Comeonmylovers.co.uk - Premier Rugby Finances

Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Comeonmylovers.co.uk (IP Logged)

Date: 24/06/2023 16:17

What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:08:23:16:48:21 by CoochieCoo.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Bath Supporter Jack (IP Logged)

Date: 25/06/2023 22:48

Excellent piece of work Mr CC

Prompted by this I went and looked at the accounts, which incidentally are very clear.

It just shows the importance of the new stadium and the increase in capacity and the opportunity to develop other income.

If it is financed properly it will be a game changer and will set up Bath Rugby on a generational basis.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: CoochieCoo (IP Logged)

Date: 26/06/2023 08:30

Thank you BSJ. Agreed this is an excellent opportunity for Bath to increase their capacity and earn income from other sources. I imagine our lease which ends in 2070 or so will be extended by the charitable company. Arena 1865 accounts reveal that Bruce has already ploughed £11.5m into the project!

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: gaz59 (IP Logged)

Date: 26/06/2023 08:47

The term 'tidied up their accounts' says it all

winking smiley

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Date: 26/06/2023 09:01

Thanks CC, very interesting

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: joethefanatic (IP Logged)

Date: 27/06/2023 02:07

"Conclusion
Is there a way out of this? Frankly it seems that a major factor for the clubs to survive is an increase in revenue from TV and PRL/RFU as gate attendances are not showing an upward trend. This maybe temporary from the fallout of Covid. Maybe a good showing by England at the World Cup will increase the interest in Premier Rugby, but that is not a given. The clubs like us at Bath are indebted to their owners for their continued support and commitment but there is a lot of external debt in some clubs and the demise of Wasps shows us that this cannot be sustainable even if a club is reliant on other sources of income other than rugby.

The powers that be, have to ensure that the game is still attractive for supporters whilst also ensuring that the risks in the game are minimised to an acceptable level. It’s a difficult tightrope to walk but it must be recognised that there are risks in all sporting activity. "

Is it possible to work out how the annual income of the various clubs is spent and, specifically, how much is spent on staff salaries? The obvious (at least to the naive observer) solution to having less money available is to spend less money.

... IMHO, of course.

Now in Honolulu

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: OldMarovian (IP Logged)

Date: 27/06/2023 11:47

Very interesting CC and tbh none of it looks great. Sarries situation obviously massively benefitted from Wray simply writing off the majority of his investment. Even with that though there's a long way to go.

It feels more than ever that those that survive (and in better times even thrive) will be the ones where Rugby is almost a side business to their main holdings. Bath in a great position in those terms both with the development and also being a rugby hot-bed.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: dcsh (IP Logged)

Date: 27/06/2023 16:32

Very interesting. I was intrigued by the difference in average attendance between Bath and Leicester (~8,000), but only a £2M difference in turnover. Are Tigers tickets much cheaper than Baths? Or is that too simplistic and it’s a combination of other factors?

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: CoochieCoo (IP Logged)

Date: 27/06/2023 16:43

Quote:
joethefanatic
Is it possible to work out how the annual income of the various clubs is spent and, specifically, how much is spent on staff salaries? The obvious (at least to the naive observer) solution to having less money available is to spend less money.

Yes roughly! The wage bill for all staff in Bath's case was £12.2m (Salary cap is £5m plus add ons) so payments to non players (staff) would be in the region of £7m. Bath lost £163K on a turnover of £19.8m so their overheads were about another £7.7m. Yes there are savings that can be achieved and one of them as mentioned in the post is a £1m spend on putting up and taking down of the Meccano stands! This expenditure is going up this year to £1.2m!

The fact that Bath is near as dammit on breakeven only losing £163,440 is actually good news that they are not haemorrhaging money like some of the others.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Bath Supporter Jack (IP Logged)

Date: 27/06/2023 17:00

A friend of mine was on the Main Board at Leicester he always bemoaned the fact that the yield at Welford Road was so much lower than at the Rec.

Yield is obviously a combination between volume (spectators) times price (tickets face value).

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 28/06/2023 10:43

Great work CC, loads of detail.

The attendance figures (as I've said before) look really worrying for sale and Newcastle and it shows in their income. I feel Sarries are misleading us a bit, I assume they only get up in the 13ks because of "big stadium" events and they don't seem to bring in that much money after you've paid for the stadium and conceded the secondary sale. However Sarries income seems ok despite that. I'm still a bit suspicious, there aren't that many ways for a rugby club to have a rugby income and most are constant between teams (TV income, sponsorship, RFU cash, match day income, non-rugby business). I can't see Sarries doing that much better than anyone else in terms of sponsorship, they much be down on match day revenue as their attendances generally struggle to reach 10k. So is their non-rugby income that good? I guess so but I feel it s a dangerous thing to base a club on. Who knows when someone says "This money we're giving to the rugby club, why are we doing that?"

Why do I go on about about these 3 clubs (Sale, Newcastle and Sarries)? Because, while Bath are as close to a decent position as any, without those 3 fixtures (along with Wasps, Irish and Wuss) I worry that we and everyone else is sunk.

I feel that, along side the cap to stop an owner just buying the league, we need some form of financial fair play to make sure clubs are spending in line with their income. That means while Sarries, Sale and Newcastle will survive in the short term, they aren't going to do that well as they won't have the income to spend on a top squad. Unless they improve that income its likely that they will get relegated in time. Will get replaced by someone who can draw more than 6k? Probably not initially but it would at least be giving someone a chance to see if they can.

Whatever the solution is, I really don't think increasing the cap, until that increase can be paid for, is the solution.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Date: 28/06/2023 10:52

Quote:
DanWiley
However Sarries income seems ok despite that. I'm still a bit suspicious, there aren't that many ways for a rugby club to have a rugby income and most are constant between teams (TV income, sponsorship, RFU cash, match day income, non-rugby business). I can't see Sarries doing that much better than anyone else in terms of sponsorship, they much be down on match day revenue as their attendances generally struggle to reach 10k. So is their non-rugby income that good? I guess so but I feel it s a dangerous thing to base a club on. Who knows when someone says "This money we're giving to the rugby club, why are we doing that?"

The Stone X is used quite a bit for many non-rugby events I think Dan.

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: hasta (IP Logged)

Date: 28/06/2023 11:11

I actually reckon Sarries do better than almost anyone in sponsorship, they've got a lot of City links and have a number of very high profile England players.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Sara'sman (IP Logged)

Date: 28/06/2023 11:34

Dan - just to add some balance to your legitimately expressed concern re our financial position (no similar concern expressed re Quins at Twickers I note) I'll offer the following more positive points. This years game at Spurs brought in 3 times the income of games at StoneX (which already rivals Exeter and yourselves for the most expensive average ticket price). Even if Sarries gave away 10k tickets (they don't, nothing like) and heavily discounted another 10k (they probably do) selling 30k at prices Leicester can only envy helps hugely.

Whilst Bath haemorrhage £1.2 on their demountable stand each season, Sarries will be receiving a similar sum in rental income from Middx University now that the West Stand is complete. When the StoneX sponsorship deal was announced I understand that it was for a market leading amount that many could not believe the club could achieve.

Rugby crowds, in my opinion, are grown over generations; parents taking their children who in turn bring theirs years later, as habits become established. Sarries are at last getting some benefit from this and continue to invest heavily in fans of the future. It appears that season ticket sales across all price brackets (including a large number of absurdly priced packages) are at a high (around 75% - 7700 **) and if/when we again sell out regularly (as we did 5 years ago) plans exist to further develop the stadium.

The huge range in alternative elite sport locally, growing the fan base from a pre-professional figure of under 500, our peripatetic nature prior to these last 10 years, alongside an inevitable future downturn in form must all concern the board, but I don't believe we're in any more perilous state than others. I'm optimistic that the club will break even within 3 years, with non-rugby activities at StoneX growing significantly too.

CC - once again a very interesting well researched read, thank you.

** Thought I should come back and correct my misinformation. It was c75% of previous STH renewing by that date (roughly a total of around 4000 renewals I think) and not of the ground capacity. Apologies, though I remain optimistic!

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:08:10:14:42:32 by Sara'sman.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: CoochieCoo (IP Logged)

Date: 28/06/2023 11:41

Saracens in their 2022 accounts declared their income from stadium related activities as only £1,071,504 this is much lower than the other clubs with non rugby income.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 28/06/2023 12:47

I really don't want to see Sarries (or anyone) suffer, though I see it as a bit inevitable for Sale and Newcastle. There are probably people on here who could tell you I'm in the "they've done their time" camp in terms of the salary cap issues. So, a few thoughts on all the clubs:

Bath, Glaws, Saints, Tiggers, Quins seem to be potentially ok, so long as they keep 8+ other teams in the same league (literally).

Newcastle, Sale I honestly don't see how they survive on a stable footing and their survival is linked to everyone else's I suspect. They clearly don't get the attendances to drive their revenue to produce anything other than a huge loss.

Briz SHOULD be able to be in the "ok" position, but aren't. If I had to guess they are splurging money on Marquee players and otherwise pushing the cap so that what should be a decent enough revenue isn't enough to be stable.

Exeter's trajectory looks precipitous. They were just south of having the crowds to be sustainable but their support seems to be dropping. I'm hoping that's an anomaly.

That leaves us with Sarries, which as I say look a bit anomalous to me. If that 13k attendance reflected their position accurately they are near to being ok, their revenue says the same. Their profit/loss says they are nowhere near being ok. As I say, I don't think that 13k reflects the situation, from what I've read these "clash" type events bring in revenue, but not profit, they are expensive to run. Clubs rightly do them for long term growth not short term profit. Somehow they (possibly Newcastle and Sale) need to get to about 14k average (probably meaning peak 16k+) and that's a bit of a worry.

Assuming that Sarries are ok, Briz stop playing silly @#$%& and Exeter are just on a blip we've got 8 teams that I think are near sustainable (Bath, Briz, Sarries, Exe, Saints, Quins, Glaws, Tiggers) and that's probably enough to keep them so if we don't put the cap up. There's other threads on how an 8/10/12 team Prem/Championship might be sustainable.

I hope that a feeling as to why I find the situation Sarries are in interesting and worth repeated comment.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Date: 28/06/2023 12:57

Presumiably Sarries also play a few more games and get a bit more TV money etc than they would otherwise do from playing in the top euro comp (and generaly progressing to the knock out stages)?

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: hasta (IP Logged)

Date: 28/06/2023 13:05

I think TV money is divided equally by the contract. They would certainly get more gate revenue.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 28/06/2023 14:23

Weren't Sarries away in the 1/4ers? Do they share that money? The semis (had they been relevant this year) are supposedly neutral? Is that money shared? for some reason I'm cynical about that. I guess they get an home GP semi? Does anyone know what happens to the gate receipts and sales from finals etc? I'd always assumed that the clubs got, at best, a marginal share but I might be wrong.

For me the worrying bottom line is either profit/loss or EBITDA they lost £5m.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: hasta (IP Logged)

Date: 28/06/2023 16:55

I meant more generally. I would agree though, the fact they made a 5m loss on a 21m turnover looks bad.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Sara'sman (IP Logged)

Date: 28/06/2023 18:05

Apologies for another post on your board but I think there may be some detail that is misunderstood or incomplete - perhaps by me! I thought that the figures CC has quoted were for accounts covering the 21-22 season. For reasons that I err can't recall Sarries didn't compete in the Champions Cup that season.

It was also a period in which the capacity at StoneX was significantly reduced as the Communist Era Tribute West Stand was demolished and replaced. The new West will make a significant improvement to next seasons accounts as the increased capacity, expensive hospitality and university rent kick in, though the favourable loan for the cost of construction will, of course, need repaying. I think the club are anticipating a loss of £2-3m for the period covering the season just ended, with further improvement next year.

It would make interesting reading if we could somehow see average ticket and corporate revenue for each club (including pro-rata from season tickets).

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:06:28:18:17:31 by Sara'sman.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: The Bear (IP Logged)

Date: 29/06/2023 10:05

Quote:
DanWiley
Assuming that Sarries are ok, Briz stop playing silly @#$%& and Exeter are just on a blip we've got 8 teams that I think are near sustainable (Bath, Briz, Sarries, Exe, Saints, Quins, Glaws, Tiggers) and that's probably enough to keep them so if we don't put the cap up. There's other threads on how an 8/10/12 team Prem/Championship might be sustainable.

The club's don't have to spend to the cap.

If you want clubs to be sustainable the salary cap is not the right tool. It is a tool for reducing competitive divergence.

Far more oversight of finances and enforcement would be better.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:06:29:10:06:13 by The Bear.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: hasta (IP Logged)

Date: 29/06/2023 10:14

Looking at that table though, for the wages paid within each club within the cap are between 40-60% of the total spend. Increasing the cap by 15% would only increase total spend by ~7%. I'm not saying it still doesn't need control, but it's not as dramatic a rise given the overall cost of wages (and it's even less given total expenditure) for a club.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: OutsideBath (IP Logged)

Date: 29/06/2023 10:46

Quote:
The Bear
Quote:
DanWiley
Assuming that Sarries are ok, Briz stop playing silly @#$%& and Exeter are just on a blip we've got 8 teams that I think are near sustainable (Bath, Briz, Sarries, Exe, Saints, Quins, Glaws, Tiggers) and that's probably enough to keep them so if we don't put the cap up. There's other threads on how an 8/10/12 team Prem/Championship might be sustainable.

The club's don't have to spend to the cap.

If you want clubs to be sustainable the salary cap is not the right tool. It is a tool for reducing competitive divergence.

Far more oversight of finances and enforcement would be better.

+1

The level of salary cap has nothing to do with clubs going bust, that’s entirely down to financial mismanagement.

As stated above clubs do not have to spend the full salary cap.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: shipwrecked (IP Logged)

Date: 29/06/2023 10:53

Whist being true with the advent of relegation returning in the future would a club handicap themselves by not buying the best players? Relegation is a financial disaster.

Is it conceivable that at club could have any sort of success by retaining cap money?

If that is the principle wouldn't a return to amateurism be the solution?

https://i.ibb.co/YTDNDCdd/Tyler-Offiah-185.jpg

Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 29/06/2023 11:11

Quote:
The Bear
If you want clubs to be sustainable the salary cap is not the right tool.

As I said, something closer to financial fair play would be the tool. The cap does stop someone buying the league, and at the same time putting pressure on other clubs to over spend, but you're right its only part of the solution.

Clubs spending more than they earn is a clear problem.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: hasta (IP Logged)

Date: 29/06/2023 11:21

The other notable thing is what a disaster the CVC deal is ongoing. 1/3rd of all TV revenue is never even making it to the clubs. That effectively means the clubs are getting £2m/year rather than £3m/year. There's your salary cap differential.

And God only knows what the deal looks like next time around.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: joethefanatic (IP Logged)

Date: 29/06/2023 22:47

Quote:
hasta
The other notable thing is what a disaster the CVC deal is ongoing. 1/3rd of all TV revenue is never even making it to the clubs. That effectively means the clubs are getting £2m/year rather than £3m/year. There's your salary cap differential.
And God only knows what the deal looks like next time around.

You'd imagine that CVC can recognise a busted flush when they see one. I think they"ll just walk away.

... IMHO, of course.

Now in Honolulu

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: hasta (IP Logged)

Date: 29/06/2023 23:39

Why would they walk away? They paid money up front and they are now creaming in cash. There is no downside for them, they have no ongoing costs, just taking 1/3 of the commercials.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: shipwrecked (IP Logged)

Date: 30/06/2023 09:52

That's what private equity firms do. They are very good at it. They chip away when cash is needed and then take over!

Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: hasta (IP Logged)

Date: 30/06/2023 10:31

...and then asset strip.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Rampant (IP Logged)

Date: 13/07/2023 12:28

Mail sport are reporting that BT/TNT Sport have thrown in an offer to host the Super League (RL) as Sky Sports are only offering £25M per year for the rights to host, similar to their existing contract

The previous deal to that had been for £40M.

a) Does this mean that Sky could be looking at making a bid for PRL?
b) Are TNTSport gearing up to be THE Rugby Channel?
c) Have rugby TV rights plateaued meaning the Prem is in for a nasty shock when they seek a new deal?

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: warrenball (IP Logged)

Date: 14/07/2023 08:53

The problem is in so many sports that elite athletes expect to earn footballer money given the short sporting life and commitment needed, but often the only source of money is from television and this gives the tv companies the control over the sports bodies who should be running the sport.

Sky and other broadcasters are only interested because it brings extra customers to their channel, they have no interest in the life or wellbeing of the sports people and they have no responsibility for things like medical injuries caused by ever more crowded schedules to produce ever more tv revenue.

You only have to look at golf and football to see the corrosive effects of far too much money at the top level

I think a lot of sports would be much better at a semi professional level, it means they have to stay in education, look for a job beyond sport (other than being a tv pundit) and keep their feet on the ground

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: A2O (IP Logged)

Date: 14/07/2023 09:46

Quote:
dcsh
Very interesting. I was intrigued by the difference in average attendance between Bath and Leicester (~8,000), but only a £2M difference in turnover. Are Tigers tickets much cheaper than Baths? Or is that too simplistic and it’s a combination of other factors?

My season ticket at Tigers on the half way line in the crumble stand is around £400 and has been that price for 3 or 4 seasons.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: P G Tips (IP Logged)

Date: 14/07/2023 10:51

" the crumble stand" A20.

Is that seat the apple of your eye -or in a plum position?

PG

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: dcsh (IP Logged)

Date: 14/07/2023 11:05

Quote:
A2O
Quote:
dcsh
Very interesting. I was intrigued by the difference in average attendance between Bath and Leicester (~8,000), but only a £2M difference in turnover. Are Tigers tickets much cheaper than Baths? Or is that too simplistic and it’s a combination of other factors?
My season ticket at Tigers on the half way line in the crumble stand is around £400 and has been that price for 3 or 4 seasons.

Interesting, thank you. My season ticket on the 22 in the riverside stand is about the same.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 14/07/2023 11:23

In a way I think the money in rugby is quite diverse. We have a revenue of about £20m I believe, this is very rough, I've not looked at the accounts for this, and I don't think they make it clear, but that's made up of something like:

- RFU payments £2.25m
- TV payments £3.3m (£40m per year / 12)
- Gate receipts £5m+
- Secondary sale, could only guess but probably of the order of the other incomes. How much do you spend at the ground or on shirts etc? Does it approach what you spend on a season ticket/tickets?
- Sponsorship, Dyson etc, not really sure.

I know that's rough, incomplete and very stretchy, but the point is I'm not sure we are THAT dependent on TV money in rugby. Our match day income is probably our biggest element but we need it all.

I'd love for pay the players to get more, probably not as much as footballers, I'm not sure that's healthy, but the reality is they need to get paid a function of that income. That's the start and end of it for me. If they aren't happy with that I've only so much sympathy. It is by no means bad income for people in their 20s, it should set them up for life, albeit not as a footballer, never-work-again megastar. If you're a top player, with England fees and a personal brand, you're doing very well for yourself. If it really isn't enough, don't do it. There's a queue of talented people behind you.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: OutsideBath (IP Logged)

Date: 14/07/2023 16:44

Quote:
Rampant
Mail sport are reporting that BT/TNT Sport have thrown in an offer to host the Super League (RL) as Sky Sports are only offering £25M per year for the rights to host, similar to their existing contract
The previous deal to that had been for £40M.

a) Does this mean that Sky could be looking at making a bid for PRL?
b) Are TNTSport gearing up to be THE Rugby Channel?
c) Have rugby TV rights plateaued meaning the Prem is in for a nasty shock when they seek a new deal?

Sky already have Super rugby so they could be interested. ViaPlay is another option as they already have Top 14. Either way I think the premiership is going to have to accept significantly less money from whoever bids for TV rights as we have a substandard league in terms of team numbers.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: A2O (IP Logged)

Date: 14/07/2023 22:33

Quote:
P G Tips
" the crumble stand" A20.
Is that seat the apple of your eye -or in a plum position?

PG

Corrective text. Should be crumbie

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Francis Allen (IP Logged)

Date: 14/07/2023 23:14

Quote:
A2O
Quote:
P G Tips
" the crumble stand" A20.
Is that seat the apple of your eye -or in a plum position?

PG
Corrective text. Should be crumbie

Or maybe "crumbling" as I recall from my visit last season, those wooden benches are grim! That stand is over 100 years old. I don't know what to make of Welford Road, the 3 newer stands are bland but the Crumbie retains some character, I'm sure many Leicester fans would be sad to see it rebuilt.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: joethefanatic (IP Logged)

Date: 15/07/2023 02:07

Quote:
Francis Allen
Quote:
A2O
Quote:
P G Tips
" the crumble stand" A20.
Is that seat the apple of your eye -or in a plum position?

PG
Corrective text. Should be crumbie

Or maybe "crumbling" as I recall from my visit last season, those wooden benches are grim! That stand is over 100 years old. I don't know what to make of Welford Road, the 3 newer stands are bland but the Crumbie retains some character, I'm sure many Leicester fans would be sad to see it rebuilt.

I believe it is affectionately known as the Crumblie by Tigs fans. We'll be sad when the Rec is no longer the Wreck, tho. As they say here in the islands - "Bettah befo' "!

... IMHO, of course.

Now in Honolulu

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:07:15:07:40:53 by joethefanatic.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: ROLLO (IP Logged)

Date: 15/07/2023 09:56

And the second newest purpose built rugby ground is not in use.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Francis Allen (IP Logged)

Date: 15/07/2023 12:33

A decent stadium will always be an important asset for rugby clubs. We don't have one here in Bath but we do have the iconic location, I really hope the new stadium adds to the special atmosphere that the Rec generates. I regularly go to all the away games and have mentioned the Crumbie stand at Welford Road because whilst a bit decrepit it retains some character, Leicester need to come up with something special to replace it because I don't particularly like how their ground has developed. Franklin Gardens and The Stoop manage to provide a good match day experience whereas Kingston Park, A J Bell, Sandy Park and The StoneX struggle in my opinion. Ashton Gate provides Bristol with a first class stadium (for watching football), I just can't take to the place but it is a good asset for The Bears. Kingsholm is a strange one, a bit rough and ready but a ground you want to visit and a important asset for Glos. I had high hopes of the GTech, a excellent stadium in a great location, so sad that not many in London could see it's potential. What's left at Worcester is a half decent ground, again potential not realised. As for Wasps, if only they could have made a future at Loftus Road things might have been different. Rugby Union is struggling to attract supporters, it really does help if the stadiums have the comfort, facilities and atmosphere to encourage people to return and spend their money.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: A2O (IP Logged)

Date: 15/07/2023 16:35

Quote:
Francis Allen
A decent stadium will always be an important asset for rugby clubs. We don't have one here in Bath but we do have the iconic location, I really hope the new stadium adds to the special atmosphere that the Rec generates. I regularly go to all the away games and have mentioned the Crumbie stand at Welford Road because whilst a bit decrepit it retains some character, Leicester need to come up with something special to replace it because I don't particularly like how their ground has developed. Franklin Gardens and The Stoop manage to provide a good match day experience whereas Kingston Park, A J Bell, Sandy Park and The StoneX struggle in my opinion. Ashton Gate provides Bristol with a first class stadium (for watching football), I just can't take to the place but it is a good asset for The Bears. Kingsholm is a strange one, a bit rough and ready but a ground you want to visit and an important asset for Glos. I had high hopes of the GTech, an excellent stadium in a great location, so sad that not many in London could see its potential. What's left at Worcester is a half decent ground, again potential not realised. As for Wasps, if only they could have made a future at Loftus Road things might have been different. Rugby Union is struggling to attract supporters, it really does help if the stadiums have the comfort, facilities and atmosphere to encourage people to return and spend their money.

I’m sure Tigers will be crestfallen that you don’t like the ground particularly as there are 22k every home game that do

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: hemington (IP Logged)

Date: 16/07/2023 08:18

No need to be so touchy. He was only giving his personal point of view. I wonder how many of those 22k would prefer a n even better experience.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: shipwrecked (IP Logged)

Date: 16/07/2023 09:17

Quote:
hemington
No need to be so touchy. He was only giving his personal point of view. I wonder how many of those 22k would prefer a n even better experience.

There does seem to be a sort of nostalgia for primitive spectator conditions. Not sure I understand why this is, its almost like fans have to pay a penance to view their club.

Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: hasta (IP Logged)

Date: 16/07/2023 10:39

It also seems like Tigers missed out on hosting RWC games because of the Crumbie? Nostalgia is all well and good, but you'd presume it's going to need to be redeveloped at some point. Can understand with the shiny big stand why Tigers aren't in a rush.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: OutsideBath (IP Logged)

Date: 16/07/2023 12:33

Quote:
shipwrecked
Quote:
hemington
No need to be so touchy. He was only giving his personal point of view. I wonder how many of those 22k would prefer a n even better experience.

There does seem to be a sort of nostalgia for primitive spectator conditions. Not sure I understand why this is, its almost like fans have to pay a penance to view their club.

Personally I’m not bothered if the Rec is redeveloped or not, I get wet sometimes but it is what it is. With Premiership rugby seemingly in terminal decline I can see a reason not to do anything with the Rec.

All I actually want is for Bath to be a competitive team again and the Rec a place where teams don’t want to come.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Francis Allen (IP Logged)

Date: 16/07/2023 13:50

Quote:
OutsideBath
Quote:
shipwrecked
Quote:
hemington
No need to be so touchy. He was only giving his personal point of view. I wonder how many of those 22k would prefer a n even better experience.

There does seem to be a sort of nostalgia for primitive spectator conditions. Not sure I understand why this is, its almost like fans have to pay a penance to view their club.

Personally I’m not bothered if the Rec is redeveloped or not, I get wet sometimes but it is what it is. With Premiership rugby seemingly in terminal decline I can see a reason not to do anything with the Rec.

All I actually want is for Bath to be a competitive team again and the Rec a place where teams don’t want to come.

I get what you are saying . I love the Rec and am happy for it to remain as it is but if the funds are available to provide more comfortable conditions let it happen. An improved stadium will benefit other usage as well. Northampton and Quins also I think , have talked about replacing a stand, Leicester have the Crumbie and Sandy Park, Kingsholm, StoneX, Kingston Park all need improvements but who can afford them ? As for the Championship clubs they have a mountain to climb just to meet the Minimum Standards Criteria for promotion.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:07:16:14:01:15 by Francis Allen.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: shipwrecked (IP Logged)

Date: 16/07/2023 14:16

OB, great that you are a hardy individual but primitive viewing conditions simply inhibit the games growth. Not only that but you make a potentially fatal assumption.

To explain, its all very well coping personally with the rain but the growth of the club isn't simply in watching the mens first XV perform.

Women's sport is big even now and could become huge. Does an exposed terrace encourage women and children to view the game? Not only that shouldn't families get to enjoy a day out and some hygienic facilities.

This could increase even double both playing and TV income for the ground and increase the number of events at the rec. (Another issue you have highlighted.) Better facilities and a Desso pitch would also mean International events can take place, Bath being a great venue for such events.

We need to remember that currently the Rec get used only one day in 14 during the season and not at all in the summer. It simply doesn't make economic sense.

Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: OutsideBath (IP Logged)

Date: 16/07/2023 14:54

Won’t comment on the potential for the womens game SW as I have no interest in it or knowledge of it.

As for increased use of the Rec, is it fair on the local residents to have events going on at the Rec year round? I know if I were living in the proximity I’d do everything possible to stop that.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: shipwrecked (IP Logged)

Date: 16/07/2023 15:04

Fair enough OB but the thread is about finances and use of the Rec is key to that.

Is increased use such a burden? In the Premiership 10 days out of 365 is about 2.7% usage.

Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: CoochieCoo (IP Logged)

Date: 16/07/2023 15:17

If you buy a property near a recreation ground you should account for all year usage!

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: OutsideBath (IP Logged)

Date: 16/07/2023 15:34

Quote:
CoochieCoo
If you buy a property near a recreation ground you should account for all year usage!

Why? It's primarily a rugby ground.

For clarity I don't live in Bath or know anyone who does so don't have a vested interest.

Just not convinced on the viability of developing the rugby stadium at present given the rocky future for professional rugby in England.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: CoochieCoo (IP Logged)

Date: 16/07/2023 15:54

Quote:
OutsideBath
Quote:
CoochieCoo
If you buy a property near a recreation ground you should account for all year usage!

Why? It's primarily a rugby ground.

For clarity I don't live in Bath or know anyone who does so don't have a vested interest.

Just not convinced on the viability of developing the rugby stadium at present given the rocky future for professional rugby in England.

No. Rugby takes up 25% of the ground and the recreation ground company can use the rest for other recreational activities. When most of the people bought their flats before the company running the ground sold the land to the City in 1956 they should have been aware of the recreational use all the year round. The previous owners used the land for commercial purposes hence the turnstiles at the William St entrance.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Francis Allen (IP Logged)

Date: 16/07/2023 15:57

Yes OB, rugby union is at a low point, uncertain of it's future and poorly managed and you can question the sense of spending money on a new stadium but if Bruce Craig is willing to fund it, let it happen. I was surprised to read that you don't know anyone who lives in Bath! Many that do will confirm that the Rec is not just a rugby ground but a centre for exciting events that we have witnessed over a lifetime. A new stadium with top facilities will benefit Bath Rugby financially and still provide a venue for other events. You might think it tough on local residents but thats life in busy City.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: P G Tips (IP Logged)

Date: 16/07/2023 18:38

OB
Clearly you are expressing a personal point of view, but I doubt it is typical of Bath Rugby fans - or residents of the city.

PG

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: shipwrecked (IP Logged)

Date: 16/07/2023 19:34

OB, I've had a word with the design team at Stadium for Bath they heeded your concerns and have modified the proposal for the summer months.

https://i.ibb.co/DWJym3V/bath-golf-2.jpg

Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: OutsideBath (IP Logged)

Date: 16/07/2023 20:04

Now you’re getting me interested SW…. 😁

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 17/07/2023 09:31

Quote:
OB
Just not convinced on the viability of developing the rugby stadium at present given the rocky future for professional rugby in England.

To be honest, I'm not sure its the rugby that will pay for the stadium as such.

Just so I'm clear, BC isn't going to be handing over £100m or whatever for a stadium? I would think there will be a company set up that will have invested that money in the stadium and will take is return on that investment. That company will have some very attract riverside assets, with some park land alongside and a slightly awkward stadium plonked in the middle, but that's what allowed it to be there.

If this is the case, I don't feel this company is doing something particularly philanthropic. They've made the investment, they'll take the profits. That's fine, as OB says I don't think a rugby club can really manage the debt of financing a stadium even in the best of rugby times, and we get a better stadium as a result.

Incidentally, I do get the "nostalgia for primitive spectator conditions." It's not about primitive conditions, its about character. If we replace what we've got with something of equal character and at high quality (quiet doable on the rec I feel) we'll be on a winner. However, I can see replacing an old stadium with a new one does often result in a fairly sterile environment (and one that tends to age and feel cheap very quickly).

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: hasta (IP Logged)

Date: 17/07/2023 09:47

That depends, DW. I know we're not talking about this scale, but the new Tottenham Hotspur stadium is fantastic and a leap forward from the old White Hart Lane. I think Quins and Saints, Ulster, Munster and Leinster have all upgraded their grounds without losing anything and only adding.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: OutsideBath (IP Logged)

Date: 17/07/2023 10:12

Taking the football analogy further Hasta I think West Ham lost a lot in terms of atmosphere when moving from Upton Park to the London stadium. Same with Arsenal, the Emirates may be more comfortable and larger, but it’s just not Highbury.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: shipwrecked (IP Logged)

Date: 17/07/2023 10:13

Quote:
hasta
That depends, DW. I know we're not talking about this scale, but the new Tottenham Hotspur stadium is fantastic and a leap forward from the old White Hart Lane. I think Quins and Saints, Ulster, Munster and Leinster have all upgraded their grounds without losing anything and only adding.

In the interests of balance Hasta you should include Arsenal's Emirates stadium and top of the list the London stadium which replaced on of the most characterful stadiums anywhere, Upton Park.

Character is an estate agents adjective for 'run down'.

Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: shipwrecked (IP Logged)

Date: 17/07/2023 10:15

Previous two posts sum up forums for you! Everyone is different winking smiley

Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: hasta (IP Logged)

Date: 17/07/2023 10:47

Highbury 'The Library' Highbury? That Highbury? Love the art deco, but come on.

I visited the London stadium for the baseball the other weekend, for sure the area is a bit soulless and shiny, but I was struck by how many people were around not for the sport. There's a massive swimming pool, a museum, big shopping centre, loads of restaurants and pubs, a university, a Sadler's Wells ballet theatre, right next to great transport links, not to mention the Olympic park. It's not perfect, but I was impressed how vibrant and lively the area is already (particularly compared to, say, Canary Wharf on a Sunday).

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 17/07/2023 11:10

Estate agents might abuse the term, we we know it when we see it and more crucially when we lose it.

I agree with The Tottenham Stadium, they've done that well. I'm not sure I agree with Quins, but I've not been there for a while. But it certainly can be done, I just get that quite often when something is rebuilt it loses a feel people are attached to. Sometimes what they gain wasn't worth it.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: shipwrecked (IP Logged)

Date: 17/07/2023 13:16

Quote:
DanWiley
Estate agents might abuse the term, we we know it when we see it and more crucially when we lose it.
I agree with The Tottenham Stadium, they've done that well. I'm not sure I agree with Quins, but I've not been there for a while. But it certainly can be done, I just get that quite often when something is rebuilt it loses a feel people are attached to. Sometimes what they gain wasn't worth it.

I’d be interested in an example. I was a regular at Upton Park in my youth, but the London Stadium despite being the opposite to Upton Park retains atmosphere.
Standards change the Boleyn ground was built in 1904, seats were tiny and safety questionable at times.
There are memories that remain but most supporters have moved on.

Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 17/07/2023 14:23

Really? I don't follow football and certainly not west ham, but my impression was west ham fans view upton park with huge affection and dislike the London Stadium. No point argument that with me, I've never been to either, so if you believe fair enough, I'm just going on what I read:

[www.claretandhugh.info]
[www.theguardian.com]

Stadio Delle Alpi, would I guess be a classic example of a new build not showing enough respect and it really going wrong.

I say against, I'm not saying it can't be done, clearly grounds have to be renovated and rebuilt every now and again, but I don't dismisses people's feelings as an "odd nostalgia."

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Francis Allen (IP Logged)

Date: 17/07/2023 15:40

Stadiums evolve in various ways. Traditionally they seem to be a collection of random shelters that get built on an ad hoc basis over a number of years. These often give a stadium a unique quality but often fail on comfort or aesthetic standards. Some undergo complete rebuilds or are built on new sites. It is subjective and you do see some fine results however I find that many lack any design flair, all concrete, steel and tin, an example being the A J Bell stadium which is my least favourite rugby stadium. From what I can see of the plans for the Rec the focus seems to be new east and west stands, get those right with quality materials and facilities avoiding the bland concrete circulation/hospitality areas you find under some stands, make it a venue you want head to before a game and to stay around after the game. The Rec has the best location in this country, use that bonus and the City and the club will be onto a winner.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: shipwrecked (IP Logged)

Date: 17/07/2023 16:39

Quote:
DanWiley
Really? I don't follow football and certainly not west ham, but my impression was west ham fans view upton park with huge affection and dislike the London Stadium. No point argument that with me, I've never been to either, so if you believe fair enough, I'm just going on what I read:
[www.claretandhugh.info]
[www.theguardian.com]

Stadio Delle Alpi, would I guess be a classic example of a new build not showing enough respect and it really going wrong.

I say against, I'm not saying it can't be done, clearly grounds have to be renovated and rebuilt every now and again, but I don't dismisses people's feelings as an "odd nostalgia."

Those articles are either 3 or 5!years ago, ask those fans who were there at a European semi final.
Moving was a step change for the club, a fresh start. I’m not sure we would have won without 60,000 fans cheering us on!

Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: hasta (IP Logged)

Date: 17/07/2023 18:21

The AJ Bell is a perfect example of not evolving a stadium but placing it somewhere you 'think' makes sense/can get the land cheap. The lack of public transport is a killer in the UK for sports.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: shipwrecked (IP Logged)

Date: 17/07/2023 18:49

Wrong thread

Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:07:17:19:40:41 by shipwrecked.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: warrenball (IP Logged)

Date: 18/07/2023 07:38

I am perfectly happy with the Rec and agree with OB, but the crucial thing for me is that I am sat about 10 metres away from play and can see, feel and smell the rugby, which is the one and only reason for me attending. All other factors are of small interest. We are all different, I see many people spending more time buying beer and going to the loo, or looking at their mobile phone than watching rugby, so if they are in some stand 30 metres away from the pitch they may not be bothered. I grew up watching rugby standing on the touchline, at some point you get so far from the game it is better to watch on television. I don't think this is a huge problem given the modest size of the proposed development, but it is a factor in someone deciding whether or not to buy a ticket.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: shipwrecked (IP Logged)

Date: 18/07/2023 08:10

WB, isn’t that the point though unless you are in the first 5 rows viewing is an issue for many.
Perhaps the reason they are on the phone is to watch or listen to commentary.
I completely get the immersive experience but image if you were shorter in stature as a wife, gf or child might be what sort of experience might that be and should it be like that if we want to grow the game?

How hard would it be to have a dedicated commentary via Wi-Fi at the ground?

My feeling is that the game shouldn’t have to be for those hardy males braving the rain as a test of endurance but it should attract a wider audience and that many of those might be women with a lower tolerance for out dated facilities.

Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: OutsideBath (IP Logged)

Date: 18/07/2023 09:52

SW, you do women a disservice by suggesting rain puts them off from coming to the Rec. There are many women in the stand close to me, some with children and despite the rubbish rugby they still keep coming.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: shipwrecked (IP Logged)

Date: 18/07/2023 09:59

You clearly attract a certain type of woman OB 😉

Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: OutsideBath (IP Logged)

Date: 18/07/2023 10:05

Quote:
shipwrecked
You clearly attract a certain type of woman OB 😉

🤣🤣

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: warrenball (IP Logged)

Date: 18/07/2023 11:58

SW - I have come with my daughter for over 20 years, rain or shine, we are not involved in a test of endurance, indeed the most annoying part can be low sunlight making visibility difficult. Remember no such thing as bad weather, only bad clothing, otherwise we would be playing during the summer.

I think your views on women and children (who generally hardly ever notice the weather) is a little old fashioned.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Date: 18/07/2023 12:29

I suspect that SWs tongue may have been somewhat 'in cheek'.

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Bath Supporter Jack (IP Logged)

Date: 19/07/2023 12:27

Many statements above using the word viable in relation to the stadium.

I suspect that the redevelopment of the Rec is not strictly viable in the Moorgate Place interpretation of the phrase, (one for Mr CC).

However in terms of making Bath Rugby viable on a generational basis I believe it is essential. Sometimes people do things because they are the right thing to do rather than being "viable".

Also for the City of Bath I believe it is very, very important, therefore I am sure Mr Dyson will step up to the plate............and I am sure he will not want a development that does not embrace fabulous design and clever use of advanced technology.

If, when, there is a debenture issue for seats I will be there with my pggy bank and a hammer!

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: shipwrecked (IP Logged)

Date: 19/07/2023 13:00

Interesting to note Red Hot Chilli peppers at the Tottenham stadium, viable? Desirable? At the new Rec?

Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Mike the Taxi (IP Logged)

Date: 19/07/2023 13:22

Chilli Peppers- Smilly Peppers! This was at the Rec 50-odd years ago! - [en.wikipedia.org]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: CoochieCoo (IP Logged)

Date: 19/07/2023 17:56

Quote:
Bath Supporter Jack
I suspect that the redevelopment of the Rec is not strictly viable in the Moorgate Place interpretation of the phrase, (one for Mr CC).

Moorgate Place would certainly question the viability of the redevelopment but if there was a spare £1m lying around and a legacy to be left……

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: joethefanatic (IP Logged)

Date: 19/07/2023 18:30

Quote:
Bath Supporter Jack
If, when, there is a debenture issue for seats I will be there with my pggy bank and a hammer!

As will I!

... IMHO, of course.

Now in Honolulu

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Old Bath Tub (IP Logged)

Date: 21/07/2023 09:45

Quote:
joethefanatic
Quote:
Bath Supporter Jack
If, when, there is a debenture issue for seats I will be there with my pggy bank and a hammer!

As will I!

Me Too, especially if the seats are actually like executive style cinema seats ! (Sm128)

Adopted Player 2018/19 Ross Batty
Adopted Player 2019/20 Jack Davies
Adopted Player 2020/21 Cam Redpath
Adopted Player 2021/22 Darren Atkins
Adopted Player 2022/23 Gabriel Hamer-Webb
Adopted Player 2023/24 Tom Carr-Smith
Adopted Player 2024/25 Max Ojomoh

"AN OUNCE OF ACTION IS WORTH A TON OF THEORY"
FRIEDRICH ENGELS

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Rampant (IP Logged)

Date: 23/07/2023 10:21

Quote:
shipwrecked
Interesting to note Red Hot Chilli peppers at the Tottenham stadium, viable? Desirable? At the new Rec?

I suspect the locals of Great Pulteney St would prefer Katie Melua or Bath Proms.
But yes, there was mention of concerts utilising the new stadium back in the day

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Reccing Ball (IP Logged)

Date: 23/07/2023 11:58

Where do you get your generalisations of people living in the Pulteney estate, RHCP would be my choice and would quite happily not be reminded how many bikes are in Beijing for the rest of my life.

However this would be after BR can prove that the residents in the end houses in Johnstone Street are able to live in their houses whilst a 30,000watt PA is pointed at one of their house walls from 100m away.

Quote:
Rampant
Quote:
shipwrecked
Interesting to note Red Hot Chilli peppers at the Tottenham stadium, viable? Desirable? At the new Rec?

I suspect the locals of Great Pulteney St would prefer Katie Melua or Bath Proms.
But yes, there was mention of concerts utilising the new stadium back in the day

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Date: 23/07/2023 19:56

Quote:
Reccing Ball
However this would be after BR can prove that the residents in the end houses in Johnstone Street are able to live in their houses whilst a 30,000watt PA is pointed at one of their house walls from 100m away.

The Royal Crescent folk seem to tolerate the odd Buble concert without too much moaning? It's not like the proposals would be for turning the Rec into the O2. As long as there was a reasonable curfew (say 11pm, for example) and limited events a year (say half a dozen) I don't think that it would ruin the existence of those in Johnstone Street would it?

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Reccing Ball (IP Logged)

Date: 23/07/2023 22:07

It’s amazing how everybody offers somewhere else to host concerts, when there are plenty of sports fields in and around Bath that are not as close to housing, which could host concerts instead.

The royal crescent stopped the opening of the music festival, stopped the open air cinema more recently,…

The royal crescent has the stage 50m away with the speakers facing Twerton, not really the same as any configuration you choose to have on the rugby field.

The vast majority of open air stadiums have curfews of 22:00-22:30 and they complete rings with stand depths 30m+, so let’s choose 22:00 curfew for all open air music events in the city.

Do you actually know how close the pitch is to the houses in Johnstone Street, a few years back Toby Flood put a penalty through the window of one of the flats, three stories up the building. I cannot think of any other 14k+ stadium that this can be done.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: CoochieCoo (IP Logged)

Date: 23/07/2023 22:37

Noise levels of the new stadium are very much being considered in the plans and planning application.

Quote:
Bath Rugby
Our acoustician specialist has assessed current and future potential noise spill as part of the design process and details will be included within the planning application.
The provision of stand roofs and a much enhanced new PA system will help contain noise within the stadium.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Bath Supporter Jack (IP Logged)

Date: 24/07/2023 10:47

I would hazard as guess that the people who own that flat bought it at least 100 years after rugby was first played at the Rec......so they may have spotted that there was a rugby pitch fairly close by.

A 10.00 curfew for the occasional concert does not seem a major imposition.

There is quite often a great deal of noise from the Boater Beer Garden......

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Francis Allen (IP Logged)

Date: 24/07/2023 12:25

Bath Rugby belong at the Rec. The attraction isn't just the rugby it's the iconic location. Ask any away supporter from Leicester or London, they love coming to the Rec, many making weekends of it enjoying our beautiful city. Bath are well supported there, the attraction just wouldn't be the same if they played on the outskirts. From a financial point of view Bath Rugby need to maximise this so the new stands and added capacity will help if well done. There will be more noise and more people but the Rec has been around in all our lifetimes, I have seen Military Tattoos, Firework displays, music concerts, sports of all sorts on that ground. During that time people have chosen to buy/rent homes adjoining the Rec with the knowledge there will noise from events and people enjoying themselves. I have no sympathy for people who demand or expect peace and quiet living there. My dear old Mum lived in the centre of Bath for 60 years and coped with all the noise, hustle and bustle of a busy city really well. She looked forward to match days, she could hear the cheers and loved seeing supporters in the streets dressed in blue, black and white.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: gaz59 (IP Logged)

Date: 25/07/2023 12:39

Quote:
Mike the Taxi
Chilli Peppers- Smilly Peppers! This was at the Rec 50-odd years ago! - [en.wikipedia.org]

Could hear a lot of that festival from my bedroom in Sydney Place!

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Mike the Taxi (IP Logged)

Date: 25/07/2023 13:04

Quote:
gaz59
Quote:
Mike the Taxi
Chilli Peppers- Smilly Peppers! This was at the Rec 50-odd years ago! - [en.wikipedia.org]

Could hear a lot of that festival from my bedroom in Sydney Place!

I could hear it from my parents' house in Camden Road!!

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Francis Allen (IP Logged)

Date: 25/07/2023 13:13

1969 on the Rec, now that was noisy, Led Zeppelin, 7,000 tickets sold , 4 times that many got in. The following year the organisers moved to Glastonbury and the rest is history.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: hemington (IP Logged)

Date: 25/07/2023 17:54

Although led Zeppelin played the Bath Pavilion in March 1971! I was there

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Mike the Taxi (IP Logged)

Date: 25/07/2023 20:26

Quote:
Francis Allen
1969 on the Rec, now that was noisy, Led Zeppelin, 7,000 tickets sold , 4 times that many got in. The following year the organisers moved to Glastonbury and the rest is history.

Via the Bath & West Showground

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: joethefanatic (IP Logged)

Date: 25/07/2023 21:04

I was at the first WOMAD at the Showerings showground in Shepton Mallet. For reasons too blurred to relate I woke up in a bunker by the 18th green of Bath Golf Club on the Monday morning.

... IMHO, of course.

Now in Honolulu

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: OutsideBath (IP Logged)

Date: 26/07/2023 06:50

Quote:
joethefanatic
I was at the first WOMAD at the Showerings showground in Shepton Mallet. For reasons too blurred to relate I woke up in a bunker by the 18th green of Bath Golf Club on the Monday morning.

I hope you raked the bunker when you were leaving.. 😁

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: joethefanatic (IP Logged)

Date: 26/07/2023 09:23

Quote:
OutsideBath
Quote:
joethefanatic
I was at the first WOMAD at the Showerings showground in Shepton Mallet. For reasons too blurred to relate I woke up in a bunker by the 18th green of Bath Golf Club on the Monday morning.

I hope you raked the bunker when you were leaving.. 😁

Of course not, it would have improved my lie!

... IMHO, of course.

Now in Honolulu

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: shipwrecked (IP Logged)

Date: 26/07/2023 09:36

Quote:
joethefanatic
Quote:
OutsideBath
Quote:
joethefanatic
I was at the first WOMAD at the Showerings showground in Shepton Mallet. For reasons too blurred to relate I woke up in a bunker by the 18th green of Bath Golf Club on the Monday morning.

I hope you raked the bunker when you were leaving.. 😁

Of course not, it would have improved my lie!

Brilliant response on several levels, was that par for the course at that time Joe?

Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Reccing Ball (IP Logged)

Date: 26/07/2023 12:30

Is it a case of I’m alright jack.

Most local residents are happy with rugby being played at the Rec. I moved when the Rec capacity was 8000, always played on Saturday at 14:15, no TV lights til the small hours, no pre or post match music, no tents on the outfield,…

Since BR have extended the stands and have exerted their influence of what happens on the Rec, no volley ball competition, no lacrosse, a road through the middle, no access to the pitch in the summer months, a muddy patch the size of the east stand,… I am also concerned that the expanded footprint of the stadium will kill of the fireworks and other regular events.

As far as I can see the history of concerts on the Rec amounts to five in fifty years, none of them run by BR. So it’s just another business exploiting their assets for profit at others expense.

BR were (might still be) anti the minis playing on pitch, the mini rugby festivals seemed to have stopped and I don’t see the minis playing on the Rec when there is a BR Sunday match.

quote Bath Supporter Jack]I would hazard as guess that the people who own that flat bought it at least 100 years after rugby was first played at the Rec......so they may have spotted that there was a rugby pitch fairly close by.

A 10.00 curfew for the occasional concert does not seem a major imposition.

There is quite often a great deal of noise from the Boater Beer Garden......[/quote]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Mike the Taxi (IP Logged)

Date: 26/07/2023 13:01

[quote Reccing Ball]Is it a case of I’m alright jack.

Most local residents are happy with rugby being played at the Rec. I moved when the Rec capacity was 8000, always played on Saturday at 14:15, no TV lights til the small hours, no pre or post match music, no tents on the outfield,…

Since BR have extended the stands and have exerted their influence of what happens on the Rec, no volley ball competition, no lacrosse, a road through the middle, no access to the pitch in the summer months, a muddy patch the size of the east stand,… I am also concerned that the expanded footprint of the stadium will kill of the fireworks and other regular events.

As far as I can see the history of concerts on the Rec amounts to five in fifty years, none of them run by BR. So it’s just another business exploiting their assets for profit at others expense.

BR were (might still be) anti the minis playing on pitch, the mini rugby festivals seemed to have stopped and I don’t see the minis playing on the Rec when there is a BR Sunday match.

quote Bath Supporter Jack]I would hazard as guess that the people who own that flat bought it at least 100 years after rugby was first played at the Rec......so they may have spotted that there was a rugby pitch fairly close by.

A 10.00 curfew for the occasional concert does not seem a major imposition.

There is quite often a great deal of noise from the Boater Beer Garden......[/quote][/quote]

[www.bathrec.co.uk] _ ...at the Rec

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Reccing Ball (IP Logged)

Date: 26/07/2023 13:14

Sorry don’t understand what the link proves.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:07:26:13:24:46 by Reccing Ball.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: CoochieCoo (IP Logged)

Date: 26/07/2023 13:58

Quote:
Reccing Ball
Sorry don’t understand what the link proves.

Think MTT is showing that all events held at the Rec have to be booked through the Trust Company who charge for usage of the Rec.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Mike the Taxi (IP Logged)

Date: 26/07/2023 14:02

Quote:
Reccing Ball
Sorry don’t understand what the link proves.

"Bath Recreation hosts a number of events from Bath Festivals, Bath Marches, and Rotary Club Fireworks and Christmas Carols."
"Bath Minis"

Lacrosse is played at Odd Down Playing fields
Volleyball is played at Bath Uni

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Reccing Ball (IP Logged)

Date: 26/07/2023 14:27

No event calendar to show what is coming up or what has been on the Rec.

Lacrosse was played at the Rec before it was kicked off. There was a volleyball festival run on the whole of the Rec including the pitch and they were kicked off.

There is no cricket square anymore, grass tennis courts gone.

A few years back the council had to pay a fine for illegally building the sports centre but that is run by the council

My memory is getting poor but I don’t remember and Bath festival events this year.

The carnival uses the Rec to gather before matching and not as an event location.

The Rec website says that Bath Rugby minis play on the Rec but if you look at the Bath Minis website they have to put a disclaimer saying that they have nothing to do with Bath Rugby. Ie inaccuracies

I’m sure at one stage the Rec trust tried to kick the croquette club off.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: CoochieCoo (IP Logged)

Date: 26/07/2023 15:29

Who do you think “kicked all these sports off”?

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Pop stand fan (IP Logged)

Date: 26/07/2023 17:24

In the ‘70s you could have watched both the Australian rugby and cricket tourists play on the Rec. But I guess times have moved on.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Reccing Ball (IP Logged)

Date: 26/07/2023 18:17

The Charity always makes the decision but because of their secretive nature (criticised by charity commission) you don’t get to know the exact process. However various members of BR management team over the years commented about the volley ball tents on the pitch or the lacrosse balls flying around before a match.

I cannot believe that there is a requirement for a gravel road across the middle of the Rec, that is ideally placed behind the east stand other than for BR benefit. This is on land that falls outside the BR lease area.

As I’ve said before one judge commenting on the lease during the various Charity cases, said that the area of land the pitch and stands are on must be usable for the three summer months. BR stripping the surface off the pitch every year, the reseeding of the area under the east stand in June and the north stand never being taken down is contrary to the judges comments. The secrecy of the Charity also stops the public challenging them to enforce their lease or validate they are getting the required recompense from BR.

Quote:
CoochieCoo
Who do you think “kicked all these sports off”?

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: CoochieCoo (IP Logged)

Date: 26/07/2023 18:59

Quote:
Reccing Ball
The Charity always makes the decision but because of their secretive nature (criticised by charity commission) you don’t get to know the exact process. However various members of BR management team over the years commented about the volley ball tents on the pitch or the lacrosse balls flying around before a match.
I cannot believe that there is a requirement for a gravel road across the middle of the Rec, that is ideally placed behind the east stand other than for BR benefit. This is on land that falls outside the BR lease area.

As I’ve said before one judge commenting on the lease during the various Charity cases, said that the area of land the pitch and stands are on must be usable for the three summer months. BR stripping the surface off the pitch every year, the reseeding of the area under the east stand in June and the north stand never being taken down is contrary to the judges comments. The secrecy of the Charity also stops the public challenging them to enforce their lease or validate they are getting the required recompense from BR.

Quote:
CoochieCoo
Who do you think “kicked all these sports off”?

The requirement for open space and three summer months have all changed by recent Court decisions and revised schemes from the CC and it is now up to the Charity Trust to do what they wish with the land as long as it benefits the Charity. All the sports you mentioned have got better facilities elsewhere. Somerset has moved their games to Taunton (probably because they always lost at the Rec 😉) Lacrosse has moved back to Odd Down where they were but now in improved facilities. The Trust did not force them out why would they as they have lost that revenue?

The croquet club has a robust lease like us and can only be moved when that runs out.

BTW there is a much better cricket facility across the road!

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Reccing Ball (IP Logged)

Date: 26/07/2023 20:34

The lease between the Charity and BR has not be modified as far as I know and it is the lease that the judge pointed out has the clause that requires BR only has their space for nine months of the year. Nothing to do with the Charity commission ruling about open space.

County cricket cannot be played on the Bath Cricket ground it is too small. That’s why the Somerset cricket festival was on the Rec. The local organisers of the festival were not told they had to increase revenue, SCC just told them that it was not financially viable and a hundred plus years of history wiped out. Gloucestershire and Sussex still run their festivals. There use to be a few pub games but those either don’t take place or have had to move elsewhere because the square has been removed.

In time the minis will be shipped off to Lambridge, the extra 50m the stadium needs, will make the fireworks unsafe,…

What will be left on the Bath Rugby Rec

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: CoochieCoo (IP Logged)

Date: 26/07/2023 21:56

That 3 months rule was because the Rec had the open space covenant which is no longer required by the successful appeal by the Trust Company to a higher court in July 2015. The club wants to develop a four sided stadium because of this judgement and the successful Supreme Court judgement on the 1922 covenants. So no temporary stands required any more and the Trust Company have the powers to dispose of land as it thinks fit for the benefit of its charitable purposes. Once planning is received the 1995 lease will be re-negotiated with the Trust Company

Pleased you concede that cricket was not “kicked out” but went of its own accord as a result of the Rec being inadequate for county cricket and not viable. Other cricket is well served by the pitch over the road!

The club occupies about 25% of the Rec even if the new stadium is a bit more there is plenty of room for other activities!

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Reccing Ball (IP Logged)

Date: 26/07/2023 23:17

Bath Cricket club do not allow anyone else to use their pitch, so not all cricket is covered. So that sport will never be played on the Rec again.

I think SCCC chose to let the festival fail.

The Charity may well choose to remove the summer month exemption in the future but at the moment BR should abide by the lease they have.

BR take 25%, Sports Centre 25%, Croquet/Car Park/Cricket Pavilion/Roads 10%, BR will take a further 15% for the new stadium, leaving 25% of open green space in a triangle shape, useless for anything. You may argue my percentages but it’s quite easy to see on a map, you take a strip of land along side the current stadium of 50m (35m move from the river plus increase d size of east and west stands) or a pitch width, it doesn’t leave much usable space.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: OutsideBath (IP Logged)

Date: 27/07/2023 07:58

Out of interest Reccing Ball are you for or against the stadium redevelopment?

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Reccing Ball (IP Logged)

Date: 27/07/2023 08:19

For but not without restrictions

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: OutsideBath (IP Logged)

Date: 27/07/2023 08:25

Quote:
Reccing Ball
For but not without restrictions

I think it unlikely that planning approval would be granted without some restrictions, although they maybe not as strict as residents would like.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: CoochieCoo (IP Logged)

Date: 27/07/2023 08:37

Quote:
Reccing Ball
For but not without restrictions

Such as?

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: gaz59 (IP Logged)

Date: 27/07/2023 10:20

"Somerset has moved their games to Taunton (probably because they always lost at the Rec"

Not exactly always CC

[www.somersetcountygazette.co.uk]

I recall it was purely a financial one and like many other counties they simply reduced the number of festivals away from their county ground

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Reccing Ball (IP Logged)

Date: 27/07/2023 14:56

They have never produced/submitted any plans in the past and haven’t produced any plans as yet for this incarnation of the stadium, so cannot really comment on the structure, location and/or it’s usage.

Ive heard them float a few ideas to see if they get them shot down. Having shops on the riverside when everything is moving online and there are plenty of empty shops in locations with greater footfall, seems madness. I have repeatedly tried to get them to produce a sports bar but they seem dead set against it. I seriously think they don’t know what they are doing or what hat they want to achieve. They seem to follow what other sports venues have done rather than come up with what will suit the location.

Even when the stadium is built, the main problem and it has happened with BR before is that a few years down the line they will change the use of buildings, so it’s better not to have the structured built in the first place.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: gaz59 (IP Logged)

Date: 27/07/2023 16:59

Do you live in Laura Place by any chance RB?

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: CoochieCoo (IP Logged)

Date: 27/07/2023 23:16

Digital version of latest plans published 6 May 2023

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Reccing Ball (IP Logged)

Date: 28/07/2023 08:22

Marketing fluff, not one precise measurement in the whole document, BR can’t even follow the set out planning procedure

quote CoochieCoo]Digital version of latest plans published 6 May 2023[/quote]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Bath Supporter Jack (IP Logged)

Date: 28/07/2023 08:27

Really?

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Date: 28/07/2023 08:43

Quote:
Reccing Ball
The Rec website says that Bath Rugby minis play on the Rec but if you look at the Bath Minis website they have to put a disclaimer saying that they have nothing to do with Bath Rugby. Ie inaccuracies

I think that you are confused here between location and (financial / corporate) structure. My understanding is that the Bath youth / minis are indeed 'nothing' to do with Bath Rugby other than playing in the colours and using the name. They can use the Rec outfield for some games but not the facilities and the users even have to pay to park when their kids train. Bath youth train at Lambridge. Bath Combination and Bath Uni have also played at the Rec (the main pitch in that case) but are also not Bath Rugby.

Quote:
Reccing Ball
Cannot really comment on the structure, location and/or it’s usage.

You really can. The 'vision' document is really quite comprehensive in relation to the structure and location, for example.

Quote:
Reccing Ball
Marketing fluff, not one precise measurement in the whole document, BR can’t even follow the set out planning procedure

You are conflating the public consultation process and the planning process. Turley is running both is one of the best planners around. The agents are in the consultation and pre-application stages, including EIA scoping. There is obviously a great deal more information on the BATHNES planning portal than the Bath Rugby website. Try, for example:

Planning Application Reference: 23/01618/SCOPE

The Friends Of The Recreation Ground, Bath have commented on this EIA Scoping request.

When the planning application is submitted full and final plans will be included. This will contain detailed drawings. The Agents of BR are following the set out planning procedure perfectly as far as I can see.

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:07:28:08:45:49 by BathMatt53.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: CoochieCoo (IP Logged)

Date: 28/07/2023 08:59

Quote:
BathMatt53
Quote:
Reccing Ball
The Rec website says that Bath Rugby minis play on the Rec but if you look at the Bath Minis website they have to put a disclaimer saying that they have nothing to do with Bath Rugby. Ie inaccuracies

I think that you are confused here between location and (financial / corporate) structure. My understanding is that the Bath youth / minis are indeed 'nothing' to do with Bath Rugby other than playing in the colours and using the name. They can use the Rec outfield for some games but not the facilities and the users even have to pay to park when their kids train. Bath youth train at Lambridge. Bath Combination and Bath Uni have also played at the Rec (the main pitch in that case) but are also not Bath Rugby.

Quote:
Reccing Ball
Cannot really comment on the structure, location and/or it’s usage.

You really can. The 'vision' document is really quite comprehensive in relation to the structure and location, for example.

Quote:
Reccing Ball
Marketing fluff, not one precise measurement in the whole document, BR can’t even follow the set out planning procedure

You are conflating the public consultation process and the planning process. Turley is running both is one of the best planners around. The agents are in the consultation and pre-application stages, including EIA scoping. There is obviously a great deal more information on the BATHNES planning portal than the Bath Rugby website. Try, for example:

Planning Application Reference: 23/01618/SCOPE

The Friends Of The Recreation Ground, Bath have commented on this EIA Scoping request.

When the planning application is submitted full and final plans will be included. This will contain detailed drawings. The Agents of BR are following the set out planning procedure perfectly as far as I can see.

+ a lot!

As a result of these public consultations the club have listened e.g. height reduced, car park taken out. It is up to you, RB, to engage with the agents or the club for your sports bar! I believe you have a Twitter account why not engage there with the agents. This forum is also read by the club and the agents!

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Quel Carreleur (IP Logged)

Date: 28/07/2023 09:02

Quote:
Reccing Ball
BR can’t even follow the set out planning procedure

Just out of interest - what IS the "set out planning procedure" for the phases before designs are finalised and start the planning procedure?

To my uneducated brain, it would seem a contradiction in terms for there to be a set planning procedure to follow before starting the planning procedure.

A man who cannot change his mind, cannot change anything

RAEBURN SHIELD

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Reccing Ball (IP Logged)

Date: 28/07/2023 09:11

According to a former planning office, the design document linked above should have been published and discussed with stakeholders before submitting an environmental impact document. BR only released the design document once this was highlighted to them but there still hasn’t been a discussion.

quote Which Tyler][quote Reccing Ball]BR can’t even follow the set out planning procedure[/quote]
Just out of interest - what IS the "set out planning procedure" for the phases before designs are finalised and start the planning procedure?

To my uneducated brain, it would seem a contradiction in terms for there to be a set planning procedure to follow before starting the planning procedure.[/quote]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: CoochieCoo (IP Logged)

Date: 28/07/2023 09:48

These latest plans and designs are as a result of a previous consultation in 2021 where there were considerable discussions with stakeholders and I recall Tarquin stating in a meeting before the May designs, that stakeholder discussions were an ongoing process.

This is a comment from the May 2023 document

Quote:
Our designs have evolved following consultations on previous proposals, and more recent feedback from stakeholders including local residents.
We confirmed in April 2021 that future design proposals would not include an under-pitch car park. This has enabled us to maintain the current pitch level – with a small adjustment to the pitch level as noted below – thereby lowering the heights and roofs of the current proposed West and East stands.

Whilst the majority of feedback has consistently supported redevelopment of The Rec, concerns have focused on heights, views, massing and footprint. These concerns have informed the design approach along with key contextual influences, in particular our approach to heritage.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:07:28:09:49:45 by CoochieCoo.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Date: 28/07/2023 10:18

Quote:
Which Tyler
Quote:
Reccing Ball
BR can’t even follow the set out planning procedure
Just out of interest - what IS the "set out planning procedure" for the phases before designs are finalised and start the planning procedure?

To my uneducated brain, it would seem a contradiction in terms for there to be a set planning procedure to follow before starting the planning procedure.

WT for a detailed 'full' (rather than outline) application it is typically something along the lines of:

- pre application discussions with BANES planning dept. They will consult internally with their various departments. This will determine whether it is even possible.
- initial public engagement in order to inform the design process
- further iterations of the above, where required
- EIA screening request to Council (for large schemes such as this). This will confirm whether an EIA environmental statement is / is not required.
- where Council confirm that EIA is required then formal EIA scoping request which contains more information. The council will consult internally and externally with various departments and other stakeholders / statutory consultees on the more detailed information and will let the agent know exactly what will be expected in the Environmental Statement which will accompany the app (scoping response).
- more engagement with public / stakeholders to present the findings of the detailed studies in more non-specialist friendly language.
- planning application submitted. Hopefully validated by Council given all steps above
- Council will review as will all stakeholders / statutory consultees and also the public. The Council will typically come back with some questions in one or more rounds
- council planning officer will then recommend refusal / approval of the planning app.
- committee will decide whether to accept officer recommendation and will refuse / approve
- app could be called in by the Secretary of State at this point, or appealed by either the applicant or someone else if they think that due process wasn't followed.

Turley has done all of the above perfectly as far as I can tell, as you would expect them to as its quite literally their job.

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:07:28:10:22:42 by BathMatt53.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Date: 28/07/2023 10:21

Quote:
Reccing Ball
According to a former planning office, the design document linked above should have been published and discussed with stakeholders before submitting an environmental impact document. BR only released the design document once this was highlighted to them but there still hasn’t been a discussion.

Not entirely true, the process is iterative. Particularly this one given the amount of time over which the scheme has been mooted. The EIA document (the ES) hasn't yet been submitted, just a request for a scoping opinion.

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: OutsideBath (IP Logged)

Date: 28/07/2023 11:07

[quote Reccing Ball]Marketing fluff, not one precise measurement in the whole document, BR can’t even follow the set out planning procedure

quote CoochieCoo]Digital version of latest plans published 6 May 2023[/quote][/quote]

I do have sympathy with you Reccing Ball as time and again the planning process proves that locals have no real say in what happens in their area. You will be totally outnumbered by outsiders supporting the development who really shouldn’t be involved in the planning process as it doesn’t impact them directly.

Hopefully people like yourself can get some restrictions to mitigate the development. Make no mistake though the stadium development is going to happen.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Date: 28/07/2023 11:35

Quote:
OutsideBath
I do have sympathy with you Reccing Ball as time and again the planning process proves that locals have no real say in what happens in their area. You will be totally outnumbered by outsiders supporting the development who really shouldn’t be involved in the planning process as it doesn’t impact them directly.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the planning process OB. What 'locals' tend to say is:

a) yes I really like this (support); or
b) I really hate this (object).

Followed by some story about how they walk their dogs there or whatever.

What any member of the public - wherever they live and whether they support or object - should be saying on a planning portal response is that the scheme is either supported by Planning Policy or conflicts with it. The Council planning officer will look for the applicant to demonstrate that any development is consistent with Policy. I have seen many a planning application derailed by a good consultation response from the public based on logic rather than feelings.

In terms of your previous posts i know that you have a problem with new houses being built on areas without current housing. The reason why this view rarely flies is that the land is typically allocated for development so may be a green field but is not 'green field'.

One final point is that being ' outnumbered' is not a thing. The same planning Policy point made by 100 different people carries no more weight than another planning Policy point made by a single person, assuming that both are valid. It certainly wouldn't at a planning appeal, in fact the Inspectors open Inquiries making that very clear.

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Rawce (IP Logged)

Date: 28/07/2023 11:51

Hasn’t Graze become a sports bar now? Riverside location, great views. Someone’s listening RB!

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: OutsideBath (IP Logged)

Date: 28/07/2023 11:57

We could take this off topic BM, but for me the planning is biassed against local people in favour of developers building on cheap green fields instead of the abundance of brown field sites.

In the case of the Rec there is no way locals such as Reccing Ball can stop the stadium development from going ahead. Their influence on anything relating to the stadium is limited by our planning system. Sadly all they can actually do is move away from the stadium if they are unhappy with the development.

Personally I’m interested in the final design and planning application, but have no plans to comment on the council’s website on the application as I don’t live in Bath.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:07:28:12:03:42 by OutsideBath.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: CoochieCoo (IP Logged)

Date: 28/07/2023 12:28

As far as I am concerned as a STH and previously a debenture holder, I am a stakeholder and therefore entitled to comment. I also married my wife in St Mary’s on Bathwick Hill and she was at the Convent nearby and her family lived in Bathwick. We lived in Bath for 22 years before choosing to live in the country near Bath.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Reccing Ball (IP Logged)

Date: 28/07/2023 12:35

They haven’t changed much just added TVs. BR should be able better the Ludo (former graze) offering.

quote Rawce]Hasn’t Graze become a sports bar now? Riverside location, great views. Someone’s listening RB![/quote]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Date: 28/07/2023 12:39

[quote Reccing Ball]They haven’t changed much just added TVs. BR should be able better the Ludo (former graze) offering.

quote Rawce]Hasn’t Graze become a sports bar now? Riverside location, great views. Someone’s listening RB![/quote][/quote]

Interested to know what your definition of a 'sports bar' is then RB? I always thought it was a bar...that showed sport. Or are you thinking more like the Boom Battle Bar?

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Reccing Ball (IP Logged)

Date: 28/07/2023 12:46

Looks too energetic for me, wouldn’t want to be watching a local derby match of whatever sport with axes flying around.

[quote BathMatt53][quote Reccing Ball]They haven’t changed much just added TVs. BR should be able better the Ludo (former graze) offering.

quote Rawce]Hasn’t Graze become a sports bar now? Riverside location, great views. Someone’s listening RB![/quote][/quote]

Interested to know what your definition of a 'sports bar' is then RB? I always thought it was a bar...that showed sport. Or are you thinking more like the Boom Battle Bar?[/quote]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Rampant (IP Logged)

Date: 03/08/2023 08:23

Dear Rugby, please do this!

Tom Brady invests in Birmingham City

Seven-time Super Bowl champion and entrepreneur Tom Brady has entered a partnership with Knighthead Capital Management LLC to become a minority owner of Birmingham City Ltd.

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Date: 03/08/2023 08:30

Simon Orange still seems to be doing well for himself, but wonder how long he (a very successful businessman) will be referred to as 'Brother of Jason Orange' (one of the not very talented ones in TT)?

[www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk]

Either way I assume he shouldn't have too much of an issue if Sale Sharks need a few quid.

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 03/08/2023 09:20

I'm not really clear on what you're asking rugby to do Rampant? Happen upon rich sporting legends to spaff their money away on a sport they know little about? I think I'd rather reduce our dependence on people prepared to throw their money away, I'm worried they might tire of the game or otherwise be unprepared to sustain their interest.

I don't know, or really care, about the Oranges, but did he get any money from his brother to kick start him and how much? If that's significant then, he'll always be "brother of..." because without his brother he's probably nothing and with him I not really sure if he just made 3 lucky guesses. Take Trump for example, heralded by some as a brilliant business man (by some) for starting with a huge fortune losing $1b. If he has done it without his brother's help then fair play to him but it seems pretty lucky to independently get two such successful siblings.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Date: 03/08/2023 10:06

Quote:
DanWiley
Take Trump for example, heralded by some as a brilliant business man (by some) for starting with a huge fortune losing $1b.

Not sure if I get your point Dan. Headlines don't refer to 'Son of Fred Trump, Donald'?

I'm no expert in his life but it seems like Simon O has built himself from a financial advisor to an investor, setting up a company from scratch that is now valued at over £1bn. I would be pretty chuffed if that was me, wherever I got my initial investment from (I have no idea where he got his).

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Rampant (IP Logged)

Date: 03/08/2023 13:08

Quote:
DanWiley
I'm not really clear on what you're asking rugby to do Rampant?

Encourage US sports and film stars to invest in the game and give it global coverage to drive up sponsorship and TV deals. A rugby version of a Wrexham is gold for the Prem

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Date: 03/08/2023 13:31

Quote:
Rampant
Quote:
DanWiley
I'm not really clear on what you're asking rugby to do Rampant?

Encourage US sports and film stars to invest in the game and give it global coverage to drive up sponsorship and TV deals. A rugby version of a Wrexham is gold for the Prem

Interesting one that. Wrexham has the ideal mix of:

- great back story (formed a year before Bath Rugby!)
- formerly successful, now a minnow
- fanatical support
- hugely charismatic celebrities taking it over.

I'm not sure that the Tom Brady effect ( (or Jay-Z with Spurs) will be anything like the Wrexham story as it doesn't capture the imagination.

Now if Oprah bought Wasps and made them win the Prem that may be a different story!

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: gaz59 (IP Logged)

Date: 03/08/2023 18:26

Quote:
BathMatt53

Now if Oprah bought Wasps and made them win the Prem that may be a different story!

Winfrey Wasps does have a certain ring to it

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Date: 11/01/2024 17:15

Looks like even the Golden Child of Prem Rugby is struggling.

[www.bbc.co.uk]

Exeter Chiefs: Pre-tax losses rise to more than £4.5m at Premiership club

the club say they were hit by the rise in the cost of living and lower crowds.

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 12/01/2024 10:45

I think they've been struggling for a bit? The problem seems to be they are running a business that has a rugby club attached. If that business struggled then the club racks up the debt. I think ultimately rugby needs to survive on the money rugby can bring in if you want a stable game. Money from sugar daddies and non-rugby businesses are only going to give the impression of a viable game and we're seeing how much that impression is worth now.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Date: 12/01/2024 10:57

Quote:
Dan Wiley
I think they've been struggling for a bit? The problem seems to be they are running a business that has a rugby club attached. If that business struggled then the club racks up the debt. I think ultimately rugby needs to survive on the money rugby can bring in if you want a stable game. Money from sugar daddies and non-rugby businesses are only going to give the impression of a viable game and we're seeing how much that impression is worth now.

Well yes, but from profit to -£1.7m to -£4.5m is an alarming trend for a club (in fact the only club) that were comfortable for quite a while. Agree that was almost entirely due to the venue / facilities and not rugby.

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 12/01/2024 11:04

That sums up the problem with that model as I see it. Really it seems a bit unfair talking about Exeter's debt in that context, I appreciate they talked about Exeter's profit when the "business" side was going well. The "rugby business" seems to be a tiny part of that success and failure.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Date: 12/01/2024 12:20

Quote:
Dan Wiley
That sums up the problem with that model as I see it. Really it seems a bit unfair talking about Exeter's debt in that context, I appreciate they talked about Exeter's profit when the "business" side was going well. The "rugby business" seems to be a tiny part of that success and failure.

I guess it doesn't really matter where it comes from as long as it means the clubs don't go bust.

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: OutsideBath (IP Logged)

Date: 12/01/2024 12:46

Quote:
BathMatt53
Quote:
Dan Wiley
That sums up the problem with that model as I see it. Really it seems a bit unfair talking about Exeter's debt in that context, I appreciate they talked about Exeter's profit when the "business" side was going well. The "rugby business" seems to be a tiny part of that success and failure.

I guess it doesn't really matter where it comes from as long as it means the clubs don't go bust.

+1

And that includes rich owners, we could actually do with more of them.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Rampant (IP Logged)

Date: 12/01/2024 13:06

As James King pointed out on Twitter re Exeter:

"Accounts show the group's bank borrowings dropped by almost £20.9m in the period, to just under £2.6m." So.... while there isn't a disagreement that there needs to be better financial models in rugby, maybe other hyperbolic headlines aren't helpful..."

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Date: 12/01/2024 13:30

Quote:
Rampant
As James King pointed out on Twitter re Exeter:
"Accounts show the group's bank borrowings dropped by almost £20.9m in the period, to just under £2.6m." So.... while there isn't a disagreement that there needs to be better financial models in rugby, maybe other hyperbolic headlines aren't helpful..."

Wasn't that through the sale of the Hotel (i.e. an asset)?

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 12/01/2024 14:28

Quote:
Bathmatt
I guess it doesn't really matter where it comes from as long as it means the clubs don't go bust.

I mean the last couple of years has shown that it really does matter. What Exeter are going through now shows it really does matter.

Take our case, Bruce won't stay around for ever. As rich as he might be he is mortal. When the time comes when he can't or won't support us any longer are you happy to just trust another guy like him rocks around?

Or we could build a game around the amount of money the game actually makes. We've done it then, we've made a secure game free from the whims of philanthropists and other businesses. Sure invest in it and help it make more but that's the bottom line, the money you can spend reflects the money the game makes. I actually believe (hope) that is what Bruce wants to do and he's right in that. I just don't get the desire to continually push up the cap in the meantime.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: OutsideBath (IP Logged)

Date: 12/01/2024 14:33

Quote:
Dan Wiley
Or we could build a game around the amount of money the game actually makes.

If that's what you want then it's a return to amateur status for rugby in England. You seem to be forgetting that rugby is a minority support with very limited interest outside of core supporters. Some of the crowds aren't much bigger than you see at darts!

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 12/01/2024 14:38

Not really, Bath and a number of other clubs draw £20m a year. Can we really not afford, say, a £5m playing budget from that? What we can't do is rack it back up to £8m or whatever until the the league is drawing in money that can support those figures.

Yes, the Newcastle's of the league either need to either work on drawing better numbers or let someone take their place. But only really them and Sale are in that position.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Date: 12/01/2024 15:43

Quote:
Dan Wiley
Quote:
Bathmatt
I guess it doesn't really matter where it comes from as long as it means the clubs don't go bust.

I mean the last couple of years has shown that it really does matter. What Exeter are going through now shows it really does matter.

No it doesn't. As long as they make enough money through business (rugby or not) or a sugar daddy then they continue to operate. Of course I understand that its not a long term sustainable model but for now it's what the ones who have survived have.

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 12/01/2024 15:49

Well, I think you'd be kidding yourself that its working. I have to say I think Wasps (who were backed by business) and Wuss (who were backed by an aging investor) would disagree that it worked for them. Heaven forbid (or your secular equivalent), but Bruce has a heart attack tomorrow, where are we?

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Date: 12/01/2024 16:51

I would be very concerned if there weren't eventualities in place for anything like a sudden death. The biggest risk is actually that he changes his mind and says, sod it I'm off to a tropical island.

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Clarkey3k (IP Logged)

Date: 12/01/2024 20:21

Premier Rugby has got itself into this position thinking they could create a Premier (football) League environment for our game and then a UEFA type model for the HC. Both have failed and require large sums from the RFU and 3rd parties (CVC) to stay afloat. The money (£mn) handed over in the past didn't stop Irish, Wasps and Wuss going bust and the faffing about with Championship funding contributed to the collapse of Jersey Reds. It's a shambles of their own making

Adopted players: 24/25 J Bayliss; [24] O Lawrence; [23] J Cokanasiga; [22] M Green; [21] A Watson; [20] T Faletau; [19] M V Vuuren; [18] T Faletau; [17] D Denton; [16] H. Agulla; [15] L Houston; [14] W Spencer; [13] F. Louw

Family . Community . Nation - [sdp.org.uk]

My mind's been going places without me lately - Bushfire The B52's

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Bath Supporter Jack (IP Logged)

Date: 13/01/2024 09:40

His wife and sons takeover............probably aided by Mr Dyson

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Rampant (IP Logged)

Date: 13/01/2024 11:33

Quote:
Dan Wiley
Well, I think you'd be kidding yourself that its working. I have to say I think Wasps (who were backed by business) and Wuss (who were backed by an aging investor) would disagree that it worked for them.

Wasps was financially working and the project had started to turn a profit before the idiots in Govt lockdown the country..

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Never In Doubt (IP Logged)

Date: 13/01/2024 11:39

Wasps were always going to struggle to refinance their bonds and even if they had their cost of debt would probably have increased by 50-100%. COVID put them out of their financial misery.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Rampant (IP Logged)

Date: 13/01/2024 12:11

Quote:
Never In Doubt
Wasps were always going to struggle to refinance their bonds and even if they had their cost of debt would probably have increased by 50-100%. COVID put them out of their financial misery.

Struggle yes, but they had refinancing lined up. Their model was risky but was breaking even.

As Dan suggests, we can debate long and hard whether we should separate the rugby team from hotels, casinos, conference centres, but I we all agree, Rugby isnt a profit making business in its current format

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Date: 13/01/2024 13:28

Quote:
Bath Supporter Jack
His wife and sons takeover............probably aided by Mr Dyson

Are they interested? I'm not sure that Dyson wants to invest any more than he has tbf.

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Clarkey3k (IP Logged)

Date: 13/01/2024 13:52

Quote:
Mike the Taxi
Chilli Peppers- Smilly Peppers! This was at the Rec 50-odd years ago! - [en.wikipedia.org]

Shurely shome mishtake MtT, this took place in Shepton Mallet, c15 miles from the Rec. I could hear it in our back garden...

Adopted players: 24/25 J Bayliss; [24] O Lawrence; [23] J Cokanasiga; [22] M Green; [21] A Watson; [20] T Faletau; [19] M V Vuuren; [18] T Faletau; [17] D Denton; [16] H. Agulla; [15] L Houston; [14] W Spencer; [13] F. Louw

Family . Community . Nation - [sdp.org.uk]

My mind's been going places without me lately - Bushfire The B52's

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Never In Doubt (IP Logged)

Date: 13/01/2024 14:50

Quote:
Rampant
Quote:
Never In Doubt
Wasps were always going to struggle to refinance their bonds and even if they had their cost of debt would probably have increased by 50-100%. COVID put them out of their financial misery.

Struggle yes, but they had refinancing lined up. Their model was risky but was breaking even.

As Dan suggests, we can debate long and hard whether we should separate the rugby team from hotels, casinos, conference centres, but I we all agree, Rugby isnt a profit making business in its current format

I was never convinced they had refinancing lined up - there were lots of upbeat statements but we will never know how realistic it ever was. Agree on the inherent lack of profitability in rugby but the solution is never loading yourself with public market debt.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: hasta (IP Logged)

Date: 13/01/2024 15:12

They almost certainly did have the refinancing in place, but it's also a risk. And you don't always get return on risk.

As for 'idiots in govt locked the country down', grow up. Every country in the world locked down and people were dying. The refinancing of an indebted rugby club is not a comparable consideration.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Date: 13/01/2024 15:42

Quote:
hasta
As for 'idiots in govt locked the country down', grow up. Every country in the world locked down and people were dying. The refinancing of an indebted rugby club is not a comparable consideration.

+1

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dorset Boy (IP Logged)

Date: 13/01/2024 18:48

I think Covid hit at just the wrong time for most clubs as the CVC money disappeared on keeping the clubs afloat.
Exeter have just built a new stand, but any conference facilities won't be anywhere near as busy as pre-covid as many of those events are now held online. Same probably goes for business hotels so whilst the diversificatio was sensible, events have conspired differently.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Rampant (IP Logged)

Date: 14/01/2024 09:23

Quote:
hasta
As for 'idiots in govt locked the country down', grow up. Every country in the world locked down and people were dying. The refinancing of an indebted rugby club is not a comparable consideration.

Not wishing this thread to go completely off target, so lets agree to disagree. Although I would have thought hindsight would have proved that lockdown was completely pointless for 98% of the population and caused decades of financial downturn and poverty that really wasnt needed.

Thankfully business and conferences are now on the slow uptick, which means all clubs with facilities are now benefiting from their diversification

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: shipwrecked (IP Logged)

Date: 14/01/2024 10:06

Quote:
Rampant
Quote:
hasta
As for 'idiots in govt locked the country down', grow up. Every country in the world locked down and people were dying. The refinancing of an indebted rugby club is not a comparable consideration.

Not wishing this thread to go completely off target, so lets agree to disagree. Although I would have thought hindsight would have proved that lockdown was completely pointless for 98% of the population[ and caused decades of financial downturn and poverty that really wasnt needed.

As some one who followed and still follows the Covid 19 science this is simply not true. A the time of the original lockdown there was no vaccine and the virus would kill a percentage of those infected.
If you put the financial wealth of the country in front of survival there is little to say.

Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Rampant (IP Logged)

Date: 14/01/2024 11:39

Shipwrecked, you are welcome to your viewpoint, no matter how wrong it is.

Lets get back on track with this thread though eh? 👍🏼

I see nimbyism is alive and well and trying to prevent Wasps' new Kent stadium (Telegraph)

https://digitaleditions.telegraph.co.uk/data/1580/NextGenData/Image-0-0-1372600.jpg?t=W%2F%2226f4034f3966e9e5761087caa1f6075c%22

The article is written by Boudicca Fox-Leonard which is one hell of a name!

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Rampant (IP Logged)

Date: 14/01/2024 11:51

Also I notice Jon Newcombe of this parish has an article in Rugby Paper saying that:

"Championship clubs would be nearly 50 per cent worse off in real terms if they agree to the Tier 2 funding model currently proposed by the RFU. After months of waiting, Championship clubs have finally been given some concrete figures around the investment the RFU plan to put into a new-look, franchise-based competition, and it’s fair to say they don’t add up to much."

I dont have a subscription, but I know a few on here do

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: shipwrecked (IP Logged)

Date: 14/01/2024 11:53

Quote:
Rampant
Shipwrecked, you are welcome to your viewpoint, no matter how wrong it is.

Sorry, but it is not an opinion or viewpoint but HISTORICAL FACT. What you are posting is disinformation. Clearly off topic so the Mods may also have a view.

This was also covered in significant detail by Full Fact - Can we believe lockdown sceptics?

Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Rampant (IP Logged)

Date: 14/01/2024 12:00

Quote:
shipwrecked
Sorry, but it is not an opinion or viewpoint but HISTORICAL FACT]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia1.tenor.com%2Fimages%2Fb3a8ed938e170b4831b05af2cf59099a%2Ftenor.gif%3Fitemid%3D4356203&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=80442d2ba14ef01d3ca38cd915ec63e0763e55706653d552b6ccddac507d67ee&ipo=images

Back to the topic Shippy 👍🏼

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: shipwrecked (IP Logged)

Date: 15/01/2024 10:41

Seems Sweeny is adamant that the Championship can survive with sponsorship. Funny how he doesn't have a model example of how it works!

Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: gaz59 (IP Logged)

Date: 15/01/2024 12:24

The club was still plugging tickets for sale for the Racing game as late as Sunday morning

Is that a warning indicator about the potential product demand?

If games like that are not an easy sellout then does it undermine the case for a 17k stadium?

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: hasta (IP Logged)

Date: 15/01/2024 13:29

I think it's more an indication of how much the club are charging for each ticket. I suspect if they knocked £20-£30 off the price they'd breeze into a sell-out.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: OutsideBath (IP Logged)

Date: 15/01/2024 14:35

Quote:
hasta
I think it's more an indication of how much the club are charging for each ticket. I suspect if they knocked £20-£30 off the price they'd breeze into a sell-out.

It was pretty much a sell-out with the inflated ticket prices, around 14100 I believe. Very few away supporters.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Rampant (IP Logged)

Date: 15/01/2024 15:06

That was my thinking as well OB. You are less likely to get a full stadium when the Away team is a significant distance away.

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Clarkey3k (IP Logged)

Date: 15/01/2024 20:15

Quote:
gaz59
The club was still plugging tickets for sale for the Racing game as late as Sunday morning

This has been going on for many years. A pal of mine has bought a ticket for the game after KO and paid a "standby" price e.g. £30.

Adopted players: 24/25 J Bayliss; [24] O Lawrence; [23] J Cokanasiga; [22] M Green; [21] A Watson; [20] T Faletau; [19] M V Vuuren; [18] T Faletau; [17] D Denton; [16] H. Agulla; [15] L Houston; [14] W Spencer; [13] F. Louw

Family . Community . Nation - [sdp.org.uk]

My mind's been going places without me lately - Bushfire The B52's

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Date: 26/04/2024 14:52

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/[media-cdn.incrowdsports.com]

Average income for a 23 year old academy player is £27k, doesn't seem much to me.

On the flip side, in the 4 years to 2021 the Prem clubs paid £22.7m to agents...which sounds an awful lot, but maybe not that excessive across 13 clubs x 4 years (£436k per club per year).

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 29/04/2024 08:46

A 23 year old academy player? That feels like a bit of a misleading figure, there can only be a few 23 year olds that are going to make it but still on an academy contract surely?

That said, the average players wage must be about £125k? On the one hand you can say that's not a lot, on the other club's are losing money paying those wages so how much more can players expect? It's a demanding, high profile job but that doesn't always translate to sky high money and for people mainly in their 20s you could get a lot less.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: OldMarovian (IP Logged)

Date: 29/04/2024 16:08

Papers reporting the England player contract thingy pretty much done. In addition details of RFU payments to clubs suggests £3.3M per club for the next 4 years.
As ever the devil will be in the detail but the DT makes for relatively positive reading.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 29/04/2024 16:19

Is that up because the number of clubs is down? Otherwise, with them paying for a number of players as well, where's the money coming from?

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 29/04/2024 16:28

Here it is

[www.telegraph.co.uk]

Worth a read. Replacing £20k a game with a one off season payment of £160k

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: OutsideBath (IP Logged)

Date: 29/04/2024 16:46

I guess Engalnd will have even more control on when, where and how the players are used now so as a club fan I'm not happy with this agreement.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 29/04/2024 17:03

I'm sure that the RFU would like that, but I don't see that it has to be the case. The deal really is with the player in many ways, you sign a central contract and the RFU give you £160k a year. You don't a get a per match fee. Overall you're no better off really, if you get injured or just lose form you still get paid, that seems to be the benefit. I think you could get more not signing that contract.

As there's no real change in what players are paid I don't see why it would go hand in hand with a lot more control?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024:04:29:17:07:26 by Dan Wiley.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Clarkey3k (IP Logged)

Date: 30/04/2024 11:17

[www.therugbypaper.co.uk]

Former Bath Rugby hooker Rob Cunningham featured in the "My Life in Rugby" slot last weekend which is behind a paywall, above, but might be released later this week. He speaks fondly of his times at Bath [81-85] but his time coaching at Saracens is relevant to this thread.

When Nigel Wray took over [season 97/98?] he was appointed head coach but half way through the season discovered NW was paying Michael Lynagh, Francois Pienarr and Phillipe Sella just under £200k each whilst he was earning £1k per month so resigned. It's unclear if this was £200k per season or the total for a multi year contract.

I remember watching these guys playing for Sarries against us in the sunshine at the Rec and thinking how wonderful it was to see them in the flesh rather than on TV. Could this be where the seed of unsustainable player salaries was planted?

Adopted players: 24/25 J Bayliss; [24] O Lawrence; [23] J Cokanasiga; [22] M Green; [21] A Watson; [20] T Faletau; [19] M V Vuuren; [18] T Faletau; [17] D Denton; [16] H. Agulla; [15] L Houston; [14] W Spencer; [13] F. Louw

Family . Community . Nation - [sdp.org.uk]

My mind's been going places without me lately - Bushfire The B52's

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Rampant (IP Logged)

Date: 23/05/2024 14:23

Canal+ has secured the Top 14 and Pro D2 broadcast rights from 2027 to 2032 for €696.8 million (source)

📈€128.7m per year for the Top 14, up 13.3%

📈€10.7 million per year for the Pro D2, up 36%

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GOQ-Da-XEAAzCED?format=jpg&name=large

Rugby (all versions) just doesn't seem to interest TV companies in the UK:

Super League (Rugby League)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GONVDQLbAAM75I2?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

Premiership Rugby

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GONVDQLa0AAtK4h?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Date: 23/05/2024 14:41

Wow, that's a lot of Euros. Think the Prem was something like £20m to £30m a year in 2020 - 2024? There will be some envious stares across La Manche.

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 23/05/2024 14:48

It's not really a surprise, four times the viewers, four times the value. Looking at it the costs seem about the same 29 Euro per month. That sort of money feels like a barrier but its the same playing field.

I guess the question is why they get so many more, sadly I think the answer is they are just more into it. It's the same laws, so they aren't the issue. They do have bigger stars, but I'm just not sure that would make a big difference if we had them? I don't think the prem does badly in terms of talent. Would people who aren't watching now sign up because we had Kolisi in the league? I think the TNT (and BT and Sky) product is pretty decent.

We do have the people interested in rugby, 6 nations attracts millions. I think the Prem just needs to market itself better.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Date: 23/05/2024 14:58

Interestingly the number of fans at matches is very similar* in UK and France, where the average attendance was 14k and the highest average at one club was 28k at Bordeaux-Bègles.

[maybe a bit higher but certainly not a factor of 2+]

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 23/05/2024 15:07

I wonder what the ticket prices are? I can't believe they are much higher than ours. Do any of them go as low, attendance wise, as Newcastle/Sale?

Edit:

I guess they also get a few extra matches.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024:05:23:15:24:26 by Dan Wiley.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: OutsideBath (IP Logged)

Date: 23/05/2024 17:19

Quote:
Dan Wiley
I wonder what the ticket prices are? I can't believe they are much higher than ours. Do any of them go as low, attendance wise, as Newcastle/Sale?
Edit:

I guess they also get a few extra matches.

I go to Top 14 matches and the tickets are much cheaper than Bath ticket prices. Behind the post ticket prices can be as low as EUR15.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Bath Supporter Jack (IP Logged)

Date: 23/05/2024 23:00

One would think that the premiership this year would lead to more interest and therefore bigger TV money

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Date: 24/05/2024 08:02

Quote:
Bath Supporter Jack
One would think that the premiership this year would lead to more interest and therefore bigger TV money

They have already signed the new Prem contract for the next few seasons.

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: gaz59 (IP Logged)

Date: 24/05/2024 08:55

Quote:
joethefanatic
I was at the first WOMAD at the Showerings showground in Shepton Mallet. For reasons too blurred to relate I woke up in a bunker by the 18th green of Bath Golf Club on the Monday morning.

Echo and the Bunnymen with the Drummers of Burundi coming on stage for the intro to Zimbo

One of the best rock n roll live numbers ever. Still get goosebumps just recalling it

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Rampant (IP Logged)

Date: 24/05/2024 12:47

Quote:
Bath Supporter Jack
One would think that the premiership this year would lead to more interest and therefore bigger TV money

Product on the pitch is fantastic. Its the packaging and marketing that really isn't appealing to TV companies and advertisers

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: tigersimon (IP Logged)

Date: 26/05/2024 06:40

Appreciate this post is about Premiership club finances but how are you going to grow the game when you schedule the ‘European’ final on the same day and at the same time (ish) as the FA Cup (and Scottish Cup) finals?
Yesterday’s game at Tottenham would have been a fantastic advert for the game but got relegated to ITV4!!
If it had immediately followed the FA Cup on ITV1, I suggest there would have been an increase in audience figures! Then you could have done the if you enjoyed this game you can watch the Premiership final in two weeks time on ITV pitch.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Rampant (IP Logged)

Date: 26/05/2024 09:07

100% agree tigersimon. ECPR need a massive rethink about the whole competition to be honest.

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: joethefanatic (IP Logged)

Date: 26/05/2024 09:11

Quote:
gaz59
Quote:
joethefanatic
I was at the first WOMAD at the Showerings showground in Shepton Mallet. For reasons too blurred to relate I woke up in a bunker by the 18th green of Bath Golf Club on the Monday morning.

Echo and the Bunnymen with the Drummers of Burundi coming on stage for the intro to Zimbo

One of the best rock n roll live numbers ever. Still get goosebumps just recalling it

I remember the Drummers' set earlier on in the afternoon as being just the most mesmerizing thing I'd ever heard.

... IMHO, of course.

Now in Honolulu

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Date: 26/05/2024 09:12

Quote:
tigersimon
Appreciate this post is about Premiership club finances but how are you going to grow the game when you schedule the ‘European’ final on the same day and at the same time (ish) as the FA Cup (and Scottish Cup) finals?.

It’s an excellent point.

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: shipwrecked (IP Logged)

Date: 26/05/2024 10:21

Quote:
BathMatt53
Quote:
tigersimon
Appreciate this post is about Premiership club finances but how are you going to grow the game when you schedule the ‘European’ final on the same day and at the same time (ish) as the FA Cup (and Scottish Cup) finals?.

It’s an excellent point.

Completely agree, Scottish Cup final used to KO after the Wembley final and the Champions Cup at the Tottenham Stadium meant there were two massive sporting events at the same time in the same city within 14 miles. Add in the Challenge cup the night before getting a hotel in London must have been horrendously expensive.

Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: westglos (IP Logged)

Date: 27/05/2024 07:14

Quote:
Dan Wiley
I wonder what the ticket prices are? I can't believe they are much higher than ours. Do any of them go as low, attendance wise, as Newcastle/Sale?
Edit:

I guess they also get a few extra matches.

Is that because many stadia in France are owned by the municipalities, rather than the clubs?

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: boozeboozebooze (IP Logged)

Date: 02/06/2024 10:55

The atmosphere at the game yesterday was the best I can remember, and though a big part of that will have been down to the game being the first home semifinal in nearly a decade, the fact that this took place during the "summer" months (albeit the British interpretation) must have helped.

The club went all out by expanding the entertainment/food/drinks offerings in the fan village, and given how much everyone seemed to be enjoying themselves pre-game I imagine the revenue that was generated will have eclipsed what they get on a typical winters matchday.

So when it comes to the perilous financial situation a lot of rugby clubs find themselves in, I wonder if anyone has suggested moving the club calendar to the warmer months of the year as a way of clubs boosting their income streams? I know there's an argument that more fans will be on holiday, but surely it's worth considering? (Although whenever World Rugby comes up with their solution for an aligned global calendar this could become a non starter)

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Date: 02/06/2024 11:44

I will actually be really interested to see the accounts which cover this year - successful prem season, higher ticket prices, big Euro cup games and run to the final. Balanced against the 10 team league of course. If the club can’t get in the black this season I’m not sure it ever can (new stadium aside).

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Charlieboa1 (IP Logged)

Date: 02/06/2024 11:49

Quote:
BathMatt53
I will actually be really interested to see the accounts which cover this year - successful prem season, higher ticket prices, big Euro cup games and run to the final. Balanced against the 10 team league of course. If the club can’t get in the black this season I’m not sure it ever can (new stadium aside).

If we can knock >1m off the operating costs this summer by leaving the open side stand up then that will help a lot.

New salary cap kicks in though from July and we have done alot of upgrades to Farleigh and feels like we have beefed up the non- playing staff significantly.

Feels like the new stadium is the only hope of making it all self sufficient to me.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 03/06/2024 09:26

I think the argument is that people go on holiday in the summer months and switch to summer sports. At a grass roots level that's certainly the case. I think there would be an argument for starting in September, having a mid season gap and going on until June, but even then you're pushing things out of line with your grass roots which could be detrimental. You couldn't do the same at lower levels, this year has been really wet, but sometimes pitches even just near the end of the season are dangerously hard.

I'm not sure its our problem either? We're charging a lot and getting full houses, even when the rugby isn't as good as this year. Moving it later in the year wouldn't really allow us to get more people in or charge more (at least I hope not). There's the TV audience, but I suspect if anything that would suffer from it being in the summer?

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Rampant (IP Logged)

Date: 03/06/2024 10:31

I think most grassroots clubs lose players in the late winter/spring to skiing holidays now, or when players go to watch pro rugby or 6N/AIs.

Having both grassroot and Pro games kicking off at 3pm on a Saturday is possibly the most amateur business decisions in sport. Why exclude 50% of your target market?

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 03/06/2024 10:39

I'm not sure skiing is a massive drain. I recalling losing one or two players in a given week at worse, a handful overall. I can see that not having games on at the same time might work, but there's going to be significant overlap between the two seasons, so I'm not sure offsetting the season will be the answer. I'm surprised they don't distribute the games throughout the weekend: 10 teams, 5 games: Friday night, Saturday am, Saturday pm, Sunday am, Sunday pm. Surely that would maximise content for TV and mean that 4 games out of 5 are there for players?

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Rampant (IP Logged)

Date: 03/06/2024 10:42

If PRL were smart enough, they'd have a Thursday night game too.

(Just need to maintain player welfare etc)

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Date: 03/06/2024 10:48

We noticed a significant increase in injuries as right at the end of this year (up to May) and last year as the ground baked, two shoulder / collar bone from landing fairly innocuously. But mostly I agree with those above in relation to the age grade game - let the kids play other games and have a period off over the summer. Adults can of course play 7s tournaments etc if they wish.

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: OutsideBath (IP Logged)

Date: 03/06/2024 13:58

Quote:
Rampant
If PRL were smart enough, they'd have a Thursday night game too.
(Just need to maintain player welfare etc)

No thanks, it’s inconvenient enough when games are moved to Friday/Sunday.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 03/06/2024 14:56

There is that argument, people do like to plan and have a standard time for it. Would opening up to players might compensate for that? I'm in two minds:

I know the Wikipedia claim 2m players, but with just short of 2000 clubs that's probably nonsense. 1000 players per club! statistica puts it at 220k. That would makes more sense. But how many are adults playing on a Saturday? I would think, on average, two teams, 50 active adult players per club? 100,000 players. How many of them are near a pro club? How many that are would go if the games weren't at the same time? I think each prem club might get an extra 1000 spectators?

That's ignoring minis/juniors/girls/women, but mostly they play on Sundays, perhaps more would go if their dads are free?

Probably not a bad move, but not game changing.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: OldMarovian (IP Logged)

Date: 03/06/2024 15:45

Rampant that's what the ProD2 do and if the Championship got good enough that would be a potential avenue for extra revenue I guess. Like OB though I think having games on Fri and Sun in addition is already enough.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Rampant (IP Logged)

Date: 07/06/2024 14:37

If the French do it, it cant be a bad idea OM!

I remember during the covid shenanigans, everyone loved watching Wednesday night rugby on TV. Granted I know it isn't good for player welfare, but if the days off are managed, Im in favour

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: shipwrecked (IP Logged)

Date: 07/06/2024 15:49

Quote:
Dan Wiley
I know the Wikipedia claim 2m players, but with just short of 2000 clubs that's probably nonsense. 1000 players per club! statistica puts it at 220k. That would makes more sense. But how many are adults playing on a Saturday?

2 million? Wikipedia (via Sport England) reckon 170,200.

https://i.ibb.co/wK04dMp/England-players.jpg

Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Rampant (IP Logged)

Date: 11/06/2024 17:56

Saw an interesting TV stat from our Rugby League friends the other day on the 2 finals:

The Challenge Cup Final got a TV audience on BBC1 of 745K average to 877K peak

The Prem Final on ITV got 535k average to 931K peak

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Date: 11/06/2024 19:35

Quote:
Rampant
Saw an interesting TV stat from our Rugby League friends the other day on the 2 finals:
The Challenge Cup Final got a TV audience on BBC1 of 745K average to 877K peak

The Prem Final on ITV got 535k average to 931K peak

Not bad numbers since it was also on BT sport IMO. I guess that number doesn't include people watching in the pub or their club, which would have been significant for both events.

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: 9215 (IP Logged)

Date: 12/06/2024 22:55

Are there any stats for the number of TNT viewers? I assume the RL was only on BBC

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Rampant (IP Logged)

Date: 13/06/2024 14:25

Just saw the Prem Final total peak was 1.25M, so TNT peak must have been around 319K ish

The Challenge Cup RL was only on the BBC

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 13/06/2024 14:29

Leaving RL aside, those sound like decent numbers. I'm not sure what I'd expect for RL final on the BBC, but it sounds decent enough, fair play to them.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Rampant (IP Logged)

Date: 09/07/2024 09:59

On the back of the NRL playing a double header in Las Vegas, the Super League are sending Wigan Warriors and Warrington Wolves there in 2025

For me, RL is a much better fit in the USA than Union, so its going to be interesting to see how this develops

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Mike the Taxi (IP Logged)

Date: 09/07/2024 10:49

Don't know a lot about RL, but, if they get to the stage where they play (eg) home and away games against Western US teams (thinking of SA in the European Cup), will that be a step too far?

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 09/07/2024 11:46

I'm not sure either code will have that much impact, or gain much from it. The US has a whole raft of sports they are pretty attached to, MLS I guess is making some traction, but that literally the whole rest of the world shoving it down their throats.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Rampant (IP Logged)

Date: 09/07/2024 13:05

By all accounts it was successful when the NRL was in Vegas this year.

Its not all about trying to grow the game, its about creating new "big events" and growing the commercial viability, which it seems it has:

- Attendance of 40K+
- 100 separate pieces of media coverage in the United States
- 10,000 Las Vegas-branded merchandise items sold in a week
- Combined Australian television audience of 4.1M (Origin level numbers)
- Combined US TV audience of 100,000

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024:07:09:18:04:08 by Rampant.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 09/07/2024 13:26

Why is that not rather underwhelming? Oz TV audience aside perhaps that seems rather disappointing I'd have thought.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Rampant (IP Logged)

Date: 09/07/2024 18:05

Sorry typo, 100,000 TV audience

Which was just under the top college basketball game of 120,000 on the same channel

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 10/07/2024 09:06

I did wonder, even so...

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: hasta (IP Logged)

Date: 10/07/2024 10:10

NRL is substantially more popular than Super League though. International rugby league even worse: [www.totalrl.com]

Still, good luck to them!

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Rampant (IP Logged)

Date: 20/07/2024 09:50

"According to RugbyPass, Premier Sports could be set to land the rights to the Champions Cup for the next 3 seasons, valued at €15m-20m. DAZN are also allegedly interested in the rights"

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Rampant (IP Logged)

Date: 29/07/2024 12:21

The Rugby Broadcast account on X posted this interesting URC data:

BREAKING: last season's #URC broadcast and attendance figures were record-breaking.

✅ Previous broadcast record beaten by 10 million
✅ Total audience figure of 47.7m
✅ Round 11 audience of 3.4m during 6 Nations
✅ 7 rounds achieved an audience of over 2.5m
✅ 4.7m tuned into Play-Off series, with average audience per game of 671,428
✅ Bulls v Leinster SF drew 947,589 viewers
✅ Grand Final game had 1.1m viewers
✅ Overseas audiences grew by 138% (non core markets)
✅ Fastest growth rate on social media in rugby
✅ 3 per cent rise in overall attendances. Total attendance of 1.69m

I noticed that there was also a story over the weekend about an Anglo-Welsh conference as part of the URC...

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Date: 29/07/2024 12:23

Presumably Prem figures are down because of fewer teams in the league (and therefore games)?

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Rampant (IP Logged)

Date: 29/07/2024 12:27

Official URC press release

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GTpqZKSWMAEFTQf?format=png&name=small

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024:07:29:12:28:18 by Rampant.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: OldMarovian (IP Logged)

Date: 30/07/2024 22:07

When people complain about SA teams in the ERCC and to a lesser extent URC just direct them to those figures. Three years of continuous growth with big increase in "foreign" viewership ... surely a coincidence that that marries perfectly with the SA teams joining and bringing all the viewers and revenue that previously propped up SR?
Be interesting to pick through those stats and see what % of growth has come from the traditional PRO teams.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 31/07/2024 09:34

I suppose it depends how much the SA teams eventually take out? You could double the size of the prem, call it growth, but then you'd have to split among twice as many teams. It feels like there's an extra cost to having your league so widely distributed but I'm not sure what the reality is there.

It appears that URC and the prem, on a game per game basis, basically do about the same. I'm not sure what the URC charges for TV/tickets, but I'd be surprised if its more than the prem.

For me you've got to optimise the size and structure of your leagues and geography has to play a part in that. There's a place for the world cup, there's a place for a continental level cup and there's a place for a national league. Trying to make one of those things bigger and ape the other might lead to more cash for that league, but the overall game will be poorer.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Rampant (IP Logged)

Date: 31/07/2024 16:01

Im sure I heard that the SA teams actually pay more to participate and also fund the travel of the other teams

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: OldMarovian (IP Logged)

Date: 01/08/2024 07:52

SA were basically the cash cow that made SR work.
Part of the reason for leaving was a more equitable split of cash and part travel.
They were in a strong position when they moved. Needed by SR and wanted by Pro rugby. They also bring huge TV viewership.

Agree about sizes of league.
Last year was great for the Prem in games terms and I expect Falcons to have a bit more steel this season and Glaws and Tigers to improve.
Would we really benefit from an extra 2 or even 4 poor clubs in the League? I doubt the extra revenue, certainly for an extra 4 teams would make up for the loss of revenue from TV share.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024:08:01:12:34:37 by OldMarovian.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: hasta (IP Logged)

Date: 01/08/2024 11:25

I see nothing at Falcons that tells me they're improving.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 01/08/2024 11:41

I agree, and looking at the sticky thread I'm not sure how they can? They just haven't got the turnover or the attendance (4K average!), I guess their owner could pump money into the squad, but they'd just end up with crippling debt. He'd be better off pumping it into getting some people down to watch.

What's remarkable, given the sticky thread, is how Sale are doing as well (on field) as they do. Low turnover, low gate, small loss but high EBITDA, plenty of staff on apparently low wages. Just to show I'm not picking on Sarries as a club that these figures look odd for.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Date: 01/08/2024 12:05

I'm not very good at reading accounts, but those for MANCHESTER SALE RUGBY CLUB LIMITED show a few things that don't stack up in my mind. For example in Section 12 are they saying that the P shares are worth £17.5m (i.e. about £10m more than the other valuations)? They are also taking £3m of deferred tax asset against their £25m debt to offset against this P share valuation. Seems optimistic if I have read that correctly. Was interested to see that they have the highest 'front of shirt' sponsorship deal in the league (at about £1m).

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Rampant (IP Logged)

Date: 01/08/2024 12:18

Quote:
hasta
I see nothing at Falcons that tells me they're improving.

I think Smithy mentioned a few times on X that the attendances have increased despite the poor results. Granted that could be due to ticket pricing, but Im sure he'll keep me honest winking smiley

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: OldMarovian (IP Logged)

Date: 01/08/2024 12:36

Quote:
hasta
I see nothing at Falcons that tells me they're improving.

Finance wise you are probably right.
With a pre-season under Diamond and a bit of a cull of the squad sling with hiring some grit I hope they can start to turn it round on the field.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: hasta (IP Logged)

Date: 02/08/2024 00:23

I just don't think Diamond's that good. He won nothing and finished 6th every year with Sale - Sanderson has done much better. He talks a lot and is good for a quote, but is there any indication he has what's needed in modern rugby?

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: OldMarovian (IP Logged)

Date: 02/08/2024 07:20

Depends on what you're looking for hasta.
I think his time at Sale showed he can deliver decent performances from a seriously under-funded team. That is pretty much the definition of what Falcons need I'd suggest.
He was there for the influx of the Orange cash and he largely recruited well although I'd agree it took another coach to take them to the next level.
If all Falcons issue under him is he hasn't made then top4 I think they'll live with that! 😀

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: hasta (IP Logged)

Date: 02/08/2024 10:22

I'll be surprised if they win more than one game.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Date: 02/08/2024 11:00

Quote:
hasta
I'll be surprised if they win more than one game.

They had a few very close results last season:

14-18 vs Gloucester
14-16 vs Saints
14-20 vs Exe
13-21 vs Bears
28-31 vs Sale
13-19 vs Tigers

Their D has been OK in matches, skewed by a couple of absolute spankings. They just didn't score enough (253 points vs next closest at 400). Don't know enough about them to guess whether this has been rectified, but getting the ball to Radwan would help.

I think that at least one result will turn into a narrow win this coming year. I will have my fingers crossed for them, a couple of years with no wins isn't good for anyone.

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: OldMarovian (IP Logged)

Date: 02/08/2024 14:10

Agree with BM.
I'll be surprised if they don't pick up at least a couple of wins at home this season.
Radwan is an interesting one. He's had interest from other clubs and yet twice renewed at Falcons. I wonder if like Pennell at Wuss he's just really happy where he is and loyal to his club. Good for him and Falcons if so but as you say it would be great to see him get more ball.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 02/08/2024 14:27

They need more than a couple of wins, surely you need 4+ to even start considering not being relegated usually?

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: OldMarovian (IP Logged)

Date: 02/08/2024 14:30

All they need to not be relegated is to be better than the team hoping to come up over a double-header.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: hasta (IP Logged)

Date: 03/08/2024 23:28

They've lost Carreras, Pepper, Brantingham, Moroni and a bunch of others. They've got a couple of signings, but honestly, look at that squad.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Mike the Taxi (IP Logged)

Date: 04/09/2024 19:20

Not sure if this is the same subject, but; [www.bbc.co.uk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Rampant (IP Logged)

Date: 13/09/2024 08:23

Gavin Mairs and Charles Richardson were doing updates from the Prem board meeting yesterday:

Premiership considering merger with URC to form British and Irish league
"A proposal for a merger between the Premiership and the United Rugby Championship – which features teams from Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Italy and South Africa – is being explored, Telegraph Sport can reveal.

The Premiership board is currently undertaking a strategic review to explore ways of increasing the value of future broadcasting deals ahead of going to market early next year for a new broadcasting deal for the start of the 2026 season, having signed a two-year deal with TNT earlier this year.

It is understood that the preference of the Premiership clubs, after a board meeting in London on Thursday morning, is to further explore the possibility of the creation of a British and Irish league, without the South African and Italian clubs part of the merger

A number of options were presented for consideration.

A proposal for an Anglo-Welsh league was also considered as part of a strategic review to seek ways of increasing the value, as was the impact of reducing the Premiership to eight clubs, or increasing it from 10 clubs to 12, 14 or 16 teams.

The British and Irish league option is said to have attracted the most interest however, given that it has the potential to drive the greatest commercial value – but it would also be the most complicated to achieve.

The impact of Welsh regions joining the league to potentially increase the league from 10 to 12 clubs was also discussed. The move, which would involve the Welsh regions leaving the URC, also has the support of some Premiership clubs because of the uplift it could have on gate revenues as well as because it would renew the great Anglo-Welsh club rivalries that were so popular in the amateur era."

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Date: 13/09/2024 08:47

Seems sensible to fully review all of the available options and see if any of them would both work and bring in more money overall would expect nothing less really.

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: boozeboozebooze (IP Logged)

Date: 13/09/2024 09:27

Bringing in the Welsh teams would make sense from a geographic sense, as many have pointed out for the likes of Bath, Bristol, Gloucester it would create additional local derbies that could attract significant travelling fans.

Rugby isn't popular enough to warrant complicated, disparate, multi-union leagues, any uplift in TV revenue that's generated seems to be outweighed by the reduced matchday revenue from minimal away supporters. Keep it local, create meaningful atmospheric fixtures that people want to go to and grow the game from there.

There very few rugby hotbeds in this part of the world, but Wales is one, and the fact it's just a few hours on the road to get there shouldn't be downplayed.

Of course the flipside of this would be the affect it would have on the URC. To me the Welsh, Scottish, and Irish teams give the competition somewhat of a geographical epicentre, around which the Italian and South African sides orbit. If you lose the 4 Welsh sides then there will be 6 in the Scotland/Ireland, 2 in Italy, and 4 in South Africa, which just feels too stretched to me. Despite the fact the Welsh sides are among the least competitive in the league, if they leave I could see the whole competition starting to fall apart.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 13/09/2024 09:32

I think exploring options is sensible. The problem I've got with a combined URC+prem is that it recreates the European cup minus the French, in doing so devalued the European cup. These competitions seem to work for me when there's a clear hierarchy:

domestic - Prem
continental - HEC, 6N
international - World cup

Clearly domestic rugby doesn't have a international strand to it and club sport doesn't really seem to work at an international level (beyond continental), though I don't see a problem with trying it.

Schemes like this break that hierarchy. There's was an article, from SIM I think, saying 7 nations with SA is the next logical step. Maybe, the next logical step after that would be to add NZ (maybe Oz and the Pumas). By doing this we've recreated the WC and totally devalued the world cup, its just the same competition we run every year, minus the also rans that rarely go beyond the group stage anyway.

My worry is that this thinking is popular not because it brings more money to the game in general, but because it brings more money to certain influential groups. I'm not sure those influential groups actually get the money to the areas (clubs) that really need it.

Fundamentally the problem with English rugby is it spends more than it bring in. We fill our stadium every week, we get a decent TV deal, the RFU hands out plenty of money. Yet we still lose money because we spend too much. What would a deal like this do? Sure it probably would make lots of money for the people who run this competition, where would we gain money? I think we're probably at the top of the amount of games we could play, a 12 team prem really was on that limit. A TV deal for this competition might be good, but as I say it would take away from the European cup, I'm not sure if :

prem + a decent European cup < combined + a weak (if any) European cup

for Bath.

Maybe we cut down the number of English teams and fill bigger stadiums that way? Bath and Briz, maybe Exe become West Country Warriors and play at Aston Gate in front of 30k (with Bath ticket prices). Not worth it for me and it does feel a bit like the model Welsh rugby has tried.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 13/09/2024 09:40

I'd agree, taking the Welsh out of the URC would damage it and I'm not really convinced it would help us?

I think we need to get to a place where we have about 10-12 teams that can draw 10k+, then set a cap + FFP rules where a team that's in that zone can compete without incurring debt.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: boozeboozebooze (IP Logged)

Date: 13/09/2024 11:00

Quote:
Dan Wiley
I'd agree, taking the Welsh out of the URC would damage it and I'm not really convinced it would help us?
I think we need to get to a place where we have about 10-12 teams that can draw 10k+, then set a cap + FFP rules where a team that's in that zone can compete without incurring debt.

I'd say that most English clubs are looking to add fixtures to their schedules (hence why we've been seeing friendlies against the Barbarians, Crusaders, etc), and this is presumably financially motivated. If clubs think they can make money on these meaningless games, then additional competitive league home fixtures are bound to be even more profitable.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 13/09/2024 11:42

It really wasn't very long ago, when we had 12 prem teams, that the general feeling was that players were at their limit of what they could safely play(I agree).

22 prem games plus possible semi and final
12 international games: 5 6n, 3 AIs, 3 Summer tour plus one for a home friendly before summer tour (or cup games if you're not an international player)
6 (I think it used to be) European group games plus possibly quarters, semis and final.

I could see an international getting 40 games a season.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Quel Carreleur (IP Logged)

Date: 13/09/2024 12:04

Here here.

12 teams in the league "Players are playing too much, and we miss the stars too much when matches clash with internationals"

10 team league "There's not enough matches, the players are getting rusty, and we still miss the stars too much when matches clash with internationals"

I've long called for a 10 team Prem, with 14 in the Champ, proper promotion and relegation between the two of them, and a domestic cup (with limits on 1st team/capped players for the Prem teams) played during the international windows.

I've yet to see anything to change my mind on this, just haggling over the details.
FTR, we're also yet to see it.

A man who cannot change his mind, cannot change anything

RAEBURN SHIELD

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024:09:13:12:06:14 by Which Tyler.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: boozeboozebooze (IP Logged)

Date: 13/09/2024 12:07

Whilst I appreciate that the welfare of the players has to be factored in, it can't be at the expense of the overall financial viability of the club.

If rugby continues on its current financially trajectory, all the players will be incredibly safe...because there won't be any matches at all.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: A.M 180 (IP Logged)

Date: 13/09/2024 12:08

Quote:
boozeboozebooze
Bringing in the Welsh teams would make sense from a geographic sense, as many have pointed out for the likes of Bath, Bristol, Gloucester it would create additional local derbies that could attract significant travelling fans.

Definitely great for us as Bath fans, but as Daniel Schofield argues in the Telegraph today, the flip side of this is trying to market Newcastle v Scarlets on a Friday night...

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Rampant (IP Logged)

Date: 13/09/2024 12:14

I’m not sure if I copied and pasted the key requirement being that all clubs need to agree. I enraged Welsh Twitter/X by saying that only really Briz, Bath and Glaws care about playing the Welsh. I’m not even sure Exeter do…

Newcastle have enough travel without having to slog it down to Swansea and probably prefer to play Glasgow and Edinburgh, the same for probably Sale. Plus the WRU getting 4 Regions down to 2 isn’t going to happen with the tribal politics they have there.

If the Welsh and PRL decide to somehow merge, I think the URC will be fine. Cheetahs are already playing in Amsterdam and bringing in a Spanish side based in San Sebastián for example would be fantastic! I’d rather do to either of those places that Llanelli or Newport..

However I’ve previously also suggested an NFL style B&I home & away conference system could work, with local rivalries being key, but allowing for cross conference fixtures that change every year adding that extra spice.

I’m so bored of the Champions Cup, so a URC/Prem vs Top14 comp is fine for me

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 13/09/2024 12:35

Quote:
boozeboozebooze
Whilst I appreciate that the welfare of the players has to be factored in, it can't be at the expense of the overall financial viability of the club.

No, other way around. It's not the other way around financial viability won't matter at all, the game will get sued to death.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 13/09/2024 12:55

The game either needs to invest massively in marketing to potentially grow (for limited returns) or accept its at the level of income that rugby can generate. Club's can't continue to pile up debt so we need to get some FFP. A club like Bath has a reasonably good revenue ~£20m. It should be able to run within its means, but it does mean every other English club being forced to run within their means. It probably means the players getting paid less, but that's the money that's in their game. I'd love their to be more money in my industry. I could even make a case, like the players, that I deserve it. But there isn't and I don't expect my company to pick up debt.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 13/09/2024 13:06

Quote:
Rampant
I’m so bored of the Champions Cup, so a URC/Prem vs Top14 comp is fine for me

I think people are bored with the Champions cup because they've totally messed it up and lost its identity. Watering things down further isn't the solution to that. Tell me you'd be bored with the top 16 teams in Europe, who you haven't generally seen face each other, playing out a 4 pool competition then the top 2 of each pool, best 8 in Europe, going on to finals.

I know it doesn't make as much for teams outside that 16, that's why you have a secondary competition and tertiary. They won't make as much money, there's your motivation for playing some better rugby. It isn't, and shouldn't be, a club's bread and butter, that's what their domestic competition is for, its the pinnacle of the club game.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: joethefanatic (IP Logged)

Date: 25/09/2024 23:35

[www.theguardian.com]

Not anything we didn't already know but its not a good look. I imagine CVS are calling their "learned friends".

... IMHO, of course.

Now in Honolulu

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Eastbath (IP Logged)

Date: 25/09/2024 23:46

For a summary
[www.leonardcurtis.co.uk]

For the whole report
[www.leonardcurtis.co.uk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 26/09/2024 09:38

The thing about Haskell's comments is they don't really given any insight into what could be done or really any details on the problem.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 26/09/2024 09:57

Who is pushing for the cap to go up? And FFS why? Despite what Haskell says I think everyone does know that we can't go on like this except whoever it is who wants to encourage teams to spend more and more money.

I've got a feeling I know vague answers, but if anyone knows the details I'd be interested. Like who has actually lobbied for, voted for, approved, whatever the increase to the cap.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: hemington (IP Logged)

Date: 26/09/2024 10:10

As has been said plenty of warnings etc but no one I have seen has made any practical proposals as to how to improve the situation. It's all well and good Hask telling everyone that things are on a knife edge - where are the practical (or any) potential solutions. Change the rules I've heard mentioned - which ones and how many will make the difference in £millions of income

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Date: 26/09/2024 11:31

It seems to be that its a parallel to the current Government finances and the solution proposed is the same...the idea being to invest to grow and then be able to manage the debts you have taken on. The issue of course is that it what the likes of Wasps did (albeit they went large). Sit or bust.

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 26/09/2024 11:42

I think the solution is pretty much the same as well.

Don't borrow more, spend within your means, get on a stable footing, use the limited money there is to invest in the game/club/country wisely and grow. Use that growth to fund more investment and let the debt scale down (or be repaid) with that growth. More importantly, be patient and manage your expectations, we are not football/US.

Edit:

Oh, and don't raise ticket prices/taxes too much, they are high enough.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024:09:26:11:47:00 by Dan Wiley.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Optimist (IP Logged)

Date: 26/09/2024 11:54

.... relaunch Wasps in Kent. Yep - that should work.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Date: 26/09/2024 11:55

Quote:
Dan Wiley
Oh, and don't raise ticket prices/taxes too much, they are high enough.

I agree, having spoken to a lot of long term Bath supporters they really are at a tipping point. Match day tickets are now eye watering and in relation to STHs I suspect that not all people with STs can make all games and that works out as one expensive match that you haven't been to if you can't sell it on. I sense that most are tolerating it just about but another material rise and the golden goose will be well and truly killed.

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: The Bear (IP Logged)

Date: 26/09/2024 12:13

Simplistically, Prem Rugby clubs have two routes to generate growth:
1) Extract more money from TV deals
2) Extract more money from the RFU

Both are slightly contradictory.

On the first one, that incentivises investment to grow. Bigger names, more spectacle, more debt etc.

The 2nd incentivises protectionism. Keep the number of shares small - minimise Champo funding etc.

Tickets are a nice baseline but their growth potential is limited. People are willing to pay different amounts but it does feel that the current prices are at the high end of what ordinary leopleight be willing to pay.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Rampant (IP Logged)

Date: 26/09/2024 13:02

Quote:
Dan Wiley
The thing about Haskell's comments is they don't really given any insight into what could be done or really any details on the problem.

Haskell tends to go into the solutions on the Good Bad Rugby podcast, and I lot I agree with. The latest one he was in favour of the British & Irish League as were the other guests.

With regards to extracting more revenue for the game, I dont disagree with Bear in terms on the Prem's current path. But I feel that Rugby needs to take more ownership of the "product" and be content creators off the pitch rather than rely on TV companies to create content...

Plus maybe its worthwhile trying to learn from other sports to create a better fan experience:

Savannah Bananas

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 26/09/2024 13:32

Quote:
The Bear
1) Extract more money from TV deals
2) Extract more money from the RFU

I would say these two are fairly close to maxed out. I neither want to pay more for my TNT nor tickets and fundamentally more money from either means more of that. Putting the prices up won't automatically mean more money anyway, it will reduce demand. I don't see grounds getting much bigger, there's limited potential there. I agree that more Prem money means less money for the Championship and below.

We could expand our TV viewing audience. Here I feel we need to get the off the field product right, see the thread on the shower of a highlights package. As rampant says, that probably means the Prem taking ownership of this and managing it well. That's not looking promising. I don't feel we need dancing bananas, but a decent secondary TV package that can be reached by a wide audience and it well advertised and well put together would seem a good way to go.

I disagree they are the only options. French rugby is "rich" because it has got on the right side of big corporations. There's a difference culture there, but I don't see why that can't be done in England. In some sense it amounts to the same as we have here, companies are the sugar daddies of French rugby, but I think there's a difference in that the companies have to give the money to the clubs, its not debt. Here it feel more like the sugar daddy provides some money, but mainly they are securing the ever increasing debt the clubs are racking up.

If we have maxed out our revenue streams then that's it, we've (Bath) got £20m a year to run a professional rugby club off. That doesn't sound so unfeasible to me?

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: WasBBWBaaBaa (IP Logged)

Date: 26/09/2024 14:15

Fascinating as this discussion about the elite level of the game is, there are other issues which are every bit as important. If anyone has the ability to link to Daniel Schofield's article in the Telegraph on Tuesday 24th it give a stark report on the lower levels of the game we love.
Those of us involved at that level see it at first hand, the loss of players through the Pandemic, the total lack of rugby in some state schools, the costs of travelling to away matches, as well of the cancellation of fixtures.
Just offering another perspective. Try and see the Telegraph article if you can.. (Sm15)

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: hasta (IP Logged)

Date: 26/09/2024 14:16

Quote:
BathMatt53
Quote:
Dan Wiley
Oh, and don't raise ticket prices/taxes too much, they are high enough.

I agree, having spoken to a lot of long term Bath supporters they really are at a tipping point. Match day tickets are now eye watering and in relation to STHs I suspect that not all people with STs can make all games and that works out as one expensive match that you haven't been to if you can't sell it on. I sense that most are tolerating it just about but another material rise and the golden goose will be well and truly killed.

That's absolutely what they're testing based on ticket price rises in the last 18 months. It's clearly deliberate and it also clearly hasn't hit the tipping point yet. I suspect while Bath continue to win these prices are sustainable.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 26/09/2024 14:35

This one:

[www.telegraph.co.uk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 26/09/2024 14:44

While looking for that I found this, which is speculative, potentially misleading, one off, but interesting. It's sort of relevant to this thread, many things are currently recovering from Covid so that aside I don't really see what's changing in the grass roots game to reduce numbers. I could see that a fear of concussion is a factor though.

[www.telegraph.co.uk]

"A landmark study has found that there is no link between concussions suffered in amateur sport and long-term cognitive decline.

With dozens of professional and amateur rugby players launching a legal action against World Rugby, the Rugby Football Union and the Welsh Rugby Union, a collaborative study between the UNSW Sydney, the University of Oxford, and Harvard University found that amateur athletes who suffered a concussion across all sports often displayed better cognitive function than those who had never been concussed.

“Our findings suggest that there is something about playing sport, even though a person may experience concussion, that may be beneficial for long-term cognitive outcomes,” Dr Matt Lennon, a researcher at the University of New South Wales, said. “While it may be that those who play sports have had access to better education and more resources, we controlled for these factors in the analysis, so that doesn’t explain the result. We hypothesise that there may be physical, social and long-term behavioural effects of sport that may make for healthier adults in late life.”

The universities surveyed more than 15,000 participants aged from 50 to 90 years old as part of an ongoing NHS-backed study into brain ageing and cognitive decline. They found those who suffered a concussion playing sport had better processing speed and attention spans than those who suffered a head injury elsewhere, for instance in a fall or car accident.

The authors of the study were keen to emphasise the limitations of their study which does not apply to professional sport where head injuries “tend to be more frequent, debilitating and severe”.

However, at a time where politicians have taken interest in rugby’s legal case on the back of the recent BBC documentary Rugby on Trial, this study emphasised the rewards that come with playing sport as well as the risks.

“This study suggests that there could be long-term benefits from sport which could outweigh any negative effects of concussions, which could have important implications for policy decisions around contact sport participation,” Professor Vanessa Raymont, a senior author from the University of Oxford, said. “It may also be that non-sports-related head injuries lead to greater brain damage than sports-related concussions.”"

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: markismith50 (IP Logged)

Date: 27/09/2024 07:49

.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024:09:27:07:50:09 by markismith50.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Date: 27/09/2024 09:27

Quote:
Dan Wiley
While looking for that I found this, which is speculative, potentially misleading, one off, but interesting.

That is indeed an odd paper Dan. Did they test the option of doing sport that doesn't result in concussions? It reminds me of some of the smoking research many decades ago...it could be argued that people who walked briskly to the corner shop for their fags were healthier than those who sat at home and had someone else walking to the shop for them? Not sure it tells us much!

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 27/09/2024 09:56

Yes, the article is rather confused. I've not read it yet but an actual paper from the study is here I think:

[jnnp.bmj.com]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: The Bear (IP Logged)

Date: 27/09/2024 15:54

Quote:
BathMatt53
Quote:
Dan Wiley
While looking for that I found this, which is speculative, potentially misleading, one off, but interesting.

That is indeed an odd paper Dan. Did they test the option of doing sport that doesn't result in concussions? It reminds me of some of the smoking research many decades ago...it could be argued that people who walked briskly to the corner shop for their fags were healthier than those who sat at home and had someone else walking to the shop for them? Not sure it tells us much!

If the benefit outweighs the risk then it is a net benefit - you are better off doing it. Sure there is always the possibility that you are the one who experiences the negative impact but if it is likely for it to be better for you to do it than not do it - you should do it.

Now granted, Rugby operates in an environment where there are other sports that also provide a benefit with less risk but that's why it's really incumbent on Rugby to sell itself as a good thing with sensible precautions - not as a dangerous thing where the risks are unacceptable.

Take a kettle and their boiled water. It injures loads of people every year (usually kids who have no need for a kettle). But everyone still buys a kettle so we can have a nice, hot brew. Shops still continue in the practice of selling kettles. Kettles themselves come with suitable warnings and precautions. Nobody says kettles are potentially dangerous therefore we should ignore all the good things about kettles nor make them obsolete by installing restrictive safety measures that make them unworkable.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 27/09/2024 16:14

The paper has a bit of a problem (well several), which in fairness it generally accepts and tries to factor, the main one being that you can't really rule out a selection bias. It also suffers from the numbers a bit: 9k with no concussion, 4.5k with a non-sports related concussion, 500 with a sports related concussion.

It is still interesting and worth further work that the 500 outperformed the 9k as, even accounting for that, it does suggest that there isn't a decline from playing contact sport. I think it certainly worth treating the professional and amateur game separately and implementing the tests far down the road from the injury and over an extended period.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: joethefanatic (IP Logged)

Date: 27/09/2024 17:55

Quote:
Dan Wiley
The paper has a bit of a problem (well several), which in fairness it generally accepts and tries to factor, the main one being that you can't really rule out a selection bias. It also suffers from the numbers a bit: 9k with no concussion, 4.5k with a non-sports related concussion, 500 with a sports related concussion.
It is still interesting and worth further work that the 500 outperformed the 9k as, even accounting for that, it does suggest that there isn't a decline from playing contact sport. I think it certainly worth treating the professional and amateur game separately and implementing the tests far down the road from the injury and over an extended period.

The paper also observes that their pool of subjects were amateur players who, individually, had few and relatively mild head traumas. Rugbys CTE problem is really at the professional end of the sport.

... IMHO, of course.

Now in Honolulu

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 29/09/2024 10:14

I agree, that might be where the major problem lies, however the issue in the pro game certainly effects the grassroots game, at the very least in terms of perception. There are certainly parents who are out off their kids playing( who are potentially even less vulnerable) and from that point of view research like this is of interest.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: ChippenhamRoman (IP Logged)

Date: 29/09/2024 17:21

Quote:
Dan Wiley
Quote:
Bathmatt
I guess it doesn't really matter where it comes from as long as it means the clubs don't go bust.

I mean the last couple of years has shown that it really does matter. What Exeter are going through now shows it really does matter.

Take our case, Bruce won't stay around for ever. As rich as he might be he is mortal. When the time comes when he can't or won't support us any longer are you happy to just trust another guy like him rocks around?

Or we could build a game around the amount of money the game actually makes. We've done it then, we've made a secure game free from the whims of philanthropists and other businesses. Sure invest in it and help it make more but that's the bottom line, the money you can spend reflects the money the game makes. I actually believe (hope) that is what Bruce wants to do and he's right in that. I just don't get the desire to continually push up the cap in the meantime.

Gretna FC in Scotland being a case study for that scenario.

Gretna struggled badly in the SPL and the club were placed in administration after owner Brookes Mileson withdrew his support due to illness. He later died of cancer.

At the end of the season, all of the club's staff were made redundant and the club were initially relegated to the Third Division due to their inability to guarantee fulfilment of their forthcoming fixtures. After this demotion, the one remaining offer to buy the club was withdrawn. The club resigned their place in the Scottish Football League on 3 June 2008 and were formally liquidated on 8 August.

Gretna are now a Phoenix club with no connection to the original club.

J

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: CoochieCoo (IP Logged)

Date: 22/12/2024 11:46

This is a concern. Just seen Sale’s accounts for last season ie Jun 2024. They made a loss of £7m against previous year loss of £4.1m pre tax.

Other results published to date for 2024

Tigers Loss £4.4m (Loss £1.5m)
Saints Loss £1.7m (Loss £1.1m)
Quins Loss £6.5m (Loss £5.6m)

Four clubs have published so far and nearly £20m of losses!

Of course this is the first year of not having the credit write back of the £12.8m CVC money to each club.

Without some deep pockets how will Premier Rugby survive?

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 22/12/2024 22:08

Introduce FFP type rules. There's a fair amount of money in the English game, enough to have a professional game, just maybe not enough to pay players the amounts they are currently getting. What we can't carry on doing is stacking debt up against clubs.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: OutsideBath (IP Logged)

Date: 23/12/2024 08:27

Quote:
Dan Wiley
Introduce FFP type rules. There's a fair amount of money in the English game, enough to have a professional game, just maybe not enough to pay players the amounts they are currently getting. What we can't carry on doing is stacking debt up against clubs.

Trouble is your desire to pay the players a pittance would also lead to the professional game in England dying out. What player is going to stay in England for the level of pay you want?

It’s their job and playing for England won’t be enough to keep them in this country.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: BathMatt53 (IP Logged)

Date: 23/12/2024 09:16

Quote:
OutsideBath
Trouble is your desire to pay the players a pittance would also lead to the professional game in England dying out. What player is going to stay in England for the level of pay you want?
It’s their job and playing for England won’t be enough to keep them in this country.

Well all the teams going bust would also be the end of the professional game in England wouldn't it OB?

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Rampant (IP Logged)

Date: 23/12/2024 09:36

There are only a few solutions:

1) Keep doing the same thing and hope it gets better

2) Follow the NRL's example and link player's salary to the success of the league

3) Make the Prem a playground of rich owners and let them do whatever they want & move teams to wherever they want

4) Wait for Saudi money..

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: A.M 180 (IP Logged)

Date: 23/12/2024 10:28

Quote:
Rampant
There are only a few solutions:
1) Keep doing the same thing and hope it gets better

2) Follow the NRL's example and link player's salary to the success of the league

3) Make the Prem a playground of rich owners and let them do whatever they want & move teams to wherever they want

4) Wait for Saudi money..

I think this somes up the predicament and even with 4), I think we're long past the Prem being the slice they would even be attracted to

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 23/12/2024 10:31

England players aren't going anywhere. Otherwise more to to France? So what? There's only so many the French actually want and I'd say they are already pretty near saturation, they've got their own players to choose from but to mention the rest of the world. Other than France, where are they going to go? A couple too Ireland, maybe, but the iru don't want that and they bank roll Irish clubs. Wales, are you kidding me? Scotland, I can't see it. SH? Nope. Japan, but I can't see that many going.

But let's say lots go, what's going to happen? Is there a lack of players wanting to take their place? Not that I can see. So some decent players will go to France and some new talent will take their place, big deal. Pro rugby will continue if that happens. Pro rugby won't continue with clubs owing vastly more than they are worth.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: OutsideBath (IP Logged)

Date: 23/12/2024 10:32

Quote:
A.M 180
Quote:
Rampant
There are only a few solutions:
1) Keep doing the same thing and hope it gets better

2) Follow the NRL's example and link player's salary to the success of the league

3) Make the Prem a playground of rich owners and let them do whatever they want & move teams to wherever they want

4) Wait for Saudi money..
I think this somes up the predicament and even with 4), I think we're long past the Prem being the slice they would even be attracted to

Would rather rugby ceased to exist in England than have yet more Saudi sports washing.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: OutsideBath (IP Logged)

Date: 23/12/2024 10:39

Quote:
Dan Wiley
England players aren't going anywhere. Otherwise more to to France? So what? There's only so many the French actually want and I'd say they are already pretty near saturation, they've got their own players to choose from but to mention the rest of the world. Other than France, where are they going to go? A couple too Ireland, maybe, but the iru don't want that and they bank roll Irish clubs. Wales, are you kidding me? Scotland, I can't see it. SH? Nope. Japan, but I can't see that many going.
But let's say lots go, what's going to happen? Is there a lack of players wanting to take their place? Not that I can see. So some decent players will go to France and some new talent will take their place, big deal. Pro rugby will continue if that happens. Pro rugby won't continue with clubs owing vastly more than they are worth.

Those decent players you don’t care about are actually making the PL product more interesting. What if they decide to leave the sport instead, you don’t care about that either?

You seem happy for the RFU to lose money and pay the executives salaries/bonuses that aren’t affordable yet you want players to entertain you for minimum wages?

Your desire to cut player salaries will just result in the game going semi pro because players won’t be earning enough money to make it worthwhile staying professional.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Dan Wiley (IP Logged)

Date: 23/12/2024 10:49

We (bath) bring in £20m a season, that's what most clubs bringing in 10k+ gate do, we can probably afford about £5m salary from that. That's not semi pro.

So it's a bit more interesting but non existent Vs new young players and having a future. That's not a difficult choice.

To be really clear, and if you've not understood this yet really try this time, the RFU aren't losing money over their 4 year cycle, unlike most unions, they lost money in the one year everyone knew they were going to lose money. The year they lose money in that cycle every cycle.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Quel Carreleur (IP Logged)

Date: 23/12/2024 12:01

TL : DR, loss making rugby clubs looks like a choice made by their owners, not an in-built necessity for running a professional outfit.

I'm probably about to demonstrate how little I know about finances, but I do think it's useful to look back on the very first post of this thread, and see what "probably sustainable" looks like.

In 2022, Bristol, Newcastle and Sale had the lowest turnovers in the league, and 2 of those were spending up to the cap.
Those 3 averaged a turnover of just under £13M, making a loss of just over £3M.

So over-simplistically, it looks like £16M is needed to run a sustainable club. Anyone spending more than that is doing so because they CHOOSE to, not because they HAVE to (and TBH, you can't tell me that there was no money that could have been saved in those 3.

Then look at the salary figures included in that 1st post.
Those same 3 clubs (for the sake of consistency) had total spend on wages of £10.8M; so about £5.2M to manage the other expenses.

Bristol manage with 86 members of staff in positions directly related to rugby, and a further 59 in more admin positions.
I think it reasonable to think that Bristol were able to run a professional rugby club on those numbers.
Bath, for example, had 101 and 55, Exeter had 148 and 175.
What benefit did Exeter get over Bristol for their extra 62 rugby related staff, or their extra 116 admin related staff? It cost them an extra £3M, but how much of that was essential for the running of a professional rugby?
That extra £3M in wages looks to account for the bulk of their £4.8M spend above the £16M that looks "sustainable".

If Bristol can run a professional rugby club on a turnover of £14.2M (+£3.3M debt), then surely a Bath, Leicester or Northampton should be capable of paying down their debts with turnovers of £20.9M (average) - IF they chose to run their clubs the same way.

A man who cannot change his mind, cannot change anything

RAEBURN SHIELD

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024:12:23:12:02:30 by Which Tyler.

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: hard work (IP Logged)

Date: 29/12/2024 07:46

It will be interesting to see bath's accounts...first year of increased ticket prices, salary cap was still £5m (?), additional home game - play-off semi final plus receipts from twickenham

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: CoochieCoo (IP Logged)

Date: 29/12/2024 09:14

Quote:
hard work
It will be interesting to see bath's accounts...first year of increased ticket prices, salary cap was still £5m (?), additional home game - play-off semi final plus receipts from twickenham

Indeed, plus £1.2m saved by not having to dismantle and put up the meccano stand!

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Bath Supporter Jack (IP Logged)

Date: 01/01/2025 16:05

Mr CC

Are you saying we could show a surplus?

Nothing as vulgar as a profit!

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Rampant (IP Logged)

Date: 02/01/2025 16:22

Title-hunting Bristol have confirmed a pre-tax loss of £5.5million in their latest annual financial report....Pat Lam’s Bears have made public its results for the 2023/24 year, a pre-tax loss that was an increase of £500,000 on the previous year. RugbyPass

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: CoochieCoo (IP Logged)

Date: 02/01/2025 19:36

Quote:
Bath Supporter Jack
Mr CC
Are you saying we could show a surplus?

Nothing as vulgar as a profit!

Last time the club made a profit was when we received compensation for Brian Ashton from the RFU!

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: hard work (IP Logged)

Date: 03/01/2025 07:09

So, for all their "20k" attendances, their total revenue was only £12m down from £15m the year before. Not sure if this is gross or net after the stadium take their cut as I'm thinking the stadium costs must be elsewhere in the group - ultimate parent company is incorporated in Guernsey

Re: Premier Rugby Finances

Posted by: Bristol Ian (IP Logged)

Date: 03/01/2025 12:33

Quote:
hard work
So, for all their "20k" attendances, their total revenue was only £12m down from £15m the year before. Not sure if this is gross or net after the stadium take their cut as I'm thinking the stadium costs must be elsewhere in the group - ultimate parent company is incorporated in Guernsey

The stadium costs (and revenue) are elsewhere in the group.

Bristol City Holdings also released their accounts up until end of June 2024 which reported a 6 or 7 million pound increase in turnover to £42M - but as Holdings has Bristol City FC and Ashton Gate Ltd sitting underneath it, we will have to wait and see how the individual companies fared. Bristol City did include the (sizeable) sale of Alex Scott to Bournemouth in that accounting period. Plus the previous accounting period was 13 months.

Ashton Gate Ltd includes match day sales in their turnover (but not including individual club kit and ticket sales) - and will include sales from concerts and corporate events too.

I'm fairly sure Bristol Bears Women is a child company of Bristol Bears. Plus the training centre is also a separate limited company - I'm not entirely sure how that pays for itself, but it does host the men, women and academy players.

As per Which Tyler's post a bit further up, using Bristol Bears to compare to other clubs is a bit fraught - there is obviously no doubt we are still posting losses, but it's not quite as transparent as looking at one set of figures.

Year	Profit/(Loss) £’000	Comments
2017	(17,471)	Current clubs except Bristol. The only club to make a profit was Exeter
2018	(23,655)	As above
2019	32,170	All clubs included. This is the year that CVC money taken to P&L
2020	(39,544)	This figure is somewhat distorted by write offs in Quins accounts amounting to about £10m. COVID affected the end of the season
2021	(15,206)	Newcastle in profit because of a revaluation of their P shares at £3.8m
2022	(22,904)	All clubs in loss

Year	Profit/(Loss) £’000	Comments
2017	(8,345)	Exeter and Leicester in profit over the 9 clubs
2018	(15,276)	As above
2019	(21,330)	Exeter only club in profit
2020	(22,689)	Covid bites all companies in loss. Govt grants received of £8.4m
2021	(42,572)	Newcastle the only club in profit because of receiving a large Covid grant of £2.1m. Total grants paid to the 10 clubs £7.1m
2022	(14,264)	Northampton and Gloucester in profit. Govt grants now reduced to £539k

Club	Turnover £’000s	Accounts Profit/(Loss) £’000s	EBITDA Profit/(Loss) £’000s	Comment
Bath	19,820	(163)	(337)
Bristol	14,218	(3,320)	(3,062)
Exeter	20,789	(1,856)	(874)
Gloucester	17,035	(629)	600	Revaluation of P shares downwards £302k
Harlequins	27,164	(3,903)	(174)	Large interest costs and depreciation
Leicester	21,991	(2,083)	(740)
Newcastle	12,221	(2,515)	(1,726)
Northampton	20,833	(127)	1,320
Sale	12,278	(3,385)	(4,307)	Interest on loans to related companies
Saracens	21,405	(4,923)	(4,964)
Totals	187,754	(22,904)	(14,264)

Premier Rugby Finances

Profits (losses)

Financial status of the clubs

External Borrowings of Clubs

Wages and No of Employees

Conclusion