English rugby clubs ‘heading for disaster’ after mounting £300m in debts

[Kiwiwomble]

so, for the franchises being run by existing clubs, theyre not tapping into new or wider income streams....so too become more financially stable theyre going to be reliant on the RFU, so on the back on the international game?....literally trickle down economics, once again thats what we have in NZ and its going down the gurgler

 

[RedruthRFC]

so, for the franchises being run by existing clubs, theyre not tapping into new or wider income streams....so too become more financially stable theyre going to be reliant on the RFU, so on the back on the international game?....literally trickle down economics, once again thats what we have in NZ and its going down the gurgler

It would depend how it's done IMO. Taking Doncaster as an example, if they applied for and were granted a franchise in a new franchise-based league and continued playing as Doncaster Knights at Castle Park, then I'd agree with you. Hopefully, in order to be granted a franchise, teams would have to demonstrate how this would grow their business. For example changing their name to the Yorkshire Puddings, playing at different grounds around the county and working to improve links with lower-tier teams in the county.

Cornish Pirates are a decent case study in doing this within the English game. Until some point in the early/mid 2000s, they were Penzance/Newlyn RFC and played their matches at the Mennaye Field in Penzance. They then rebranded as Cornish Pirates and moved their home games to Truro (capital of Cornwall, centralish population wise) and then the Camborne (a rugby town within Cornwall's rugby heartland). Following a fallout with their landlords in Camborne, they moved back to Penzance (geographically isolated at the extreme of the peninsula) and their attendance has declined to (less than?) half of the averages they were hitting. I'm sure there's more factors than pure geography at play, but it is at least an indication of what can be achieved by embracing a franchise approach.

 

[higgik]

It would depend how it's done IMO. Taking Doncaster as an example, if they applied for and were granted a franchise in a new franchise-based league and continued playing as Doncaster Knights at Castle Park, then I'd agree with you. Hopefully, in order to be granted a franchise, teams would have to demonstrate how this would grow their business. For example changing their name to the Yorkshire Puddings, playing at different grounds around the county and working to improve links with lower-tier teams in the county.

Cornish Pirates are a decent case study in doing this within the English game. Until some point in the early/mid 2000s, they were Penzance/Newlyn RFC and played their matches at the Mennaye Field in Penzance. They then rebranded as Cornish Pirates and moved their home games to Truro (capital of Cornwall, centralish population wise) and then the Camborne (a rugby town within Cornwall's rugby heartland). Following a fallout with their landlords in Camborne, they moved back to Penzance (geographically isolated at the extreme of the peninsula) and their attendance has declined to (less than?) half of the averages they were hitting. I'm sure there's more factors than pure geography at play, but it is at least an indication of what can be achieved by embracing a franchise approach.

Doncaster could at least be the South Yorkshire Knights, leaving a resurgent Leeds to take West Yorkshire area.
What about Darlington MP?
Just take a look at the major urban areas in England and see how much is left untapped.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

It would depend how it's done IMO. Taking Doncaster as an example, if they applied for and were granted a franchise in a new franchise-based league and continued playing as Doncaster Knights at Castle Park, then I'd agree with you. Hopefully, in order to be granted a franchise, teams would have to demonstrate how this would grow their business. For example changing their name to the Yorkshire Puddings, playing at different grounds around the county and working to improve links with lower-tier teams in the county.

Cornish Pirates are a decent case study in doing this within the English game. Until some point in the early/mid 2000s, they were Penzance/Newlyn RFC and played their matches at the Mennaye Field in Penzance. They then rebranded as Cornish Pirates and moved their home games to Truro (capital of Cornwall, centralish population wise) and then the Camborne (a rugby town within Cornwall's rugby heartland). Following a fallout with their landlords in Camborne, they moved back to Penzance (geographically isolated at the extreme of the peninsula) and their attendance has declined to (less than?) half of the averages they were hitting. I'm sure there's more factors than pure geography at play, but it is at least an indication of what can be achieved by embracing a franchise approach.

....but that goes back too my first point and what weve seen in NZ...you start loosing your original fanbase...."thats not the team ive supported since 197...." etc

hell a more personal example, wimbledon moves to MK....the vast majority of fan dont follow the franchise team...they start a new one...that wears blue and yellow, has a two headed eagle on its crest....and eventually plays at a ground on plough lane in Wimbledon

you have to keep the core

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Pat Lam saying Bristol won't spend up to the cap.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

New Zealand's way made no sense to me. Completely ignored established brands and the lack of geographical names makes it really confusing for international fans. Also the old provincial logos are really cool. Very similar to the old timey American teams. Now all the teams look like they were created by focus groups.

I think eventually they'll set up a system that makes a professional rugby more stable. Stable enough for people to come in and buy the licensing to clubs and get a "franchise" in the pro system. I imagine Leeds will be on of the first teams to sell.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Pat Lam saying Bristol won't spend up to the cap.

Weren't they one of the clubs complaining about the cap before?
Times must be tough

 

[stus768]

Weren't they one of the clubs complaining about the cap before?
Times must be tough

At the end of the article in the times he's quoted as saying the cap should be raised to £10m! No idea why he would think that's a good idea.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

I think both Exeter and Bears pushed for the cap increase (can't remember who else) and both don't spend up to it.
I'm guessing the 3 teams going hurting revenue prob is the reason

 

[Saintjay]

You could call them the Yorkshire Tea - Baggers and still nobody in Lancashire would follow them.

 

[stus768]

I think both Exeter and Bears pushed for the cap increase (can't remember who else) and both don't spend up to it.
I'm guessing the 3 teams going hurting revenue prob is the reason

Bath and sarries as well

 

[Which Tyler]

Mind, it's such a big increase, it'd be easily possible to spend significantly more than the current cap and still spend "not up to the cap"
There's also something to be said for keeping enough in reserve to cover next year's extensions. You'd only really expect anyone to spend the full new cap if their entire squad was up for new contracts this summer (or they were getting in significant temporary options on 1 year contracts).

TBH, I was also always a fan of Hooper's tactic of keeping £500k or so in reserve for mid-season signings - covering injuries and unexpectedly available stars.
And I say that as someone who was never a fan of Hooper.