RugbyRebels

There's quite a movement to unseat the whole board.

Bring out the guillotine.

England squad themselves reported at being dissappointed at the size of the bonus’ RFU execs have awarded themselves.

jngf wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 2:30 pm England squad themselves reported at being dissappointed at the size of the bonus’ RFU execs have awarded themselves.

bit of a glasshouse that one

Banquo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 2:39 pm

jngf wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 2:30 pm England squad themselves reported at being dissappointed at the size of the bonus’ RFU execs have awarded themselves.

bit of a glasshouse that one

Yep

twitchy wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 11:43 am Bring out the guillotine.

lol

Banquo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 2:39 pm

jngf wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 2:30 pm England squad themselves reported at being dissappointed at the size of the bonus’ RFU execs have awarded themselves.

bit of a glasshouse that one

Is it? Yes the players are well paid, but he’s basically awarded himself a full season of player match fees as a bonus.

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 8:49 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 2:39 pm

jngf wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 2:30 pm England squad themselves reported at being dissappointed at the size of the bonus’ RFU execs have awarded themselves.

bit of a glasshouse that one

Is it? Yes the players are well paid, but he’s basically awarded himself a full season of player match fees as a bonus.

technically remco and the chair.

The players are very well paid and equally haven't delivered. They take money that could benefit the rest of the game.

Both parties should be looking at their shoes

Banquo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 9:46 pm

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 8:49 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 2:39 pm

bit of a glasshouse that one

Is it? Yes the players are well paid, but he’s basically awarded himself a full season of player match fees as a bonus.

technically remco and the chair.

The players are very well paid and equally haven't delivered. They take money that could benefit the rest of the game.

Both parties should be looking at their shoes

Indeed. Though ‘players were reported to be’ is somewhat tenuous

p/d wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 9:52 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 9:46 pm

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 8:49 pm

Is it? Yes the players are well paid, but he’s basically awarded himself a full season of player match fees as a bonus.

technically remco and the chair.

The players are very well paid and equally haven't delivered. They take money that could benefit the rest of the game.

Both parties should be looking at their shoes

Indeed. Though ‘players were reported to be’ is somewhat tenuous

tru dat

Banquo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 9:46 pm

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 8:49 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 2:39 pm

bit of a glasshouse that one

Is it? Yes the players are well paid, but he’s basically awarded himself a full season of player match fees as a bonus.

technically remco and the chair.

The players are very well paid and equally haven't delivered. They take money that could benefit the rest of the game.

Both parties should be looking at their shoes

Not looking at the jumblefuck assortment of coaches that have been endlessly in and out of the door for the last few seasons?

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 10:41 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 9:46 pm

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 8:49 pm

Is it? Yes the players are well paid, but he’s basically awarded himself a full season of player match fees as a bonus.

technically remco and the chair.

The players are very well paid and equally haven't delivered. They take money that could benefit the rest of the game.

Both parties should be looking at their shoes

Not looking at the jumblefuck assortment of coaches that have been endlessly in and out of the door for the last few seasons?

Not sure anyone has earned their corn, which was the original point. We obviously differ.

Banquo wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2024 8:13 am

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 10:41 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 9:46 pm

technically remco and the chair.

The players are very well paid and equally haven't delivered. They take money that could benefit the rest of the game.

Both parties should be looking at their shoes

Not looking at the jumblefuck assortment of coaches that have been endlessly in and out of the door for the last few seasons?

Not sure anyone has earned their corn, which was the original point. We obviously differ.

So the players shouldn’t be paid?

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2024 11:18 am

Banquo wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2024 8:13 am

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 10:41 pm

Not looking at the jumblefuck assortment of coaches that have been endlessly in and out of the door for the last few seasons?

Not sure anyone has earned their corn, which was the original point. We obviously differ.

So the players shouldn’t be paid?

Definitely nothing like what I said. I give up. They think he’s overpaid, I think they and he are. Not rocket science but you seem to want to make an issue out of it for some reason.

Lol. Sorry. I really wasn't trying to be difficult, though I phrased that pretty badly. You mentioned the players not delivering, in relation to their pay, and that seems hard to separate from those above them not doing their jobs well enough.

If you think their pay is just high regardless, fair enough. I would think the players are in a good position to have an opinion on Sweeney, either way.

I genuinely have no opinion on what they should be paid. We're always arguing about a short potential earning period (10-15 years if you're lucky) but equally it seems like some nations can hardly afford to pay their players at all. At the other end of the scale, I don't think England footballers take appearance fees at all?

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2024 7:37 pm Lol. Sorry. I really wasn't trying to be difficult, though I phrased that pretty badly. You mentioned the players not delivering, in relation to their pay, and that seems hard to separate from those above them not doing their jobs well enough.

If you think their pay is just high regardless, fair enough. I would think the players are in a good position to have an opinion on Sweeney, either way.

I genuinely have no opinion on what they should be paid. We're always arguing about a short potential earning period (10-15 years if you're lucky) but equally it seems like some nations can hardly afford to pay their players at all. At the other end of the scale, I don't think England footballers take appearance fees at all?

Without wanting to protract a rubbish debate, how are the players in a position to have an opinion on Sweeney? His job is somewhat wider than their bubble existence. Not that he’s doing a bang up job for the cash.

I mean relative to us, yeah I’d think they have some knowledge and opinions.

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2024 9:35 pm I mean relative to us, yeah I’d think they have some knowledge and opinions.

We have knowledge and opinions across a pretty broad spectrum of the game tbh; the players at my club have no real clue how the club operates or broader issues in the game. They see Sweeney through one lens of a prism I’d suggest.

Anyway, still a pointless argument

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2024 9:04 am Yet to see evidence that the stadium name was under-sold.
I've seen the claim, I've seen it refuted with evidence, and I've seen it claimed again, and again, despite the refutations and evidence.

From today's DT:

"Even the recent welcome boost to the RFU’s finances, with the £100 million deal with Allianz, the German insurance company, to rename Twickenham, may not be as significant as first thought, with one insider claiming it involved “smoke and mirrors”.

The RFU at the time of the announcement in August described the deal as “transformative, not only to the elite men’s and women’s teams but also aims to have a positive impact on community clubs around the country. It will see Allianz and the RFU offer significant support to the grassroots game through financial investment that aims to secure future investment into the community game.”

Yet buried in the annual report that was published last Monday, was the detail that the deal is over the course of 13 years, rather than 10, and is therefore less lucrative than first reported. That would make the value of the deal worth £7.7 million per year, rather than £10 million.

Insiders have revealed that the deal is actually worth closer to £4 million of ‘new money’ per year into the organisation, as the governing body had already agreed a £3.5 million deal to renew their sponsorship with British Airways as a ‘tier one’ sponsor at board level before the RFU backed out and instead pushed ahead with selling the stadium naming rights. British Airways, despite their frustration were pursued to do a second-tier deal worth around £1 million, which effectively means that £2.5 million of the £7.7 million was not new money.

With the Allianz deal brought in by a leading sports agency, it is estimated that it is likely to have been paid around 10 per cent of the deal (£770,000). There are also other associated ‘costs of sale’ to the RFU, such as tickets and hospitality, England player appearances and other value-in-kind costs that have been estimated by one industry expert to be around £400,000.

It has also been said that the deal is likely to be linked to key performance indicators, in particular around media exposure and value, which means the RFU may not receive the full payment if it does not achieve those levels.

“Previously when the proposal of selling the naming rights at Twickenham was raised at RFU board level, it was knocked back on the grounds that William Webb Ellis would turn in his grave,” said one source. “It looks like they really did sell off the family silver for not a lot.”

13 years instead of 10 - if true - fair enough, that's not what was reported. I don''t know, but I would guess that it's more of a 10+3 deal, in the same way that playing contracts are often 2+1, sometimes claimed as a 2 year contract, and sometimes claimed as 3 years.
"but it's only 3 times as much as BA, and therefore doesn't count" is disingenuous in the extreme, as is "but a middle-man was involved". £100M is still £100M, whether or not it nullifies a completely different deal by a completely different company.


Neither of these have been your objections until today.
Your objections were based on £100M being "undersold" - despite being demonstrably not the case.

In term of the previous discussion, in case details have been forgotten, it's here: viewtopic.php?p=326922#p326922

Counting it as £7.7M instead of £10M p.a.
That's puts it the 3rd most lucrative stadium naming deal in Europe (that we could find), instead of 2nd, dropping behind Atletico Madrid's £8.4M.
Purely for comparison, and as a matter of 2 seconds on google, Atletico Madrid's annual turnover is about £300M, or half-again the RFU's (their value on the market is £1.7B)

Slight tangent, but what's #1? Old Trafford?

Danno wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 1:09 pm Slight tangent, but what's #1? Old Trafford?

Manchester City/Etihad.
Isn't Old Trafford still Old Trafford?

ETA: Allianz themselves, also have Bayern Munich for £6.4M pa, Juventus for €6.2Mpa (£5.65M), whilst rugby's highest (before Allianz) is Aviva in Dublin, at £4M pa, whilst Principality pay £1.5M pa to the WRU (but presumably that price will be going up in 2026.

But yeah, selling the naming rights for Twickenham for merely double it's nearest rival within the sport is definitely undersold... because RFU did the thing, and therefore the thing must have been bad.

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 1:12 pm

Danno wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 1:09 pm Slight tangent, but what's #1? Old Trafford?

Manchester City/Etihad.
Isn't Old Trafford still Old Trafford?

Probably . Sorry, I am verr verr tired

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 10:47 am 13 yeas instead of 10 - if true - fair enough, that's not what was reported. I do'nt know, but I would guess that it's more of a 10+3 deal, in the same way that playing contracts are often 2+1, sometimes claimed as a 2 year contract, and sometimes claimed as 3 years.
"but it's only 3 times as much as BA, and therefore doesn't count" is disingenuous in the extreme, as is "but a middle-man was involved". £100M is still £100M, whether or not it nullifies a completely different deal by a completely different company.


Neither of these have been your objections until today.
Your objections were based on £100M being "undersold" - despite being demonstrably not the case.

In term of the previous discussion, in case details have been forgotten, it's here: viewtopic.php?p=326922#p326922

Counting it as £7.7M instead of £10M p.a.
That's puts it the 3rd most lucrative stadium naming deal in Europe (that we could find), instead of 2nd, dropping behind Athletico Madrid's £8.4M

The most ridiculous bit is the final quote. 'selling the family silver'....what, a stadium with no name, now has one?

Given the comparables, though none will be perfect as there’s only one international rugby stadium in London, is it the Alianz board that need to resign?