Championship funding 2020 / 21
Printed From: National League Rugby Discussion Forum
Category: League Rugby - www.leaguerugby.co.uk
Forum Name: Champ Rugby
Forum Description: Discuss the 14 clubs who play in Champ Rugby
URL: http://www.leaguerugby.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=18119
Printed Date: 15 Jun 2025 at 14:12
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Championship funding 2020 / 21
Posted By: Guinness John
Subject: Championship funding 2020 / 21
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2020 at 13:08
|
Front page of The Rugby Paper has article by Neale Harvey stating that the Nottingham chairman says recruitment plans for next season are on hold amid doubts over R F U funding. I fear the future looks bleak for the Championship as we know it. ------------- Bedford Blues Supporter of the Year 2010 - 2011 |
Replies:
Posted By: Raider999
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2020 at 13:11
No surprise there. The RFU will need to fork out more to the Premiership if it is ring-fenced at more than 12 teams - this money has to come from somewhere in an era when their funding has been slashed at lower levels, it can only come from the Championship. ------------- RAID ON |
Guinness John wrote:Posted By: islander
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2020 at 14:04
I agree there are (as yet) unanswered questions about funding at level 2. But will the RFU necessarily have to 'fork out more'? The Prem clubs have recently had a major cash injection from their venture capital bed-fellows which you'd think might keep the wolf from the door |
Posted By: JonDee
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2020 at 15:11
Made the point on this forum before the season started when a number of clubs signed good quality players on more than 1 year contracts. In addition unless things have changed the Greene King sponsorship finishes at the end of the season and they have been taken over so the new owners may have little interest in level 2 rugby
|
Posted By: Camquin
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2020 at 15:19
|
That was a one off payment for which they have given up future revenue. ------------- Sweeney Delenda Est |
Posted By: Mark Smith
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2020 at 17:09
|
Why would the RFU “need to fork out more to the Premiership if it is ring-fenced at more than 12 teams”? Presumably they’d just split the same pot 13 or 14 ways rather than 12. Most of the Prem clubs’ funding comes from Prem Rugby anyway rather than the RFU, so the two things aren’t majorly connected. |
Posted By: Camquin
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2020 at 18:05
|
Because the funding for French teams would not go down. And they already feel they cannot compete. Soccer being much less important to French TV, they are prepared to pay more for Rugby - so the French clubs are always going to be richer. ------------- Sweeney Delenda Est |
Posted By: Mark Smith
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2020 at 20:48
| RFU funding is only a very small part of a Prem club’s finances, camquin. I just don’t see that as an issue. The difference in RFU funding for a 13-team league rather than a 12-team league would be minimal, at best. |
Posted By: Camquin
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2020 at 23:57
|
it is not the amount of funding that currently comes form the RFU that matters. It is the increase in funding to support one or two extra teams in the style to which they would like to be accustomed. There will not be any more money from TV. The current sides will not want to give up income. They will be able to sell tickets and shirt sponsorship, but that will be no where near enough to compete with he French. So they will go t the RFU with a begging bowl for £6m or £13m more money. ------------- Sweeney Delenda Est |
Posted By: Mark Smith
Date Posted: 06 Jan 2020 at 07:47
|
I’m not suggesting there’d be any more money. They’d split the same pot 13 or 14 ways. If the prize was ringfencing I’m sure they’d be prepared to take that financial hit because the guarantee of Prem Rugby would allow them to have a more long term mindset. I’m well aware of the counter arguments against ringfencing and don’t intend to repeat that circular argument, my only point relates specifically to the funding situation mentioned by camquin. |
Posted By: Fat Albert
Date Posted: 06 Jan 2020 at 09:28
IMO the driver for ring fencing is to permit the business men who own premiership rugby clubs to stop running those businesses at a loss long term, the only way that can happen in the current climate is to reduce expenditure. Playing budgets are only as high as they are for the majority of clubs BECAUSE of the fear of relegation, remove that fear and the majority of clubs will cut that budget, likely by smaller squads/lower quality players. It should be obvious that the primary result of ring fencing will be a lowering of playing standards. Again IMO, any other supposed benefits claimed for withdrawing the drawbridge are deliberate disinformation, we live a world full of propaganda, rugby is no different. ------------- a Freudian slip is when you say one thing but mean your mother |
Posted By: Mark Smith
Date Posted: 06 Jan 2020 at 11:52
|
The Prem clubs would argue the other way, Fat Albert, in saying that they'd be freer to play younger, English players and help develop the national team that way without the threat of relegation meaning they need to go out and sign a load of ready-made foreigners to try and avoid the short-term drop. As I've said, it's a circular argument and we could go round and round the houses espousing the pros and cons of ringfencing. I've no desire to cover old ground, the only point I'm making is that there are pluses and minuses to it (which we all know, and which don't now need to be listed for the umpteenth time).
|
Posted By: Pappashanga
Date Posted: 06 Jan 2020 at 12:15
|
I suspect that if ring fencing takes place they'll still employ just as many foreign players. They want to win and using younger English players is more of a long term investment. ------------- pappashanga |
Posted By: Camquin
Date Posted: 06 Jan 2020 at 12:54
|
I think there is a difference between Mark Smith and my view of the Premiership. Mark seems to think they are nice cuddly kittens. I tend to think of Leopards - and do nto expect them to change their spots. I also do not believe CVC will manage to find the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Therefore I expect the clubs will need to tighten their belts next season - as 30% of their TV income goes to CVC. Not the best time to ask them to give away another £1m or more to fund one or two extra clubs. The wild card in the mix is the change in UK employment law. At some point - possibly as soon as 1 January 2021 - European and Kolpak players will stop being British. Aside from the need for work permits - there is the RFU rule about the number of overeas players in a match day squad. ------------- Sweeney Delenda Est |
Posted By: Runitback
Date Posted: 06 Jan 2020 at 14:26
|
With respect to Mark Smith and his views, ring fencing will sit well with Falcons as they are holders of P shares, so would be included in any ring fenced league. Also if ring fencing does not come in then Falcons still sit pretty with a healthy financial advantage as long as they bounce straight back. I sincerely hope that ring fencing does not come in, please refer to excellent Ronan O'Gara article. The crowds last year towards the end of the season at Falcons were impressive precisely because of the jeopardy of relegation. There simply has to be a mechanism for ambitious, well funded and well run clubs to reach the top, let face it Sarries were hardly the most fashionable club in London 20/25 years ago!! Apologies for circular arguments Mark, but ring fencing has bigger implications for clubs below the fence!!! ------------- Run with it |
Posted By: Mark Smith
Date Posted: 06 Jan 2020 at 14:29
|
"Not the best time to ask them to give away another £1m or more to fund one or two extra clubs." The amount would be nowhere near that much, though, and nobody is asking the RFU to give out any more money to Prem clubs in any case. It's a false argument. They would simply split the same pot between themselves and take a very small hit. RFU funding is a very small part of a Premiership club's finances. The bulk comes from Premiership Rugby, which already funds 13 teams, so the Premiership clubs' funding would be basically unaffected if they went up to 13 and ringfenced it. "Aside from the need for work permits - there is the RFU rule about the number of overseas players in a match day squad." The number of 'overseas' players permitted in a squad could be easily amended, should Premiership Rugby wish to do so. As for the comment regarding Kolpaks, the same would be the case either with or without ringfencing. The two aren't connected at all.
|
Posted By: Mark Smith
Date Posted: 06 Jan 2020 at 14:31
|
"The crowds last year towards the end of the season at Falcons were impressive precisely because of the jeopardy of relegation". Incorrect. Newcastle's crowds last season were down on the previous season, when the club were not in relegation trouble. Anyway, I promised myself I wouldn't get into circular arguments when we all know the various well-voiced pros and cons, so I will respectfully tap out of this thread for now.
|
Posted By: Pappashanga
Date Posted: 06 Jan 2020 at 15:26
|
Usual vested interests versus outsiders stuff. ------------- pappashanga |