Exiles set for Exile?

[GB72]

Traditional TV needs to show more games and highlights.

If people can't see the game because they don't have Sky or BT, then the only rugby they see are internationals.

How does the young boy or girl who might play at school or for a local club learn about Premiership rugby if he /she never sees it.

Youtube.

And we've had loads of games on free to air TV in the last few seasons, there are 5 league games plus the final and a game every round of Europe, so 14 free to air club games of rugby union this season on ITV.

I did like and use the Premiership TV streaming service. I would, however, rather this was geared towards funds for your club as online season ticket as opposed to going into a big pot. It also suffered a bit from the fixture list as the £7.00 for the whole weekend sometimes got you matches on 3 days and sometimes only one match as the others were all on BT or at the same time.

[GB72]

Ok, wages they can't afford, like deciding two "excluded players" was a good idea.

Ultimately, the point is wages are too high for the profile of the sport.

This I agree with and I for one do not think that it is being too defeatest. I really do think that without some dramatic changes, the Premiership could be in the last few years of existance. We lose one more club and you have to think that it is all over in the current format. You may then be left with 3-4 clubs with stabler finances and with enough fan appeal to be attractive to other leagues.

The problem is that the salary issue is a vicious circle that we are in at the moment. You develop a player in the academy and get great value, the player is then picked for England, you then see a massive increase in wage demands and the player is available less and so you need solid back up as well. You do not meet the wage demands, you lose the player to another club. You let them go and develop a replacement, they excel, they get picked for England and the circle continues.

Thing is, with crowds as they are and revenues as they exist, most rugby players should be on about £30k a year, similar to County Cricket. Who is going to put in the work and take the medical risks for that. Plus, if you pay what is realistic, players go abroad, the product on the pitch gets worse and then fans disappear. How would Tigers fans react if we got rid of our top half a dozen earners to be financially prudent and gave up on challenginf for honours.

I really cannot see a way that it works without the dreaded central contracts and a big reduction in the use of higher paid overseas players.

What figures are those based on?

Typically sports teams in Europe spend 55-70% of their turnovers on wages. Rugby can be seen to be a more cost intensive business as TV rights are a lower proportion & more medical costs are incurred. So let's take 55%.

Typical turnovers for the big clubs commercially (Quins, Saracens, Tigers, Saints, Bath) are around £20m. So total wages should be in the ball park of £11m. Given the cap with all add ons/exclusions comes in around about £8m the rest of the staff can cost around about £3m, or roughly £40k for roughly 75 off field staff. That £8m for players would see roughly £2m on the top handful, £5m cover the top 30 who are in the main cap at around £150k as a mean average, then the last £1m cover the 30 or so young lads in the development/academy/fringes on an average of £30k, all figures inclusive of employers NICs.

So, I suppose on one side I agree with you as in that scenario "most" players are actually in the bottom category at any one time.

Really we need to hold the line for a relatively short period, perhaps as short as 5 years just to recalibrate spending (on everything) down by roughly 5-10% as a proportion of our income. Incomes have generally risen very impressively since professionalism, consistently out performing nominal inflation for instance so we have seen huge real underlying growth. We've just let costs consistently sit between between 5-10% ahead of them.

Do you think that we actually have 5 years to recalibrate. With no obvious successors in the champtionship to step up, we are one or two clubs away from the league ceasing to be viable and with all finances being so precarious, relegation now would potentially mean extinction for the club going down.

[LE18]

Are Rugby clubs missing a vital point here, most have a valuable asset, ie their stadium, it sits idle for so many days/weeks of the year, nothing is going on. Surely a club needs to diversify, bring in a summer event, what ever that might be, something that attracts fans, be it boxing, judo, rounders, antiques or what ever, on a regular basis to fill in the gaps. Yes I know they might damage the pitch, but some events could be on a covering board with the spectators staying in the stands.
Its got to be wrong to only be looking at the rugby game? Need to broaden their horizons like Wasps tried to do, but do it on a sound footing.

[Rugbygramps]

Are Rugby clubs missing a vital point here, most have a valuable asset, ie their stadium, it sits idle for so many days/weeks of the year, nothing is going on. Surely a club needs to diversify, bring in a summer event, what ever that might be, something that attracts fans, be it boxing, judo, rounders, antiques or what ever, on a regular basis to fill in the gaps. Yes I know they might damage the pitch, but some events could be on a covering board with the spectators staying in the stands.
Its got to be wrong to only be looking at the rugby game? Need to broaden their horizons like Wasps tried to do, but do it on a sound footing.

It’s a valid point. They did it a few years back with Will Young and someone else can’t remember who.
Pitches can be protected though I doubt it’s achievable during the season.
Cricket had Elton John few seasons back and I believe that the Kingpower have to be careful due to its concrete construction.

Radio 2 are holding a large event in September on Victoria Park expected around 35000. Using the pitch and 3 stands could MWWR have accommodated that

[Old Hob]

Re Funding: The soccer premiership is considering a wage cap to prevent an unbridgeable gulf opening up between top and bottom. One of the proposals is that the cap is 4 times the amount the lowest club gets in TV money.

Are you ready?...

The club in 20th position gets £100 million in TV money.

[markharbtiger]

Re Funding: The soccer premiership is considering a wage cap to prevent an unbridgeable gulf opening up between top and bottom. One of the proposals is that the cap is 4 times the amount the lowest club gets in TV money.

Are you ready?...

The club in 20th position gets £100 million in TV money.

Ouch! Seems such a great shame given that watching football in this country is such a lesser experience than watching rugby, which is far more exciting, female and family friendly...particularly live. I have lost count of the number of women who have said to me they've been reluctant to watch rugby live thinking crowd aggression will be like football...and been pleasantly surprised.

P.S. I might be biased

[sk 88]

This I agree with and I for one do not think that it is being too defeatest. I really do think that without some dramatic changes, the Premiership could be in the last few years of existance. We lose one more club and you have to think that it is all over in the current format. You may then be left with 3-4 clubs with stabler finances and with enough fan appeal to be attractive to other leagues.

The problem is that the salary issue is a vicious circle that we are in at the moment. You develop a player in the academy and get great value, the player is then picked for England, you then see a massive increase in wage demands and the player is available less and so you need solid back up as well. You do not meet the wage demands, you lose the player to another club. You let them go and develop a replacement, they excel, they get picked for England and the circle continues.

Thing is, with crowds as they are and revenues as they exist, most rugby players should be on about £30k a year, similar to County Cricket. Who is going to put in the work and take the medical risks for that. Plus, if you pay what is realistic, players go abroad, the product on the pitch gets worse and then fans disappear. How would Tigers fans react if we got rid of our top half a dozen earners to be financially prudent and gave up on challenginf for honours.

I really cannot see a way that it works without the dreaded central contracts and a big reduction in the use of higher paid overseas players.

What figures are those based on?

Typically sports teams in Europe spend 55-70% of their turnovers on wages. Rugby can be seen to be a more cost intensive business as TV rights are a lower proportion & more medical costs are incurred. So let's take 55%.

Typical turnovers for the big clubs commercially (Quins, Saracens, Tigers, Saints, Bath) are around £20m. So total wages should be in the ball park of £11m. Given the cap with all add ons/exclusions comes in around about £8m the rest of the staff can cost around about £3m, or roughly £40k for roughly 75 off field staff. That £8m for players would see roughly £2m on the top handful, £5m cover the top 30 who are in the main cap at around £150k as a mean average, then the last £1m cover the 30 or so young lads in the development/academy/fringes on an average of £30k, all figures inclusive of employers NICs.

So, I suppose on one side I agree with you as in that scenario "most" players are actually in the bottom category at any one time.

Really we need to hold the line for a relatively short period, perhaps as short as 5 years just to recalibrate spending (on everything) down by roughly 5-10% as a proportion of our income. Incomes have generally risen very impressively since professionalism, consistently out performing nominal inflation for instance so we have seen huge real underlying growth. We've just let costs consistently sit between between 5-10% ahead of them.

Do you think that we actually have 5 years to recalibrate. With no obvious successors in the champtionship to step up, we are one or two clubs away from the league ceasing to be viable and with all finances being so precarious, relegation now would potentially mean extinction for the club going down.

1) that's a separate discussion not really related to what we were discussing.
2) yes I do think we have 5 years, and I think there are many clubs in the championship who would help maintain the Premiership's interest if they were allowed up. There is no reason to presume they will have seen the last 20 years and go "yeah I'll do exactly the same" rather than come in with better plans around cost control.

[Big Dai]

So obviously this is conjecture but a friend got a sports massage from the Exiles' physio (or one of them, I imagine they have a few) and was told that two other clubs are about to go to the wall. Falcons and, erm, well, apparently we are. Is that bogus? How worried are we/should we be?

According to "Ruck" it's Tigers and Chiefs.

That is According to Ruck.

https://www.ruck.co.uk/failed-to-come-g ... suspended/

Which is just clickbait. They have the understanding of 5 year olds.

Blast! I thought 5 year olds would know better!

[Hot_Charlie]

According to "Ruck" it's Tigers and Chiefs.

That is According to Ruck.

https://www.ruck.co.uk/failed-to-come-g ... suspended/

Which is just clickbait. They have the understanding of 5 year olds.

Blast! I thought 5 year olds would know better!

Maybe I was being generous!