Premiership financial issues

[Mellsblue]

I don't mind the idea of the cap going up, but would rather it was through academy allowance increases than a outright increase.

Completely agreed. I’ve always thought it’s mental that clubs are effectively punished for producing quality and quantity from their academy.

[Tigersman]

Always worth remembering, Exeter signed pretty much everybody up to new 3-year deals when Covid hit, the cap reduced, but those contracts were able to put 25% outside of the cap.
Those come due this summer, so those players would all be being offered a 25% cut; or let go, so that the rest can be paid properly.

Given that allowance, it's basically impossible to judge who's where in relationship to the cap based on ins vs outs.
In sheer numbers, I don't think 4 in, 16 out, is outside of the ordinary (though the number of those who are starters for Ex. surely is; but IMO is explained by the above)

I'd forgotten they'd used that loophole. A lot of the high earners are out the door though, even if a lot of those remaining are now on a position to renegotiate for new contracts it's not a good market to do that unless you want to go to France. Which admittedly quite a few have done. I'm still expecting more signings to be announced by them.

Bristol did as well, we also complicated things by keeping players PL wanted to let go as well...

Bristol never wanted to decrease the cap - so its not a shock that the club want it to go back up. I can see how the signing of Charles Puitau and Semi dove the profile of Bristol up and potentially helped pay for themselves (we'll never know without full access to the financial details though).

It's not football, doubt there is a single player that would pay for their wage in England pretty much.
Considering that together they where rumoured to be on £1.5 million the idea they helped pay for themselves is a massive pipe dream

[Mellsblue]

I can see how the signing of Charles Puitau and Semi dove the profile of Bristol up and potentially helped pay for themselves (we'll never know without full access to the financial details though).

It’s a double edged sword. Misuse the higher cap and it gets you in trouble but if you use it correctly it can help you grow.
I’d rather it were higher and we hope for the latter. The lower cap just seems to making a less attractive league - for both players and spectators.

[Mellsblue]

I'd forgotten they'd used that loophole. A lot of the high earners are out the door though, even if a lot of those remaining are now on a position to renegotiate for new contracts it's not a good market to do that unless you want to go to France. Which admittedly quite a few have done. I'm still expecting more signings to be announced by them.

Bristol did as well, we also complicated things by keeping players PL wanted to let go as well...

Bristol never wanted to decrease the cap - so its not a shock that the club want it to go back up. I can see how the signing of Charles Puitau and Semi dove the profile of Bristol up and potentially helped pay for themselves (we'll never know without full access to the financial details though).

It's not football, doubt there is a single player that would pay for their wage in England pretty much.
Considering that together they where rumoured to be on £1.5 million the idea they helped pay for themselves is a massive pipe dream

If that’s true then rugby is stuffed. How else do you sufficiently grow the game other than with higher quality players. It’s obvs a very small sample size but I would specifically ring Bristol games that were on BT Sport just to watch Piatua, Radradra and Luatua, plus RICH LANE!!! obvs.

[Tigersman]

Bristol did as well, we also complicated things by keeping players PL wanted to let go as well...

Bristol never wanted to decrease the cap - so its not a shock that the club want it to go back up. I can see how the signing of Charles Puitau and Semi dove the profile of Bristol up and potentially helped pay for themselves (we'll never know without full access to the financial details though).

It's not football, doubt there is a single player that would pay for their wage in England pretty much.
Considering that together they where rumoured to be on £1.5 million the idea they helped pay for themselves is a massive pipe dream

If that’s true then rugby is stuffed. How else do you sufficiently grow the game other than with higher quality players. It’s obvs a very small sample size but I would specifically ring Bristol games that were on BT Sport just to watch Piatua, Radradra and Luatua, plus RICH LANE!!! obvs.

Rugby is stuffed, a sport doesn’t lose 3 top flight teams in under a year if it wasn’t stuffed. I think it’s a fact it’s stuffed now isn’t it?

Your viewing might contribute to increase viewing figures I don’t know how they compare to previous years. But CVC take how much of a cut from the tv deals anyway?

[Mellsblue]

It's not football, doubt there is a single player that would pay for their wage in England pretty much.
Considering that together they where rumoured to be on £1.5 million the idea they helped pay for themselves is a massive pipe dream

If that’s true then rugby is stuffed. How else do you sufficiently grow the game other than with higher quality players. It’s obvs a very small sample size but I would specifically ring Bristol games that were on BT Sport just to watch Piatua, Radradra and Luatua, plus RICH LANE!!! obvs.

Rugby is stuffed, a sport doesn’t lose 3 top flight teams in under a year if it wasn’t stuffed. I think it’s a fact it’s stuffed now isn’t it?

Your viewing might contribute to increase viewing figures I don’t know how they compare to previous years. But CVC take how much of a cut from the tv deals anyway?

So, pro rugby in England is done then. Blimey.

[Tigersman]

Pretty much as it is currently.

Certainly will be if people think they can spend their way out of the problem.

It needs some solid foundation at least

[Mellsblue]

We’re currently losing England internationals to France and solid Prem players to Pro D2 because of the salary cap which isn’t sustainable if you’re fighting for eyeballs. They’ll have to spend at some point or it’ll be a race to the bottom. That or try something very radical such as regions/super clubs or the bigger clubs join the URC.

[Tigersman]

Lost two current England internationals

How many others? JJ who isn’t nailed on starter for Bath anymore.

Exeter seems to be a big outliner from the other clubs so is it a league problem or potentially them problem

[Mellsblue]

What if the trickle increases to a steady stream as contracts come up for renewal. If it does happen then reactive solutions will be too late.
The salary cap is so far below the Top14 that it’s a league problem, imo.

[Tigersman]

But what other clubs are suffering from it currently? That it’s detrimental at least?
I mean Leicester lost their two biggest players recently to fellow Prem clubs

[Mellsblue]

Again, reactive will be too late.

[FKAS]

The biggest loss of talent to overseas clubs was due to the clubs going under. Maybe better to be reactive in regards to being financially outgunned by France than it is to push clubs into a position where they are spending to their limits due to the threat of relegation (that's going to be a possibility again).

[Mellsblue]

Difficult to be reactive in a profession where multiyear contracts are the norm. By the time you realise there’s a problem you’re three years away from tempting players back. Not to mention the bureaucracy required to get the cap lifted.
These clubs went under because of a once in a century (hopefully) pandemic not because they were battling relegation. That’s before you get to the point that it’s difficult to argue Wasps were battling relegation having finished the 21/22 season with nearly double the points of the bottom team and even more difficult to argue LI were battling relegation in fifth.
As always, clubs don’t have to spend to the cap - it is a cap and not a collar.

[Tigersman]

People have been saying that an exodus of English players will leave for a while though and it hasn’t happened yet.

And whilst clubs don’t have to spend to the cap, if you want an entertaining league you want it to be pretty close.

So pick the poison

Personally I think it’s easier to lose some players than some clubs.

and I personally don’t think covid can be blamed for a lot of the clubs going.

Wasps was struggling pre covid finances
Worcester sold themselves to cowboys
Irish sounds like the owner just packed it in

All 3 can happen to most clubs, the lower cap is just currently minimizing risk

[FKAS]

Difficult to be reactive in a profession where multiyear contracts are the norm. By the time you realise there’s a problem you’re three years away from tempting players back. Not to mention the bureaucracy required to get the cap lifted.
These clubs went under because of a once in a century (hopefully) pandemic not because they were battling relegation. That’s before you get to the point that it’s difficult to argue Wasps were battling relegation having finished the 21/22 season with nearly double the points of the bottom team and even more difficult to argue LI were battling relegation in fifth.
As always, clubs don’t have to spend to the cap - it is a cap and not a collar.

Most contracts are for two years so it's not generally the end of the world if they go abroad. For some players it can really push them on, see Mercer. As Which points out there's never been the feared exodus with bankruptcy of clubs being the biggest driver yet and has resulted in the telling loss to England of Marchant and Simmonds. I also agree with Which, Wasps were on unstable footings before they bought the Ricoh on the iffy financing arrangement and LI did seem beholden to their owner keeping investing his own money.

LI and Wasps went under, with a reduced cap. They were both spending up there at the time. If they maintained that level of spending but all the other clubs spent an extra million odd do you think they'd still be up there. Falcons are well known for spending what they can afford and taking the consequences and see where they sit season after season. Not all owners are that responsible.

[Mellsblue]

Difficult to be reactive in a profession where multiyear contracts are the norm. By the time you realise there’s a problem you’re three years away from tempting players back. Not to mention the bureaucracy required to get the cap lifted.
These clubs went under because of a once in a century (hopefully) pandemic not because they were battling relegation. That’s before you get to the point that it’s difficult to argue Wasps were battling relegation having finished the 21/22 season with nearly double the points of the bottom team and even more difficult to argue LI were battling relegation in fifth.
As always, clubs don’t have to spend to the cap - it is a cap and not a collar.

Most contracts are for two years so it's not generally the end of the world if they go abroad. For some players it can really push them on, see Mercer. As Which points out there's never been the feared exodus with bankruptcy of clubs being the biggest driver yet and has resulted in the telling loss to England of Marchant and Simmonds. I also agree with Which, Wasps were on unstable footings before they bought the Ricoh on the iffy financing arrangement and LI did seem beholden to their owner keeping investing his own money.

LI and Wasps went under, with a reduced cap. They were both spending up there at the time. If they maintained that level of spending but all the other clubs spent an extra million odd do you think they'd still be up there. Falcons are well known for spending what they can afford and taking the consequences and see where they sit season after season. Not all owners are that responsible.

So we agree that it’s not the threat of relegation that sent Wasps, Wuss and LI under and it’s possible for a club not to spend up to the cap so a higher cap doesn’t automatically lead to bankrupt clubs. I’m glad we agree.

[Mellsblue]

People have been saying that an exodus of English players will leave for a while though and it hasn’t happened yet.

And whilst clubs don’t have to spend to the cap, if you want an entertaining league you want it to be pretty close.

So pick the poison

Personally I think it’s easier to lose some players than some clubs.

and I personally don’t think covid can be blamed for a lot of the clubs going.

Wasps was struggling pre covid finances
Worcester sold themselves to cowboys
Irish sounds like the owner just packed it in

All 3 can happen to most clubs, the lower cap is just currently minimizing risk

I hope you’re right that we don’t have an exodus but you still haven’t said how we can grow the game and make it sustainable without increasing the cap and attracting higher quality players. Higher quality players who would make for a more entertaining league. A close league doesn’t necessarily make an entertaining league - if it did the Champ wouldn’t be bumping along with three figure average attendance figures.

Again, clubs don’t have to spend up to the cap.

[Puja]

Again, clubs don’t have to spend up to the cap.

I am generally in agreement with you on most of the points you've made in this thread, but I do disagree on this specific one. Yes, clubs don't *have* to spend up to the cap, but how good are the crowds going to be if they're getting a cuffing each and every week? How many businesses are going to want their name on the shirt of a team who are regularly outclassed? If a team is uncompetitive, they will lose money and, if there is too big of a gulf in wages between rhem and other clubs, they will be uncompetitive.

You mention Newcastle as a lesson of living within their means, but Newcastle still won 6 games last year - enough that they are scrappy underdogs rather than perennial losers (wonder whether that would've been different without the clubVcountry clashes that they generally did well out of though?). If most everyone else in the league gets to spend more money and they can't, does that drop down to 3 games? 2? Maybe none?

The temptation then becomes to maybe spend a little bit more, just to get back to respectability, enough to get the sponsors from stopping chafing. And the clubs above don't want to become them, so they need to spend a bit more too.

Newcastle are getting by on there being a lot of cheap players around right now, some astute buying, the club vs country clashes generally giving them a leg up, and the fact that the cap isn't too far above their budget. Raise the cap and they either have to raise their spending with it, or become a 5 point walkover for the other 9 clubs.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

Again, clubs don’t have to spend up to the cap.

I am generally in agreement with you on most of the points you've made in this thread, but I do disagree on this specific one. Yes, clubs don't *have* to spend up to the cap, but how good are the crowds going to be if they're getting a cuffing each and every week? How many businesses are going to want their name on the shirt of a team who are regularly outclassed? If a team is uncompetitive, they will lose money and, if there is too big of a gulf in wages between rhem and other clubs, they will be uncompetitive.

You mention Newcastle as a lesson of living within their means, but Newcastle still won 6 games last year - enough that they are scrappy underdogs rather than perennial losers (wonder whether that would've been different without the clubVcountry clashes that they generally did well out of though?). If most everyone else in the league gets to spend more money and they can't, does that drop down to 3 games? 2? Maybe none?

The temptation then becomes to maybe spend a little bit more, just to get back to respectability, enough to get the sponsors from stopping chafing. And the clubs above don't want to become them, so they need to spend a bit more too.

Newcastle are getting by on there being a lot of cheap players around right now, some astute buying, the club vs country clashes generally giving them a leg up, and the fact that the cap isn't too far above their budget. Raise the cap and they either have to raise their spending with it, or become a 5 point walkover for the other 9 clubs.

Puja

I suppose it’ll incentivise you to build your business off the pitch so you can spend more on wages and/or the the clubs who do put out world class players will attract more money in to the league in general and/or Bristol bringing Radadra to Kingston Park will entice more people to watch (my son and I went to watch Sale v Toulouse solely to watch DuPont and Ntamack) and/or concentrate on your academy and/or invest in your scouting department to pick up gems at a knockdown price.
A rising tide floats all boats, apart from the ones with a leaky hull/business plan.
I think part of the problem with the Prem, in that the businesses never seemed to mature or mature fast enough, is the knowledge that you can’t be outspent by too much. There’s no serious motivation to sweat the assets beyond a general will to win matches.
At the moment we just seem to be happy with stagnating, at best, whilst the two rivals on our door step seem to go from strength to strength, albeit with very different business models. The Top14 have lost some famous old clubs to money problems but that hasn’t hurt them as a league. If anything it’s helped to bring about clubs like La Rochelle.