General Rugby Discussion II

antietam1

How much was Joey Carbery on?, probably puts Munster over the 10 million.
Sorry, not if he's on a central contract.

errlloyd

troyzer wrote: »

Of course, it's just amazing when you think of how poor rugby is compared to other sports. Especially when in most countries it's considered the sport of the landed gentry, to put it one way.

That landed gentry thing is exactly why it's poor. The first century of rugby's existence wasn't just amateur, it was completely opposed to professionalism in any way shape or form. In the early years the RFU refused to make the Calcutta Cup into a rugby equivalent of the FA cup because they thought having competitive fixtures instead of friendlies would lead to professionalism, for example.

Rugby was the dominant code of football in the UK before soccers professionalism and league structure made it more interesting for the fans and it quickly outgrew rugby. It's a real shame, but if the landed gentry had been less keen on keeping it exclusive it could be massive.

troyzer

errlloyd wrote: »

That landed gentry thing is exactly why it's poor. The first century of rugby's existence wasn't just amateur, it was completely opposed to professionalism in any way shape or form. In the early years the RFU refused to make the Calcutta Cup into a rugby equivalent of the FA cup because they thought having competitive fixtures instead of friendlies would lead to professionalism, for example.

Rugby was the dominant code of football in the UK before soccers professionalism and league structure made it more interesting for the fans and it quickly outgrew rugby. It's a real shame, but if the landed gentry had been less keen on keeping it exclusive it could be massive.

True, but would you really prefer if rugby and soccer were switched? In terms of the money involved etc.

errlloyd

troyzer wrote: »

True, but would you really prefer if rugby and soccer were switched? In terms of the money involved etc.

Hahaha, well it's a fairly impossible alternative reality to picture - but I probably wouldn't to be fair.

troyzer

errlloyd wrote: »

Hahaha, well it's a fairly impossible alternative reality to picture - but I probably wouldn't to be fair.

Imagine Leinster being a LOI level side.

Grim.

Podge_irl

troyzer wrote: »

Yes but they're very expensive for what they are: backups.

They're not surplus in the context of there not being a shortgage of money, should have made that clear. But if a Premiership style salary cap came in, they'd be the two obvious ones to go.

They are also phenomenal players for what they are. If they went Leinster would be weaker, which is entirely the point.

troyzer

Podge_irl wrote: »

They are also phenomenal players for what they are. If they went Leinster would be weaker, which is entirely the point.

Of course. It wouldn't make sense in an Irish context to clip their budget because the IRFU's finances are very healthy.

Podge_irl

troyzer wrote: »

Of course. It wouldn't make sense in an Irish context to clip their budget because the IRFU's finances are very healthy.

Not sure what that has to do with anything. The entire point of the complaints is that Leinster can afford that calibre of backup while the UK clubs can not.

We will never know if the provinces outspend the UK clubs because it is just not a fair comparison. But I would be amazed if it is not in the same ballpark.

errlloyd

I reckon Leinster would be loss making if it was a private club. I can't think of any private club that rent their stadium that is in the black. Munster and Ulster would probably be profitable or close to it though.

troyzer

Podge_irl wrote: »

Not sure what that has to do with anything. The entire point of the complaints is that Leinster can afford that calibre of backup while the UK clubs can not.

We will never know if the provinces outspend the UK clubs because it is just not a fair comparison. But I would be amazed if it is not in the same ballpark.

I don't think that's a valid complaint because someone just showed that chances are we'd probably be there or there abouts even without any adjustments.

My point was that if the goal was to cap expenditure to ensure the health of Irish rugby, it wouldn't be necessary because of the health of Irish rugby's finances in general. English rugby is pretty dire by comparison.

troyzer

errlloyd wrote: »

I reckon Leinster would be loss making if it was a private club. I can't think of any private club that rent their stadium that is in the black. Munster and Ulster would probably be profitable or close to it though.

Munster has a wedge of debt and Ravenhill was paid for by the executive.

It doesn't look like Leinster will be moving from the RDS anytime soon with the upcoming redevelopment of the Anglesea stand.

Neil3030

errlloyd wrote: »

I reckon Leinster would be loss making if it was a private club. I can't think of any private club that rent their stadium that is in the black. Munster and Ulster would probably be profitable or close to it though.

Except that both Thomond and Ravenhill are owned by the IRFU, so were all provinces private, Munster and Ulster would either be renting a ground themselves or saddled with the debt of building one.

And in the scenario where all provinces went private while being granted the IRFU land associated with them, i.e.

Donnybrook -> Leinster
Ravenhill -> Ulster
Thomond -> Munster

Leinster would probably be in the strongest position, financially. (Redevelop a stadium / apartment complex and watch the coin roll in!)

irishbucsfan

Neil3030 wrote: »

(Redevelop a stadium / apartment complex and watch the coin roll in!)

These brackets are brought to you by Mick Dawson’s brain, circa 2005

Neil3030

irishbucsfan wrote: »

These brackets are brought to you by Mick Dawson’s brain, circa 2005

IBF predicting the next bubble to burst in 2 years?

Quin_Dub

Neil3030 wrote: »

Except that both Thomond and Ravenhill are owned by the IRFU, so were all provinces private, Munster and Ulster would either be renting a ground themselves or saddled with the debt of building one.

And in the scenario where all provinces went private while being granted the IRFU land associated with them, i.e.

Donnybrook -> Leinster
Ravenhill -> Ulster
Thomond -> Munster

Leinster would probably be in the strongest position, financially. (Redevelop a stadium / apartment complex and watch the coin roll in!)

irishbucsfan wrote: »

These brackets are brought to you by Mick Dawson’s brain, circa 2005

To be fair that was the original plan , albeit a little earlier than 2005 (more like 2003)

I was a member of Old Wesley at the time and the proposal was to give the back pitch and related ground to a developer who would put up lots of high value Apartments and in return said developer would build a wrap-around stadium, with the Bective and Wesley clubhouses embedded into the stands at both end , a multi-storey carpark where the tennis courts are (with Astro tennis courts on the roof) with a capacity of about 15k (I think)..

Both clubs approved the deal at EGM's but of course it all came to nothing in the end..

irishbucsfan

I meant 2003 I was just testing you guys. And you passed with flying cookies, which I knew you would

bloodless_coup

When a lineout is thrown in straight and play will continue as normal, the referee rasies his arm in the direction of the team which did not throw the ball in.

What does this signal actually mean? It's not listed here:
https://laws.worldrugby.org/?signal_category=all&language=EN

MaybeMaybe

doylefe wrote: »

When a lineout is thrown in straight and play will continue as normal, the referee rasies his arm in the direction of the team which did not throw the ball in.

What does this signal actually mean? It's not listed here:
https://laws.worldrugby.org/?signal_category=all&language=EN

I believe it indicates that the line out is still deemed to be in progress and that the offside lines for a line out are in force. The opposite AR is enforcing this on the attacking side. When the ref drops his hand, line out is over as the game is deemed to move to the next phase of play be that a maul, ruck, etc. Once the ball travels past the 15 meters line, the line out is also deemed over

sydthebeat

Tommy Conlon in the sindo trying to be contraversal saying Conor Murray has an obligation to the public to disclose what his injury is.

Eh no Tommy. He doesn't. I'm sure his employers the IRFU know damn well what the injury is and as it doesn't matter how much you try to colour it, the public are not his employers.

He then goes onto try to claim sportspeople are not "private citizens " therfore claiming medical privacy is a fallacy.

He just sounds like a butt hurt journo who is sore about not having another topic to caluminate on

irishbucsfan

It really is very silly indeed. If I was the players' union I'd consider maybe making this a blanket policy. Sucks for fans but it's more important than that.

prawnsambo

sydthebeat wrote: »

Tommy Conlon in the sindo trying to be contraversal saying Conor Murray has an obligation to the public to disclose what his injury is.

Eh no Tommy. He doesn't. I'm sure his employers the IRFU know damn well what the injury is and as it doesn't matter how much you try to colour it, the public are not his employers.

He then goes onto try to claim sportspeople are not "private citizens " therfore claiming medical privacy is a fallacy.

He just sounds like a butt hurt journo who is sore about not having another topic to caluminate on

You've invented two really good words there. Would love to know what they mean.

irishbucsfan

Caluminate is a great one. Especially in the wake of storm Callum. Extremely verisimilitudinous, noone could have a problem with it.

sydthebeat

prawnsambo wrote: »

You've invented two really good words there. Would love to know what they mean.

Lol jesus you're a tough crowd.!!

Controversial and calumniate.... Better??

Mookie Blaylock

Leaving aside the public...details on an injury shouldn't be made public as it lets opposition teams know when a player is expected back and they can plan accordingly... also if it's a specific injury..ie neck or back..they can plan accordingly to target said areas.

Former Former

sydthebeat wrote: »

Tommy Conlon in the sindo trying to be contraversal saying Conor Murray has an obligation to the public to disclose what his injury is.

Eh no Tommy. He doesn't. I'm sure his employers the IRFU know damn well what the injury is and as it doesn't matter how much you try to colour it, the public are not his employers.

He then goes onto try to claim sportspeople are not "private citizens " therfore claiming medical privacy is a fallacy.

He just sounds like a butt hurt journo who is sore about not having another topic to caluminate on

Tommy Conlon? Who on Earth is that? He's not a rugby journalist whoever he is.

If you a) read the Sindo and especially b) read the opinion pieces in the Sindo, then you're asking for trouble.

As much as some journos are getting annoyed about the Murray thing, are some fans being a bit precious about it?

Squidgy Black

Former Former wrote: »

Tommy Conlon? Who on Earth is that? He's not a rugby journalist whoever he is.

If you a) read the Sindo and especially b) read the opinion pieces in the Sindo, then you're asking for trouble.

As much as some journos are getting annoyed about the Murray thing, are some fans being a bit precious about it?

Precious in that they're over-defending it or precious in that they almost demand to know?

razorblunt

prawnsambo wrote: »

You've invented two really good words there. Would love to know what they mean.

They’re both perfectly cromulent words.

antietam1

Nobody uses cognitive dissonance anymore?.

prawnsambo

antietam1 wrote: »

Nobody uses cognitive dissonance anymore.

That's because everybody knows what it means since brexit.

Clegg

'The Hard Yards' podcast is back but has been rebranded as 'Baz & Andrew's' House of Rugby'.

Anyone listened yet?