Sorry I gave you far too much credit when I asked if you were being obtuse, you obviously don’t have the intelligence to be. If you can’t even understand why what you have wrote in reply is so foolish then I am not going to pretty much repeat myself for nothing, you may as well read what you are quoting again and try to understand, maybe get your son to help you. Where have I said £26m has disappeared? Do you not currently think that Rugby Union clubs get TV revenue? Can you really not see, or understand, that any increase in money from a new TV deal is just an increase on what they got in the old deal and is not all just new money?



For some reason you do seem rather hung up on this 50% figure which in isolation is rather meaningless. If you read your first sentence again you may understand why your post previously was so stupid. I don’t know what they are going to do, maybe they are just going to use it to reduce their already vast losses so that the sugar daddies dont need to plough quite as much money in.



Of course the head of Premiership Rugby union is never going to spin a hugely unpopular deal that hasn’t got RFU approval, ERC approval or approval from the Welsh, Scottish, Irish, French or Italians. He is certainly not going to make it sound attractive as possible to get these nations on board and not have to lose over a 1/3 of the £152m which is for the European element of this deal.



I suggest you learn to read a little better. I gave you a breakdown club by club of profits and losses which showed exactly what each club made or lost. By saying that 7 clubs lost more than £1.5 million I was trying to make it as simple as possible for you to understand and to illustrate that clubs getting an extra £1 million will mean they will still lose money. Seems this wasnt simple enough for you though. Also the debt is not covered by the extra TV revenue as I have shown.



Is this for real? If you bothered to read the article that I gave you, and which you quote above it says, “English clubs expect to get roughly £1 million more per club as part of their £152 million deal with BT Vision.” Here is a different link for you, that shows they expect to get £1 million more per club, as you struggled to read and understand that one:

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/19585839

As for the rest of your post when I read nonsense like that it is obvious you are just being pedantic and arguing for arguments sake, with absolutely no basis. Your waffle about the Football Championship is a prime example of that. Turnover, wages, attendences, facilities, TV revenue are all far higher in the Football Championship so what are you even arguing about here. You dont even provide a counter argument apart from its an ambition. Well its my ambition to be a multi billionaire but just because my pay went up a little last year it doesnt mean its going to happen.

I dont really care if you believe what I have said or not, I am just stating facts and figures, which are fairly easy to interpret and my arguments are based on this. You have links to what the deal is worth per club and you have links to profits and losses of all clubs of all Premiership Rugby Union clubs. In the one link you have posted there is absolutely nothing that suggests that RU clubs will no longer be dependant on sugar daddies or match Championship Footballs wages. You can say TV revenue is going up 50% until the cows come home, or alternative true statements like the sky is blue, which may also be correct, but it has absolutely no relevance to backing up your claims.

Sorry I gave you far too much credit when I asked if you were being obtuse, you obviously don’t have the intelligence to be. If you can’t even understand why what you have wrote in reply is so foolish then I am not going to pretty much repeat myself for nothing, you may as well read what you are quoting again and try to understand, maybe get your son to help you. Where have I said £26m has disappeared? Do you not currently think that Rugby Union clubs get TV revenue? Can you really not see, or understand, that any increase in money from a new TV deal is just an increase on what they got in the old deal and is not all just new money?



For some reason you do seem rather hung up on this 50% figure which in isolation is rather meaningless. If you read your first sentence again you may understand why your post previously was so stupid. I don’t know what they are going to do, maybe they are just going to use it to reduce their already vast losses so that the sugar daddies dont need to plough quite as much money in.



Of course the head of Premiership Rugby union is never going to spin a hugely unpopular deal that hasn’t got RFU approval, ERC approval or approval from the Welsh, Scottish, Irish, French or Italians. He is certainly not going to make it sound attractive as possible to get these nations on board and not have to lose over a 1/3 of the £152m which is for the European element of this deal.



I suggest you learn to read a little better. I gave you a breakdown club by club of profits and losses which showed exactly what each club made or lost. By saying that 7 clubs lost more than £1.5 million I was trying to make it as simple as possible for you to understand and to illustrate that clubs getting an extra £1 million will mean they will still lose money. Seems this wasnt simple enough for you though. Also the debt is not covered by the extra TV revenue as I have shown.



Is this for real? If you bothered to read the article that I gave you, and which you quote above it says, “English clubs expect to get roughly £1 million more per club as part of their £152 million deal with BT Vision.” Here is a different link for you, that shows they expect to get £1 million more per club, as you struggled to read and understand that one:

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/19585839

As for the rest of your post when I read nonsense like that it is obvious you are just being pedantic and arguing for arguments sake, with absolutely no basis. Your waffle about the Football Championship is a prime example of that. Turnover, wages, attendences, facilities, TV revenue are all far higher in the Football Championship so what are you even arguing about here. You dont even provide a counter argument apart from its an ambition. Well its my ambition to be a multi billionaire but just because my pay went up a little last year it doesnt mean its going to happen.

I dont really care if you believe what I have said or not, I am just stating facts and figures, which are fairly easy to interpret and my arguments are based on this. You have links to what the deal is worth per club and you have links to profits and losses of all clubs of all Premiership Rugby Union clubs. In the one link you have posted there is absolutely nothing that suggests that RU clubs will no longer be dependant on sugar daddies or match Championship Footballs wages. You can say TV revenue is going up 50% until the cows come home, or alternative true statements like the sky is blue, which may also be correct, but it has absolutely no relevance to backing up your claims.