New European Rugby cup (or whatever it is called) - Qualification agreed

First topic message reminder :

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:I don't think any one is argueing that the HEC is not a great comp, some are saying that it is not be all & end all & there is more to rugby.
PRL/BT have not stated the amount for Aviva & Europe separately as this would give information to Sky. However PRL have stated that PRL clubs will be better off with just the Aviva under the BT deal than they are now with the present combined Aviva/Europe.
The BT deal is for Aviva with an agreement that BT will have PRL's rights in any European comp.

It sounds like they have. The quote from Sin e suggests the BT part is worth about 20-odd million per year. Assuming he's talking in Euros and that 20-odd is about 20 (certainly reads that way). Over three years so thats 60 million. So that's about £50MM. Assuming that's top amount and therefore releases the whole "up to" £152M it means there is between £102M for the Premiership over four years. So thats £25M per year. Previous Sky/ESPN deal was for around £54M for 3 years, or about £18M per year. So that's an extra £7M a year for the Premeirship.

About

Thats working out ok so for the AP clubs. They now have a little over £2m for tv rights this year. Last year they got £1.9m (between AP & ERC).

Down guarantee of 3 home sell-out games (plus corporate entertainment ect).

They weren't sell outs. Even Tigers didn't sell out all the ERC games. But they can replace it with an English cup. Won't make as much but will probably make enough. Would be great if the Championship sides got involved and got an equal share (per team).

I wouldn't expect Tigers to sell out as they have a fairly big stadium, but clubs like Exeter were selling out (average 10k for HCup). Average about 7K for Aviva Premiership last year.

No HC sell-outs at Sandy Park last year (not even for Leinster), and the AP average was a little higher.

Last season:

Sale Sharks 5,568
Saracens 6,141
Quins 8,472
Warriors 7,295
Wasps 7,557
L Irish 7,557
Bath 10,744
L Welsh 7,317

etc. etc..

Heineken Cup
Clermont 9,819
Scarlets 9,258
Leinster 10,198

At least 2k more per game (and tickets are also more expensive).

geoff998rugby wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:"The Soccer European World is totally dominated by 4 leagues"

incorrect- PSG, PORTO, BASEL, CSK MOSCOW, AJAX among others do very well in the UEFA and CL

Only one Champions League final since 1995 has been contested by teams outside of the big 4 - I'd call that domination

and yet all the other leagues still do well, they embrace the money in europe..

just look at some of the emerging footballing nations aided by European club comps,

belgium, switzerland, the eastern bloc split nations

mystiroakey wrote:

TJ wrote:He is on the smae plaent as the rest of us.  You appear to be somewhere else.  American football?  More money, easier fixztures and first chice of each seasons players to the weakest teams.  Nothing like the PRL blueprint.

the egotistical rantings from the PRL mouthpieces are ludicrous and full of obvious misleading statements.  

You need to sceptically look at what they actually mean not take their nonsense as the truth.  

American football's model is not a successful global model. and i havent once mentioned it.

Its clear to me you are not reading anything that is said.

But McCafferty did. 100 million TV watchers for biggest games and all that jazz.

It's not rocket science to suggest rugby 'can grow'. We're all humanbeings............... just about for some of us! ..... but we don't need a McCafferty quote to prove that one right.
What we disagree about is the idea that PRL would be in the front seat helping that along. The PRL, as some of your English posters have admitted, is designed only to help itself, its clubs, its owners and of course, the career of its chief exec....

mystiroakey wrote:

TJ wrote:He is on the smae plaent as the rest of us.  You appear to be somewhere else.  American football?  More money, easier fixztures and first chice of each seasons players to the weakest teams.  Nothing like the PRL blueprint.

the egotistical rantings from the PRL mouthpieces are ludicrous and full of obvious misleading statements.  

You need to sceptically look at what they actually mean not take their nonsense as the truth.  

American football's model is not a successful global model. and i havent once mentioned it.

Its clear to me you are not reading anything that is said.

McCaffrrey has. You seem to have a great deal of difficulty in understanding points made and reading anything anyone says. Secrte flys point is very simple I quote my answer above

The point is the PRL are very big on talking about spreading the word but if you look at their deeds its a very different thing indeed.

SecretFly wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

TJ wrote:He is on the smae plaent as the rest of us.  You appear to be somewhere else.  American football?  More money, easier fixztures and first chice of each seasons players to the weakest teams.  Nothing like the PRL blueprint.

the egotistical rantings from the PRL mouthpieces are ludicrous and full of obvious misleading statements.  

You need to sceptically look at what they actually mean not take their nonsense as the truth.  

American football's model is not a successful global model. and i havent once mentioned it.

Its clear to me you are not reading anything that is said.

But McCafferty did.  100 million TV watchers for biggest games and all that jazz.  

It's not rocket science to suggest rugby 'can grow'.  We're all humanbeings............... just about for some of us! ..... but we don't need a McCafferty quote to prove that one right.  
What we disagree about is the idea that PRL would be in the front seat helping that along.  The PRL, as some of your English posters have admitted, is designed only to help itself, its clubs, its owners and of course, the career of its chief exec....

which is fine,

but they understand that the best way to help itself is to grow the game increasing its global reach, the unions have a very different way of protecting themselves- it is only about them keeping a status quo.

mystiroakey wrote:It would be dominated by 3 and still is- but others would get a chance, and paid for that chance. therefore more money would go to these emerging nations- they wouldn't die, they would be included and given a chance to grow

why would international games not still be the pinnacle,

i think you are misunderstanding what the model is

I think you are.

Other would get no chance because a handful of teams in France and England would snap up any players half decent from anywhere wlse in Europe.

International rugby woudl take a back seat to the big all powerful clubs.
The balance of power in France and England now is the start

I'll give you a soccer example.
Fulham have a couple of teenagers - Roberts and Dembele. One is only 16, both are highly prized as real stars of the future.
Will either play more than a handful of games for Fulham not a chance.
Arsenal and Man Utd are already sniffying around trying to persuade them to leave.
Also recently had Liverpool and Man Utd trying to sign an 8 year old.

Under the club run system any half decent player in Holland, Ireland, Scotland, Rumania will be whisked away to the French and English academies and the local teams will not see them.

One of the great thinks about rugby is/was seeing local lads playing for a local team.
Last weekend Lenister had an Irish starting 15, Ulster has something like 16 players who came through their academy in the 23.
Keeping most players in their own country is key to growing the sport across a number of countries .

That will be destroyed if clubs run the game

mystiroakey wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:"The Soccer European World is totally dominated by 4 leagues"

incorrect- PSG, PORTO, BASEL, CSK MOSCOW, AJAX among others do very well in the UEFA and CL

Only one Champions League final since 1995 has been contested by teams outside of the big 4 - I'd call that domination

and yet all the other leagues still do well, they embrace the money in europe..

just look at some of the emerging footballing nations aided by European club comps,

belgium, switzerland, the eastern bloc split nations

How can you say they do well .

They cant compete in the Champions League

global reach for ITS sides, mystir

- self-interest, navel gazing, out-for-themselves, Saracens teeshirts on South African youth's backs.  

Get it?  

The PRL's global reach program is designed to give their Top sides global reach - they couldn't give a toss about the rest of us.  better we crumble and die that they can take our best players anyway.

Global reach for their Product - not for club rugby union to be played acorss the world at a successful level.  

Global Reach means more AP sides doing heroic things on Pacific Island TV sets.... that's all they mean by that.  That's not spreading the word - that's just spreading the PRL gospel.

which is fine,

but they understand that the best way to help itself is to grow the game increasing its global reach, the unions have a very different way of protecting themselves- it is only about them keeping a status quo.

But it is not their aim.  their aim is one thing - to enrich themselves.  thats all that counts in the world of business.  share price.  Unions are not about the status quo - they are about managing the whole game of rugby and this conflicts with shareholder value for the PRL clubs

geoff998rugby wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:"The Soccer European World is totally dominated by 4 leagues"

incorrect- PSG, PORTO, BASEL, CSK MOSCOW, AJAX among others do very well in the UEFA and CL

Only one Champions League final since 1995 has been contested by teams outside of the big 4 - I'd call that domination

and yet all the other leagues still do well, they embrace the money in europe..

just look at some of the emerging footballing nations aided by European club comps,

belgium, switzerland, the eastern bloc split nations

How can you say they do well .

They cant compete in the Champions League

you dont get it- as no one does.

yes they compete in the CL,

but more iomportantly they are getting players in to the top leagues in europe and off the back of that are a better national sides...

The more global club rugby is the better emergeny nations become internationaly.

There players will get scouted and taken to the big leagues, they will then get better, fans from those nations will grow and better domestic leagues in there home nations will also grow.

You lot dont understand how this works.

if football was all about unions and no one played domestically against each other(bar the top rich nations)- Switzerland , Belgium, crotia etc wouldn't be anyway near as good as there are.

SecretFly wrote:global reach for ITS sides, mystir

- self-interest, navel gazing, out-for-themselves, Saracens teeshirts on South African youth's backs.  

Get it?  

The PRL's global reach program is designed to give their Top sides global reach - they couldn't give a toss about the rest of us.  better we crumble and die that they can take our best players anyway.

Global reach for their Product - not for club rugby union to be played acorss the world at a successful level.  

Global Reach means more AP sides doing heroic things on Pacific Island TV sets.... that's all they mean by that.  That's not spreading the word - that's just spreading the PRL gospel.

you are going to have to face the inevitable.

if you dont get involved, someone will, and it wont be the PRL that you need to worry about- It will be the french first


the way out and to keep some status quo is by trying to get a Brit and irish league going.

the welsh regions understand this. they will be in the AP soon enough.

get involved together.

mystiroakey wrote:

but more iomportantly they are getting players in to the top leagues in europe and off the back of that are a better national sides...

now you're seeing daylight finally.  

Although you class that as a success.  That's out nuclear winter scenario.  

So Welsh International sides would be better off winning their next four or five GS by having most of their players playing in big sides in France and England rather than doing it their way like at present and just playing club rugby in Wales itself?

Why should smaller nations furnish bigger nations with good players only to have fans of those big nation clubs then sneer about the fact that their teams are the big guys of Europe and we're all too small to have any sides worth talking about in Europe.?

Why can you not see that such a scenario is not an ideal one for proud rugby playing nations?

SecretFly wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

but more iomportantly they are getting players in to the top leagues in europe and off the back of that are a better national sides...

now you're seeing daylight finally.  

Although you class that as a success.  That's out nuclear winter scenario.  

So Welsh International sides would be better off winning their next four or five GS by having most of their players playing in big sides in France and England rather than doing it their way like at present and just playing club rugby in Wales itself?

Why should smaller nations furnish bigger nations with good players only to have fans of those big nation clubs then sneer about the fact that their teams are the big guys of Europe and we're all too small to have any sides worth talking about in Europe.?

Why can you not see that such a scenario is not an ideal one for proud rugby playing nations?

I am not in the dark and never have been.

You seem to think i am a PRL spokesperson. They have feicked this up royally.

I see a vision, its my vision. Its based on football,

Or Rugby will die.

But you need to read the part after the bit you highlighted.

The smaller nations are better as a result

Why too can't the big Nations, with their big populations, populate their teams with people from their own big nations rather than always somehow needing - and I mean needing, I don't mean wanting - needing so many players from lesser nations in population terms?

Why is their never enough home grown talent in these Nations that claim such potency in the sport of rugby?

Secretfly - I think you will find it hard to get mysti to see daylight. He simply is unable to see beyond more money for the PRL as a good thing and hang everything else. No pro rugby in Scotland / Italy / Wales - a good thing if it makes the PRL stronger in his eyes.

I shall drop this again as its all going round in circles once more

I see a vision, its my vision. Its based on football,

Or Rugby will die.

The english premiership - where club games take precedent over internationals? the champions league where the minnows are frozen out?

the concentration of money into the hands of a few whilst the rest scrabble for scraps? Not a blueprint I want to see.

SecretFly wrote:Why too can't the big Nations, with their big populations, populate their teams with people from their own big nations rather than always somehow needing - and I mean needing, I don't mean wanting - needing so many players from lesser nations in population terms?

Why is their never enough home grown talent in these Nations that claim such potency in the sport of rugby?

If they dont play in the big leagues they will never be good enough. the nations dont have the resources.

they can grow but as they grow we will keep growing at a faater rate. if we keep them away from the big money and big tournies. RU is a lock out, Football is inclusive.

the PRL want big players from romania and russia and wherever, this is not for a charity reason, its to extend there reach TV wise, but the knock on is that they get better players as a result and more fans and then more players playing the game.

TJ wrote:Secretfly - I think you will find it hard to get mysti to see daylight.  He simply is unable to see beyond more money for the PRL as a good thing and hang everything else.  No pro rugby in Scotland / Italy  / Wales - a good thing if it makes the PRL stronger in his eyes.

I shall drop this again as its all going round in circles once more

you cant see the other side- i see both sides and comment on both sides. If you had read my posts you would understand that. You cannot see the positives within a a truely non nationalistic capitalist system

mystiroakey wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

but more iomportantly they are getting players in to the top leagues in europe and off the back of that are a better national sides...

now you're seeing daylight finally.  

Although you class that as a success.  That's out nuclear winter scenario.  

So Welsh International sides would be better off winning their next four or five GS by having most of their players playing in big sides in France and England rather than doing it their way like at present and just playing club rugby in Wales itself?

Why should smaller nations furnish bigger nations with good players only to have fans of those big nation clubs then sneer about the fact that their teams are the big guys of Europe and we're all too small to have any sides worth talking about in Europe.?

Why can you not see that such a scenario is not an ideal one for proud rugby playing nations?

I am not in the dark and never have been.

You seem to think i am a PRL spokesperson. They have feicked this up royally.

I see a vision, its my vision. Its based on football,

Or Rugby will die.

But you need to read the part after the bit you highlighted.

The smaller nations are better as a result

In the new PRL (based on football) world - we'd rapidly become a 'smaller nation'. The change would be violent. French rugby is already proving how when you unleash club rugby completely it begins to hoover up its neighbours.

What makes you think Irish indigenous rugby, that has the kinds of success it has had in the last 7 or 8 years, being played in its own Nation, using mostly it's own players who have come up through schools, college and then academies would somehow be better off losing all that and having all it's players and best coaches drift off to the bigger Leagues and more wealthy clubs?

That's not development of rugby in Europe, that's willfully killing rugby in regions of Europe where it is already founded and progressing.

SecretFly wrote:global reach for ITS sides, mystir

- self-interest, navel gazing, out-for-themselves, Saracens teeshirts on South African youth's backs.  

Get it?  

The PRL's global reach program is designed to give their Top sides global reach - they couldn't give a toss about the rest of us.  better we crumble and die that they can take our best players anyway.

Global reach for their Product - not for club rugby union to be played acorss the world at a successful level.  

Global Reach means more AP sides doing heroic things on Pacific Island TV sets.... that's all they mean by that.  That's not spreading the word - that's just spreading the PRL gospel.

It's only passively that there'll be Sarries shirts on SA backs, but actively they'll be on backs in Abu Dhabi (money), Russia, Malaysia (both chimneypots), Brazil (chimneypots and Olympics) and Tonga (talent).

http://www.saracens.com/sao-paulo-saracens-latest-to-join-global-network/

there is a reason why we all drink coke, there is a reason why we all use microsoft OS's and buy apple phones.

there is a reason why the CL is the best cup in the world, there is a reason why the PL is the best sporting league in the world.

understand the way business works and of the back we also get quality.

There is a reason why nations export and import

I can see the otherside - and it appals me. There are no positives at all to letting unfettered capitalism into sport - why do you think american football is orgaised on such a communal basis - because what makes good entertainment is strong competition and unfettered capitalism concentrates resources into the hands of a few. Rugby will die if a few rich clubs are allowed free rein. this has been explained to you many times but because you are wedded to a freemarket neo con capitalist approach you are blind to its faults.

TJ wrote:I can see the otherside - and it appals me.    There are no positives at all to letting unfettered capitalism into sport - why do you think american football is orgaised on such a communal basis - because what makes good entertainment is strong competition and unfettered capitalism concentrates resources into the hands of a few.  Rugby will die if a few rich clubs are allowed free rein.  this has been explained to you many times but because you are wedded to a freemarket neo con capitalist approach you are blind to its faults.

oh no I am not blind- i have said many times i respect both sides approaches(not the ones doing it but both philosophies), you are just spouting nonsense about me. You are one eyed and when ever another view is expressed that comes into the realms of what the PRL or LNR want you straight away brandish the poster as on some imaginary side.

Stop looking at things in such a black and white outlook

You are blind Mystri.  You clearly have no understanding of the value of anything - only its price. the capitalist approach of the PRL will lead to less pro teams.  this is not good for the game

YOU cant even argue any points can you.

Its just nonsense after nonsense. just accusations after accusations.

Mystiroakey dont tell me I dont understand how it works I understand perfectly

I dont like how it works that is what you dont get

"the capitalist approach of the PRL will lead to less pro teams"

saying things like this just proves how stupid and in the dark you are about this.

You are so brainwashed that you cant see that it would increase professionalism.

geoff998rugby wrote:Mystiroakey dont tell me I dont understand how it works I understand perfectly

I dont like how it works that is what you dont get

Yup - complete failure to understand the other side coupled with a gullibility about capitalism in sport. we do understand your argument - and don't like it one bit.

Not in Rugby it wont - we are not soccer.

It will mean, outside France and England, a professional team will struggle to survive and those that do will be second rate with no chance of winning the big trophies.

TJ wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:Mystiroakey dont tell me I dont understand how it works I understand perfectly

I dont like how it works that is what you dont get

Yup - complete failure to understand the other side coupled with a gullibility about capitalism in sport.  we do understand your argument - and don't like it one bit.

saying ridiculous things like less pro teams will come of the back of it tells me you have the knowledge of a snail in regards to this.

mystiroakey wrote:"the capitalist approach of the PRL will lead to less pro teams"

saying things like this just proves how stupid and in the dark you are about this.

You are so brainwashed that you cant see that it would increase professionalism.

Of course it would. Pro rugby would not survivce in Scotland and Italy. Wales would be in deep trouble and so would Ireland. georgia dn aromania will never be able to be competative - this is the only end result of allowing the PRL to increaee their share of the money and control. How can Glasgow compete with a budget that would be so much less than the PRL teams? The rich clubs will simply hoover up all the decent players and put the prie of decent players beyond the reach of the rest. as is happening with wales right now.

I am not brainwashed. I understand the implications. You are the brainwashed one with your adherence to a cpitalist model which will result inevitably in the concentration of power and money in a few hands - as is the aim of the PRL

geoff998rugby wrote:Not in Rugby it wont - we are not soccer.

It will mean, outside France and England, a professional team will struggle to survive and those that do will be second rate with no chance of winning the big trophies.

increase the marketing of rugby is all about expanding the market.

Nations dont just watch sport and not get more into the game of the back of it.

If rugby can get into other nations more of the worlds population will play the game.

If you cant understand this very simple point then i am not sure what to say anymore. Its like hitting my head against a brick wall.

These are very simple points, you should be able to understand them

Ok - time out - we are all becoming intemperate on this one.

TJ you keep talking about ireland and scotland and italy.

There are not the small nations!!!

The small nations are the others that are trying to get a foothold in the game

oh no some of the lesser big nations might lose out to other euro nations..

THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE SCARED OF!!

you dont want competition from other major nations like russia or romaina that have much bigger populations

mystiroakey wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:Not in Rugby it wont - we are not soccer.

It will mean, outside France and England, a professional team will struggle to survive and those that do will be second rate with no chance of winning the big trophies.

increase the marketing of rugby is all about expanding the market.

Nations dont just watch sport and not get more into the game of the back of it.

If rugby can get into other nations more of the worlds population will play the game.

If you cant understand this very simple point then i am not sure what to say anymore. Its like hitting my head against a brick wall.

These are very simple points, you should be able to understand them

We do - its simply wrong.

"there is a reason why the CL is the best cup in the world, there is a reason why the PL is the best sporting league in the world."

Really?????

TJ wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:Not in Rugby it wont - we are not soccer.

It will mean, outside France and England, a professional team will struggle to survive and those that do will be second rate with no chance of winning the big trophies.

increase the marketing of rugby is all about expanding the market.

Nations dont just watch sport and not get more into the game of the back of it.

If rugby can get into other nations more of the worlds population will play the game.

If you cant understand this very simple point then i am not sure what to say anymore. Its like hitting my head against a brick wall.

These are very simple points, you should be able to understand them

We do - its simply wrong.  

you cant or you wouldnt say that less pro teams will come about as a result.

You couldnt get it more backwards,

you are simply afraid that the LNR and PRL will earn more money in larger nations and of the back these nations will get better than smaller celtic nations

We're find with other countries competing what we don't want is a framewrok where France and England bleed the rest of European rugby dry

"If rugby can get into other nations more of the worlds population will play the game."

Who wants that to happen?
Popularity and quality are rarely bedfellows.

I'd prefer rugby to produce a high level of competition rather than see it globally diluted into a sport that's more about business than what it offers the fans e.g. soccer.

Rugby Union is too complicated to understand to attract a mass audience in the first place.

Also, you need a lot of facilities, organised etc. to play t as much as you need to, to be any good.. Kicking a ball around is much easier and more attractive for kids.

Gavin Mairs wrote:But the English clubs stood firm, and while they “pursue other options”, the LNR have signed [last Saturday] a four-year accord with the FFR that, among other things, commits them to the governance of the ERC.

Good article here on the French state of the nation.

http://www.rugbyworld.com/news/blogs/top-14-french-rugbys-continued-in-fighting/?utm_content=buffer40169&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer

Ok geoff- so how are we going to grow the game in other nations..

One way is just let it happen in a capitalist approach as we have seen in football. It has grown and grown. It has naturally occured

The way we do things in rugby is very different as we know, but how do we help these other nations out,

we need European cups instead of 6 nations each year.

We need to do something surely!

I mean its all good trying to geta moral high gorund(of which i am not- growing the game is a knock on effect of making more money and expanding the global reach).

But you cant argue that the PRL dont want to grow the game and it will kill rugby if you have no alternative to actually grow rugby.

Because it seems to me all the unions just want the best deals for themselves as well as the PRL does, the difference is that the later incorporates a global approach.

We can argue the PRL don't want to grow rugby simply by looking at their actions. Football may have more participants but eh gulf between a small eliet and the rest both at international and club level is growing. You would see a AP with 4 or 6 competitive clubs, same in the French league and no one else in the NH able to compete - thats what has happened in football

-------

https://www.606v2.com/viewtopic.forum?t=50426