O'Gara poised to join Sexton at Racing Metro

Podge_irl

This is simply further evidence of the Indo continuing its inexorable slide into the mire of tabloid journalism.

It is truly a **** paper.

She's not the first person to suggest ROG deserved more respect mind you, though I have no clue what any of them actually mean should have happened.

phog

Paulw wrote: »

I have also talked to others who are on camp.

There's somebody certainly spinning yarns.

Rightwing

Great deal for ROG, Racing must have money to burn.

totallegend

http://www.rugbyrama.fr/rugby/top-14/2012-2013/ronan-o-gara-l-expert-qu-il-manquait-au-racing_sto3768649/story.shtml

"Ronan is the experienced player we've been missing", according to Laurent Labit on Tuesday. The backs coach at Castres and future coach at Racing Metro was full of praise for the the ex-Munster player. The highest points scorer in the H Cup, O'Gara will be a consultant for the youths set-up and a specialist kicking coach for the pros.

"French rugby is suffering from a deficiency in this area at the moment. Ronan is experienced, has a great eye for drop goals, clearing kicks, garryowens... He finished the season very well, it would be difficult to do better in this regard."

O'Gara - Sexton; "There are great relations between the two", reports Labit, who scotched any rumour of rivalry between the two. The only remaining question is, will O'Gara be registered as a player next season, like William Servat this season with Toulouse? Labit didn't give an answer. With a smile, he just said "it seems to be in fashion..."

Winters

Would he not lose his tax rebate if he plays for Racing?

Lelantos

Winters wrote: »

Would he not lose his tax rebate if he plays for Racing?

If he's registered as a coach no, doesn't mean he can't play. Would be interesting to see what happens at 6N time when Sexton is on Ireland duty

Winters

Lelantos wrote: »

If he's registered as a coach no, doesn't mean he can't play. Would be interesting to see what happens at 6N time when Sexton is on Ireland duty

Who is the kicking coach at Munster currently?

totallegend

Lelantos wrote: »

If he's registered as a coach no, doesn't mean he can't play. Would be interesting to see what happens at 6N time when Sexton is on Ireland duty

They'll still have Wiesnewski and JM Hernandez so I don't think there'll be any chance of O'Gara being called up.

I'd imagine Revenue would be looking for their tax rebate back if he ended up playing so it's a non-runner really.

Buer

Winters wrote: »

Who is the kicking coach at Munster currently?

I don't believe there is one. Most teams don't have a dedicated kicking coach. It's a luxury and, if there is one, they combine it with another role like Richie Murphy does at Leinster as skills coach. ROG will be involved in backs coaching too I'd say.

jm08

totallegend wrote: »

They'll still have Wiesnewski and JM Hernandez so I don't think there'll be any chance of O'Gara being called up.

I'd imagine Revenue would be looking for their tax rebate back if he ended up playing so it's a non-runner really.

If he wasn't getting paid for it, you'd imagine they could do nothing about it (he would still be allowed play rugby). Dutchy Holland & Shaun Payne both lined out for Munster after they had officially retired.

Winters

You must retire from playing professional rugby in Ireland to be eligible.

I would imagine as he has retired now he is in the process of claiming that and so if he plays again in France it would be an issue.

Rightwing

Winters wrote: »

You must retire from playing professional rugby in Ireland to be eligible.

I would imagine as he has retired now he is in the process of claiming that and so if he plays again in France it would be an issue.

That rule should be scrapped. Everyone should pay their taxes.

trouttrout

Rightwing wrote: »

That rule should be scrapped. Everyone should pay their taxes.

So by that logic every tax rebate in the country should be scrapped? Sportspeople do a hell of a lot for the spirit of a country, and rugby players deserve every penny they get imo considering the duress they put their bodies under for such a short career

Winters

Buer wrote: »

I don't believe there is one. Most teams don't have a dedicated kicking coach. It's a luxury and, if there is one, they combine it with another role like Richie Murphy does at Leinster as skills coach. ROG will be involved in backs coaching too I'd say.

Ah right thanks for that. I wonder if the likes of having a national kicking coach visiting all four provinces and academies would be worthwhile. Did Mark Taunton do this?

Rightwing

trouttrout wrote: »

So by that logic every tax rebate in the country should be scrapped? Sportspeople do a hell of a lot for the spirit of a country, and rugby players deserve every penny they get imo considering the duress they put their bodies under for such a short career

There's no doubt it's a complex argument.

thomond2006

Rightwing wrote: »

That rule should be scrapped. Everyone should pay their taxes.

I'm surprised it hasn't been scrapped (or at least the rebate rate reduced) BUT there are some economic benefits to it. If you lose the best players to overseas it would affect revenues (ticket sales, merchandise sales, sponsorship, meritocracy payments etc) and ultimately jobs. So while it does make relatively rich people richer, those people produce a lot of revenue for Irish Rugby. If Ireland lose its top ten players to overseas tomorrow it would have a big effect on revenues. I've no big problem with the rebate. When you really think about the macro effect of it, it's a good thing.

Winters

I think the reasoning behind Charlie's tax rebate it at the start was because of the amount of revenue that sporting occasions bring into the state. Also its only 40% of their tax paid up to a maximum of 10 years I think.

We might have turned out more like Wales without it..

irishbucsfan

Its a very profitable rule for Ireland. Its been explained over and over.

thomond2006

Winters wrote: »

I think the reasoning behind Charlie's tax rebate it at the start was because of the amount of revenue that sporting occasions bring into the state. Also its only 40% of their tax paid up to a maximum of 10 years I think.

We might have turned out more like Wales without it..

The Six Nations weekends would be particularly lucrative for Dublin businesses and therefore the government. It's only fair that the players get a slice of the cake.

Rightwing

thomond2006 wrote: »

I'm surprised it hasn't been scrapped (or at least the rebate rate reduced) BUT there are some economic benefits to it. If you lose the best players to overseas it would affect revenues (ticket sales, merchandise sales, sponsorship, meritocracy payments etc) and ultimately jobs. So while it does make relatively rich people richer, those people produce a lot of revenue for Irish Rugby. If Ireland lose its top ten players to overseas tomorrow it would have a big effect on revenues. I've no big problem with the rebate.

I fully agree with you, but we could use that very argument for other cases/professions too.

irishbucsfan

Rightwing wrote: »

I fully agree with you, but we could use that very argument for other cases/professions too.

Really? Like which professions?

CIARAN_BOYLE

Winters wrote: »

Ah right thanks for that. I wonder if the likes of having a national kicking coach visiting all four provinces and academies would be worthwhile. Did Mark Taunton do this?

That would be an interesting idea, I don't actually know

thomond2006 wrote: »

The Six Nations weekends would be particularly lucrative for Dublin businesses and therefore the government. It's only fair that the players get a slice of the cake.

Government estimates (there was a report a few years back) state that every foreign visitor during a six nations weekend is worth on average €1,000 to the economy of Ireland.

thomond2006

Rightwing wrote: »

I fully agree with you, but we could use that very argument for other cases/professions too.

What other professions bring in such large revenues for the economy?

Rightwing

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Really? Like which professions?

Richard Bruton was on TV a week or so ago and reckoned executives from MNC's on salaries of €500K should be on a reduced rate of 23% tax, and get grants to send their kids to private education.

His argument, they bring in loads of jobs etc. They are very valuable and an asset to the country.

irishbucsfan

Rightwing wrote: »

Richard Bruton was on TV a week or so ago and reckoned executives from MNC's on salaries of €500K should be on a reduced rate of 23% tax, and get grants to send their kids to private education.

His argument, they bring in loads of jobs etc. They are very valuable and an asset to the country.

But thousands of tourists dont fly in every weekend to watch them do their jobs, spending money locally

Maybe the executives should get a tax break, that's a completely different discussion and pretty irrelevant. It doesn't change the fact the rugby tax break is justified.

trouttrout

Rightwing wrote: »

Richard Bruton was on TV a week or so ago and reckoned executives from MNC's on salaries of €500K should be on a reduced rate of 23% tax, and get grants to send their kids to private education.

His argument, they bring in loads of jobs etc. They are very valuable and an asset to the country.

Sorry now, but **** that. Whatever about a fair rate of taxation to attract investment, but grants for their kids to go to private school!? My arse

totallegend

thomond2006 wrote: »

What other professions bring in such large revenues for the economy?

We're going waaaay off topic here, but let's say some guy opens a huge pub in the centre of Dublin.

At the end of ten years, he says "I've generated millions of euro in VAT and excise, my employees have paid millions of euro in tax and PRSI, the total contribution to the local economy has been enormous", would you be in favour of him getting a rebate on his tax? I doubt it.

Rugby players are very, very well paid. Don't get me wrong, I'm delighted that we get to keep the majority of them in Ireland and I'd imagine the overall cost of the scheme is quite low, but basing the argument on economic value doesn't stack up.

Rightwing

irishbucsfan wrote: »

But thousands of tourists dont fly in every weekend to watch them do their jobs, spending money locally

Maybe the executives should get a tax break, that's a completely different discussion and pretty irrelevant. It doesn't change the fact the rugby tax break is justified.

What about the actors and bands like U2, should they pay nothing, because people will go to concerts, sell out a few hotels?

trouttrout

Rightwing wrote: »

What about the actors and bands like U2, should they pay nothing, because people will go to concerts, sell out a few hotels?

They don't spend anything. They actively avoid tax by basing their company in Holland. Bono, a sound man

thomond2006

totallegend wrote: »

We're going waaaay off topic here, but let's say some guy opens a huge pub in the centre of Dublin.

At the end of ten years, he says "I've generated millions of euro in VAT and excise, my employees have paid millions of euro in tax and PRSI, the total contribution to the local economy has been enormous", would you be in favour of him getting a rebate on his tax? I doubt it.

Rugby players are very, very well paid. Don't get me wrong, I'm delighted that we get to keep the majority of them in Ireland and I'd imagine the overall cost of the scheme is quite low, but basing the argument on economic value doesn't stack up.

[off topic] I actually wouldn't be majorly against your example getting a rebate! [/off topic]

What other argument is there other than economic value? I don't know the reasons behind it, I'm only speculating why. As you say the overall cost of the scheme would be low (time value of money). I'm sure the government would have carried out some kind of cost-benefit analysis on the merits of a rebate for professional players. I have no figures to back up what I said earlier, but I get the feeling that if top players were to leave en masse then the provincial revenues would really suffer and that it wouldn't be offset by the money saved from no rebate.

Rightwing

trouttrout wrote: »

They don't spend anything. They actively avoid tax by basing their company in Holland. Bono, a sound man

I agree, but people could base an argument and say 'U2 shouldn't even have to go Holland' Look at all the good they have done, all the revenue they've brought in over the years.

Winters

Spending money in the state and creating revenue in the state is just business but the issue here is thousands of non Ireland based tourists bringing revenue from another state into Ireland just to watch 15 lads arm wrestle.

I dont know what other sports are in the same category.

irishbucsfan

Rightwing wrote: »

What about the actors and bands like U2, should they pay nothing, because people will go to concerts, sell out a few hotels?

You're completely missing the point of it. Why Charlie brought it in.

Our government earns far more by keeping these players here than losing them to England and France. So players who live and pay tax in Ireland get their rebate for really quite obvious reasons.

Bands aren't comparable, their industry is far different. And film companies get looked after quite nicely as well. Offering actors a rebate is a stupid example.

Rightwing

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You're completely missing the point of it. Why Charlie brought it in.

Our government earns far more by keeping these players here than losing them to England and France. So players who live and pay tax in Ireland get their rebate for really quite obvious reasons.

Bands aren't comparable, their industry is far different. And film companies get looked after quite nicely as well. Offering actors a rebate is a stupid example.

That's got absolutely nothing to do with my point. No one is saying otherwise.

We saw what Charlie's policies did to the country,,,led to financial ruin.

It's a bit like Apple paying 2% Corp tax,,,'ah shure it's better than them paying nathin at all'

trouttrout

Rightwing wrote: »

That's got absolutely nothing to do with my point. No one is saying otherwise.

We saw what Charlie's policies did to the country,,,led to financial ruin.

It's a bit like Apple paying 2% Corp tax,,,'ah shure it's better than them paying nathin at all'

Not it's not. In fact that's a terrible comparison

irishbucsfan

Rightwing wrote: »

That's got absolutely nothing to do with my point. No one is saying otherwise.

We saw what Charlie's policies did to the country,,,led to financial ruin.

It's a bit like Apple paying 2% Corp tax,,,'ah shure it's better than them paying nathin at all'

I really don't think you understand the aim of the rebate and what it has done for rugby in the country to be honest. Especially judging by the examples you've given.

totallegend

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You're completely missing the point of it. Why Charlie brought it in.

Our government earns far more by keeping these players here than losing them to England and France. So players who live and pay tax in Ireland get their rebate for really quite obvious reasons.

Bands aren't comparable, their industry is far different. And film companies get looked after quite nicely as well. Offering actors a rebate is a stupid example.

Is that sort of tone necessary? Disagree with him, fair enough, but that just provokes people.

trouttrout

totallegend wrote: »

Is that sort of tone necessary? Disagree with him, fair enough, but that just provokes people.

He is completely missing the point though. He's equating a tax rebate with tax avoidance

totallegend

thomond2006 wrote: »

[off topic] I actually wouldn't be majorly against your example getting a rebate! [/off topic]

What other argument is there other than economic value? I don't know the reasons behind it, I'm only speculating why. As you say the overall cost of the scheme would be low (time value of money). I'm sure the government would have carried out some kind of cost-benefit analysis on the merits of a rebate for professional players. I have no figures to back up what I said earlier, but I get the feeling that if top players were to leave en masse then the provincial revenues would really suffer and that it wouldn't be offset by the money saved from no rebate.

This was brought in by Charlie McCreevy, pretty much every scheme he brought in had one objective; garnering votes. SSIAs, decentralisation etc etc. The economics were generally an after-thought.

The main economic benefit to the country from rugby is foreigners coming over for internationals, correct? The numbers arriving for Rabo and HC games is probably a lot lower by comparison.

But you'd still have international games without the rebate, you'd just have the players coming home from England/France to play for the national team.

irishbucsfan

totallegend wrote: »

Is that sort of tone necessary? Disagree with him, fair enough, but that just provokes people.

It's not a tone. But fair enough. I was posting from my phone and I find my posts can come across a little sharp when I do that

JustinDee

Rightwing wrote: »

What about the actors and bands like U2, should they pay nothing, because people will go to concerts, sell out a few hotels?

This has nothing to do with the subject in hand.

Since you mentioned it though, the above is nothing compared to contribution to regions in this country generated by the likes of Intel, Google, Apple and Microsoft. Ever been to Maynooth, Leixlip, Lucan, Celbridge before Intel set up? The effect of a corporation such as this upping sticks is unimaginably catastrophic.
You can't have it every way.

chris85

So far off topic here. Popped in to have a look at thread and debate and multinationals and impact to economy. Move on I think!

irishbucsfan

totallegend wrote: »

This was brought in by Charlie McCreevy, pretty much every scheme he brought in had one objective; garnering votes. SSIAs, decentralisation etc etc. The economics were generally an after-thought.

The main economic benefit to the country from rugby is foreigners coming over for internationals, correct? The numbers arriving for Rabo and HC games is probably a lot lower by comparison.

But you'd still have international games without the rebate, you'd just have the players coming home from England/France to play for the national team.

There's a lot more than just foreigners coming over for rugby matches.

But let's say that was it. How many international games are there in Ireland every year? 2/3 6N games and 2/3 AIs (which very few travel for).

An awful lot more travel to Ireland for Rabo and H Cup games every season.

But of course the rebates offer far more than just attracting tourism for the actual games. Keeping the best rugby players in Ireland is far more valuable than to our economy than just that.

Micky Dolenz

It makes sense to me and is a big reason why the provinces have tasted their fair share, and more, of success.

If Munster werent making HC semi's and finals. We would not have seen the influx of new supporters. Seem applies to the other province. without the best players playing, there would have been far less supporters.

totallegend

irishbucsfan wrote: »

There's a lot more than just foreigners coming over for rugby matches.

But let's say that was it. How many international games are there in Ireland every year? 2/3 6N games and 2/3 AIs (which very few travel for).

An awful lot more travel to Ireland for Rabo and H Cup games every season.

But of course the rebates offer far more than just attracting tourism for the actual games. Keeping the best rugby players in Ireland is far more valuable than to our economy than just that.

Do you think? I'm not sure how we'd go about proving/disproving it but I would have thought that for all but the occasional game, the numbers of travelling fans is negligible.

You could also argue that, since the number of Irish people who go abroad for provincial games is probably higher than the number of foreigners who arrive, you would have to consider the amount of money leaving the economy and being spent in England and France by travelling Irish fans when assessing the overall benefit of the scheme.

Right, that's my last post on it! (Particularly since I'm actually in favour of the tax rebate...)

EDIT: But we can all agree that ROG would lose his rebate if he togs out for Racing?

Winters

You could argue that those away trips we all go on convince the foreign fans to visit Ireland for a rugby game.

Tax rebates all round!

Rightwing

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I really don't think you understand the aim of the rebate and what it has done for rugby in the country to be honest. Especially judging by the examples you've given.

Everyone knows it has done good for rugby.
Everyone knows giving the horsing industry tax breaks was good for that industry
Everyone knows giving tax breaks to film industry is good for the film industry
Everyone knows giving breaks to any industry is good for that particular industry.

My point is about the fairness of these breaks. The more people that are excluded from the tax net, means those that are left will be paying more.

For instance
Everyone knows giving the us the taxpayer tax breaks will also be good for the economy, we'll all have more to spend, people will be inclined to leave the welfare,,,,well why not give us the tax breaks then!

Larbre34

Rightwing wrote: »

Everyone knows it has done good for rugby.
Everyone knows giving the horsing industry tax breaks was good for that industry
Everyone knows giving tax breaks to film industry is good for the film industry
Everyone knows giving breaks to any industry is good for that particular industry.

My point is about the fairness of these breaks. The more people that are excluded from the tax net, means those that are left will be paying more.

For instance
Everyone knows giving the us the taxpayer tax breaks will also be good for the economy, we'll all have more to spend, people will be inclined to leave the welfare,,,,well why not give us the tax breaks then!

Not really, such industries generate sporadic ancillary activity which in turn generates labour taxes and VAT. Those industries are small scale, relative to traditional secondary and tertiary sectors, without support they wouldnt sustain as they do and youd lose a whole lot in knock-on opportunities and the gap in revenues would be wider still than if the supports were not given

Rightwing

Larbre34 wrote: »

Not really, such industries generate sporadic ancillary activity which in turn generates labour taxes and VAT. Those industries are small scale, relative to traditional secondary and tertiary sectors, without support they wouldnt sustain as they do and youd lose a whole lot in knock-on opportunities and the gap in revenues would be wider still than if the supports were not given

But on the other hand, if you give tax breaks to the ordinary citizen, (instead of taxing them to the hilt) it will generate a massive multiplier effect across the economy as a whole. I would even hazard a guess that more people would be going to rugby matches!

sydthebeat

jesus lads, from ROG to macro economics?????