Forum Topic

London Irish - the Boys are Back in Town?

It's really great to hear that London Irish are getting the backing to return to professional rugby and that west London is their preferred base.As far as I am aware the Loftus Road pitch is now deemed too narrow so Brentford's stadium may be the only option. As the previous arrangement seemed to work so well, it is hard to see an argument against a return.It would be great to see them in the URC as games against the Irish provinces would be massive and it would be brilliant to walk to watch South African stars. However I am guessing that floating this possibility is a way of putting pressure on the English league to fasttrack them back to the top division.

Francis Rowe ● 78d68 Comments

Bill Sweeney seems to have unambiguously come out in favour of a franchise model which means that if you have a big enough ground and investors you are straight into the top division next season. Not saying that this means London Irish at the Gtech is back on but the path back for them has been made very clear and this would be a quick way to navigate it.

Francis Rowe ● 1d

While I wholeheartedly endorse your point on how enjoyable a game of rugby can be at local amateur clubs, Andrew is right to highlight that this should be translating into international success but it is not.A key weakness of a lot of these clubs is the lack of emphasis on developing new talent and boosting grassroots participation. Rosslyn Park try but, as yet this hasn't yielded much in terms of results. The players at the clubs tend to be ones who were quite good at school and privately educated. Contrast this with a French amateur club like Massy where the focus is overwhelmingly on bringing in and developing new talent particularly players who don't have a background in the game. While it is understandable that some clubs want to turn their back on professionalisation, the cold hard fact is that the international game has not. A chummy atmosphere at matches makes for a pleasant day out but is totally disconnected from elite level sport.

Francis Rowe ● 11d

Oh Andrew, I think you are worrying too much over what may or may not happen to the game's infrastructure.Board on a bus up the Kew Road any Saturday and see one of three great clubs playing outstanding rugby at amatuer level.I guarantee you will be entertained, and you can enjoy a decent pint at a fair prise amongst friendly people.What will be will be.

Denis I. Fox ● 14d

The problem is that English professional rugby needs to bring in more outside investment promotion and relegation significantly increases the risk of putting money into the sport. A perfectly drafted business plan can be ruined by a couple of injuries to key players and top teams already have a handicap of having to give up players for international teams. Whether you agree with the policy of not the game's administrators have already decided that you can't get into the Premiership unless you bring a reasonable amount of revenue to the table and the bar has been set at a five figure ground capacity. To be reasonably competitive a squad's salary bill need to be £2-3million and to get close to the top French, South African and Irish teams you start at £6-7million. Not all of this can come from TV revenues and sponsorship and only Sarries, Leicester and Northampton are anywhere near this level. Give the strength of grass roots and the level of participation, England should be dominant in world rugby yet they are consistently being beaten by Ireland and Scotland who have comparitively tiny player bases.  The problems of the club game are only going to get worse. About 10% of the player pool in the Gallagher Premiership is South African but with sides from that country now in the URC and Champions Cup, the income disparity is reducing. A few marquee signings continue but it is going to be increasingly difficult to fill squads with good quality and cheap Saffas. Combine that with top English talent going to play in the Pro14 and a reduced potential for recruitment through residency due to the better players opting for the French league or the URC, there is a danger that England gets locked into that 6-8 world ranking and clubs from other countries reap most of the financial benefit of the Champions Cup. Key to reversing this trend would be more financially sustainable professional teams and that is why London Irish restarting was such good news. However, this has gone very quiet and all the initial optimism has evaporated. It looks increasingly likely that it is never happening, let alone happening in Brentford.

Andrew OSullivan ● 14d

That is true Richard, that and the fact that the 10 existing clubs in the Gallagher sponsored premiership are ringfenced.

Denis I. Fox ● 16d

Isn't Ealing's problem that they do not have a ground that meets Premiership standards ?

Richard Greenhough ● 16d

So long as the existing 10 franchises remain solvent our national side will continue to have parity with the world's best rugby teams.I feel What the sport requires outside the national level, to hold interest amongst spectators is to reintroduce promotion and relegation between the top two divisions.Promotion aspects would give a meaning and a purpose for clubs such as Ealing Trailfinders, who dominate the Championship year after year- to no avail.Relegation would add jeopardy and yet more excitement to the premier division.

Denis I. Fox ● 16d

Given that the French Pro14 could probably field a team of English players that might beat the current England team, I don't think it is too much to call this a crisis. Christopher Holland seems to have made progress with Worcester, but the return of London Irish and Wasps looks stalled. The latter appears to be stymied by Holland also being their principal investor.  The game in this country is at a crossroads, it needs to accept it is a second tier league behind the URC and the Pro 14 and allow overseas based players to represent England or it needs to fast track the return of Irish and Wasps and build a financial structure that attracts world class players including English ones.

Andrew OSullivan ● 16d

Sweeney's policy of rebuilding the depth of the domestic league seems to have been given greater urgency by the poor performance of English teams in the Champions Cup, Northampton excepted. It looks like he has decided that he wants to get back closer to the 14 teams of the French league. However, he wants them financially sustainable and with their own grounds. That indicates that the fast track might be available to Wasps and Worcester but not for London Irish who don't seem to have any credible plans for their own ground. Perhaps a ground share on a interim basis might be considered but, as you say, we should be hearing something by now if 2026 is the target.The reasoning behind building a league made up of club's with their own grounds makes sense however many of the French teams benefit from local government support in which they get preferential access to municipal stadiums. That means that the French league can support a higher salary cap that the English one.

Francis Rowe ● 19d

Bill Sweeney's re-election last Friday may clarify things. His hard set opposition to Ealing being admitted to the Premiership could be because he has already decided to somehow give places to London Irish and maybe Wasps in return for the level of investment that they are willing to put in. They may be insisting on a closed shop with no relegation or promotion. If this is the case we should hear where Irish will be playing soon if they are going to meet their stated intention of playing in the top division by 2026.

Andrew OSullivan ● 31d

While I don't want to get into the position of being the defender of the RFU, I do believe that they would dearly love to expand the pool of fully professional teams in the country. However, they would like to do that without having to give too much financial support and that means that they are insisting on clubs bringing in a significant ticket revenue hence the ground capacity requirements.If London Irish could find a way to deliver that, I believe a fast track to the Premiership could be found for them but,  I am much less confident of this happening than I was when this thread started.

Francis Rowe ● 37d

Andrew, your perseverance at seeing London Irish's resurrection is admirable but unrealistic.The RfU is only interested in the England national team, and the (potentially) money making contingent who make up the sport's premiership; viz the Sarries, Quins, Tigers, Saints & Bears of this world.In the eyes of the avaricious RFU the likes of aspirational "grass roots" clubs like Ealing Trailfinders and Jersey Reds can forget about joining their elite, ring-fenced cousins.By the way Andrew, Queens Park Football team and their 300 strong army enjoy life at Little Hampden, which lies alongside the national stadium..

Denis I. Fox ● 40d

Perhaps Twickenham (not the Stoop) could be coming into play. The RFU have been at loggerheads with Richmond Council over licensing rules which restrict the amount of pop concerts they hold and are threatened to revive plans to move.  They probably have more leeway to stage more matches at the ground and, while it won't generate as much money as Beyonce, they have to find ways to pay the CEO's salary. Queens Park play in front of fewer than 2,000 people at Hampden Park which can hold 50,000 and the Premiership matches held at Twickenham have attracted big crowds when they get the ticket prices right. Can appreciate that this is a long shot but the options seem to be very limited and there must be some sort of plan in place.

Andrew OSullivan ● 40d

Really sad news - he lived a good life.Ownership of London Irish is apparently held by a consortium which includes Bobby Skinstad and Andrew Mehrtens as well as an investment fund so the project doesn't die with him.Another development this week is the RFU's rejection of Ealing and Coventry's bid to enter the Premiership particularly galling for Ealing given their league position. On the face of it, a ground share with either Brentford or Harlequins would have got round this but it obviously isn't as simple as that. The RFU seems to be insisting on clubs developing their own facilities which begs the question how do London Irish think they could be in the Premiership in 2026.

Francis Rowe ● 43d

Sorry to hear that Eddie Jordan, who led the consortium that purchased London Irish last month, has died.

Richard Greenhough ● 44d

Lee Dykes, Brentford's technical director, was interviewed on Radio 5 Live this morning. He was surprisingly open about the recruitment methods used by the club and the way that they identified players. It seemed much less data based than I thought it was, I had always assumed that it was primarily driven by numbers generated as part of Matthew Benham's betting operations. He even queried whether algorithm was the appropriate word to describe the analysis used. I find it reassuring that he, Thomas Frank and the other staff do spend a lot of time watching targets at games rather than pouring over spreadsheets. On the other hand, it was slightly concerning to hear him talk about how the quality of car in the training ground car park had gone up over the last few years — the salary bill has evidently exploded.

Francis Rowe ● 52d

Ian may be right and much of what I have said on this thread may be claptrap although the same could be said for him. For instance on his second point he when he says the restructuring of the company is nothing to do with new investment, he needs to read the statement from the club which says the restructuring is to do with new investment. https://www.brentfordfc.com/en/news/article/club-news-brentford-fc-bees-united-joint-statement I was at the Gtech on Saturday and as ever it is a brilliant experience, the fans managed to generate a great atmosphere at what was quite a low intensity game for the most part. Chatting to Bees fans during and after there was agreement that Mbeumo and Wissa were relatively ineffective as they often can be against teams that sit back whereas Ollie Watkins reminded us of what we were missing by making hay at the other end. The problem that this gives to Brentford is that these two strikers will be primarily attractive to counter attacking teams and none of the Premiership sides likely to pay big money pay that way. A possible scenario is Watkins goes to Arsenal and Villa takes one of the two Brentford strikers. A big pay day is coming for Brentford in the current financial year due to Toney money but after that the picture is less clear. There are big question marks over Thiago and Carvalho and so it may not be practical to sell existing strikers. All I am saying that, given this uncertainty, a bit of extra cash from other sources would be useful.

Andrew OSullivan ● 53d

Ian, can you explain why we should listen to you rather than Andrew, who does seem to have good knowledge of the technicalities here if not inside on the club? While not ruling out you do know stuff about this we don't, there is always the possibility that your strident response is down to what you are not liking what he is telling you. On 1) Plough Lane is too small to qualify for admittance to the rugby premiership and London Broncos have a long term lease to use the ground. I think we can all agree your list of potential alternative grounds in west London is comprehensive therefore it either has to be one of them or the London Irish proposal is all smoke and mirrors. Possible if Jordan wanted to get his hands on the brand on the cheap but, if not, they must have sounded out at least one of the ground owners before going public on their plans. The brand is obviously worth a fraction of what it would be if it was associated with a professional team. On 2) I think Andrew is undoubtedly right here. Matthew Benham may be saying that it is down to estate planning but he is a relatively young man so the timing has to have something to do with creating a structure to broaden the shareholder base even if this is a secondary reason. Brentford are not hiding the fact that they intend to bring new investors. The BBC's reporter seems to think this also the reason for the changes. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cgl0nle98xjo On 3) there are obviously no events scheduled but, as I pointed out earlier, the ground has been configured to allow this to happen. The question must be, if you are right that the Bees will never take advantage of this potential extra source of revenue, then why not?

Francis Rowe ● 54d

Please ignore EVERYTHING you read on this topic from Andrew. He hasn't got a clue what is going on.1. London Irish will not be playing at the Gtech, Loftus Road, Craven Cottage, the Stoop, Trailfinders or anywhere else in West London. You might find them at AFC Wimbledon2. The restructing of the company is nothing to do with new investments.3. There is no live events going to happen at the Gtech.Now please stop bothering us with you ill-informed claptrap.

Ian Mortimer ● 54d

I had a quick rescan of the accounts and there didn't seem to be any evidence that these sort of events contribute that much. The failure of Brentford to sweat the asset of the Gtech may have something to do with ownership changes ahead. Matthew Benham has changed his shareholding structure clearly with a view to bringing in new investment. It can't simply be that all of any new money is going in to the transfer fund because the rules make this impractical. One intriguing possibility is that the club is looking to make the area around the ground an entertainment district in a similar way to what is happening at Tottenham Hotspur Stadium and the Etihad. There are a number of sites that could be incorporated including the Fountain Leisure Centre. This would boost the revenue base of the club which is currently restricted by its small ground capacity and allow for year round revenue generation at the site including live music events.

Andrew OSullivan ● 56d

It was me who suggested that the stadium was configured with a view to ultimately staging live music events, information which came from someone with a very detailed knowledge of the design. Even if this hadn't happened, it isn't that difficult to put on live music events in any football stadium. Nothing appears to have been scheduled for this year so perhaps Brentford feels it is deriving sufficient revenue from other events at the ground such as weddings and conferences.

Francis Rowe ● 59d

There isn't a minimum size to stage a music event, even Grasshoppers Rugby are planning some this year and Altrincham FC are funding their new stadium with a serious of concerts. The GTech won't be able to host the Taylor Swift or the latest Rolling Stones farewell tour like Twickenham or Wembley but if it actually can accommodate 25,000 there will plenty of bands who might want to play there. Someone mentioned in this thread earlier that the stadium was originally configured to host live music but currently lacks the necessary licensing.

Andrew OSullivan ● 60d

The GTech is really too small for live music events. If you lose c.40% of the space for staging then, evenwith pitch use you have c.25,000 safe capacity. Far too small although infinitely more preferable than the routinerespoiling of Gunnersbury Park. That said, I can hear the letters of protest from the occupants of the expensive real estate around the GTech being prepared already.

N V Brooks ● 60d

That's a pretty good summation.  Brentford have just announced a restructuring of ownership which has to be assumed is a prelude to new investment being brought in and this may allow the club to absorb greater losses, giving the manager greater leeway when recruiting. People telling us the return of London Irish wasn't happening seem to have been well informed but I still believe Brentford will look to raise more revenue from the asset that is the GTech. Live music events have been mentioned and that is a route that clubs like Spurs and Aston Villa are going down.

Andrew OSullivan ● 60d

Followed the threads posted and, gleaning the information at face value, the Stoop being shared seems the most likely solution. Harlequins percentage revenue from any hire would be greater than BFC’s. The playing surface would need additional work between Rugby and Football games, with the nature of Rugby having areas of the pitch “cutting up” and requiring repair. Having experience of maintaining both Rugby and Football pitches over a number of years the “egg shaped” ball game doesn’t need the billiard table level of Premier League Football. If it does go to the GTech and BFC have a dip in performance due to wear and tear of a good Football pitch the additional income would not be viewed as such. Fair play rules would not be greatly affected even if the income was £3m when over £100m is generated for being a member of the EPL.

David Tyler ● 62d

The previous residencies were in two separate stints so it seems, the first time at least, the arrangement was mutually beneficial.Harlequins would benefit not just from the revenue from Irish but the extra money that comes in from two extra games against a pro-team on their fixture list both of which would probably sell out.

Francis Rowe ● 64d

I have no idea of the state of Harlequins' finances, but I would have thought they would benefit financially from allowing London Irish to ground-share with them again. From what you say it sounds like the previous sharing of the Stoop was always intended to be a short-term arrangement, but I wonder whether it caused any problems that would work against a repeat ?

Richard Greenhough ● 64d

Like you I had been to Irish games at the Stoop during this period and it had completely slipped my mind that they were effectively home fixtures. If Brentford aren't keen on renewing the partnership, then this would be a very good alternative. One caveat though is that looking at the clubs likely to come up from the Championship, particularly Leeds, the assumption that promoted teams will get relegated that has held for the last few years, won't necessarily apply next season. If at the same time Brentford have had to sell Thiago and Wissa, then they may have to rely on Thiago and Carvalho for goals. Although this article below is a statement of the blindingly obvious, it is a reminder that success isn't guaranteed. https://www.footballinsider247.com/brentford-could-face-severe-problems-after-financial-update-stefan-borson/

Andrew OSullivan ● 64d

It has already happened. It had completely slipped my mind that I had seen Irish play (a home fixture) at the Stoop.In 1999, London Irish shared Harlequins' home ground for a season before relocating and they played some of their 2019-2020 season fixtures at the Stoop due to delays in the construction of the Brentford Community Stadium.

Francis Rowe ● 65d

The Stoop is the only suitable option and would have a lot of things going for it but Harlequins might consider it not in their best interest to allow another professional team to establish itself on its patch. Interesting idea though — if the Milan clubs can share so can Irish and Harlequins.

Andrew OSullivan ● 67d

Are there no rugby grounds they could share in West London ?

Richard Greenhough ● 67d

Have to admit being a bit perplexed at his line of questioning. Perhaps another way to look at this is to remember if London Irish to want to return to professional rugby they must have a ground with a capacity of over 10,000.  If they want to be in west London that leaves them with three potential options — GTech, Craven Cottage and Loftus Road. The feeling appears to be that the Loftus Road pitch is too small so really there are just too options. It seems to me unlikely that Jordan wouldn't have sounded out both Fulham and Brentford about ground availability before announcing the takeover plans. Presumably he has investors who would need to see some sort of feasibility study before committing capital. If they had received a hard no from both clubs then the plan would be dead in the water. 

Andrew OSullivan ● 67d

Michael's capacity at times to adopt a position and never surrender an inch despite the reality of him being wrong becoming apparent is quite remarkable.It is all very early days in this story and we don't even know yet whether the commitment from Eddie Jordan is sufficient to get Irish back into the professional game. There also seems to be the added complication of Matthew Benham wanting to bring in more shareholders. BFC don't seem to have made any comment on the Irish situation yet so there remains hope.

Francis Rowe ● 68d

Just to be clear, Brentford FC in their own analysis to their accounts do disclose that in the last financial year revenue was reduced by £2.9million because of the absence of London Irish/Women's Euros games. I copied that section of the report earlier in this thread and you have to accept this as a fact. Other commercial revenue appears to have risen to more than compensate for this. The report doesn't specify what this is but this is chief executive Jon Varney's particular area of expertise. My guess is that the rise relates to the terms of the deal with Gtech. I don't know the details of ticket sale and F&B shares although I did have a conversation with one of the directors at London Irish some years ago who said then the long term ambition was for the club to have its own ground because having to share gate receipts and F&B at Reading and Brentford put them at a big disadvantage with clubs like Leicester. How the £2.9million broke down between football and rugby is not disclosed but I don't think it will be overstating the contribution from Irish to assume that the revenue per game attributable to Brentford was roughly similar and therefore with 23 rugby fixtures and four football fixtures the bulk of the £2.9million is likely to have come from the former. As said previously, I'd be interested to hear how you might think I have made incorrect assumptions but you can't quibble with what we know to be factual.

Andrew OSullivan ● 70d

Michael Robinson might need to calm down. That vein on his temple must be throbbing away with frustration. Does he not think that Brentford FC might have increased their prices at some point?What’s not mentioned here is the lack of interest the bulk of the population have in rugby. It’s not a great spectator sport for the passing punter. Even those who played rugby at school don’t find the current crash-bash game particularly interesting. I know some who don’t even take free tickets to Premiership games because it’s not appealing enough. They would rather watch on television.

Simon Hayes ● 71d

Why would BFC get a share of LI ticket sales?  Why are you assuming BFC got all of the food and drink sales at LI games?  It was reported in the media that the FA simply paid clubs to host Women's Euro games so the ticketing isn't relevant.If you look at the BFC accounts for 21/22, 22/23 and 23/24, BFC made £1M more commercial revenue in 23/24 without LI than they made in 21/22 with LI.Do you think it is credible that BFC grew their commercial revenue to the extent that it more than covered your claimed £2M contribution from LI? Or more likely that LI's contribution was nowhere near £2M? Commercial revenue grew £3.9M between 21/22 with LI and 22/23 with LI and the Euros.  A number of factors would have contributed to this growth but it would have included the Euros, and wouldn't have included LI.

Michael Robinson ● 71d

Peter's figure was for the ground rent for London Irish and didn't include share of ticket sales and F&B. I've no reason to doubt its accuracy but he never claimed it was the total revenue. I assumed around £100,000 revenue per game for the women's Euros fixtures and subtracted it from the £2.9million figure given in the accounts report. Yes it is an estimate but I tried hard to not overstate what the revenue attributable to Irish might be. The way the report is worded it indicates that the total is split between rugby and women's football. I've assumed a similar income per game for both with 23 rugby fixtures during the accounting period. This was deliberately conservative as F&B would be much higher and the assumption is that 100% of that goes to BFC.  I've double checked and UEFA had control of ticketing for the 2022 Euros as they do for all of their tournaments. My recollection was that you had to go to a UEFA web site to get tickets but the FA may have taken a big allocation and redistributed them which would explain why they were difficult to purchase. I think a guesstimate of about £2mn+ revenue per annum has some basis to it but happy for you to quibble on the detail once you have got the basic facts straight.

Andrew OSullivan ● 71d

I was assuming that Peter Cozens was accurate in his estimate of £600k from London Irish which is only 20% of the referenced £2.9M.The FA won the bid to host the Women's 2022 Euros and they paid clubs to host games, not UEFA.Your figure of £1.5m from food and drink at the ground seems to be completely speculative given a) you don't know the arrangement for food and drink sales between LI and BFC  and b) there seems to be no basis for the figure anyway, like comparables at other clubs.You can't invent something and say 'prove it is wrong', it is up to you to show it has some basis behind it.

Michael Robinson ● 71d

How do you work that out? There were just four games in the Euros and they were all just shy of full capacity. I did try to get tickets for some and they showed as sold out but local schools seemed to have been given lots of £5 tickets. An understandable attempt to build a legacy from the tournament. If you take into account UEFA's notoriously ungenerous revenue share and the relatively low F&B from the games then that made me assume the revenue from these fixtures was quite low and it was done as a prestige thing. If there's something wrong in my assumptions, happy to admit an error.

Andrew OSullivan ● 71d

Thanks.  Hosting the Women's Euros appears to have been a lot more lucrative for Brentford than hosting London Irish.

Michael Robinson ● 71d

The figure comes from the group strategic review issued with the accounts

Andrew OSullivan ● 71d

Andrew, where are you getting the figure of £2.9M revenue from non-Brentford FC facilities from? I've just skimmed the 22/23 and 23/24 reports and couldn't see reference to such a figure.  I just skimmed them so I may have missed. The 22/23 report has the following breakdown of revenue:

Michael Robinson ● 71d

I didn't look at the bad debt situation in the Brentford accounts but they booked £2.9million from revenue gained from non-Brentford FC facilities at the ground. I assume they would have qualified the figure if there was going to be a significant write off associated with it. Brentford could make Irish make good any missed payments as a condition of a new tenancy. If ground rent for Irish was £600,000 then conservatively they were bringing in £1.5million from other sources related to the deal. Perhaps there is a share of ticket sales but most of this must come from food and beverage at the ground. I didn't normally linger at the stadium after Irish games but once, as the Covid lockdown was just being lifted, I went to have a drink at one of the bars in the stadium. It was so rammed you could barely get through the door. I have been to the bars after football matches and they were relatively quiet. The confidence with which you assert that this deal isn't going to happen suggests you are talking to people in the know, so I am going to have to live with my hopes of an Irish return being dashed. However, it is frustrating because the arrangement seems to have been in the interest of both parties. Brentford's salary plus amortisation bill is currently the lowest in the Premier League and under a quarter of what Chelsea's is at the moment. This is testament to brilliant management and player recruitment but, as I said before, this is a tight rope. It takes just one serious injury or one player failing to settle in England for the system's weaknesses to be revealed. One or both of Wissa and Mbuemo have to go this year and they have to be replaced by players that are both cheap to buy and aren't asking for a high salary. Brentford are not the only club looking for this sort of player.

Andrew OSullivan ● 71d

The rent was in the region of 600k per season,and LI owed  Brentford money when they went bust.

Peter Cozens ● 72d

Not sure I agree with the statement that attendance were 'surprisingly poor'. The club came to Brentford during the pandemic and were in the process of establishing themselves but even so managed to attract bigger gates than they did at the Madjedski. The averages attendance for their last season is a bit deceptive because two games were scheduled on the same day as internationals. The last game I went to there was in 2022 and over 10,000 people turned up for an evening fixture against Saracens and a number of games that season brought in over 13,000.If the club does have to compete in the Championship before getting back to the top tier, there would obviously be a season of relatively low attendances but second tier games were hosted at the Madjedski when Irish were relegated. If Irish are covering Brentford's costs for this transition I don't see the risk here.Obviously a lot depends on the business plan and the level of investment that the Jordan group are bringing in but if you accept Andrew's estimate that the partnership provided £2.5million of extra revenue to Brentford the year before last, then the chances are that in the 2026/27 that would be significantly exceeded. I still struggle to understand how they would pass this up unless they had alternative uses for the stadium planned that would bring in an equivalent amount of revenue.

Francis Rowe ● 72d

Francis,As I understand it there is no chance of rugby being played at the Gtech while Brentford are in the Premier League..Another factor was the surprisingly poor attendances when LI did play at the Gtech.Certain fixed costs have to be met and the commercial match day revenue was lower than hoped.Unless LI are admitted back into the Premiership their crowds will be even lower.Disappointing for the local publicans as the Irish always spent a lot more than the Bees fans!

Peter Cozens ● 73d

Peter, as you seem to be telling us you have the inside track on this, we probably need to accept that you are right.I would say however that the numbers presented by Andrew make a compelling case for exploiting the non-footballing revenue potential of the GTech. I'm not sure I see why rugby is a problem as the club achieved its highest Premier League finish and highest league finish in the post-war period on a pitch on which both sports were being played. If rugby is ruled out then they may be looking at hosting music events there. As I understand it the stadium was configured in a way that would allow this to happen but isn't current licensed for it to do so.

Francis Rowe ● 73d

Sorry to disappoint you Andrew but I know 100% there will be no rugby played at the GTech.

Peter Cozens ● 74d

Brentford's accounts for last year have just been published. There is a good summary on the front page but it is probably worth looking at the details to get a complete understanding of what is going on. Despite the fall into losses, the club looks pretty sound. Some of the purchases made were a response to an injury problem and the Toney sale will be booked next year. However the cost base is going up and so I would say this confirms the tightrope aspect of the way they operate. We learn for the first time, I think, how much was coming in from London Irish. Renting the ground brought in £2.9million the previous year and, after making a guess at the proportion attributable to the Women's Euros, the rugby ground share accounted for £2.5million per annum. This seems small for a club now regularly spending £20million on players but it is recurring and guaranteed. However, if Thomas Frank thinks that a poor pitch will cost his team four or five points then the club may decide to pass. I'd still say better than even that they go for it. 

Andrew OSullivan ● 74d

While nobody can dispute how right Brentford have got this over the years, I wouldn't call it a great model, it's a tightrope which they have successfully managed to stay up on. After Mbeumo there may also be profits from Wissa and Schade but the Bees aren't in the championship anymore and can't just recruit players from second tier European sides or youth teams. The more recent purchases have a higher cost and Thiago and Carvalho, while great players, have yet to justify their fees. It can't be assumed that Brentford will always find the perfect replacement for the players they sell and, with their purchase costs going up, the chance of future windfall profits are much reduced and there is a risk good players need to be sold to cover losses.  As a fan you can believe in the process and trust that Brentford will continue to get it right. Most football supporters like what Brentford are doing and want it to continue to work but just in case it doesn't, securing a guaranteed annual revenue stream from hiring out the stadium looks prudent.

Andrew OSullivan ● 74d

Not that rare,add in Benrahma  and Raya both sold  for around 30 million and signed when Brentford were in the Championship. Next off the conveyor belt  probably Mbeumo who will be the highest value sale in Brentford’s history. It’s a great model.

Peter Cozens ● 75d

What you say is correct Peter but the example of a full amortised player being sold towards the end of his contract is  rare. Olly Watkins was a bullseye but that deal is working its way out of the PSR/Squad Cost calculations. The Toney deal will boost the clubs ratios again but this trick needs to be repeated again and again, and with many clubs copying this model, it will become more difficult. The clubs has spent a lot on players in recent years and while recruitment has been good, injuries could mean that some of these transfers result in big write offs. As an aside the sell on clauses are not included in PSR calculations so Brentford make even more from this point of view than you suggest. The system is designed to encourage investment in academies and Brentford need to develop a revenue pipeline from this source. In the meantime, although facilities rental fees may be small, they at least give a reliable revenue stream. 

Andrew OSullivan ● 75d

Actually Andrew the rules look at the amortised value of a player only.Obviously home grown players have no cost,but take the case of Ollie Watkins,bought for 1.8 million from Exeter,written down to zero over four years and then sold for 32 million.Pure profit less the sell on clause due to Exeter of 3.3 million.

Peter Cozens ● 75d

Thank you Andrew for your enlightening knowledge of player transfers, and Brentford's clever and successful use of the present rules.Re Man City it is thought they were falsifying some of their sponsorship deals which I'm sure you are aware.

Denis I. Fox ● 76d

PSR doesn't look at profitability but sustainability and money gained from transfers is only fully counted for players the club has developed themselves. The B team strategy of buying overlooked players who had gone through other academy systems has been massively successful but Brentford needed to bring back the academy due to PSR and the ambition to play in Europe. This is expensive and it takes a long time for an academy to generate a return by developing saleable players. It is absolutely right to say that Brentford is well run but the system works against the methods they have used so they may not be as comfortable as it would appear from the outside particularly with the rules tightening up next year. Under the rules as they are and will be, any revenue that is generated with a deal with London Irish would be available to spend on the first team squad and, while it might not even be enough to fund a whole player, it would give a constrained management a bit of extra leeway.

Andrew OSullivan ● 76d

I find it amusing to find Manchester City as one of only 4 clubs last year to show a profit.Their success on the field is undisputed, but they have incurred 115 alleged breaches of the leagues financial rules; the long awaited verdict expected in the spring.No such distractions apply to Brentford, whose performances on the field and affairs off it do this small club proud.

Denis I. Fox ● 77d

Brentford have reinstated the academies along with their very successful B Team model.Clever recruiting and player trading see them as only one of four teams who made a profit in the Premier League last year.Bournemouth,Brighton and Man City being the others.Sorry but there is no chance rugby will be returning to the Gtech.

Peter Cozens ● 77d

I doubt compassion will come into it but Wasps are already forming plans for a return possibly with a groundshare with Charlton and they could be looking at applying to the championship next season. The existing clubs championship clubs will resist, even more so if that is being considered as an option for Irish. The current structure with fewer truly professional teams has probably helped English rugby in the short term with a reduced number of highly competitive fixtures cutting injuries and a concentration of talent helping English teams in European competitions but financially it is probably unsustainable and the authorities will be keen to get at least two more viable professional teams up and running as quickly as possible.

Andrew OSullivan ● 77d

I believe Irish, Wasps and  Worcester Warriors, if fulfilling the required criteria, be allowed back into the second tier.Wasps, European Champions in 2004 and 2007 would certainly deserve such compassion after falling into bankruptcy.

Denis I. Fox ● 77d

My only hope is that Eddie Jordan lives long enough to see his dream become reality. He is 76 now and has advanced prostate and bladder cancer and the latest scans reveal the spread to his spine and other organs.  I do hope that the Irish return is somewhat easier than that of London Welsh who still languish on the fringes of the main leagues some six or seven years after reformation.

N V Brooks ● 77d

There are a lot of very confident pronouncements in this thread but I don't think anybody, even those closely associated with the clubs would be able to say exactly what is going to happen here. Firstly, the idea that the money that Irish would bring into Brentford is immaterial needs more thought. PSR rules put a premium on internally generated revenue and this will become more so when the new Squad Cost rules come in. Brentford is an exceptionally well run club but the regulations work against them because they scrapped their academy therefore don't have revenue to book from home developed players. I don't know how comfortable they are within the required ceilings but extra cash from renting the ground out will help. As for Irish going into the URC, it is hard to see that as anything other than a negotiating tactic. The IRFU is already facing complaints about the way funds are distributed among the provinces and Irish rugby, although strong, doesn't have the depth to support five teams. As England probably won't pick URC players even if they are based in England, then London Irish wouldn't benefit from the salary offset of having either English or Irish internationals. On the other hand, if they do secure a stadium with a decent capacity such as the Gtech, the English Premiership will welcome them with open arms. The professional sport in this country is desperately short of cash and Irish are a unique proposition guaranteeing large crowds.  At this stage I would say there is a better than even chance of them coming to Brentford as a Gallagher Premiership team given that it suits everybody's interests and Eddie Jordan has the skills and funds to make it happen.

Andrew OSullivan ● 77d

I don't think they will be walking in to the upper tiers of the league. They will have to start at the bottom tier and work there way up the league like Richmond and London Scottish have had to do.

Brian Green ● 77d

Since chelsea women play all games at stamford bridge i would have thought the stadium they once used before would be ideal for a championship club for nowWheatsheaf Park

Julian Pavey ● 78d

On the face of it London Irish are fortunate beneficiaries to have Formula 1 chief Eddie Jordon coming to their rescue, but without a pitch to play on they are stumped.One solution would be to become tenants at Sixways, Worcester's unused, but brilliant rugby stadiun.The Irish are used, after all to playing out of town when travelling to Reading for their home matches before administration reared its ugly head.

Denis I. Fox ● 78d

London Irish's previous deal was signed when Brentford were in the Championship and needed the extra cash. Now the Bees are in the Premier League, and having seen the previous wear on the pitch, I'd say it's very unlikely that rugby will be returning to the Gtech.

Alex Cavell ● 78d

The lights have been used again this year so the reseeding has been necessary despite the absence of rugby but I accept that the priority has to be maintaining the surface for football.The English League require ground sizes of at least 11,000 and I don't think there is another venue in west London that would be available and meet that requirement. Ealing have been kept out of the Premiership due to this stipulation. The fact that they haven't done a deal with Brentford for a ground share does support your view that a return of London Irish is unlikely.

Francis Rowe ● 78d

I would think there is no chance of London Irish returning to the Gtech.It wasn’t economically viable for Brentford,and the pitch is so much better since they left.As they will be in the Championship at best I would have thought a much smaller venue would be appropriate.

Peter Cozens ● 78d

How did the Brentford pitch stand up to doubling up for rugby and football ? I suspect if London Irish do return there, there may be a need to keep the pitch lights on more often. I recall there were issues with preparing the pitch for football at the Coventry Building Society Arena when Wasps were playing rugby there.

Richard Greenhough ● 78d