English clubs look for HC decision in May.

by Guest Sun 17 Feb 2013, 11:06 am

First topic message reminder :

A little bit of an update amongst the usual blurb on the various options. It really does look like a case of who is going to blink first and the English and French having to cook up a viable alternative in order to generate compromise.
The Anglo welsh league is one I haven't previously heard muted. May looks like being decision time.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/9875127/English-clubs-linked-with-southern-hemisphere-Super-Rugby-teams-as-Heineken-Cup-stalemate-deepens.html

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Wed 20 Feb 2013, 11:02 pm

Unfortunately (or not) there is a crisis coming to French rugby this summer, as the FFR and LNR re-enter negotiations between themselves. The recent performance of the national team does not meet with national expectation, and it is widely expected that the FFR are going to be seeking greater commitment from the clubs to the national cause (much as happens between the RFU and the PRL for example in England). The FFR's position is most likely to be led by Monsieur Blanco, with the LNR represented by his good friend, Monsieur Goze, the Perpignan president. I am told by rugby friends in France that the end result is likely to be reduced power of the clubs in France - I cannot see how this will help the English cause in the European negotiations.

What Paul Goze had to say back in Dec:

"In the negotiations for the European Cups, there are always difficult moments and barriers," the National Rugby League (LNR) president said in an interview.

"However everybody in European rugby, the Scottish, Irish, Welsh, English, Italians and us (French) need the European Cups.

"We cannot forsee that these barriers will continue.

"The negotiations will be difficult as always but I am not worried about the long-term outcome.

"All parties will be able to agree before the deadline to ensure that after 2014 the competition will continue to be one of rugby's forces.

"We have taken ideas forward and the positions are on the table. In all negotiations there can be small alterations that can unblock the situation."

I believe that the French will be focused on reducing the numbers (from 24 to 20) and bringing forward the date of the final - after that I expect them to give ground in return for sorting out these two items. Apparently if the numbers are reduced, they don't expect to automatically hold on to their current 6 slots in the Heino (or equivalent).

by Guest Thu 21 Feb 2013, 7:18 am

The BT domestic deal for English clubs is going to happen, if the currently defunct ERC (as the French and English have resigned) want to negotiate the euro element with BT, let them and perhaps Sky will start offering market rates.
The current euro deal of 24% allocation is less than 2% per club (there are 13 clubs in the PRL) . All the R12 teams get more than that - is that fair???
I don't believe there will be any division between the English and french clubs, they have been talking about it for too long - well over a year now.

by HammerofThunor Thu 21 Feb 2013, 7:38 am

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Unfortunately (or not) there is a crisis coming to French rugby this summer, as the FFR and LNR re-enter negotiations between themselves. The recent performance of the national team does not meet with national expectation, and it is widely expected that the FFR are going to be seeking greater commitment from the clubs to the national cause (much as happens between the RFU and the PRL for example in England). The FFR's position is most likely to be led by Monsieur Blanco, with the LNR represented by his good friend, Monsieur Goze, the Perpignan president. I am told by rugby friends in France that the end result is likely to be reduced power of the clubs in France - I cannot see how this will help the English cause in the European negotiations.

What Paul Goze had to say back in Dec:

"In the negotiations for the European Cups, there are always difficult moments and barriers," the National Rugby League (LNR) president said in an interview.

"However everybody in European rugby, the Scottish, Irish, Welsh, English, Italians and us (French) need the European Cups.

"We cannot forsee that these barriers will continue.

"The negotiations will be difficult as always but I am not worried about the long-term outcome.

"All parties will be able to agree before the deadline to ensure that after 2014 the competition will continue to be one of rugby's forces.

"We have taken ideas forward and the positions are on the table. In all negotiations there can be small alterations that can unblock the situation."

I believe that the French will be focused on reducing the numbers (from 24 to 20) and bringing forward the date of the final - after that I expect them to give ground in return for sorting out these two items. Apparently if the numbers are reduced, they don't expect to automatically hold on to their current 6 slots in the Heino (or equivalent).

There is no way the FFR can just take more control of the clubs. If anything the FFR are more likely to ceed control over the domestic TV, ERC structure, etc with the clubs releasing players early and maybe agreeing to foreign player limits. Both sides will across the channel and want what they see there. And why wouldn't they? We're awesome! High five!

by Guest Thu 21 Feb 2013, 7:41 am

An interesting article on the power of the french clubs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/france/9884250/Six-Nations-2013-crisis-What-crisis-This-is-business-as-usual-for-France.html

by HammerofThunor Thu 21 Feb 2013, 7:50 am

TJ wrote:You will find out. there are only two ways this is going - the PRL will back down or will be out of the HC without any other competition to take its place

How do I know the PRL are isolated - direct quotes from the RFU, the french union and the french club representatives. all are furious at the way the PRL have behaved. Everyone can see this apart from dogmatic English fans.

Why do you think the RFU arranged a meeting of all stakeholders apart from the PRL?

You see this is what I mean. Direct quotes you say but there's been nothing so far other than quotes from media articles. Nothing I've seen has suggested the RFU are "furious" unless you really REALLY want to believe they are. As for them arranging the meeting, what's that based on? I assume you have evidence the RFU arranged it, or are you twisting the information to fit your narrative?

I'm not even saying the RFU aren't fuming with the PRL but I expect to see evidence of this before believing it.

by AlastairW Thu 21 Feb 2013, 8:59 am

HammerofThunor wrote:
TJ wrote:You will find out. there are only two ways this is going - the PRL will back down or will be out of the HC without any other competition to take its place

How do I know the PRL are isolated - direct quotes from the RFU, the french union and the french club representatives. all are furious at the way the PRL have behaved. Everyone can see this apart from dogmatic English fans.

Why do you think the RFU arranged a meeting of all stakeholders apart from the PRL?

You see this is what I mean. Direct quotes you say but there's been nothing so far other than quotes from media articles. Nothing I've seen has suggested the RFU are "furious" unless you really REALLY want to believe they are. As for them arranging the meeting, what's that based on? I assume you have evidence the RFU arranged it, or are you twisting the information to fit your narrative?

I'm not even saying the RFU aren't fuming with the PRL but I expect to see evidence of this before believing it.

Don't waste your time. TJ gets his panties in a right twist about this subject, go through some of the other HEC threads; rational opinions, discussion of options is not part of his agenda. Pointing the finger of blame squarely at the panto-bad guys, twisting words to fit his agenda and plain making sh1t up followed by putting a scratch in the record is much easier.

by TrailApe Thu 21 Feb 2013, 10:51 am

I find it quite amusing the way certain posters hold up the HC competition as a sacred cow and the be all and end all of European Rugby.

Supporting a club that's had limited chances to compete in the HC the squeals of indignation that are coming from certain quarters in support of the status quo makes me wonder if any attention is paid to the normal league games that their sides compete in.

The HC is just a cross border competition with just a few R12 clubs exluded, surely the 'celtic' nations will get the same quality of rugby watching Ulster vs Cardiff in the league as opposed to the HC? Is Leinster vs Treviso that different in the league as it is in the HC? The only difference with the HC is that a few AngloFrench teams compete, (as they do in the Amlin), so whats the big attraction?

Seriously, some of you are going on as if it's the end of the world.

by Artful_Dodger Thu 21 Feb 2013, 11:07 am

TrailApe wrote:I find it quite amusing the way certain posters hold up the HC competition as a sacred cow and the be all and end all of European Rugby.

Supporting a club that's had limited chances to compete in the HC the squeals of indignation that are coming from certain quarters in support of the status quo makes me wonder if any attention is paid to the normal league games that their sides compete in.

The HC is just a cross border competition with just a few R12 clubs exluded, surely the 'celtic' nations will get the same quality of rugby watching Ulster vs Cardiff in the league as opposed to the HC? Is Leinster vs Treviso that different in the league as it is in the HC? The only difference with the HC is that a few AngloFrench teams compete, (as they do in the Amlin), so whats the big attraction?

Seriously, some of you are going on as if it's the end of the world.

By a few you mean 13 (more than half the teams in the tournament) Yet it is other Unions such as Italy and Scotland who are being told they aren't even entitled to have more than 1 entrant.

by beshocked Thu 21 Feb 2013, 11:09 am

The Amlin is basically an Anglo-French competition anyway.

9 wins for English clubs. 9 for French clubs. 1 for Wales (of course Cardiff benefitted from the drop down system too)

If the HC breaks up then the Celtic nations will just have the Pro12. England and France could easily form a profitable Anglo-French cup.

The Celtic nations need the English and French clubs more than the other way round.

by Bathman_in_London Thu 21 Feb 2013, 11:19 am

TrailApe wrote:I find it quite amusing the way certain posters hold up the HC competition as a sacred cow and the be all and end all of European Rugby.

Supporting a club that's had limited chances to compete in the HC the squeals of indignation that are coming from certain quarters in support of the status quo makes me wonder if any attention is paid to the normal league games that their sides compete in.

The HC is just a cross border competition with just a few R12 clubs exluded, surely the 'celtic' nations will get the same quality of rugby watching Ulster vs Cardiff in the league as opposed to the HC? Is Leinster vs Treviso that different in the league as it is in the HC? The only difference with the HC is that a few AngloFrench teams compete, (as they do in the Amlin), so whats the big attraction?

Seriously, some of you are going on as if it's the end of the world.

The thing is certain teams are the way they are because of the HC and its current format. Apart from Ireland the other Rabo teams were formed to compete in cross border competitions. Whereas the English/French clubs play in their own domestic leagues and have the Euros as a bit of extra.

Unsurprisingly the teams/countries which have changed to take advantage of the current system aren't going to vote to change it.

by Poorfour Thu 21 Feb 2013, 11:32 am

TJ wrote:I have said nothing about the size of the English or French leagues. Its a simple point. You think your structure handicaps you you change your structure - you do not attempt to handicap others.

It is none of the PRLs business how the scots qualify.

I am trying to get you to see how outrageous the PRLs demands are - they want to control european rugby for the benefit of a small group of english team owners.

Part of the PRL and LNR's issue is that by changing their structure the Rabo unions have - perhaps inadvertently - disadvantaged the English and French clubs. Your "we'll change our structure, you change yours" attitude essentially leads to a Prisoner's Dilemma situation in which all parties end up worse off by acting in their own immediate interests rather than co-operating. I really hope the ERC and Rabo unions (and the PRL and LNR for that matter) are not that shortsighted but sadly the public signs are that they are playing it your way.

That second paragraph appears to the the fundamental assumption under your argument, and it is just plain wrong. Of course it's the PRL's business how the Scots qualify. There is no god-given right to European rugby. The ERC is a commercial organisation set up to further the mutual interests of a number of business partners. It exists because they were able to reach an agreement that all parties thought was acceptable several years ago. Two of the parties now find that agreement unacceptable. For the competition to continue, all the parties need to find an arrangement that they all find acceptable.

Qualification is a part of that. Before they sign, the PRL and LNR need to find whatever mechanism is proposed for Scots qualification acceptable, just as the SRU will need to find the way the PRL and LNR qualify teams acceptable. It may be (I don't know) that in the previous agreement the PRL and LNR signed up to terms that said the Rabo unions could organise their qualification however they liked. That doesn't mean it's not a legitimate basis for negotiation (doesn't mean the Rabo unions want to negotiate it - but it doesn't make it any less valid as a thing to negotiate).

As for your last point, let's imagine that you and I set up a business. I will bring my team of skilled people, you will bring yours, and we will pool the money we make and share it in fixed percentage. Both groups need to be involved for the business to work, but the mix of people can change over time. Suppose you find that you can't support the number of people you originally planned for and fire half your staff. But you still get half the revenue, and your staff get bigger shares, even though my staff are doing more of the work and bringing in more of the revenue. In your world, I would be a greedy money- and power-grabbing illegitimate for trying to negotiate a different share of revenues.

The "small group of English team owners" are an easy target for vilification, but let's remember that they are propping up the still-immature professional game in England. They fund losses every year. They're generally working towards profitability but it will take years to earn out the debts they've accumulated. Is it really that unreasonable that they should look at other teams who are getting nearly twice as much for playing in the same competition and say "hang on a minute....?"

Now, about that constructiveness...

by Kingshu Thu 21 Feb 2013, 11:56 am

Bathman_in_London wrote:
TrailApe wrote:I find it quite amusing the way certain posters hold up the HC competition as a sacred cow and the be all and end all of European Rugby.

Supporting a club that's had limited chances to compete in the HC the squeals of indignation that are coming from certain quarters in support of the status quo makes me wonder if any attention is paid to the normal league games that their sides compete in.

The HC is just a cross border competition with just a few R12 clubs exluded, surely the 'celtic' nations will get the same quality of rugby watching Ulster vs Cardiff in the league as opposed to the HC? Is Leinster vs Treviso that different in the league as it is in the HC? The only difference with the HC is that a few AngloFrench teams compete, (as they do in the Amlin), so whats the big attraction?

Seriously, some of you are going on as if it's the end of the world.

The thing is certain teams are the way they are because of the HC and its current format. Apart from Ireland the other Rabo teams were formed to compete in cross border competitions. Whereas the English/French clubs play in their own domestic leagues and have the Euros as a bit of extra.

Unsurprisingly the teams/countries which have changed to take advantage of the current system aren't going to vote to change it.

SRU always had four district teams,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Rugby_Union

They had an inter Distict league, same as Irish inter-Provincial league, the four traditional districts—the South (Border Reivers), Edinburgh, Glasgow and the North & Midlands (Caledonia Reds)—were given the go-ahead to take part in Europe.

Two of them folded, but these teams have history back to 1872, and are not just formed, they are the same as the Provinces.

FIR promoted one club team, and used a region, Wales are the only ones that used new teams and theres long been an arguement weither these are promoted super clubs or regions? Two of them kept thier pre 2003 history and European ranking, therefore of the 12 Pro 12 teams maybe 3 were formed, Ospreys, Zebre and maybe Newport Gwent Dragons.

by **profitius** Thu 21 Feb 2013, 2:03 pm

Bathman_in_London wrote:
TrailApe wrote:I find it quite amusing the way certain posters hold up the HC competition as a sacred cow and the be all and end all of European Rugby.

Supporting a club that's had limited chances to compete in the HC the squeals of indignation that are coming from certain quarters in support of the status quo makes me wonder if any attention is paid to the normal league games that their sides compete in.

The HC is just a cross border competition with just a few R12 clubs exluded, surely the 'celtic' nations will get the same quality of rugby watching Ulster vs Cardiff in the league as opposed to the HC? Is Leinster vs Treviso that different in the league as it is in the HC? The only difference with the HC is that a few AngloFrench teams compete, (as they do in the Amlin), so whats the big attraction?

Seriously, some of you are going on as if it's the end of the world.

The thing is certain teams are the way they are because of the HC and its current format. Apart from Ireland the other Rabo teams were formed to compete in cross border competitions. Whereas the English/French clubs play in their own domestic leagues and have the Euros as a bit of extra.

Unsurprisingly the teams/countries which have changed to take advantage of the current system aren't going to vote to change it.

If you want to highligh countries, England and France are getting way more money as it is. Their clubs happen to get less because they've more clubs to pay. They don't have to pay each club HEC money but they choose to do so.

by Poorfour Thu 21 Feb 2013, 2:17 pm

And I don't have to feed all my children, but I choose to do so...

If you look at the way the PRL operates, a lot of its activity is geared towards smoothing out club finances. EPS, TV and Cup payments are fairly level across the teams despite differences in EPS players, televised matches and Cup qualification / success. The salary cap ensures that big clubs can't just outspend smaller clubs.

They do that because the clubs recognise that at this stage of the game's development they need to ensure that there are enough teams that are competitive and financially viable for there to be a viable league.

If there aren't enough competitive teams, the league dies and then all the teams die. Ask the Welsh.

Club finances are very sensitive to swings in revenue because costs are much more fixed than revenue (you still need a squad and a ground regardless of how many games you play or how many people come to watch them).

It's not a matter of "choose to do so". Choose not to do so and you threaten the financial viability of the league as a whole. The PRL has more mouths to feed than each of the Rabo unions and is understandably looking at the split of ERC revenues and the Sky deal and saying "we can do better than that for everyone - but if we're bringing more to the party, we'd like a larger share so that our own members' finances can be more secure"). That's essentially what's on the table with the BT deal.

by HammerofThunor Thu 21 Feb 2013, 5:44 pm

Any talk about fairness is cowpat. There is no such thing in absolute terms. The English and French clubs will take what they can get, as will all the other parties involved. A competition with the current parties would be preferred by all, but must meet the minimum requirements (again for all). If a competition cannot be found that meets the minimum requirements for all parties then people will leave until there is one. Whoever that may be.

It's not complicated, it's exactly how the competition was originally set up. And it's exactly how the origninal competition developed into what it is now.

by formerly known as Sam Thu 21 Feb 2013, 6:14 pm

I wonder if this will be a big feint by the PRL. The PRL have already stated that in terms of percentage the HEC is a relatively small amount. The AP generates more cash and that is why the AP and the French are looking for reduced Rabo numbers. That would raise the amounts to the AP and the French clubs but seeing as the Rabo unions use the HEC money to fund themselves isn't popular.

The anglo and French alliance's approach to strengthen the Amlin is a good idea but the Rabo unions won't support it.

I wonder if the PRL will back down if the Rabo unions allow the BT deal to go through as that would allow a major cash injection with the non-English rights to still be sold. That would only be a short term fix though as I fully expect the anglo-french alliance to demand the Rabo nations support the Amlin again and again until it happens.

by TJ1 Thu 21 Feb 2013, 9:04 pm

Poorfour wrote:

That second paragraph ( Its no business of the PRL how the scots qualify) appears to the the fundamental assumption under your argument, and it is just plain wrong. Of course it's the PRL's business how the Scots qualify.

this is absolute nonsense.

The UNIONS decided how many clubs from each country qualify. Its up to each union how they select their teams to enter.

Can yo make any sort of logical case that is is anything to do with any other union how one union selects its entrants? I have not heard one yet from anyone - just lots of bluster. Perhaps the SRU can tell the RFU how to structure its leagues? and how to select its entrants to the HC.

So lets see you make a logical case for the PRL haveing any influence at all over how the SRU selects its entrants - not the number of them but the selection process.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 21 Feb 2013, 9:21 pm

The Heino was a competition set up between the unions for their clubs to participate in - the problems have arisen in part due to the clubs now having a seat around the table imo

by TJ1 Thu 21 Feb 2013, 9:41 pm

From Dodsen - the ceo of the SRU

We’re talking about a much wider issue here: the fight for control of professional rugby in the northern hemisphere,” said Dodson. “It has to be seen in that context.

“There is a lot of noise being made in the papers in England, and a lot of selective leakage around the subject, but I can assure you that the Celtic and Italian nations are working incredibly hard to make sure that the PRL and LNR [the French Ligue Nationale de Rugby] do not just steamroller their proposals through.”

English and French sides have a long-standing grievance over the fact that they must fight for their places while the Celtic and Italian clubs in the RaboDirect PRO12 competition do not. They also object to the fact that the PRO12 teams can rest key players for big games because their league does not have relegation. However, Dodson was scathing about their complaints.

Dodson said: “The English are always blaming something. It’s the fact that there is no promotion/relegation in the Rabo, or the Irish and French clubs have more money than they have. It’s another excuse and another excuse. But if they’d won four of the last seven European Cups you wouldn’t hear any of this.

“They have to come to terms with the route they have chosen for their leagues. Nobody is forcing them to have promotion and relegation. They choose to have it. As far as we’re concerned we run our leagues and they run their leagues. We’re not asking them to change anything about their league.

“The Heineken Cup was put together as a Europe-wide tournament and to get that you have to have all flavours. Part of the attraction of the Heineken Cup is that you do go to Italy and to Scotland. Nobody wants to see an Anglo-French tournament, but that’s what they will be left with if they continue with this tactic.”

Dodson, who is expected to attend European Rugby Cup meetings in Dublin over the next two days, indicated that he was happy to negotiate with the French over the timing of the Heineken Cup final - they want it to be moved to an earlier slot than it currently occupies - but that he would not be “steamrollered” by the negotiating tactics of the English clubs.

“If anything PRL are even more isolated than they were at the outset of these talks,” he said. “The notion of gunboat diplomacy has back-fired and I think you will find this will be no walk in the park for the English clubs.

“There might be some reason for change and it might be for the best. The French have asked us to look at when the final is played, for example, so that they can have a clear run at their championship’s end. That was a reasonable request made in a reasonable way, but certain things that are to the complete detriment of rugby in Scotland will be resisted fundamentally.

“This is not just about getting change in Europe. It’s a battle about control and money. It’s a clear power-play.

“Every conversation I’ve had with the Celtic nations and Italians has been one of complete solidarity, and that isn’t moving. If anything, attitudes are hardening against PRL.”

by formerly known as Sam Thu 21 Feb 2013, 10:10 pm

Dodson said: “The English are always blaming something. It’s the fact that there is no promotion/relegation in the Rabo, or the Irish and French clubs have more money than they have. It’s another excuse and another excuse. But if they’d won four of the last seven European Cups you wouldn’t hear any of this.

Pretty sure the English and French raised issues in 2007 despite winning 4 or was it 5 in the sevens years before that. Fact is the Rabo nations begged poverty then and now that doesn't fit thy are using their controlling power to try and strong arm their way through this. They refused to negociate initially and then started the PR campaign which the PRL sadly was only too keen to wade into. The man from the SRU seems to personify the screw you we're good mantra.

The European competition needs:

1) new tv deals that maximise revenue
2) a revamped Amlin which makes it a meaningful competition
3) a third tier for the development of the other nations across Europe
4) change of dates to stop the HEC final clashing with the climax of the domestic seasons

So far the Rabo nations have refused to discuss any of the above other than point 4 and yet are claiming to be the good guys. It's the we're good screw you arguement from the nations that take more revenue out than they put in.

The Heino was a competition set up between the unions for their clubs to participate in - the problems have arisen in part due to the clubs now having a seat around the table imo

Big difference there As is that the RFU and the FFR have no control over the teams or players from their nations. They don't care as long as they get some cash for nothing and occasionally host a final. There's a reason they are staying out of the debate. Considering neither union have a good relationship with the umbrella group of their clubs to go with their lack of power I'd argue they shouldn't have a say at all.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 21 Feb 2013, 10:58 pm

Sam, your missing out a key demand in your list, the main point of contention - namely the PRL & to a lesser extent the LNR saying that they want to reduce the size of the competition, and to do so by reducing the number of participants from each of the Celtic and Italian unions - its no wonder there's a sticking block!

by MrsP Thu 21 Feb 2013, 11:10 pm

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Sam, your missing out a key demand in your list, the main point of contention - namely the PRL & to a lesser extent the LNR saying that they want to reduce the size of the competition, and to do so by reducing the number of participants from each of the Celtic and Italian unions - its no wonder there's a sticking block!

Still can't work out why anyone thinks this will make it a better competition.

by broadlandboy Thu 21 Feb 2013, 11:11 pm

As, it's the LNR that want to reduce the size of the comp with the PRL going along to get support for their demands.
MrsP,with RABO teams being bottom of 5 of the HEC pools,winning only 2 games between them, it would increase the quality

by overlordofthewest Fri 22 Feb 2013, 12:53 am

Maybe if they were looking at reducing the amount of English clubs to 3 as Wales and Ireland have, there wouldn't be so many on this thread in favour of it. Then again, a lot of the arguments seem to be based on money so if only the top 3 in England qualified for the HEC, they would get double the money and a lot of the disputes on here would be invalid.

Im not seriously suggesting this, just think people should try and look at it from everyone's perspective.

by broadlandboy Fri 22 Feb 2013, 1:46 am

Over, as has been stated many times the english money is split between all members of the PRL and not just those in the HEC. Alot of people seem to think that there is only 1 European comp where there is in fact 2 run by the ERC,with the PRL/LNR wanting to create another to spread the game further.

by TJ1 Fri 22 Feb 2013, 6:49 am

TJ wrote:
Can yo make any sort of logical case that is is anything to do with any other union how one union selects its entrants? I have not heard one yet from anyone - just lots of bluster. Perhaps the SRU can tell the RFU how to structure its leagues? and how to select its entrants to the HC.

So lets see you make a logical case for the PRL haveing any influence at all over how the SRU selects its entrants - not the number of them but the selection process.

by Shifty Fri 22 Feb 2013, 7:33 am

I think the Rabo teams know that England and France dont want to totally lose the European Cup so I think they will just hold their ground. Also due to the limited number of teams each Rabo country has they can fund the professional game simply from their international matches.

by TJ1 Fri 22 Feb 2013, 7:44 am

Shifty - the HC money is absolutely crucial to the scots game. Edinburghs decent run last year brought in enough extra money to expand the squad. Half a million plus or minus makes a big difference in such a small setup

by blackcanelion Fri 22 Feb 2013, 8:52 am

If anyones interested I listened to an interview with Hamish Riach (Canterbury Crusaders CEO) on this the other day. Essentially a north south comp, or even playoff game isn't going to happen because there's no space in the calendar. Super rugby isn't going to disappear. They are in discussions but that's about it. It sounds like more posturing by the English clubs.

by Poorfour Fri 22 Feb 2013, 9:39 am

TJ wrote:Shifty - the HC money is absolutely crucial to the scots game. Edinburghs decent run last year brought in enough extra money to expand the squad. Half a million plus or minus makes a big difference in such a small setup

Judging by this year's performances, maybe they'd have been better off without the extra cash...

TJ, the same argument applies equally to AP clubs - who do not gave financial backing from the RFU. Half a million would for many of them be the difference between profit and loss. For others it would make a dent in a bigger loss. Only Tigers, Exeter and Saints make a profit regularly. Why are their concerns any less valid than the Scottish clubs'?

The logical reason for why the PRL should have a say in the SRU's qualification criteria is that the ERC is a negotiated agreement between the participants. They can negotiate on whatever they feel they need to make the competition work for them

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri 22 Feb 2013, 9:46 am

Poorfour wrote:
TJ wrote:Shifty - the HC money is absolutely crucial to the scots game. Edinburghs decent run last year brought in enough extra money to expand the squad. Half a million plus or minus makes a big difference in such a small setup

Judging by this year's performances, maybe they'd have been better off without the extra cash...

TJ, the same argument applies equally to AP clubs - who do not gave financial backing from the RFU. Half a million would for many of them be the difference between profit and loss. For others it would make a dent in a bigger loss. Only Tigers, Exeter and Saints make a profit regularly. Why are their concerns any less valid than the Scottish clubs'?

The logical reason for why the PRL should have a say in the SRU's qualification criteria is that the ERC is a negotiated agreement between the participants. They can negotiate on whatever they feel they need to make the competition work for them

The participants = the unions

by Kingshu Fri 22 Feb 2013, 9:56 am

Also for everyone saying the BT deal is better, we don't know that yet?
Will the BT deal + what the IRFU, SRU and WRU can now get, be more than the Sky deal? Will the total the ERC sell the rights for be less than what what the Unions pull together? untill the BT deal is known we don't know?

Also even if the BT deal does bring in more money, who's to say the ERC didn't look into this, and decide its a risk, and would have lower viewer figures, and they want to promote the game to a wider audience, and are willing to recieve less money to promote rugby better?

The point of the TV deals isn't just to recieve as much money as possible, its about promoting the game, building up the hype, and having a large viewing number.

Maybe ERC decided to stick with Sky (for less money) as they are the proven leaders in promotion and they can guarentee the viewing figures, and wait untill BT establishes itself.

The BT deal is a bit of a gamble, look at Sentanta and Scottish football, they brought the rights for a good price, Scottish football thought great. After a year Sentanta went bust in UK, so Scottish football had budgeted on Sentanta's money for 3 years, and only got a year, Sky brought out the rights for far less than Sentanta were for paying (as they knew the Scots were desperate to sell quickly) leaving all the clubs with big budget deficiets, and struggling to make ends meet.

Maybe ERC looked at this and thought we'll stick with Sky and wait for BT to establish itself, and consider them in 3 years time when Sky deal is over.

On another way imagine your a boxer, Barry McGuigan offers you £1000 to promote you, and Don King offers you £100. If you went with Don King you'd recieve less money, but you'd be guarentted to be a household name before the fight and everyone would be talking about it, making it a sell out fight and your future fights easy to promote. Barry McGuigan wouldn't guarentee you being a household name, nor a sell out crowd or people even knowing your fighting.

Ps, just picking Names as Barry McGuigan is a great promoter and would sell out the odyssey arena, and is doing great with Carl.

by TJ1 Fri 22 Feb 2013, 10:15 am

The logical reason for why the PRL should have a say in the SRU's qualification criteria is that the ERC is a negotiated agreement between the participants. They can negotiate on whatever they feel they need to make the competition work for them

Sorry - that does not stand up at all. It simply is non of the PRLs business how the SRU select its teams to enter the HC. NO one has made any soert of logical case for the PRL being able to interfere in the decision s of the SRU.

remeber each UNION has a number of entrants. It is up to the union how these entrant are selected.

by geoff998rugby Fri 22 Feb 2013, 10:18 am

formerly known as Sam wrote: The European competition needs:

1) new tv deals that maximise revenue
2) a revamped Amlin which makes it a meaningful competition
3) a third tier for the development of the other nations across Europe
4) change of dates to stop the HEC final clashing with the climax of the domestic seasons

So far the Rabo nations have refused to discuss any of the above other than point 4 and yet are claiming to be the good guys.

Absolutely rubbish - the only thing they have refused to discuss is to counternance the English insistance all three leagues should be treated the same and no recognition be made that the Pro12 represents 4 unions and the other 2 leagues only one each.

by Poorfour Fri 22 Feb 2013, 10:22 am

Yes, technically the participants are the unions, but since without the French and English clubs, who are not controlled by the unions, you would have a competition that's nothing more than a Rabo cup, you only get pedant points for that. In practice, the AP and Top 14 have to be happy for there to be a competition.

I don't have a source to hand but I have read several times that the BT deal is big enough that the domestic (i.e. AP) money alone is enough to replace the PRL's current income from the AP and HEC. This is the basis for them being able to offer all participants an absolute increase while still rebalancing the shares.

by TJ1 Fri 22 Feb 2013, 10:31 am

As a counter proposal would you be happy if the SRU insisted that the english league be cut to 8 with no relegation? this would put them on a level footing with the Rabo?

by geoff998rugby Fri 22 Feb 2013, 10:32 am

The Pro 12 nations have to be happy as well otherwise the French wont bother.

Agree to 6+6+8 and some financial restructuring and we have a deal.

Insist on 6+6+6 and the competion is dead in the water

This is where ther French and English differ.

I doubt the French have any issue with 6+6+8 provided they get more money and the final is earlier in the season.
It appears to be only the English who are insisting on 6+6+6 - it wont happen

by TJ1 Fri 22 Feb 2013, 10:36 am

5/5/8 plus two winners is better as it gives the scope for the unions with the better teams to have greater representation and also shares the pain of the reduction around.

by Kingshu Fri 22 Feb 2013, 10:37 am

Poorfour wrote:Yes, technically the participants are the unions, but since without the French and English clubs, who are not controlled by the unions, you would have a competition that's nothing more than a Rabo cup, you only get pedant points for that. In practice, the AP and Top 14 have to be happy for there to be a competition.

I don't have a source to hand but I have read several times that the BT deal is big enough that the domestic (i.e. AP) money alone is enough to replace the PRL's current income from the AP and HEC. This is the basis for them being able to offer all participants an absolute increase while still rebalancing the shares.

Absolute increase while still rebalancing the shares won't cut the mustard, firstly the Pro 12 already consider the shares imbalanced to the French and English.
2nd whats the point of recieving more if the % divide is greater? A new deal for West Ham for an extra £1 million isn't going to help them catch Man UTD if they receive £10 million, while West Ham may recieve more, in the long run they are only going to fall further behind UTD.

by Toohey Fri 22 Feb 2013, 11:05 am

Seems fairly straightforward to me. The English and French have the commercial power, the financial power and are not reliant on the competition for their income and thus are prepared to walk away. The Rabo nations have no real financial or commercial muscle and from what I understand do rely on the competition for their income and thus can’t walk away.

If I was viewing this like a business negotiation there would only be one winner. Or two if you like. Funnier things have happened though I suppose.

by TJ1 Fri 22 Feb 2013, 11:17 am

The problem with that is that the buyers want the HC not the english or french leagues or some other lessor cross border comp. So although the english audience is the greatest without the rest of the unions they have no product to sell

by beshocked Fri 22 Feb 2013, 11:23 am

TJ why would the SRU demand something as preposterous as that?

Toohey spot on. thumbsup

It's important that the English and French stay united though.

As it stands both Scottish sides automatically qualify for the HC. How is that fair? It's not as even if they have justified their positions there (flash in the pan aside).

Edinburgh have in particular been brutally brought down back to earth.

6,6 +8 is the thing I have been a supporter of throughout all these discussions.

3 English,3 French and 2 Irish in the HC quarter finals is reflective of the HC as a whole.

by beshocked Fri 22 Feb 2013, 11:26 am

TJ wrote:The problem with that is that the buyers want the HC not the english or french leagues or some other lessor cross border comp. So although the english audience is the greatest without the rest of the unions they have no product to sell

The quality of product offered by the Welsh,Italian and Scottish sides in the HC hasn't exactly been impressive has it? Particularly your own side. Of course I am personally grateful to Edinburgh for their performances against the side I support but in terms of a tougher competition it doesn't help.

by TJ1 Fri 22 Feb 2013, 11:32 am

beshocked wrote:TJ why would the SRU demand something as preposterous as that?

It would be a solution to the perceived disadvantage the PRL teams have compared to the Rabo teams

You say that is preposterous. Its no more preposterous than the proposals from the PRLSo why do you think the PRL should have any say in how other unions organise their game / select their entrants into the HC?

You cannot have this both ways.

by TJ1 Fri 22 Feb 2013, 11:33 am

beshocked wrote:
TJ wrote:The problem with that is that the buyers want the HC not the english or french leagues or some other lessor cross border comp. So although the english audience is the greatest without the rest of the unions they have no product to sell

The quality of product offered by the Welsh,Italian and Scottish sides in the HC hasn't exactly been impressive has it? Particularly your own side. Of course I am personally grateful to Edinburgh for their performances against the side I support but in terms of a tougher competition it doesn't help.

The product is the HC or european cup. This is the point.

by Kingshu Fri 22 Feb 2013, 11:55 am

Every here is saying its the top 6 in the Aviva that qualify for the H-cup, its not. It's top 5 + LV cup winners (if English).

6th place in Prem league only qualify if LV cup winners are Welsh or are already qualified.

Will the RFU be allowed to decide how it's teams qualify for Europe? while dictating how others qualify?

Or will it change to top 6 only in Aviva, and what would this do to the LV=cup?
Without a European place at stake will sponsorship dwindle and lower sides dismiss it, and a poor cup comp die?

by HammerofThunor Fri 22 Feb 2013, 12:11 pm

Kingshu wrote:Every here is saying its the top 6 in the Aviva that qualify for the H-cup, its not. It's top 5 + LV cup winners (if English).

6th place in Prem league only qualify if LV cup winners are Welsh or are already qualified.

Will the RFU be allowed to decide how it's teams qualify for Europe? while dictating how others qualify?

Or will it change to top 6 only in Aviva, and what would this do to the LV=cup?
Without a European place at stake will sponsorship dwindle and lower sides dismiss it, and a poor cup comp die?

Well that depends on the negotiations doesn't it? Most people don't really care about it, the A league is being shortened so I can so an English A cup replacing it if needed.

by geoff998rugby Fri 22 Feb 2013, 12:13 pm

How nations decide their qualifiers is up to them.

If the English give the LV winners their choice no one makes them do it.

With a new TV deal the LV cup should be kicked into the long grqass and reduce the rugby played

by Kingshu Fri 22 Feb 2013, 12:16 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:
Kingshu wrote:Every here is saying its the top 6 in the Aviva that qualify for the H-cup, its not. It's top 5 + LV cup winners (if English).

6th place in Prem league only qualify if LV cup winners are Welsh or are already qualified.

Will the RFU be allowed to decide how it's teams qualify for Europe? while dictating how others qualify?

Or will it change to top 6 only in Aviva, and what would this do to the LV=cup?
Without a European place at stake will sponsorship dwindle and lower sides dismiss it, and a poor cup comp die?

Well that depends on the negotiations doesn't it? Most people don't really care about it, the A league is being shortened so I can so an English A cup replacing it if needed.

English 'A' cup sounds fine, but remember we've already got you'r Championship clubs in our 'A' cup. Very Happy

by HammerofThunor Fri 22 Feb 2013, 12:16 pm

TJ wrote:As a counter proposal would you be happy if the SRU insisted that the english league be cut to 8 with no relegation? this would put them on a level footing with the Rabo?

They can insist on what they want, and I encourage them to do so. Doesn't mean it'll happen or it's a deal breaker if they do. Even if it is then the PRL will decide if that is acceptable. You know...they negotiate...the same thing they've been doing for a while now. Nobody has said "this is exactly the way it'll be or we're off with our money". That simply hasn't happened. Some proposals have been put forward by all parties and they are be negotiated.

IF a deal comes out that anyone (fans) aren't happy with...blame your Union as they agreed to it. Also the unions are/were the stakeholders, however the PRL hold shares and the FFR have given LNR 80% of their votes (except for in matters of national interest). Also the RRW have a seat on the board. The only ones without domestic 'club' level representation is Ireland, Scotland and Italy. IRFU are the provinces, as are the SRU with their teams (I believe). So most parties have accepted that the teams that compete should have a say in the competition.

by Sponsored content