Are Ealing a sustainable club?

Time will tell mate but I wish them well and I am happy to rely on the governance arrangements to verify that their funding is properly sourced. Ealing are the stand out squad this year and although I hope Jersey & others push them all the way if they win the league this season I hope they get their chance at the top table.

Delamas wrote: Very interesting re the 'charity' and also Covid. If so, as per Wasps / Worcester, it the taxpayer who is picking up the bills....

workerbee wrote: Are these grants or Loans which will have to be repaid?

Is the money from the Charity for community outreach programmes rather than payment for playing professional rugby? 

Richard Lowther wrote: No club is sustainable if the outgoings are more than the income. The income should be self generated and not reliant on monies given or loaned from 'investors'. How many clubs in the top leagues can honestly say they are sustainable if you use these criteria? Probably none.

Saturnate wrote: Note 3 to the accounts explicitly refers to them as grants, and for them to be included within other income within the profit and loss account would also indicate that they are grants and not loans.

1871......2022

No 7 wrote: 1871......2022

Richard Lowther wrote: No 7 wrote: 1871......2022 You have to be careful that these two dates don't become fixed. Mr Gooley is 86. He's been very generous but what are the long term plans, will his family keep contributing to the same level or will they reduce their investment or withdraw it totally? Would would these scenarios mean to Ealing? At best a return to amateur rugby?

In the cold hard light of day calling pretty much any organisation sustainable comes with caveats.

One would have thought that local independent Bookstores would be around for ever, but alas no. The list of failed organisations is immense, Organisations have to cope with change all the time ... those that fail to adapt tend to wither and die ... The RFU might be an example of this btw.

Ealing has a rich history as a community club and quite a few years ago it had to really look at how it was structured and what needed to change if it was survive long term and by that I mean another 100 years. Any club, especially those with any ambition has to decide how to use its resources, both people and financai, to deliver a balanced, sustainable business. It's already been said but every one involved in Rugby at all levels and across sectors (education etc) are involved in a business. Balancing the books so we can play the game is absolutely essential. There are facilities, kit and insurance needed as well as whole lot more costs that have to be covered.

However there are different types of setups our clubs can use to manage their affairs in order or to support the objectives of the clubs.

What I find remarkable is that many clubs have not looked at how they need to be structured to develop the right balance between 'community' and the professional aspects of the game.

Being professional doesn't start when you begin paying players - it is a mind set that has to be embedded in the DIRECTORS AND CHAIRS.

Looking at the mess both WASPS and Worcester were found to be in it is clear to me at least that the 'senior management' weren't just asleep at the wheel, but probably high on something! They would have had every opportunity to raise and intervene as the crisis they were in unfolded over many seasons. Instead there was a false confidence that the normal rules of business don't apply to them. When businesses are struggling or indeed failing to pay Tax etc not only is a red flag it is a dire indication of impending doom as soon as HMRC start noticing.

All these so called financial reports were shared with the RFU, but a culture of hope over reason prevailed, despite what I contend was (and still is) without any merit or evidence, that results in a completely unsustainable model for Elite Rugby. To add insult to injury this is in the richest Rugby Union in the world. Again a complete lack of professional oversight and intervention (over decades!) from the very body that has ultimate accountability to all the clubs in the country who are part of the RFU Council. It is a complete and utter failure of governance.

The OP (that prompted this post) asks the question is Ealing sustainable? Some questions have been asked about grants/loans and charity funding with the implication being the club might not be sustainable, or worse something fishy is going on.

Sir Mike is a very impressive chap and no fool. He has built one the worlds leading travel companies, that remains in private hands, by paying attention to the details. I can remember many really robust conversations around finances, reporting and how the club needed to be managed.   

The comments around the Charity made on here are rather inappropriate IMO. Sir Mike (and 3 other members of his family are Trustees and their aims for the Charity are as follows:

   "the aims and key objectives of the Charity are to financially support causes within the United Kingdom, in particular youth and education, the Armed Forces, such as through military charities, and public services such as medical research. The Charity does not seek to raise funds from the public and so there are no planned activities."

In the UK we have complex laws around Charities and what they can and can't do and over 30 years The Trailfinders Charity and Mike Gooley personally has donated many tens of millions to "good causes". Quite rightly, this is done in the best way for the beneficiaries, meeting the robust expectations of the Charity Commission and UK Law.

In addition, when it comes to the sustainability question asked around the Club we have recent evidence of their commitment to prudence that was completely IGNORED by the powers that be.

On earning promotion last season a sensible balanced plan was submitted to the RFU on how the club would manage and invest over the the first three years in the Premiership. Of course the centre of attention was the size of the 'stadium' and the illusion created around the necessity of needing a capacity of over 10,000 spectators. Not conceding to this ludicrous demand, that would have undermined the clubs' financial management and risked becoming a massive mistake if relegated, is again in my opinion evidence of the sensible decision making and sustainable culture that now permeates the club.

I think that it would come as a surprise to many of the readers here just how carefully the club is managed and the support from Sir Mike is built on the trust earned over decades and delivering not just professional rugby, but a community programme that rivals anything delivered by the P1 clubs.

Sorry to rant