Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

Report reveals Premiership clubs' £300million debt in six years

By PA
(Photo by Richard Sellers/PA Images via Getty Images)

England’s top-flight clubs have accumulated a combined debt of £300million in six years, according to an investigation into the precarious financial position of the Gallagher Premiership. Wasps and Worcester have been placed into administration already this season – the Warriors are still seeking new owners – and a report in the Daily Telegraph has suggested that other teams are struggling, naming London Irish and Harlequins individually.

ADVERTISEMENT

The £300m total excludes the £200m investment for a 27 per cent share from CVC Capital Partners in 2018. The private equity firm took out a £27.5m dividend for the last two financial years.

The Premiership debt investigation by private equity director Mike Ryan described London Irish as “high risk” because of their low turnover, while Harlequins are of concern after borrowing £48m in 2021. “The club structure has historically been on an unsustainable footing. It has never made a profit,” Ryan told the Daily Telegraph.

Video Spacer

Video Spacer

“At the moment, this is heading for disaster. I would like to see the fiscal-year 2022 numbers to be more comfortable with the call, but I would be surprised if they were any better than FY19 [financial year 2019]. The overall competition is still losing money.

“It is professional on the field and semi-professional at best off the field. That is the biggest problem that rugby is facing globally, in my view.”

Related

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

0 Comments
Be the first to comment...

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
JW 4 hours ago
Does South Africa have a future in European competition?

I rated Lowe well enough to be an AB. Remember we were picking the likes of George Bridge above such players so theres no disputing a lot of bad decisions have been made by those last two coaches. Does a team like the ABs need a finicky winger who you have to adapt and change a lot of your style with to get benefit from? No, not really. But he still would have been a basic improvement on players like even Savea at the tail of his career, Bridge, and could even have converted into the answer of replacing Beauden at the back. Instead we persisted with NMS, Naholo, Havili, Reece, all players we would have cared even less about losing and all because Rieko had Lowe's number 11 jersey nailed down.


He was of course only 23 when he decided to leave, it was back in the beggining of the period they had started retaining players (from 2018 onwards I think, they came out saying theyre going to be more aggressive at some point). So he might, all of them, only just missed out.


The main point that Ed made is that situations like Lowe's, Aki's, JGP's, aren't going to happen in future. That's a bit of a "NZ" only problem, because those players need to reach such a high standard to be chosen by the All Blacks, were as a country like Ireland wants them a lot earlier like that. This is basically the 'ready in 3 years' concept Ireland relied on, versus the '5 years and they've left' concept' were that player is now ready to be chosen by the All Blacks (given a contract to play Super, ala SBW, and hopefully Manu).


The 'mercenary' thing that will take longer to expire, and which I was referring to, is the grandparents rule. The new kids coming through now aren't going to have as many gp born overseas, so the amount of players that can leave with a prospect of International rugby offer are going to drop dramatically at some point. All these kiwi fellas playing for a PI, is going to stop sadly.


The new era problem that will replace those old concerns is now French and Japanese clubs (doing the same as NRL teams have done for decades by) picking kids out of school. The problem here is not so much a national identity one, than it is a farm system where 9 in 10 players are left with nothing. A stunted education and no support in a foreign country (well they'll get kicked out of those countries were they don't in Australia).


It's the same sort of situation were NZ would be the big guy, but there weren't many downsides with it. The only one I can think was brought up but a poster on this site, I can't recall who it was, but he seemed to know a lot of kids coming from the Islands weren't really given the capability to fly back home during school xms holidays etc. That is probably something that should be fixed by the union. Otherwise getting someone like Fakatava over here for his last year of school definitely results in NZ being able to pick the cherries off the top but it also allows that player to develop and be able to represent Tonga and under age and possibly even later in his career. Where as a kid being taken from NZ is arguably going to be worse off in every respect other than perhaps money. Not going to develop as a person, not going to develop as a player as much, so I have a lotof sympathy for NZs case that I don't include them in that group but I certainly see where you're coming from and it encourages other countries to think they can do the same while not realising they're making a much worse experience/situation.

144 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING The Waikato young gun solving one of rugby players' 'obvious problems' Injury breeds opportunity for Waikato entrepreneur
Search