End In Sight To Euro Mess (Pt. 2)

First topic message reminder :

Munchkin wrote:

Notch wrote:Wouldn't be too interested in Toulon helping keep the dying ERC competitions alive.

Whats better from an Irish/Celtic point of view-

a) Toulon help the Heineken Cup survive but continue their wild spending unchecked
b) ERC competitions are dropped, new 20 team competitions start including Celtic sides, the LNR imposes strict financial penalties on teams who rely exclusively on expensive imports.

For me b) may see the status quo change in a way which is not necessarily in our favour, but it will still allow the Irish provinces to be major powers in Europe on and off the field with the right management in both areas.

But without the culture of charismatic super-rich chairmen buying up talent from elsewhere changing in France we may not be able to keep our best players in Ireland. The likes of Boudjellal and their millions are a bigger threat to us than reform of European competitions.

He can sling his hook in conclusion. Most other sides in the competition have some kind of identity with many homegrown players. His side of imported superstars shouldn't be allowed to become the new normal.

Why is choice restricted to either (a) or (b)? What about (a), but with the Unions imposing those same penalties on clubs breaking whatever foreign player cap?

because, if you read boudjellal's statement, the reason he is saying he will join HC is because there are no caps or quotas in the HC.

"hey said they had a 'deal' for the future of Europe already signed up for with partners BT.  ERC said "you think so?" and signed a deal with Sky"


thats the problem , they should have waited until they actually new what it was or tried to get a better deal , thats the worst case of stubborn!


Its as if they only signed as a t!t for tat without actually realising they have just shafted everyone on money if the ERC goes ahead!

SecretFly wrote:PRL should have satisfied itself with more money for everyone and brought the proposals before ERC (of which they are a part, as everyone who doesn't like ERC keeps forgetting)

But no, the PRL got cocky and decided they could use the extra cash carrot to use a big stick on the structure of the contest itself.

They said they had a 'deal' for the future of Europe already signed up for with partners BT.  ERC said "you think so?" and signed a deal with Sky.

BT came with the domineering snarl first, when they could have come with simply more money for everyone period, without conditions declared.  But it was extortion money "Give us what we want first and then you'll all get it"  ERC were never going to give way to that presentation

hmm. not so sure. why should prl try to increase the size of a pot they think is totallyunfairly divided?

also, on a separate note, does it not strike you as strange that BT had no communication with ERC? BT were already into rugby coverage. presumably they all have each others phone numbers. why hadnt ERC contacted BT to try to create an auction for the rights? there's some serious incompetence here in this particular respect and i find it hard to place the blame anywhere other than ERC. if BT thought ERC were reasonable why couldnt they have done a deal with ERC directly to replace SKY?

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote:PRL should have satisfied itself with more money for everyone and brought the proposals before ERC (of which they are a part, as everyone who doesn't like ERC keeps forgetting)

But no, the PRL got cocky and decided they could use the extra cash carrot to use a big stick on the structure of the contest itself.

They said they had a 'deal' for the future of Europe already signed up for with partners BT.  ERC said "you think so?" and signed a deal with Sky.

BT came with the domineering snarl first, when they could have come with simply more money for everyone period, without conditions declared.  But it was extortion money "Give us what we want first and then you'll all get it"  ERC were never going to give way to that presentation

hmm. not so sure. why should prl try to increase the size of a pot they think is totallyunfairly divided?

also, on a separate note, does it not strike you as strange that BT had no communication with ERC? BT were already into rugby coverage. presumably they all have each others phone numbers. why hadnt ERC contacted BT to try to create an auction for the rights? there's some serious incompetence here in this particular respect and i find it hard to place the blame anywhere other than ERC. if BT thought ERC were reasonable why couldnt they have done a deal with ERC directly to replace SKY?

Well, I'll comment on the two highlighted bits, quins.

Firsly, my last few posts revolved around Scrumpy's declared opinion that ERC were 'fools' not to accept a clear cut case of more money.  

My point was PRL/BT proposal was never - was never - a clear cut case of more money for everyone.  It had plenty of strings attached; and those strings were pretty aggressively worded at the beginning of the epic, a beginning that few now seem to remember clearly.

So, you ask why should PRL try to increase a pot that they think is unfairly divided?  Well, that's Scrumpy's very belief - that the BT offer was innocent money (no strings) coldly turned down by ERC.  
By your question to me, you acknowledge that strings were attached to any proposals coming from PRL.  Therefore it's pretty simple to understand ERC's less than welcoming response to what was basically an attempted buy-out.  
Whether you agree with ERC or not, everyone would understand their reaction when PRL not only declared that BT would now be central to any new European competition, changes would be made on their terms to the structure AND ERC will naturally now die a quick and painful death as a result.
That is not a presentation that is going to get a general applause from the ERC, is it?

Your other point I agree with and, indeed, it follows on from the above point.  Why didn't BT make contact independently with ERC?  I don't know why but again I see it as less than satisfying that a presentation offering to broadcast a new pan-European rugby event should come to ERC THROUGH PRL rather than independently as a single broadcasting entity in its own right.  I don't think English commentators realise how divisive that very point is.  I've said it a number of times over the duration - BT was using PRL as it's agent at the ERC negotiations.  That's hardly the efforts of a company wanting to claim it is an honest broker.  Honest brokers don't already have 'bought' supporters fighting their case even before negotiations began.  BT should have had a money offer and offered it - independently from PRL.  Then and only then should ERC members have debated the issues - the sharing off, the structures etc.

SF, i agree, something definitely stinks about the fact that both TV deals were announced the same day.

maybe BT did contact erc first and were led to believe they wouldnt be given a shot at the contract extension. who knows.

but there's obviously a lot more to this particular story that we are never going to hear about.

i do agree that any BT offer brought in by PRL and communicated to ERC would have been contingent on much of the format changes which they (PRL) are after now.

what a mess. and if, after this debate is finished, i never have to use another two-of-three letter acronym again that will be too soon. makes my head hurt.

anyway, i'm going to have a few beers now and get ready for sarries match so will try not to communicate any more as its likely to be gibberish.

night all!

SF wrote:Why didn't BT make contact independently with ERC?  

Possibly they set an ambush to undermine BSB by using the same strategy that BSB used to save Sky when it set out on its sports (i.e. footy) based marketing mix.

Had there been a preannouncement, there would have been a bidding war.

And the ERC deal was sealed the day after the PRL bomb went off.

Secret Fly - Spot on!  

The whole issue is about who manages the competition. The English/French clubs or the Unions? There is a third way which is Club/Region representation. The Unions are right to face down the Franglo clubs - it is not their competition to sell or control. It is a joint effort between the unions and all the participating clubs.

It's about time we got some stability with this situation. Some of the Franglo arguments are legit. They should be dealt with fairly. They should not, however be allowed to run the competition alone. That would be suicide for the Celtic regions. I'd personally rather we didn't participate if the Franglo clubs end up having their way. Better to battle on with pride than go with a begging bowl to be whipped.

"Better to burn out than to fade away!" The Kurgan  

Franglos - no sense of humour.

With Toulon now saying that they want to stay in the HC and the French RU not looking like they will support the breakaway competition. I suspect we will have a (possibly reformatted) HC next season.

I suggest that to keep the competition truly European that qualification should be changed to: The top 4 in the Rabo, plus to next best sides from each of the 4 unions. The top 5 from each of the English and French leagues, plus the winners of the HC and Amlin. The nations whose teams win the HC and Amlin will have an extra place for their next best side. Seedings can be based on league position from the previous season.

The remainder of the sides can then play in a stronger Amlin tournament.

With 4 less sides there will be a bit more money to go around. HC funding needs to be the same for each side at the pool level, with additional funding for each match in the knockout stages. Also to remove the luck of the draw semis should be played at neutral grounds.

If the English clubs still wont play ball, let them have their own competition, they might even get an English winner!

Seagulf- do think its beneficial to the rabbo's competitiveness and the overall ERC quality to place 4 of a possible 8 allocation not on league placings?

Not looking likely. 6/6/6 and 1/3 of money to each league appears still to be the only offer on the table. Your proposal is for the money to go with HC places and basically be unchanged...55/45 rabo/others. That doesn't even too likely either.

Scrumpy wrote:

Notch wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:

Notch wrote:There have been a good few French teams taking this approach over the years but I'm disappointed in Gloucester.

They're saving themselves for Bath next week, just goes to show why the HC needs to be reworked as Glaws and other Aviva teams have to earn the right to take part in the HC and not gifted a place year after year, Bath will be a rival for HC qualifying places come the end of the season.

Right, so- how will the HC being reworked change that.

You're saying if everyone has to qualify- teams are less likely to rest players in the Heineken Cup itself. How does that work?

But Rabo teams will have to make the same tough choices when it comes to finding a balance between league and HC and not just rest players for uncompetitive league games.

Believe me as a Bath fan I'd love to be gifted a HC place year after year.

this simply does not happen tho. There are no uncompetative league games and no culture of resting players any more than there is int ehAP

Right, so reform won't change that at all. Good to know.

We do have to make hard decisions over when players play already of course, because the IRFU mandate maximum minutes on the pitch for certain players.

Doesn't matter how you mix it up, the bigger contest will always be the HC (or future equivalent) itself, followed by League.  The AP and Top14 bluff their way through this topic but it is increasingly the same for them...HC is a step-up and is therefore a more important contest than the domestic Leagues for all sides likely to be in contention to play in it ------ it is, don't lie.

So, no matter what the rules, all sides will still do their balancing towards readiness for HC.  Better players will have a better chance of being a more significant part of HC than their respective Leagues.  And, therefore, if all sides are prioritising HC, then the chances are that all six or seven sides in contention for HC will equally play a selection of lesser players in League and save some of their top players for HC.

So competitiveness will remain a relative point, as the top sides will mimic each other largely in the times they use best players and the times they rest them.

So the canard about the Rabo teams having an unfair advantage is shown to be the nonsense it is

TJ wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:

Notch wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:

Notch wrote:There have been a good few French teams taking this approach over the years but I'm disappointed in Gloucester.

They're saving themselves for Bath next week, just goes to show why the HC needs to be reworked as Glaws and other Aviva teams have to earn the right to take part in the HC and not gifted a place year after year, Bath will be a rival for HC qualifying places come the end of the season.

Right, so- how will the HC being reworked change that.

You're saying if everyone has to qualify- teams are less likely to rest players in the Heineken Cup itself. How does that work?

But Rabo teams will have to make the same tough choices when it comes to finding a balance between league and HC and not just rest players for uncompetitive league games.

Believe me as a Bath fan I'd love to be gifted a HC place year after year.

There are no uncompetative league games and no culture of resting players

Frak Bull Poopie!

SecretFly wrote:HC is a step-up and is therefore a more important contest than the domestic Leagues for all sides likely to be in contention to play in it

With 24 teams in the competition, for most sides 2 of the 6 pool games are a step up, the other 4 are about the same or a step down. That will change a bit once it goes down to 20 though. Financially the domestic leagues are currently notably more important for the Franglos, the HC is the glory competition.

TJ wrote:So the canard about the Rabo teams having an unfair advantage is shown to be the nonsense it is

10 out of 12 teams qualifying, 52 % of the money, no relegation. not saying thats unfair as it has evolved for historical reasons, but yeah i reckon any objective observer would agree its an advantage.

and much as i agree with much of what SF says, just because he says it, doesnt make it so...

what is surprising about frenglish teams rotating players in HC and rabo12 teams rotating players in rabo league?

everyone is working within the confines of doing the best they can in whatever is most important to them.

Nothing - its the hypocrisy of the PRL claiming that only the rabo teams do this and thus they have to be handicapped

As you have been told many times the money is an equal split per team on participation and its not 10 rabo teams, its 6 english, 6 french, 3 irish, 3 welsh etc etc

Scrumpy - do you follow the Rabo?

yes, i do admit i've heard that before TJ

Well stop0 repeating the nonsense about the PRL teams getting less - they get exactly the same per team entered in the HC.

TJ wrote:Well stop0 repeating the nonsense about the PRL teams getting less - they get exactly the same per team entered in the HC.  

you care about teams because that suits you, i care about leagues because that suits me.

However I am correct as its based on unions not leagues and the money is the same for each participant. I do not swallow the "big lie" technique of the PRL

I've no idea of what is being discussed behind closed doors currently on the European comp.

However, the RFU do think it's madness for the PRL to argue that the SRU, for example, a current 16.69% shareholder should drop its take from 13% to 5.5% whilst proposing that another 17% shareholder (RFU/PRL) moves its 24% take to 33%.  That ain't going to fly.  It doesn't matter what potential pot of money is on the table.

used to be based on unions TJ. not any more. so while you were correct, you're not going to be after this HC is over.

oh gawd here we go- the circle argument that cant and wont end..

its on unions

its on league!

Pot Hale wrote:I've no idea of what is being discussed behind closed doors currently on the European comp.

However, the RFU do think it's madness for the PRL to argue that the SRU, for example, a current 16.69% shareholder should drop its take from 13% to 5% whilst proposing that another 17% shareholder (RFU/PRL) moves its 24% take to 33%.  That ain't going to fly.  It doesn't matter what potential pot of money is on the table.

you are talking about a corporate entity (ERC) which will no longer exist post june 2014 in its current form. am i missing something?

mystiroakey wrote:oh gawd here we go- the circle argument that cant and wont end..

its on unions

its on league!

Apart from its a fact the representation is on unions not league.  anything else has no basis in reality just the "big lie" of the PRL

and how does shareholding in a not-for-profit have anything to do with distribution of revenue?

Distribution of revenue is currently equal shares. Fact.

TJ wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:oh gawd here we go- the circle argument that cant and wont end..

its on unions

its on league!

Apart from its a fact the representation is on unions not league.  anything else has no basis in reality just the "big lie" of the PRL

i see- you just won't stop and cannot see the other side- Its becoming a joke mate.

I can 100% see both sides to this.. Not sure why others can't..

Because the two inconvenient facts that the PRL try to ignore are
1) representation is based on unions / countries not leagues
2) money is split equally based on representation

I can see the other side but it annoys me that these two facts are continually ignored. Its the "big lie" technique from the PRL and too many folk fall for it.  Continue to repeat a lie often enough and gullible fools believe it.  However you cannot change the facts and these are facts.

These may be inconveninet for the PRL and yoi may wish it wasn't true. However it does not matter how often you say its about leagues - it isn't.

absolutely incorrect TJ. you couldnt be more factually wrong if you tried. am pulling down the ERC annual report now.

TJ wrote:Scrumpy - do you follow the Rabo?  

Obviously not. It's quite evident that no England fan on here follows the Rabo, which it makes it all the more strange that they agree with everything Bruce Craig says.

Nope quins - absolutely correct. the rabo has no representation. Individual unions do. Money is disbursed to unions on an equal shares basis - apart from the scottish anomaly which does need to be corrected.

Its inconvenient for the PRL point of view these facts but you cannot change facts.

I have totalled mellowed to allowing all the other nations in. The ERC means to much to not allow at least one team in to the cup. However i still think its a bad move for the rabbo and the HC in the long run to do that..

Because it doesn't work on the quality principle. When we allways guarantee unions or to be fair even leagues  places - they will allways want it. Even if all unions are good enough today they may not be tomorrow.

The reality is that the English and French sides do get less money than the PRO12 sides.  TJ always brings up that he considers this an internal issue because of his insistence that the money is fair based on representation in the Heineken and the Amlin makes no money.  The Amlin of course does make money (if less), but even if it didn't, if he thinks it would be fair for Amlin sides to play for free, then he is doolally.  If that was the case they simply wouldn't bother turning up at all, which would result in the end of the Amlin, no games for the other nations that would want to remain in it, and a reduction of a few million for the ERC, meaning less for each of the unions.

we put teams in the amlin- thats the prl and nrl supporting the weaker cup even though many are good enough to get into the HC- it is truly unfair that these teams aren't paid to play. Because its basically charity work with no benefit otherwise. so no the PRL and NRL do not get a fair distribution of money.

Its nothing to do with what I think.  Its about how the agreements that run the European cup actually state.  Unions ( not clubs not leagues) get 4% of the money per team in the HC.  thats how the division was agreed.  YOu may wish this wasn't so, you may wish to change this but you cannot alter the fact this is how its set up.

Untill you stop believing the lies of the PRL you will not be able to understand the reality of the situation

TJ wrote:Nope quins - absolutely correct.  the rabo has no representation.  Individual unions do.  Money is disbursed to unions on an equal shares basis - apart from the scottish anomaly which does need to be corrected.

Its inconvenient for the PRL point of view these facts but you cannot change facts.

TJ please stop claiming fact for things which are completely wrong. here is the ERC shareholder structure. interesting that every nation has exactly the same shareholding. which is nothing to do with the way revenues are distributed. nothing. also interesting that LNR has a stake but PRL doesnt (that if you remember was what the 2007 disagreement was about).

Irish Rugby Football Union
16.67% 2,117.09 EUR 1,667 × 1.27 EUROrdinary
Rugby Football Union
16.67% 2,117.09 EUR 1,667 × 1.27 EUROrdinary
Scottish Rugby Union Plc
16.67% 2,117.09 EUR 1,667 × 1.27 EUROrdinary
Welsh Rugby Union Ltd
16.67% 2,117.09 EUR 1,667 × 1.27 EUROrdinary
Federazione Italiana Rugby
16.66% 2,115.82 EUR 1,666 × 1.27 EUROrdinary
Federation Francaise De Rugby
8.66% 1,099.82 EUR 866 × 1.27 EUR Ordinary
Ligue Nationale De Rugby
8.00% 1,016.00 EUR 800 × 1.27 EUR Ordinary

niwatts wrote:The reality is that the English and French sides do get less money than the PRO12 sides.  TJ always brings up that he considers this an internal issue because of his insistence that the money is fair based on representation in the Heineken and the Amlin makes no money.  The Amlin of course does make money (if less), but even if it didn't, if he thinks it would be fair for Amlin sides to play for free, then he is doolally.  If that was the case they simply wouldn't bother turning up at all, which would result in the end of the Amlin, no games for the other nations that would want to remain in it, and a reduction of a few million for the ERC, meaning less for each of the unions.

correct.

Quins - that is as you say nothing to do with the disbursement of money which is 4% to the union for each team it enters.

TJ wrote:Its nothing to do with what I think.  Its about how the agreements that run the European cup actually state.  Unions ( not clubs not leagues) get 4% of the money per team in the HC.  thats how the division was agreed.  YOu may wish this wasn't so, you may wish to change this but you cannot alter the fact this is how its set up.

Untill you stop believing the lies of the PRL you will not be able to understand the reality of the situation

The point is tj is that yes you are right that is the way the ERC was run. But there is no erc at this present time, that is what you need to also understand.. It will change- we dont know how yet- but it has to either change or die.. It will not be run the way it was

are you going to admit you were wrong? claiming distribution is according to shareholding or are you just going to move on and claim something else and pretend you didnt say it?

So quins - where is the rabo representation either as entrants or as voting rights? Not there is it. Its all about unions.

quinsforever wrote:and how does shareholding in a not-for-profit have anything to do with distribution of revenue?

Because your shareholding represents your stake in the venture. I don't know what Shareholding rearrangements PRL might be proposing for any new structure, so all I can go on is what the current figures are. I'm merely pointing out what is being proposed for one current shareholder whilst another equal shareholder proposes a better deal for itself. Perhaps the PRL wants to change the shareholding from being divided equally by 6 to being divided equally by 38, thus 2.63% per team! and therefore, 31.6% for PRL, 36.82% for FFR/LNR, and 10.52% for IRFU and WRU/RRW and 5.26% for Scotland and Italy.

The league tag is a red herring - as the PRL knows there is no equivalent representative body for the PRO12 - it's four different unions, no matter how much they might wish it otherwise. You may as well as argue that the IRFU only get 13% currently whilst the Franglos get 48%. It's a spurious argument. The only real income distribution that you can look at currently is how much each union receives. If you acknowledge that all six unions should continue to participate in the top tier competition - which PRL and LNR have done in fairness - then inevitably each participant union is going to look at how much they are going to benefit/lose out from any change. Stands to reason.

quinsforever wrote:are you going to admit you were wrong? claiming distribution is according to shareholding or are you just going to move on and claim something else and pretend you didnt say it?

I did not say that Its obviously wrong and I have never said that.

What I said is that disbursement of funds is 4% per team entered and this money goes to the unions.

TJ wrote:

quinsforever wrote:are you going to admit you were wrong? claiming distribution is according to shareholding or are you just going to move on and claim something else and pretend you didnt say it?

I did not say that  Its obviously wrong and I have never said that.

What I said is that disbursement of funds is 4% per team entered and this money goes to the unions.

i give up

Quins - I think you misunderstood me - I refered to representation meaning entrants not shareholding.