Not sure if this deserves it's own thread or not, but will err on the side of caution and tack it onto this as it's broadly related and haven't seen any mention of it on this board.
Flats and Shanks released an episode of their Podcast this week (or over the weekend) discussing the State of Prem Rugby finances with Mark Evans - former CEO of Saracens and Quins. Well worth a listen - I listened to it early doors this morning on the way back from dropping family off to the airport, so might be a touch hazy but here's the key snippets:
Specific to Wasps
- Mark said he knew Derek well enough to know that he's fully committed to making Wasps as a Club work, not just to asset strip (Like is happening at Worcester)
- He said he could see a viable business for Wasps but caveated it with it most likely needs single/shared ownership across the Stadium and both the Rugby and Football clubs to yield the best results. Said it's a specific problem to bigger stadiums and the need to have multiple income streams (the latter isn't particularly groundbreaking news)
- Said it's clear we got ticketing strategy wrong initially
- Disagreed with the common narrative that Wasps 'would have worked in London' that many objectors to the Coventry move and most CCFC fans suggest pointing out it's a heavily saturated market where the key demographic live (West London) and pointed out the struggles Saracens have had with crowds and that there's hardly any rugby interest in East London (i.e. At amateur Club Level) let alone enough to support a professional club
On the Premiership as a whole
- Pretty much puts the key criteria to a Clubs financial success being a big enough market (fan base) and points to Falcons as having an uphill battle and Worcester the same (small town, relatively close to Gloucester). Conversely, suggests Chiefs, Quins and Tigers are best placed with big catchment areas and regularly sell out (Guess we could add Bath to that and perhaps Saints)
- Believes they need to both keep the cap as it is for a prolonged period of time, as well as bring in a minimum wage (as said it's unacceptable to have people on £16k/year which commonly happens)
- Longer term would like to see the cap fluid and as a proportion of revenue to encourage better financial management of clubs and move away from the reliance of sugar-daddies
- Believes a closed league is better for the overall growth of the game and pointed to Major League Soccer (MLS in the US) which started with a 12 team league at the same time as the Rugby Premiership started and is now 32 healthy, competitive teams
- Thinks the qualifying criteria for teams to come up should stay, as they need the higher crowds and revenues to sustain longer-term financial stability (I think there should be a plan/route for them to get there if they qualify on merit rather than have a 10k seater stadium in place on the day they join the Prem)
- Believes fewer games and smaller squads would relieve the fiscal pressure as well as help encourage more casual fans. Flats spoke about friends of theirs who went to a Chiefs game to see Nowell/Slade, but both were on international duty so didn't feel they got value for money when the ticket was the same cost as when all the internationals are playing for the Club
- Uncertainty over the quality of the product (or calibre of players) puts off a lot of casual fans and for that reason suggests they should have an international break, just like football does so it becomes predictable for fans to know who's available (injuries excepting). Believes this will also increase the value and attractiveness of TV rights
- Think there's a knee-jerk, sugar-rush type mentality of playing more games to get more revenues but that drives a higher cost base (to operate the stadia and also to have a big enough squad) and only exacerbates the gap between revenue and costs so is counter-intuitive to what Clubs are trying to achieve
- Thinks squad sizes should be capped (at say, 30 + Academy with long-term injury dispensation agreed by the league on an ad-hoc basis and outside of the Salary Cap) as well as substitutes capped/reduced as that would also reduce the overall cost base
Some interesting stuff there; I wonder how many fans would be prepared to pay the same for their season ticket but with fewer games included if they reduced the number of teams, or games played in a season? I think our family of STHs would. As it is, we typically attend 80% of the games we're paying for due to other events, or occasionally deciding to have a weekend 'off'.
Topic: Wasps spending profile (Read 2293 times)
Always a Wasp