Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

IRFU Funding Model changes

Options
  • 22-05-2024 12:26pm
    #1
    Administrators Posts: 53,762 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    https://www.irishrugby.ie/2024/05/22/irfu-announce-changes-to-funding-model-after-extensive-review/#:~:text=A%20key%20change%20to%20the,level%20to%20be%20reviewed%20annually.

    Key points:

    • IRFU to contribute about 40million to provinces
    • Funding will be provided on a more transparent and equitable basis going forward
    • Provinces will have to contribute up to 30% of the cost of central contracted players going forward.

    In essence, this new model is simpler, more transparent, more equitable and delivers better incentivisation and alignment. 

    It is good to see them actually acknowledge that changes needed to be made, and recognise that a more equitable and transparent setup is better for Irish Rugby.

    This also does pretty much confirm that until today, central players were essentially free for provinces.



«134567

Comments

  • Subscribers Posts: 41,519 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    equitable basis going forward

    equitable means very different things for a lot of people.

    for some 'equitable' means everyone gets the same, for others 'equitable' means everyone gets the same pro rata to their needs, for even others 'equitable' means the worse off get more than the rest.

    It will be interesting to dig down into the detail here, if its ever published.



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,263 ✭✭✭✭phog


    At least they acknowledge the current system had flaws in it.

    In the end, it's still their money that moving around the provinces



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,248 ✭✭✭theVersatile


    Well this is quite something. It'll be interesting to see how it's applied in practice over the next twelve months



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,345 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    the phrase ‘up to 30%’ is interesting



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,036 ✭✭✭Clo-Clo


    The flaw in the system is rewarding provinces for good development of players

    The new system means you are rewarding other provinces for not developing players.

    Doesn't make sense to me, as soon as the pendulum swings the same people complaining now will be wanting it changed again to suit the province who develops players.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,466 ✭✭✭Paul Smeenus


    Agreed. The idea that there's more clarity here is a bit off. What determines what level the province contributes at? How important the player is to the national team? The province's overall wage bill? How many players they have on CC?



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,919 ✭✭✭Former Former Former


    It'll be interesting to see how it's applied in practice 

    I'd say we've just seen as much detail as we're ever going to see, to be honest.



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,263 ✭✭✭✭phog


    I'd imagine the provinces will have more clarity of the "up to 30%" and have accepted it

    Is for players moving from a provincial contract to a CC or is for players who are on the top end of CC or is of players who the province will have to rest more than other players to allow the player be rested for international games



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,248 ✭✭✭theVersatile


    Yeah it strikes me as a bit quasi-transparent alright.

    But I didn't mean "it'll be interesting to see more details soon", but rather "it'll be interesting to see how's this shapes the look of provincial squads over the next 12-18 months"



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,036 ✭✭✭Clo-Clo


    You could see more players looking at England/France



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 24,263 ✭✭✭✭phog


    IRFU CEO

    “We hear loud and clear from our players that Ireland is the best place for them to play rugby, owing to our exceptionally high player welfare standards and game management, and that is something of which we are immensely proud. The strength of rugby in Ireland is aligned to having four healthy, competitive provinces and the IRFU remains committed to delivering this in a financially sustainable manner.

    “In essence, this new model is simpler, more transparent, more equitable and delivers better incentivisation and alignment. We will however continue to review the model annually which will also need to take account of the pending release of new strategic vision for rugby in Ireland. I would like to thank all the provinces for their support and participation in this review and we look forward to implementing these changes for the betterment of rugby in Ireland. ”



  • Subscribers Posts: 41,519 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    well the reported IRFU funding to the provinces wage bill was said to be €30 million ([8 x 3] + 6=30)

    if they are now going to increase that by 25% across the board, then theres more money for wages, not less. Why would we'd see an increase on the rate of players moving abroad if this is the case?

    lets assume all leinsters 10 current CCs are on an average of 500k, even paying the full amount of 30% of that would still be less than the 25% increase on the €8 million the IRFU reportedly are paying. So would we see a big exiting of players from leinster in that case? probably nothing significant at all.



  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,418 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    Maybe the more call ups a player gets, the less the province has to pay of the total, with 30% for a CC player that's out of favour or injured?



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,263 ✭✭✭✭phog


    That would be difficult for a province to manage as the contracts are signed at a moment in time but the injury can happen anytime in the future or a player can drop out of favour after contracts are signed.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,534 ✭✭✭Dubinusa


    The 30% is a key here. Wouldn't that take up a considerable part of the 8 mill. It looks to me that they're "leveling" the talent pool. In other words, an increase of funds to the weaker provinces and an opportunity to raid from the productive province. It's rewarding the non performing provinces.



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,263 ✭✭✭✭phog


    It's rewarding the non performing provinces.

    Where is the evidence for this statement?



  • Subscribers Posts: 41,519 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Like i have shown above, even the full 30% wouldn't take up the suggest extra 25% in funding on top of the 8 million.

    as for the "non performing" teams, either they need extra financial help or not. i just hope there are strict KPIs to be met so that mediocrity isn't rewarded continuously. There has to be some recognition and allowances made for the fact that Connacht have to play, on average, 2 games more every season against better opposition than say edinburgh or glasgow, and as such need extra help to be more competitive.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,534 ✭✭✭Dubinusa


    I read it as there's equality. 4 provinces and 4 payouts! R



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,534 ✭✭✭Dubinusa


    Obviously, if all the provinces are benefitting from the payout and 1 province provides more in gate receipts, international players etc, it's rewarding the poor performers.



  • Subscribers Posts: 41,519 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    ive no idea what youre saying here.

    as i alluded to in my first post here, 'equitable' means different things to different people.

    does "equitable" to you mean rewarding the "performing" teams more and the "non performing" team less?

    if so, how will that make the non-performing team better?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,803 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    You wouldn't have been saying this back when all the Leinster people were supporting Munster.

    Some provinces tends to produce more than others through a quirk in history where the planters decided to set up their private schools in certain areas on the East. Not because one province applied its self better and worked harder than the rest.



  • Administrators Posts: 53,762 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    In this context, "more equitable" can only mean addressing an imbalance in funding between the provinces, rather than tying funding to performance.

    My interpretation as to the extent of this is that funding will not be totally equal between all 4, but rather there will be less disparity of funding compared to today.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,534 ✭✭✭Dubinusa


    Should the performing teams be responsible for the weaker teams? Equitable to me, is all provinces are the same. I see it as Leinster being the cash cow and then being reduced or penalised.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,534 ✭✭✭Dubinusa




  • Administrators Posts: 53,762 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    The performing teams aren't responsible for the weaker teams.

    The IRFU are responsible for the weaker teams, and they have identified that the funding model was at least partially responsible for this, and they are therefore changing it for "for the betterment of rugby in Ireland" as they put it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 309 ✭✭StormForce13


    Aren't gate receipts retained by the individual provinces?

    And if international players' wages are being subsidised by the IRFU to the tune of 70% then that's a pretty good reward for whatever province has the most CC players!





  • It's not the only patently wrong thing in your post, but WTF are you on about "planters" setting up private schools in the East?

    There is nothing remotely Anglo-centric about any of the major rugby player producing schools in Leinster, and anyone who suggests otherwise hasn't a clue what they're talking about.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,345 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    well it appears that everyone can claim victory here and still no one knows how the funding is actually done. I predict this thread runs for months, maybe years and no one will have any actual knowledge or facts to use only a few snippets mentioned in the press and extrapolated out to confirm an already held opinion.



  • Administrators Posts: 53,762 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec




  • Advertisement
  • Subscribers Posts: 41,519 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    should there be some recognition of the input to the funding in the rate of output of the funding? Genuine question.

    For example, Ulster Rugby havent won a competition in 18 years, are the lowest current provider of players to the national team, and are running an accounting deficit of about €1 million in their current accounts.

    what is it they need to become net contributors to IRFU funding then?



Advertisement