.

I wouldn't do it and the neither will the SRU, but that's what would need to happen as it stands should the SRU want a 3rd team (assuming all the relevant agreements were reached at pro 12 level) without spending money they don't have.

The SRU are going to have eventually, and are now actively looking to sell up to 49% of the current pro sides. They simply, and have openly said, are reaching the limits of what they can afford to put in.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Selling off a successful team that you have control of would be madness. The only thing that could possibly justify it would be a ludicrous amount of money and anyone prepared to pay that would immediately have demonstrated themselves unfit to run the club.

I wouldn't do it and the neither will the SRU, but that's what would need to happen as it stands should the SRU want a 3rd team (assuming all the relevant agreements were reached at pro 12 level) without spending money they don't have.

The SRU are going to have eventually, and are now actively looking to sell up to 49% of the current pro sides. They simply, and have openly said, are reaching the limits of what they can afford to put in.

Why would someone sane buy 49% of a loss making business? If it isn't loss making, why isn't it and why would the SRU want to sell it?

[Big D]

Selling off a successful team that you have control of would be madness. The only thing that could possibly justify it would be a ludicrous amount of money and anyone prepared to pay that would immediately have demonstrated themselves unfit to run the club.

I wouldn't do it and the neither will the SRU, but that's what would need to happen as it stands should the SRU want a 3rd team (assuming all the relevant agreements were reached at pro 12 level) without spending money they don't have.

The SRU are going to have eventually, and are now actively looking to sell up to 49% of the current pro sides. They simply, and have openly said, are reaching the limits of what they can afford to put in.

Why would someone sane buy 49% of a loss making business? If it isn't loss making, why isn't it and why would the SRU want to sell it?

At the risk of continuing to side track the 7's thread.

The SRU are responsible for maintain rugby in Scotland, not just the pro game. They are pretty good at trying to spend what money they have across grass root level and the pro game as reasonably as they can. I am not defending merely reporting their position as stated at the Special General Meeting. They have now reached a time where it is coming to a critical tipping point and they are trying to act before they have to lose a lot of their better players. They have spoken with external advisors who have told them the idea of selling off 49% (or more if the right deal is struck) to companies/people who wont necessarily be looking for a direct ROI from the pro team.

Whether we think it is achievable or not is another matter but they have identified an issue and are trying to find a solution.

As previously posted after the Special General Meeting from October/November time - their (John Dodsons the CEO) words:
[*] Edinburgh currently cost 4.7 or 4.8million to run and Glasgow 5.1M.
[*] French salary cap circa 10M and English estimated 9M by the time marquees and other extras. So we are way behind in European terms.
[*] Proposal is to create a "newco" his word but it wouldn't really be a company IIRC for dealing with pro rugby. Glasgow, Edinburgh and the national academy will sit in this.
[*] SRU plan to retain 51% in each pro side but not wedded to that idea.
[*] There will be strict clauses involved. Such as a minimum number of SQ players (30-32 was mentioned).
[*] The SRU aren't going to market it as an investment where people will make a ROI. They see it as someone /company looking to make a mark on the sport who may invest.
[*] SRU will "ringfence" a sum from next year for the pro sides meaning their investment will be limited to that.
[*] Apparently inflation in pro rugby is 25%+. And the inflation in player wages is here to stay. The power players and agents hold will not diminish.
[*] Someone asked about a stadium on back pitches. Would cost 17-19million apparently. Dobson had clearly looked at it.

There are already rumours about the SRU desperately trying to find the big money to keep Finn in Scotland if the rumours are correct.

[hugh_woatmeigh]

Keen to contribute to the discussion but can one of the mods move the posts to a new thread around a third team? With Twickenham 7s coming up this weekend it might get a bit messy.

[hp18]

Keen to contribute to the discussion but can one of the mods move the posts to a new thread around a third team? With Twickenham 7s coming up this weekend it might get a bit messy.

Start a thread and copy and paste half a dozen. Sorted

[Jps]

I'm quite excited about this coming weekend, but I'm not expecting the same return as Paris, just competitive, especially as Robertson has announced he's retiring.

Always liked him at Edinburgh, was never sure why he fell out of favor so completely.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Home for refugee posts from 7s thread

[Eugene Wrayburn]

I'm quite excited about this coming weekend, but I'm not expecting the same return as Paris, just competitive, especially as Robertson has announced he's retiring.

Always liked him at Edinburgh, was never sure why he fell out of favor so completely.

Oops. Sorry JPS. I can move it back if you want...

[Eugene Wrayburn]

I wouldn't do it and the neither will the SRU, but that's what would need to happen as it stands should the SRU want a 3rd team (assuming all the relevant agreements were reached at pro 12 level) without spending money they don't have.

The SRU are going to have eventually, and are now actively looking to sell up to 49% of the current pro sides. They simply, and have openly said, are reaching the limits of what they can afford to put in.

Why would someone sane buy 49% of a loss making business? If it isn't loss making, why isn't it and why would the SRU want to sell it?

At the risk of continuing to side track the 7's thread.

The SRU are responsible for maintain rugby in Scotland, not just the pro game. They are pretty good at trying to spend what money they have across grass root level and the pro game as reasonably as they can. I am not defending merely reporting their position as stated at the Special General Meeting. They have now reached a time where it is coming to a critical tipping point and they are trying to act before they have to lose a lot of their better players. They have spoken with external advisors who have told them the idea of selling off 49% (or more if the right deal is struck) to companies/people who wont necessarily be looking for a direct ROI from the pro team.

Whether we think it is achievable or not is another matter but they have identified an issue and are trying to find a solution.

As previously posted after the Special General Meeting from October/November time - their (John Dodsons the CEO) words:
[*] Edinburgh currently cost 4.7 or 4.8million to run and Glasgow 5.1M.
[*] French salary cap circa 10M and English estimated 9M by the time marquees and other extras. So we are way behind in European terms.
[*] Proposal is to create a "newco" his word but it wouldn't really be a company IIRC for dealing with pro rugby. Glasgow, Edinburgh and the national academy will sit in this.
[*] SRU plan to retain 51% in each pro side but not wedded to that idea.
[*] There will be strict clauses involved. Such as a minimum number of SQ players (30-32 was mentioned).
[*] The SRU aren't going to market it as an investment where people will make a ROI. They see it as someone /company looking to make a mark on the sport who may invest.
[*] SRU will "ringfence" a sum from next year for the pro sides meaning their investment will be limited to that.
[*] Apparently inflation in pro rugby is 25%+. And the inflation in player wages is here to stay. The power players and agents hold will not diminish.
[*] Someone asked about a stadium on back pitches. Would cost 17-19million apparently. Dobson had clearly looked at it.

There are already rumours about the SRU desperately trying to find the big money to keep Finn in Scotland if the rumours are correct.

I don't doubt that the SRU want to sell 49% of the business. I just don't see how they are going to manage to do that. Rugby clubs don't make a profit. the only way that they can do so is to underfund the playing side and as they point out the Scottish teams are already at the lower end of the funding scale. What must be concerning is the "not wedded to this idea" attached to the retaining 51%. Which means that you basically become Wales before they wised up and got some control back. Even they are finally workig out that the best model for countries without random billionaires with massive egos is for the Union to own the clubs.

[Big D]

I don't doubt that the SRU want to sell 49% of the business. I just don't see how they are going to manage to do that. Rugby clubs don't make a profit. the only way that they can do so is to underfund the playing side and as they point out the Scottish teams are already at the lower end of the funding scale. What must be concerning is the "not wedded to this idea" attached to the retaining 51%. Which means that you basically become Wales before they wised up and got some control back. Even they are finally workig out that the best model for countries without random billionaires with massive egos is for the Union to own the clubs.

They wouldn't sell more that 49% off IMO, Dodson is pretty shrewd and I think he made that statement just in case there was an offer that he, you or I don't see coming.

I am not sure how they plan to structure a deal to sell of 49% and I am not suggesting they'll manage it, but they have done the right thing IMO to explore the idea. They have to try and do something*, the SRU have done pretty well to bring the debt down as quickly as they have and I think Dodson and the current board have earned the right of being given the benefit of the doubt for the time being. Yes Edinburgh are a bit of a shambles, but there is a lot being done away from the 2 pro sides that they are doing well.

When one considers Glasgows budget for example. They had a raft of internationals contract renewals last year, some of which will be £200k+ or in Hoggs case nearly double that (£375k). That £5.1M even with a generous 25% increase for next year is only going to stretch so far. There are rumours that Russell will within reason, go to the highest bidder so he wouldn't be cheap to keep. Hogg and Nel (rumoured £1million over 3 years) combined are on £700k. That is 7% of last years total wage budget for both pro sides. If the SRU are aiming to keep Edinburgh and Glasgow competitive they need to try and find investment or funds from somewhere. At least they are being pro active and looking at options.

The alternative of course is to cut their cloth accordingly and see the likes of Hogg, Nel, Gray Jnr, Russell etc leave.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

The IRFU realised that they couldn't compete on wages alone and I think that's got to be the way Scotland go eventually. It's a matter of managing players game time with the real expectation that it will lengthen careers as well as getting them at their peak for Ireland. It's a difficult balance because even Glasgow don't get have the depth that they can pull all their Scotland players and stay competitive in the way Leinster do. They are also much earlier in the journey to growing their support.

The other thing that the SRU can do is to make it absolutely plain that policy is to select those at home over those abroad. You're probably going to pick your top flight Lions class internationals wherever they are by you need that next rank of internationals to stay at home and they should be blackmailed into it.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

I meant to say something about an actual 3rd team .i reckon you're at least 10 years away from that. You'd need to be producing more players than you have slots for in Embra and Weegieland and you're nowhere near that yet. You'd also need to be generating significantly more revenue from the 2 clubs - home gates would need to be around 15 each.

[Big D]

A 3rd pro team is miles away. This all came from me musing about the young Caley based boys (Me and Baz's region) doing well.

I'd like to see something happen at academy level where an "origin" series (or Pro12 A league) is started to give those between Pro12 level and Prem 1 (top domestic league in Scotland) some tougher competition. The current set up isn't giving those on the fringes enough game time.

I'd be against making internationals having to play in Scotland or having a two tier cap based selection policy like Oz. There is a reasonable balance struck....for now. We don't lose too many young players (Gray Snr was offered a big money deal by Sale at the time) and I have no issues with the likes of Laidlaw earning money elsewhere.

[whatisthejava]

I meant to say something about an actual 3rd team .i reckon you're at least 10 years away from that. You'd need to be producing more players than you have slots for in Embra and Weegieland and you're nowhere near that yet. You'd also need to be generating significantly more revenue from the 2 clubs - home gates would need to be around 15 each.

I think your about spot on but i think one of the reasons Ireland has done so well is their academy systems, ours is just a few years old but i think before we ever consider a third team we need to make sure that every 2 - 3 years we are pumping out almost an entire roster of players, some will go down south but thats the nature of the best, once we have that working and the pro teams have regulat support above 10K then we can look at a 3rd team,

Mind you the top league in Scotland is strugglign so the academy needs to prop that up as well

[General Zod]

Step forward, Craig Whyte.

[Jps]

It's my general opinon that before any 3rd pro team would be established, the PRO12 would have to become a league that generates a good deal more revenue. I can see a way of doing that being dropping the two Italian sides, and adding two North American sides and perhaps two SA teams. The travel would be pricier, certainly, but you just can't compete with the added exposure and TV markets.

Maybe I'm totally wrong, but I don't think so. It doesn't really appear the Welsh are gonna continue with 4 sides permanently, but I could be wrong about that as well, but with Newport now under WRU control, and Cardiff exploring that idea, it seems there may be some paring off teams in the competition before expansion elsewhere.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

It's my general opinon that before any 3rd pro team would be established, the PRO12 would have to become a league that generates a good deal more revenue. I can see a way of doing that being dropping the two Italian sides, and adding two North American sides and perhaps two SA teams. The travel would be pricier, certainly, but you just can't compete with the added exposure and TV markets.

Maybe I'm totally wrong, but I don't think so. It doesn't really appear the Welsh are gonna continue with 4 sides permanently, but I could be wrong about that as well, but with Newport now under WRU control, and Cardiff exploring that idea, it seems there may be some paring off teams in the competition before expansion elsewhere.

The teams need to generate more revenue. Whining about the format of the league is absolutely secondary to persuading people to turn up to watch their team regardless of the opposition. If you don't do that you end up in the Welsh trap of saying "if only we could play the English" whilst failing to notice that even European fixtures against the preferred opposition aren't selling any better. Once you've sorted attendances, then you need to sort playing staff and Scotland simply don't have the players at the moment to sustain a third squad. Basically you seem to have no more than 1.5 good squads.

Then and only then would I begin to worry about changing the composition of the league. For what is worth I think the US would be completely the wrong way to go. Is the market and awareness of rugby greater in the US than in Italy? I sincerely doubt that. It would need to be a lot bigger to offset the massively increased travel costs and lower TV rates for matches at antisocial times.

[Jps]

For one thing, I wasn't complaining about the structure, merely suggrsting that any expansion should probably come at the expense of the Italian sides, and the reason for doing that sooner than later is because if I recall correctly, sometime this year the Italians will become full memebers of the Pro 12 holding company, or whatever it is, and we won't be able to get shot of them no matter what.

Certainly the SRU have a lot of work to do on improving their own situation, but it also remains true that the PRO 12 has to find some way to generate more revenue, other than just match day revenue. The French have a 97m Euro a year TV deal, the Aviva is sometime like 40m pounds and the Pro 12 is generating 12m, which just isn't enough.