And London Irish, Worcester and Wasps have shown what happens to clubs who spend more than they can afford to. I'd rather be Newcastle.GB72 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 4:55 pmPossible but if that then sees and exodus of big players going abroad or a drop in standards or a drop in competitiveness between those willing to spend and those not, it then impacts crowds and sponsor revenue and that causes issues.
Newcastle are showing what happens to clubs who spend what they can afford.
Newcastle can't afford to spend more because no one in the North East has any interest in rugby union, so they are commercially handicapped. So let them fight it out with a Worcester and/or Wasps, reformed with a sensible, sustainable and realistic business model.
If we can't afford to keep the superstars in our league then so be it. It's utterly ridiculous to keep paying more than we can afford, in the vain hope that one day revenues will inexplicably catch up. They won't - I've been there before in another industry, you can't just keep dreaming that revenue will increase to pay for your existing payroll when your strategy has as much depth as "we'll do marketing, innit".
Speaking of Tigers in isolation, if we can get good crowds with a £5.4m(?) salary cap, then what commercial benefits do we have from increasing it again? I know that's a slightly different part of the topic, but sort of relevant.
Do attendances drop noticeably when international players aren't available? If so, how much? (Rhetorical questions)
Has anyone actually looked into the potential correlation between salaries and revenues, how much the latter might drop if the former does? I doubt it, but why the hell not?
Sorry, bit of a rant, it's not aimed at you, I just get very frustrated by the vague, inconsistent, wishy-washy way in which the business of rugby is run.