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.

Is there any actual written proof from the ERC stating that revenue is divided based on participation purely in the HC (and not just a coincidence of numbers coming close to that)?  Because I struggle to believe that they would effectively claim that the Amlin is worthless, earns absolutely nothing and no one involved in it should get a Euro cent.

If that is the case, the Amlin sides should be asking why the money the Amlin generates in sponsorship and from the matches shown on TV (I wager Wasps v Bayonne on Thursday got a bigger audience across Europe than Zebre v Connacht today for instance) should be handed over to the HC sides.

Not that I'm aware of. It's just one poster's supposition.

Look at the amounts given to each union. Look at the number of entrants into the HC.  Its 4% of the proceeds per team - apart from Scotland get 3 shares as they had 3 teams when the agreement was made.  Its not my supposition.  its how the money is divided right now.  4% for each team entered in the HC to the unions.  This is a fact.  You may wish it wasn't so.  You may wish for change.  You cannot alter the fact this is how it is right now.

TJ wrote:Look at the amounts given to each union. Look at the number of entrants into the HC.  Its 4% of the proceeds per team - apart from Scotland get 3 shares as they had 3 teams when the agreement was made.  Its not my supposition.  its how the money is divided right now.  4% for each team entered in the HC to the unions.  This is a fact.  You may wish it wasn't so.  You may wish for change.  You cannot alter the fact this is how it is right now.

So there's not even an allocation of travelling or basic subsistence costs for Amlin teams. Seems a bit mean, expecting 20 teams to make a loss for the financial benefit of the Unions.

Things not looking good for ERC
http://www.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/story/203221.html?addata=chromium

broadlandboy wrote:Things not looking good for ERC
http://www.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/story/203221.html?addata=chromium

I think that's bull, especially after what their Unions have openly stated. Also, LNR representative is just repeating what they have already been saying. Repeating yourself over and over isn't going to solve anything.

And the RCC is dead in the water with strong statements from the Rabo unions today, two top french clubs stating they will not play in it and no refs for it.

The erc will go - no doubt. In its place will be a group set up to run the european cup with representation from all involved unions ( sounds familiar?). This will allow the PRL to claim victory while actually ensuring the unions continue to run the european cup as they must do.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

TJ wrote:Look at the amounts given to each union. Look at the number of entrants into the HC.  Its 4% of the proceeds per team - apart from Scotland get 3 shares as they had 3 teams when the agreement was made.  Its not my supposition.  its how the money is divided right now.  4% for each team entered in the HC to the unions.  This is a fact.  You may wish it wasn't so.  You may wish for change.  You cannot alter the fact this is how it is right now.

So there's not even an allocation of travelling or basic subsistence costs for Amlin teams. Seems a bit mean, expecting 20 teams to make a loss for the financial benefit of the Unions.

I think but am not sure this is after costs and amlin teams keep their gate and any sponsorship they raise.

broadlandboy wrote:Things not looking good for ERC
http://www.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/story/203221.html?addata=chromium

Thought we were being treated to something new, and not just old news rehashed. It even states in the article that the espn information was copied from the Rugby Paper's Goze comments. That was quite a while ago......

Such crass lazy journalism. Why do they even bother? No interesting news? It's only good to fill a vacuum with garbage when it's designed to do so.

What did the unions say today? Their last statement said they just wanted IRB approval not the ERC which is telling. No one knows what is going on given the drivel being spouted by both sides.

IIRC there was a meeting on Friday Hosted by RFU as there seem to have been no comments from either side hope that talks are on going

TJ wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

TJ wrote:Look at the amounts given to each union. Look at the number of entrants into the HC.  Its 4% of the proceeds per team - apart from Scotland get 3 shares as they had 3 teams when the agreement was made.  Its not my supposition.  its how the money is divided right now.  4% for each team entered in the HC to the unions.  This is a fact.  You may wish it wasn't so.  You may wish for change.  You cannot alter the fact this is how it is right now.

So there's not even an allocation of travelling or basic subsistence costs for Amlin teams. Seems a bit mean, expecting 20 teams to make a loss for the financial benefit of the Unions.

I think but am not sure this is after costs and amlin teams keep their gate and any sponsorship they raise.

What sort of costs?
There are 16 income-generating home weekends per season for English, French and Welsh clubs, 3 of which are ERC (excluding playoffs, A games, etc). Do these costs include 3/16th of players salaries, support staff, stadium maintenance and development, bank loans, etc, as well as travel and subsistence costs for ERC away games?

Below average gates and below average sponsorship opportunities from the flawed Amlin format probably wouldn't cover those costs.

TJ wrote:Look at the amounts given to each union. Look at the number of entrants into the HC.  Its 4% of the proceeds per team - apart from Scotland get 3 shares as they had 3 teams when the agreement was made.  Its not my supposition.  its how the money is divided right now.  4% for each team entered in the HC to the unions.  This is a fact.  You may wish it wasn't so.  You may wish for change.  You cannot alter the fact this is how it is right now.

So, no document or quote from the ERC or any official body stating that is the case, just you looking at the numbers and coming up with a theory because some of the numbers match up.  If you want to try and pass that off as fact of agreement and not just similarities you've noticed you'll have to do a lot better.  If it is the case there would be something on record stating it.  That there isn't underlines the reality.

nth wrote:

TJ wrote:Look at the amounts given to each union. Look at the number of entrants into the HC.  Its 4% of the proceeds per team - apart from Scotland get 3 shares as they had 3 teams when the agreement was made.  Its not my supposition.  its how the money is divided right now.  4% for each team entered in the HC to the unions.  This is a fact.  You may wish it wasn't so.  You may wish for change.  You cannot alter the fact this is how it is right now.

So, no document or quote from the ERC or any official body stating that is the case, just you looking at the numbers and coming up with a theory because some of the numbers match up.  If you want to try and pass that off as fact of agreement and not just similarities you've noticed you'll have to do a lot better.  If it is the case there would be something on record stating it.  That there isn't underlines the reality.

There's more than a few "Facts" being thrown about in this debate. Unfortunately most of it is completely invented based on individual bias.

I find it to be highly unlikely that any profesional team is going to enter a competition in which they would make a loss. To suggest that the Amlin generates no revenue or that it is all given to the HC is nothing more than wishful thinking, mainly used by some people to support their arguement of maintaining automatic qualification for their Pro12 team at the top table.

Out of curiosity if the new European cup moves with a top 6 qualification for England and France with some variant for PRO12, does this mean that the Premiership will actually move to a strict top 6 for their qualifiers as well?  And if so, will the prize of a spot in the AW Cup be lost, and thus make it less attractive?

Guys - you may not like it but that is the case. You may find this unlikely and not what you want - this does not stop it being a fact that the disbursement of funds is on an equal basis according to how many teams each union enters into the HC I have not made this up - this is how the division of funds is. I cannot find the documnets to support this but it has been posted on this site during these discussions. Its accepted by all parties this is how it is. the amlin does not create an significant monies. the 6 unions get equal shares depending on how many teams are entered into the HC. this is a fact. an inconvenient one forthose of you who like to pretend the PRL proposals are fair, but its a fact nonethe less. It is no conincidence the amount of money each union gets is the same as the number of entrants it has.

apart from the french having 7 teams and english 6 teams and both getting 24% of total revenues. which is not 4% per team.

what you describe may be (almost) how the division empirically is, but it says nothing about why. you, and an alleged previous post on here which you cant find, have put causality behind the numbers. i suspect, like most things within the ERC that the numbers purely and simply as a result of i) what was the case before, and ii) negotiation any time the contracts were renewed.

where's your contractual info for the HC revenue share, or for the Amlin being worth nothing? if you dont have any, and you can't quote a single source, then not one person is going to believe it unless they choose to.

TJ wrote:Guys - you may not like it but that is the case.  You may find this unlikely and not what you want - this does not stop it being a fact that the disbursement of funds is on an equal basis according to how many teams each union enters into the HC  I have not made this up - this is how the division of funds is. I cannot find the documnets to support this but it has been posted on this site during these discussions.  Its accepted by all parties this is how it is.  the amlin does not create an significant monies.  the 6 unions get equal shares depending on how many teams are entered into the HC.  this is a fact.  an inconvenient one forthose of you who like to pretend the PRL proposals are fair, but its a fact nonethe less.  It is no conincidence the amount of money each union gets is the same as the number of entrants it has.

Sorry TJ, biut that is a big lie.

When I first looked at the finances of ERC, I came to a similar conclusion to you, but logical thinking leads to a different conclusion. There are no documents to support your conclusions that have been posted (or none that I have seen - if you dig some out, I will willingly be overruled.)

The HC representation may, or may not, be the basis for the previously agreed financial distribution, but there is no way that the PRL (at least half of whom are "Amlin" clubs), nor the RFU would have completely excluded the "Amlin" clubs from the equation. FFR may have, but I still doubt that.

Ok guys - the fact that the proportion of money is equal to the proportion of teams in the HC each union has is just a massive co-incidence.

As for the 7 french and now only 2 scots - that is an anomaly that should have been sorted - however in 2007 when the agreement was made it =was 6 french and 3 scots - thus then it was equal shares.

I agree this is an anachronism - however it is how the division of the profits was worked out.

Its a simple fact - just one that is inconveninet to you

TJ wrote:Ok guys - the fact that the proportion of money is equal to the proportion of teams in the HC each union has is just a massive co-incidence.

As for the 7 french and now only 2 scots - that is an anomaly that should have been sorted - however in 2007 when the agreement was made it =was 6 french and 3 scots - thus then it was equal shares.

I agree this is an anachronism - however it is how the division of the profits was worked out.

Its a simple fact - just one that is inconveninet to you

You may want to check back on that

Not being funny lads- But this surely is the most irrelvant argument in the history of arguments!

Is this a 5 minute argument or a 10 minute one?

oakey, couldnt agree more. because the old agreement is as dead as ERC, irrespective of what caused the numbers to be the way they are.

Money is at the root of the problemTV Broadcasting rights and the SKY/BBC battle primarily.
What is the objective of all the posturing at the end of the day is it as follows.
1.Players wanting more Cash from there Clubs
2.Clubs wanting more Cash
3.Restrictions on Teams qualifying
4.Restrictions on on Qualified Players
Ultimately do you the fans care if your players are home grown or overseas as long
as your Club/Region/Province wins.
Do you care if the standard of the new Tournaments are worse or better than those
established.
Do you care if your particular Club/Region/ Province is illegible or not for whatever
tournaments emerge.
Do you care if it splinters into 5 or 6 different ones with old club rivalries no longer
occur.
Do you care that if some sort of compromise isn`t reached the establishment as now configured levies sanctions.
Players/Clubs being sued for breac h of contract etc.maybe even be not allowed to
play until legal battles settled.
Ultimately do you care how it may effect your countries Test sides especially just
a few months out from a RWC .Which incidentally is being held in England.
I have no personal knowledge of the Tournament set ups in NH but am aware that
top14 is effected by huge influx of overseas players.
Also that HC teams at least those winning or reaching final stages is roughly equivalent
to SH Super rugby.
What I personally find significant that the 3 most successful sides in the pro era the SH.
Have an interim Tournament between club ITM/Curry Cup[Aus excepted] which is a
pretty goo d level any way and the Test level.
That those franchises are all Home based players with very few exceptions in super rugby.
Maybe the only long term benefit from this mess will be more home based players in
the NH.Coming thru academies and benefitting the Home test sides as overseas players
become marginalised.
Racist selection won`t come into it and regulations enforced more rigour on non qualified
players.

good qns at the top. these are not relevant though:

Do you care that if some sort of compromise isn`t reached the establishment as now configured levies sanctions.
Players/Clubs being sued for breac h of contract etc.maybe even be not allowed to
play until legal battles settled.
Ultimately do you care how it may effect your countries Test sides especially just
a few months out from a RWC .Which incidentally is being held in England.
I have no personal knowledge of the Tournament set ups in NH but am aware that
top14 is effected by huge influx of overseas players.

no-one, not even the almighty FFR, can force teams to play in a trounament they have legitimately withdrawn from with 2 years notice.

no players or teams can be "sanctioned" on that basis.

no tournament happening means no-one has done anything illegal, but does mean financial hardship all around.

not once has the right of frenglish clubs to pull out been questioned.

all questions are only about whether and what format future competition takes.

Hmmm.................... I assume the jury is still out???

quinsforever wrote:
...not once has the right of frenglish clubs to pull out been questioned...

I'm pretty sure that Martyn Thomas questioned it. However, as someone that had already been booted out of the RFU I don't think his view counts for much. Plus even if he was correct it would only have been a question of timing (not that Thomas mentioned that) - i.e. can they pull out at the end of this season or would they need to do another season to see out the EPS agreement.

So - back to "is the end in sight?"

I am now very hopeful. The RFU seem to have a real negotiation going on and the PRL appear to have realised they will have to compromise or be left on the sidelines as its clear the Rabo unions remain solid despite many attempts to divide and conquer and that the french are not willing to stick with the PRL if it means wrecking the european cup

i suspect the outcome will be one that all can claim as a victory. Something based around 6/6/8. the ERC will go but a new body will be formed with a club component built into it rather than gifted as it is now but will be very similar to the ERC as the unions must remain the largest part of any controlling structure as most of the entrants are union bodies and there will be a new deal on division of the monies which recognises that the 2nd tier is now worth something whereas when the old deal was set up it really wasn't.

I suspect the second tier will get something like half the monies and voting power of the top tier.

Good news TJ.

I guess that the ERC meeting is still going ahead this week. As many were suggesting it was not last week...?

I don't see why replacing the ERC makes an iota of difference, it just seems like a way of letting the PRL save face.

Thats what it would be. We have to let them claim a win. they are determined to get rid of the ERC. so lets disband the ERC and reconstitute it in a way that allows them to claim the win
None of us are wedded to the ERC and it can be said they have not managed this well

TJ wrote:Thats what it would be.  We have to let them claim a win.  they are determined to get rid of the ERC.  so lets disband the ERC and reconstitute it in a way that allows them to claim the win
None of us are wedded to the ERC and it can be said they have not managed this well

But you are convinced things are moving in the direction of a renamed ERC organisation, a union run competition, with a few less RP12 teams and a fair share of the projected loot for all included..?

Happy days..! Good old Ian Ritchie, sounds like he is doing a great job.

So you are saying sod the result just as long as you can claim the moral victory? -

I think I have heard that one before somewhere   

Not at all. What I am saying is the opposite. we need to allow the PRL to claim at least a partial victory while ensuring that the unions retain control and the minnows are not marginalised

In the end we all know it will not be what the English clubs want, we all know it will not be the status quo - it will be somewhere in the middle i.e a compromise.

All claims of 'victory' are stupid

TJ wrote:Not at all.  What I am saying is the opposite. we need to allow the PRL to claim at least a partial victory while ensuring that the unions retain control and the minnows are not marginalised

I thought your point was pretty clear.

Change the name of the ERC but keep the same competition going with two less RP12 teams..!

European Rugby Cup (ERC) to be renamed Rugby European Cup (REC) as a compromise with those who wanted ERC changed to The Cup of European Rugby (CER)

So that's the name finally sorted............. what's next on the list?

maestegmafia wrote:

TJ wrote:Not at all.  What I am saying is the opposite. we need to allow the PRL to claim at least a partial victory while ensuring that the unions retain control and the minnows are not marginalised

I thought your point was pretty clear.

Change the name of the ERC but keep the same competition going with two less RP12 teams..!

I'd go a bit further and give the PRL representation on the board as of right - not as a gift from the RFU and dilute the unions power but ensure that the club reps do not hold a majority

Any bets that 90% of the "old" ERC staff get jobs in the new "ERC" ?

TJ wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:
I'd go a bit further and give the PRL representation on the board as of right - not as a gift from the RFU and dilute the unions power but ensure that the club reps do not hold a majority

I've got it
England 33% (RFU 20% - PRL 13%)
France 33% (FFR 20% - FRL - 13%)
RABO 33%

Remaining 1% to be given to 606V2 Rugby Forum Members

Irish Londoner wrote:Any bets that 90% of the "old" ERC staff get jobs in the new "ERC" ?

ERC is just a name...the shareholders in any six nation European competition will remain the same. Nobody is going to agree to a six nation European competition that allows PRL/LNR the majority stakehold and the casting votes on decisions made. That's just suicide and I don't think many of the Union heads are that dumb either individually or as a grouping.
So yep, there will be a lot of familiar faces around the new 'company'.

Irish Londoner wrote:

TJ wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:
I'd go a bit further and give the PRL representation on the board as of right - not as a gift from the RFU and dilute the unions power but ensure that the club reps do not hold a majority

I've got it
England 33% (RFU 20% - PRL 13%)
France 33% (FFR 20% - FRL - 13%)
RABO 33%

Remaining 1% to be given to 606V2 Rugby Forum Members

I like that! Afterall, we're the only bunch that actually bring a 'united' view to the negotiations.

We are the 1%!

Given the position of the various sides as of now I think its important to give the PRL something to save face and allow them to claim victory. the rest of us do not need to be able to claim victory - we just have to be able to protect or position.

TJ wrote:Given the position of the various sides as of now I think its important to give the PRL something to save face and allow them to claim victory.  the rest of us do not need to be able to claim victory - we just have to be able to protect or position.

Protect and Position = Survive

should be " protect our position"

Ok since we are making our bold predictions on the outcome without any real need for supporting evidence here's mine:

Equal distribution of revenue between the 3 leagues
6 guaranteed qualifiers from each league (each league to determine how)
1 position for tier 1 reigning champs but coming out of leagues allocation i.e. no extra place
1 position for tier 2 winners with an extra place for that league
Places 7 in PRL and top 14 playoff with places 7 & 8 from rabo for last remaining spot
Sky & BT share the coverage

Irish Londoner wrote:

TJ wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:
I'd go a bit further and give the PRL representation on the board as of right - not as a gift from the RFU and dilute the unions power but ensure that the club reps do not hold a majority

I've got it
England 33% (RFU 20% - PRL 13%)
France 33% (FFR 20% - FRL - 13%)
RABO 33%

Remaining 1% to be given to 606V2 Rugby Forum Members

I presume you mean:

England 33.3% (RFU 20 - PRL 13%)
France 33.3% (FFR 20 - LNR 13%)
Wales 8.33% (WRU 4? - RRW 4%)
Ireland 8.33%
Scotland 8.33%
Italy 8.33%

Can't see that as the shareholding split when currently it's equal shares across the board of 16.69%.

The voting rights may change from the current allocations of 5, 5, 2, 2, 2, 2.

TJ wrote:should be " protect our position"

Our position? Who's this "we"?

Those of us who are not in the PRL

 Yawn!