RugbyRebels

So that is that. An extinction event?

morepork wrote:So that is that. An extinction event?

I don't see it actually making much of a change. They'll beg the government for loans/grants, the government will give it because rugby CEOs are connected enough to milk a Conservative government tit, the top tier will carry on as always, just with more debt.

I can see maybe one club being allowed to go to the wall to solve the 13 clubs into 12 spaces issue they have before they can ringfence, but I don't see a mass reorganisation happening.

Puja

The government can extend loans for now. But not in perpetuity. Maybe a recovery comes soon enough for rugby, but it could be a big change is coming

Puja wrote:
I don't see it actually making much of a change. They'll beg the government for loans/grants, the government will give it because rugby CEOs are connected enough to milk a Conservative government tit, the top tier will carry on as always, just with more debt.

I can see maybe one club being allowed to go to the wall to solve the 13 clubs into 12 spaces issue they have before they can ringfence, but I don't see a mass reorganisation happening.

Puja

Given we were politely asked to not discuss politics on the future rugby world cup hosts thread, could I politely request the same here.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
I don't see it actually making much of a change. They'll beg the government for loans/grants, the government will give it because rugby CEOs are connected enough to milk a Conservative government tit, the top tier will carry on as always, just with more debt.

I can see maybe one club being allowed to go to the wall to solve the 13 clubs into 12 spaces issue they have before they can ringfence, but I don't see a mass reorganisation happening.

Puja

Given we were politely asked to not discuss politics on the future rugby world cup hosts thread, could I politely request the same here.

That is entirely fair. Apologies. I'll get the mod to give me a warning.

Puja

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
I don't see it actually making much of a change. They'll beg the government for loans/grants, the government will give it because rugby CEOs are connected enough to milk a Conservative government tit, the top tier will carry on as always, just with more debt.

I can see maybe one club being allowed to go to the wall to solve the 13 clubs into 12 spaces issue they have before they can ringfence, but I don't see a mass reorganisation happening.

Puja

Given we were politely asked to not discuss politics on the future rugby world cup hosts thread, could I politely request the same here.

Amen to that

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
I don't see it actually making much of a change. They'll beg the government for loans/grants, the government will give it because rugby CEOs are connected enough to milk a Conservative government tit, the top tier will carry on as always, just with more debt.

I can see maybe one club being allowed to go to the wall to solve the 13 clubs into 12 spaces issue they have before they can ringfence, but I don't see a mass reorganisation happening.

Puja

Given we were politely asked to not discuss politics on the future rugby world cup hosts thread, could I politely request the same here.

That is entirely fair. Apologies. I'll get the mod to give me a warning.

Puja

Appreciated.

I don't really see how one totally divorces rugby from life and politics in general. If rugby were actually in a bubble it wouldn't have the problems it does. And if these pages were just about rugby there would of course be less mention of Bedford.

Digby wrote:I don't really see how one totally divorces rugby from life and politics in general. If rugby were actually in a bubble it wouldn't have the problems it does. And if these pages were just about rugby there would of course be less mention of Bedford.

Especially in a thread explicitly about government involvement in rugby.

It's kinda tough to keep politics out of a political thread

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:I don't really see how one totally divorces rugby from life and politics in general. If rugby were actually in a bubble it wouldn't have the problems it does. And if these pages were just about rugby there would of course be less mention of Bedford.

Especially in a thread explicitly about government involvement in rugby.

It's kinda tough to keep politics out of a political thread

Put it on the politics board then. Nobody moaned when Puja asked the same on the general rugby board.
By all means, discuss what happens if there is no bail out but discussing the rights and wrongs of the machinations of it all isn’t what the thread title is about, or what the board is for.

{Mod}
I would say that there's a fairly obvious delineation - talking about what rugby is going to do is fine, talking about the government's response to COVID or criticising the government isn't, at least in here. The question was "What happens if there is no government bailout?" not, "Should the government bailout?" so I think it's perfectly possible.

I'm willing to respect that sometimes people don't want to deal with politics and there's plenty of scope to talk about the RFU and clubs' response without mentioning politics.

{/Mod}

Another option being mooted by the clubs is to postpone the start of the season to January.

I’m not sure how that will help paying players between the end of the current season and January, but it does perhaps mitigate some of the losses.

Scrumhead wrote:Another option being mooted by the clubs is to postpone the start of the season to January.

I’m not sure how that will help paying players between the end of the current season and January, but it does perhaps mitigate some of the losses.

Not sure how that's supposed to work with the Lions and international windows either. Unless they're planning on a shorter season - 1 match round robin perhaps?

Puja

Doubt they give a s**t about the Lions and international window. The former because, well, when have they ever and the latter because WR have unilaterally extended this window.

The clubs reckon they are losing £1mil a month each. No Covid testing and no costs around match day would save quite a bit of moolah, I suspect.

Scrumhead wrote:Another option being mooted by the clubs is to postpone the start of the season to January.

I’m not sure how that will help paying players between the end of the current season and January, but it does perhaps mitigate some of the losses.

I'm assuming the renegotiation of contracts will have included capacity for "lay off" periods where payments will be cut to a bare minimum retainer.

Most prem clubs will probably be able to stand some on going costs with limited to no income, and the removal of match fees, win bonuses etc. as well as stopping having to fork out for opening up the stadium, ambulances, insurances and so on, whilst not making money probably greatly extends the period they can hang on.

Per the times, rugby and racing are deemed the sports most reliant on income from fans, hospitality etc and are top of the pile for any bailout.
National league football already promised ££££ and the criminal code have already received £16m.

I'm astonished at which sports seem to be popular to a Conservative government. Is that the national football league promised X by the government, or is that the government assuming the Premier League will pony up the cash?