David Armstrong in Wasps bid

Moderator: Puja

User avatar
Mellsblue
Posts: 14579
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am

Re: David Armstrong in Wasps bid

Post by Mellsblue »

Danno wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 1:47 am
Mellsblue wrote: Wed Oct 12, 2022 11:47 pm Not sure the RFU will be that bothered. You could carve up Worcester’s and Wasps’ academy territory between Glos and Northampton (the latter are particularly hard done by due geography and the quantity, but not quality, of private schools in their patch), there would be less clubs to pay/bribe for player release and the EPS would probably play less games and be less likely to be injured for Eng training camps and matches. If LI go under then Quins will take their academy patch and Bath will have to produce their own.
Financially and reputationally they absolutely NEED to be bothered. Not acting looks pathetic to every other league on the planet and there are another 10 clubs worrying about both TV and gate revenue via match cancellations. If the RFU do nothing then what is the point of them.

Shrinking the league: probably good. Failing to mitigate the fallout from this shitshow: not good.

This is a chance to get serious and start asking about central contracts, funding, other stuff I know nothing about.
The clubs are independent businesses, quite a few of which are successful businesses. Why should the RFU only help those who haven’t put together a sustainable business in the last decade. Other than ensuring the clubs can find the correct place in the league structure they don’t have any other obligations to those failed businesses. No club has the divine right to be a top flight professional club. France has had a quite a few clubs in financial trouble yet it’s now by far and away the strongest domestic comp in the world. It’s survival of the fittest - as it should be on and off the pitch.
If an organisation needs to get its act together it’s PRL and they need to look at this as opportunity to sort out the fact they are completely dysfunctional.
User avatar
Which Tyler
Posts: 9324
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:43 pm
Location: Tewkesbury
Contact:

Re: David Armstrong in Wasps bid

Post by Which Tyler »

Doesn't the EPS agreements explicitly ban the RFU from helping out here?

I'm sure that part of the war between PRL and RFU that the EPS agreements settled, was that any and all monies from RFU to any PRL club would be smoothed and shared between all 13; and that the RFU couldn't be a principal contract holder for any player, and couldn't take a financial interest in any club.
The whole point of PRL is to keep the RFU out of premiership rugby as anything other than an administrator for insurance and discipline (including ref.s)
FKAS
Posts: 8529
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:10 pm

Re: David Armstrong in Wasps bid

Post by FKAS »

Puja wrote: Wed Oct 12, 2022 6:37 pm
FKAS wrote: Wed Oct 12, 2022 6:31 pm If Wasps aren't rescued quickly then Tigers only home game before the 27th November is a Wednesday night PRC game against Falcons. These cancelled games are going to be body blows for other teams in the league. Continuing the Tigers example it's a cost of around £400k cost to the club when a home game is cancelled. Like all other Prem Clubs they have either been or still are paying back deferred PAYE and VAT and have a DCMS loan (again like most other clubs).

Each club that cancels games makes it more likely others will. Dark days for rugby union in England.
Well that's just depressing.

Although, from a Leicester perspective, those two games against Worcester and Wasps are going to be when our players are away for the Autumn Internationals, so it's an ill-wind that blows no good. If Wasps are ruled out for the rest of the season, then there's got to be rearrangement of the back end of the fixture list to remove the international clashes, if for no other reason than because crowds tend to be depressed during the internationals and that'd be the cheapest place to take the pain of losing the home match.

Puja
The game against Wasps would have had a decent crowd anyway and at the very worst 18k would have been there for the Worcester game. Plus those games are normally the ones where deals for young fans are put out to try and encourage new fans. Going to hurt the short term cashflow of the club and for other clubs who might be in a similar position but less stability canceled games could definitely cause pain.

If those clubs pull out the league it should be an instant forfeit of the P share and redistribution of TV income for the rest of the season for those who remain.

I see Worcester are appealing their banishment. If they are allowed back in and can't make up the games they've missed then the clubs to have lost out should be compensated.
fivepointer
Posts: 5925
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 3:42 pm

Re: David Armstrong in Wasps bid

Post by fivepointer »

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/ ... remiership

Some good points here. This might focus the minds of those running the game.
"So much so that investors see no value in putting money into clubs until they have been put into administration. It is not long before sponsors will follow in realising that an association with the Premiership is no longer worthwhile and if broadcasters have been sympathetic in the early weeks of the season it would be no surprise to see them calling for a return to the negotiating table"
Banquo
Posts: 19284
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: David Armstrong in Wasps bid

Post by Banquo »

Which Tyler wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 6:54 am Doesn't the EPS agreements explicitly ban the RFU from helping out here?

I'm sure that part of the war between PRL and RFU that the EPS agreements settled, was that any and all monies from RFU to any PRL club would be smoothed and shared between all 13; and that the RFU couldn't be a principal contract holder for any player, and couldn't take a financial interest in any club.
The whole point of PRL is to keep the RFU out of premiership rugby as anything other than an administrator for insurance and discipline (including ref.s)
Indeed. The bed has been made. It's interested me how little is understood of the RFU's role vis a vis the premiership.
Banquo
Posts: 19284
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: David Armstrong in Wasps bid

Post by Banquo »

FKAS wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 7:30 am
Puja wrote: Wed Oct 12, 2022 6:37 pm
FKAS wrote: Wed Oct 12, 2022 6:31 pm If Wasps aren't rescued quickly then Tigers only home game before the 27th November is a Wednesday night PRC game against Falcons. These cancelled games are going to be body blows for other teams in the league. Continuing the Tigers example it's a cost of around £400k cost to the club when a home game is cancelled. Like all other Prem Clubs they have either been or still are paying back deferred PAYE and VAT and have a DCMS loan (again like most other clubs).

Each club that cancels games makes it more likely others will. Dark days for rugby union in England.
Well that's just depressing.

Although, from a Leicester perspective, those two games against Worcester and Wasps are going to be when our players are away for the Autumn Internationals, so it's an ill-wind that blows no good. If Wasps are ruled out for the rest of the season, then there's got to be rearrangement of the back end of the fixture list to remove the international clashes, if for no other reason than because crowds tend to be depressed during the internationals and that'd be the cheapest place to take the pain of losing the home match.

Puja
The game against Wasps would have had a decent crowd anyway and at the very worst 18k would have been there for the Worcester game. Plus those games are normally the ones where deals for young fans are put out to try and encourage new fans. Going to hurt the short term cashflow of the club and for other clubs who might be in a similar position but less stability canceled games could definitely cause pain.

If those clubs pull out the league it should be an instant forfeit of the P share and redistribution of TV income for the rest of the season for those who remain.

I see Worcester are appealing their banishment. If they are allowed back in and can't make up the games they've missed then the clubs to have lost out should be compensated.
You can't get blood out of a stone.
FKAS
Posts: 8529
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:10 pm

Re: David Armstrong in Wasps bid

Post by FKAS »

Banquo wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 9:04 am
FKAS wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 7:30 am
Puja wrote: Wed Oct 12, 2022 6:37 pm

Well that's just depressing.

Although, from a Leicester perspective, those two games against Worcester and Wasps are going to be when our players are away for the Autumn Internationals, so it's an ill-wind that blows no good. If Wasps are ruled out for the rest of the season, then there's got to be rearrangement of the back end of the fixture list to remove the international clashes, if for no other reason than because crowds tend to be depressed during the internationals and that'd be the cheapest place to take the pain of losing the home match.

Puja
The game against Wasps would have had a decent crowd anyway and at the very worst 18k would have been there for the Worcester game. Plus those games are normally the ones where deals for young fans are put out to try and encourage new fans. Going to hurt the short term cashflow of the club and for other clubs who might be in a similar position but less stability canceled games could definitely cause pain.

If those clubs pull out the league it should be an instant forfeit of the P share and redistribution of TV income for the rest of the season for those who remain.

I see Worcester are appealing their banishment. If they are allowed back in and can't make up the games they've missed then the clubs to have lost out should be compensated.
You can't get blood out of a stone.
If they want back in then that's the cost. New investors need to be aware of that if they want to retain the P share.
User avatar
Mellsblue
Posts: 14579
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am

Re: David Armstrong in Wasps bid

Post by Mellsblue »

The totes obvs thing to do is take Wuss and Wasps’ cut of finance that they would’ve received from the p shares and distribute to all the clubs in the Champ.
Banquo
Posts: 19284
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: David Armstrong in Wasps bid

Post by Banquo »

FKAS wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 9:36 am
Banquo wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 9:04 am
FKAS wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 7:30 am

The game against Wasps would have had a decent crowd anyway and at the very worst 18k would have been there for the Worcester game. Plus those games are normally the ones where deals for young fans are put out to try and encourage new fans. Going to hurt the short term cashflow of the club and for other clubs who might be in a similar position but less stability canceled games could definitely cause pain.

If those clubs pull out the league it should be an instant forfeit of the P share and redistribution of TV income for the rest of the season for those who remain.

I see Worcester are appealing their banishment. If they are allowed back in and can't make up the games they've missed then the clubs to have lost out should be compensated.
You can't get blood out of a stone.
If they want back in then that's the cost. New investors need to be aware of that if they want to retain the P share.
I think you are assuming someone would actually want to invest at all, let alone with some additional conditions.
FKAS
Posts: 8529
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:10 pm

Re: David Armstrong in Wasps bid

Post by FKAS »

Banquo wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 9:47 am
FKAS wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 9:36 am
Banquo wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 9:04 am
You can't get blood out of a stone.
If they want back in then that's the cost. New investors need to be aware of that if they want to retain the P share.
I think you are assuming someone would actually want to invest at all, let alone with some additional conditions.
In which case they lose their P share and with it their rights to TV revenue for the rest of the season which is then spread around the other clubs that have lost out on income due to forfeited matches.

I do like Mells stance that some of the Prem TV money is sent to the Championship. Perhaps the Championship as a whole should one P share so that on top of their own TV revenue they get a cut of the Prem's. Help keep growing the game.
User avatar
Mellsblue
Posts: 14579
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am

Re: David Armstrong in Wasps bid

Post by Mellsblue »

FKAS wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:01 am
Banquo wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 9:47 am
FKAS wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 9:36 am

If they want back in then that's the cost. New investors need to be aware of that if they want to retain the P share.
I think you are assuming someone would actually want to invest at all, let alone with some additional conditions.
In which case they lose their P share and with it their rights to TV revenue for the rest of the season which is then spread around the other clubs that have lost out on income due to forfeited matches.

I do like Mells stance that some of the Prem TV money is sent to the Championship. Perhaps the Championship as a whole should one P share so that on top of their own TV revenue they get a cut of the Prem's. Help keep growing the game.
What tv revenue do the Champ get?
FKAS
Posts: 8529
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:10 pm

Re: David Armstrong in Wasps bid

Post by FKAS »

Mellsblue wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:12 am
FKAS wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:01 am
Banquo wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 9:47 am
I think you are assuming someone would actually want to invest at all, let alone with some additional conditions.
In which case they lose their P share and with it their rights to TV revenue for the rest of the season which is then spread around the other clubs that have lost out on income due to forfeited matches.

I do like Mells stance that some of the Prem TV money is sent to the Championship. Perhaps the Championship as a whole should one P share so that on top of their own TV revenue they get a cut of the Prem's. Help keep growing the game.
What tv revenue do the Champ get?
Do Sky not still show the occasional game?
User avatar
Mellsblue
Posts: 14579
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am

Re: David Armstrong in Wasps bid

Post by Mellsblue »

FKAS wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:20 am
Mellsblue wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:12 am
FKAS wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:01 am

In which case they lose their P share and with it their rights to TV revenue for the rest of the season which is then spread around the other clubs that have lost out on income due to forfeited matches.

I do like Mells stance that some of the Prem TV money is sent to the Championship. Perhaps the Championship as a whole should one P share so that on top of their own TV revenue they get a cut of the Prem's. Help keep growing the game.
What tv revenue do the Champ get?
Do Sky not still show the occasional game?
Nope. Even when they did, the Champ, in reality the RFU, didn’t receive any money for it. In fact, it cost Sky money to put it on. The RFU, to they’re credit, insisted on it as part of negotiations.
Banquo
Posts: 19284
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: David Armstrong in Wasps bid

Post by Banquo »

FKAS wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:01 am
Banquo wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 9:47 am
FKAS wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 9:36 am

If they want back in then that's the cost. New investors need to be aware of that if they want to retain the P share.
I think you are assuming someone would actually want to invest at all, let alone with some additional conditions.
In which case they lose their P share and with it their rights to TV revenue for the rest of the season which is then spread around the other clubs that have lost out on income due to forfeited matches.

I do like Mells stance that some of the Prem TV money is sent to the Championship. Perhaps the Championship as a whole should one P share so that on top of their own TV revenue they get a cut of the Prem's. Help keep growing the game.
You're making this less and less attractive for potential investors, but I do take your point. Though I don't think the champ gets TV money.
FKAS
Posts: 8529
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:10 pm

Re: David Armstrong in Wasps bid

Post by FKAS »

I happily stand corrected on the Champ TV money.
User avatar
Puja
Posts: 17795
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:16 pm

Re: David Armstrong in Wasps bid

Post by Puja »

From a (short term) England and player welfare perspective, this could be absolutely ideal leading into the RWC. A shortened season, plenty of rest-breaks, potential for finishing earlier and giving more time for RWC prep - it'll certainly give England the best possible chance.

If we were to win, that would solve a lot of problems with finance and getting people through gates, especially if a repackaged Prem was successfully advertised off the back of it. Big if though.

Puja
Backist Monk
User avatar
Oakboy
Posts: 6417
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:42 am

Re: David Armstrong in Wasps bid

Post by Oakboy »

I read that Baxter thinks a 10 club PRL could have benefits. He says at meetings with fans, the clash of international and club fixtures is a hot topic. Fans demand top players being available for more club matches.
Timbo
Posts: 2259
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2016 9:05 am

Re: David Armstrong in Wasps bid

Post by Timbo »

In light of current events a 10 team league makes all kinds of sense I think. An 18 game season would allow for teams to carry much smaller squads- 25% less league games, plus no club/country clashes. Would hopefully put an end to these big unwieldy squads of 50+ most clubs carry. Each club would also get a bigger slice of the centralised income. Hopefully these 2 elements combined would leave clubs in a net better position even with the loss of the extra home games.

Internationals available for the whole season, longer off seasons and pre-seasons. Better on field product, easier to market….

Who knows, I’m certainly no expert, but I do believe there’s enough money & interest in the game to come up with a high quality, sustainable structure. It really needs to happen now though, muddling on is not an option.
Banquo
Posts: 19284
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: David Armstrong in Wasps bid

Post by Banquo »

A 10 or 8 team league. Who would have thunk it.

Well a good majority of this message board. It’s really been a tad obvious for ..,a while. WT has a detailed plan.
User avatar
Which Tyler
Posts: 9324
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:43 pm
Location: Tewkesbury
Contact:

Re: David Armstrong in Wasps bid

Post by Which Tyler »

Banquo wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 7:11 pm A 10 or 8 team league. Who would have thunk it.

Well a good majority of this message board. It’s really been a tad obvious for ..,a while. WT has a detailed plan.
Suggested a little over 15 years ago, by some idiot online, and evolved since (here's my current thoughts):


IMO what we need is better player welfare (fewer matches/minutes per player) alongside increased interest levels (higher quality/intensity matches, larger geographic spread, greater diversity of opponents…), and re-arranging the season without shrinking it too much… Which is a bit like trying to square a circle.



IMO, decrease the Prem to 10 teams, 5 in each level of European rugby.
Shrink the champ to 10 (IMO: we can sustain about 20 fully pro clubs, even if they need some charity initially).
Increase promo/relegation with the Championship to 1 automatic and another play off.
Ring-fence the top two leagues (with specific criteria to eject under-performers or include ambitious semi-pro.s).

MSCs for both leagues, but looser than currently, predominantly administrative, and basic stadium features (any mention of capacity should be set very low; circa 2-3K; maybe include plans for increases to 10K over a sensible time period).
Same salary cap for both leagues (but without the expectation of paying up to it for the lower level Championship teams). Salary cap should be based on financial viability, not owner’s ego.
TV deal is for both leagues as one deal (ideally 2 Prem and 1 Champ match per weekend, but I’m not averse to more).
RFU academies for all.
Ideally (and this is probably a non-starter) I’d ditch the SF aspect of the Premiership finals (removing international clashes should help with this) and put the top 2 from the league straight into the final. Leagues points difference is translated into score board points at kick-off. Promotion/Relegation match can be played as the curtain raiser.

Create a proper domestic cup competition between the 2 leagues. (I’m unsure if 5 pools of 4, or 6 pools of 4 with 4 invitational teams [ND1? military? England Students? Eng U20? Wales? South Africa ;)] is the better option).
Knock-out stages to include Cup, Plate and Shield competitions so that everyone gets some knock-out experiences every year. Players are only available for the cup if they played less than x minutes (1800?) in the previous season (may allow a higher number for the Championship teams [who won’t be playing EPRC fixtures]).
If the cup “just” has the 20 teams, then Cup and Plate go from pools to Quarter Finals, whilst the shield goes straight into semi-finals. If inviting 4 outside teams, then all 3 can have a QF stage.
This gives us 6 pool + 3 KO weekends to fit into the 10 week international window. We've bought that by reducing the league by 4 weekends and helped player welfare with that game-time limit for the domestic cup - I'd also have a maximum number of minutes for every player anyway.

In terms of home matches, clubs go from 11+2 (Prem), 3+2 (EPRC) and… 0 now that the AWC has become a mid-week squad filler, to 9 (Prem), 3+2 (EPRC) and 3+2 (DomCup) so actually increase the number of home gates per season (now that the AWC has died).
Everyone is also guaranteed at least one knock-out match each year, even if they’re not guaranteed a home ground for it (might there be room to play DomCup QFs home and away?).
In terms of variety, Prem clubs go from facing 11 English opponents + 2-3 European to 9 English opponents + 2-3 European + an extra 2 English from a less usual pool of opponents.

Dropping 3 teams from the Premiership increases the quality there, and allows the season to be completed without clashes with international weekends.
Dropping 5 teams from the bottom, and replacing them with 3 big names from the Prem massively increases the quality of the Championship.
The Domestic Cup allows for a greater variety of opponents for the Premiership teams, and a requirement to use the back-up players. The Domestic Cup allows the Championship teams a chance at giant slaying the Prem clubs, and to measure themselves against the bigger boys, which really ought to generate interest from fans and sponsors alike.
Combine that extra interest with a proper TV deal (exposure + money) then that should grow the Championship significantly.
Increasing movement between the 2 levels, and greater cross-over matches between the 2 levels, should reduce the bounce-back aspect of promotion and relegation, whilst that and the extra funding for the Champ clubs (and the ring-fencing there) should reduce the existential fear of relegation for the Prem clubs.

For the champ teams, without European rugby, you could argue that they'd be lacking match numbers, despite the higher quality and TV deal. You could also argue that this is better for player welfare, allows them to rest ahead of their giant-slaying opportunities, and allow for smaller squads (and thus, smaller playing budgets at that level).
If there aren’t 7 Championship clubs willing to take on full professionalism with all those boosts, then I’d look for the RFU getting involved and "assisting" 1-3 clubs in unrepresented areas, say Carlisle, Blackburn or Canterbury.

In terms of financing, the Premiership’s BT deal, signed during Covid, is supposed to be in the region of £37M p.a.
The current title sponsorship deal for the Premiership is supposed to be in the regions of £10M p.a.
The current RFU/PRL deal for EPS release etc etc is supposed to be in the region of £27.5M p.a.
FTR, current funding for the Championship is in the region of £3.5M p.a.
I would argue that my suggested set-up would see increases to all of those, and possibly a title sponsor found for the Domestic Cup (and remember, that BT deal was shrunk from the previous deal, due to pandemic uncertainties and problems)

Currently, those payments are smoothed over 13 clubs, for £5.7M each (or in the Champ, 12 clubs, for £0.288M each)
If spread evenly over 20 clubs, it would be £3.9M each
If split 3:2 it’s be £4.7 (Prem) & £3.1M (Champ)
If split 2:1 it’d be £5.2M (Prem) & £2.6M (Champ)

IF interest was increased by 20% from current levels, you could split those monies 3:2 and the Prem clubs wouldn’t lose a penny, whilst the Champ clubs would see a 13 fold increase. I would also expect increased interest to increase ticket sales, shirt sales, and the value of club sponsorship agreements – especially in the Championship.
User avatar
Oakboy
Posts: 6417
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:42 am

Re: David Armstrong in Wasps bid

Post by Oakboy »

In the DT, there is a report that this could not happen in France. Each club has to prove at the start of the season that it has sufficient funds to cover all expenditure for the season (including players' wages etc.). That sounds sensible. Losing clubs before fixtures commence must be better than losing them mid-season.
FKAS
Posts: 8529
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:10 pm

Re: David Armstrong in Wasps bid

Post by FKAS »

Oakboy wrote: Fri Oct 14, 2022 8:40 am In the DT, there is a report that this could not happen in France. Each club has to prove at the start of the season that it has sufficient funds to cover all expenditure for the season (including players' wages etc.). That sounds sensible. Losing clubs before fixtures commence must be better than losing them mid-season.
If the club doesn't have the money the owner has to put up a bond to cover the costs in case of the club failing. I thought it was only salary related cost though as opposed to all costs, could be wrong.
User avatar
Oakboy
Posts: 6417
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:42 am

Re: David Armstrong in Wasps bid

Post by Oakboy »

FKAS wrote: Fri Oct 14, 2022 9:07 am
Oakboy wrote: Fri Oct 14, 2022 8:40 am In the DT, there is a report that this could not happen in France. Each club has to prove at the start of the season that it has sufficient funds to cover all expenditure for the season (including players' wages etc.). That sounds sensible. Losing clubs before fixtures commence must be better than losing them mid-season.
If the club doesn't have the money the owner has to put up a bond to cover the costs in case of the club failing. I thought it was only salary related cost though as opposed to all costs, could be wrong.
"You cannot start the season unless you have proved you have the money to finish it and pay salaries," is the second-hand quote. I took that to mean all costs but you could be right.
Timbo
Posts: 2259
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2016 9:05 am

Re: David Armstrong in Wasps bid

Post by Timbo »

Big new development, Coventry city council are apparently likely to push through a big financial support package to prop up Wasps and save them from administration. Vote is tonight, but purely from I’ve read it’s likely to pass.

Tax dollars put to good use again.
Peej
Posts: 1756
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 12:01 pm

Re: David Armstrong in Wasps bid

Post by Peej »

I just don't see how they can possibly get that through politically.
Post Reply