English clubs give 2 year notice to withdraw from Heineken European Cup

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/18403809

The governing body of England's top rugby union clubs has given notice of its intention to pull out of the Heineken Cup and Amlin Challenge Cup.
The move comes amid disagreements over how the competitions are organised.
Recent Heineken Cup winners

French clubs have also threatened to withdraw, but as two years' notice has to be given the move is perceived as an attempt to force others to negotiate.
"We hope that there will now be an urgent dialogue," said Premiership Rugby chief executive Mark McCafferty.
In May, Leinster beat Ulster 42-14 in the Heineken Cup final to retain the trophy.
Premiership Rugby's intention to exit the competition will affect such top English sides as Northampton, Saracens, Gloucester, Bath, Harlequins, Leicester and London Irish, all of whom competed in the 2011-12 tournament.
McCafferty added that he hopes discussions can commence soon regarding "the future of European cup rugby, including qualification, competition formats and ambition to expand into new markets".
The governing body's notice period extends to the end of the 2013-14 event, at which point they say they will exit the competitions.

As someone who spans the divide (Scotsman born in Glasgow, living in the West Country, supporting my local team, Exeter Chiefs, but with a huge soft spot for my 'home' team, Glasgow Warriors), I agree totally with Kiwi's comments that this move is largely about money from European competition and its division to participating unions. Giving 2 years' notice is the minimum requirement and in my view nothing more than an opening salvo in the first round of negotiations that will see a re-write of European competition structure - both sides will give and take and some happy compromise will be found. The good news is that there is two years to do it.

PS As an aside, for those that suggest that Scottish teams are guaranteed participation, that is simply not the case. The SRU has two places to award, whether there are three pro-district teams (as there once were and hopefully will be again soon) or just the two as now. Either way, only two places get awarded, so if the Borders club re-emerges or one is established in the North&Midlands, there will still only be two places with the third pro-district playing in the Amlin - hope that helps clarify things

LordDowlais wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Sky would never take on the Rabo, there's minimal interest from the majority of its viewers (English) in a low quality league.

If the English/French pulled out they'd form an alternative competition that Sky would no doubt take on.

Sgt_Pooly, you are such an arrogant ......., why do you see the Rabbo as a low quality league ? It obviously is not. Four grand slams in seven years between Wales and Ireland plus the Irish teams dominating the HC and Edinborugh getting to the semi's this year, but all this from a low quality league, also the Cardiff Blues won the Amlin a few years back. Just give it a rest will you. Both our leagues has it's cons and plusses, but you seem hellbent on just causing more friction. You are giving the rest of the English supporters a bad name. Thank god thay are not all like you.

I am not arrogant thank you. My father is Irish and an Ulster fan and he echoes my statements.

This is where the Celts generally misunderstand. You say the RABO is a strong league then come up with claims about Grand Slams, Heiniken Cups etc.

I at no point said the Celtic countries were poor (they aren't) or stated that the Celtic Regions were poor (they aren't).

What I did say is the RABO is a weak league. You look at the top players and they hardly play a game in the RABO (they'll be a few odd ones that do) as there is no requirement to fight for league position. Two of the NH's top players in Adam Jones & Stephen Ferris played only a handful of RABO games yet turned out for most HC games.

I love watching all types of rugby but often tune in to a RABO match to watch second string lineups and not great quality rugby (often poor crowds also but a different point).

This is why I think the RABO is a poor league and would be vastly improved if teams had something to fight for.

it has been said above but this not about which league is better and how to counter the relative strengh of rabbo teams vs the English and French one in the HC cup. this is probably about money and other terms that are meant to be renewed in 2 years.
And as in all contract negociation when one party is not happy with all the terms, they serve the relevant notice in order to start discussing. nothing special here, its all good to discuss so why so much paranoia?
No way will the english or french teams pull out of the HC (and ACC), this competition has grown since 1999 so it is in everybody's interest to keep it and hopefully improve it. there is potential to improve the ACC (cant be worst than what it is now) as well so why deny it?

Aslong as had got a good point. This argument has a side discussion about what people think is the purpose of the HC. Some believe it should be contested by the top teams in Europe only. Others, like me, believe that it should be a showcase of european rugby so should include representation from all top nations. Wales used to have 3 spots when we had 10 teams, and we've still got 3 now. It's just that we've ony got 4 pro teams. If the WRU wanted they could send 4 semi-pro teams from the Welsh Prem, mirroring the qualification of the English prem, but that would be silly obviously.

The chamions league is another example of representation from all top leagues. Nations like Denmark and Sweden get to compete even if they haven't a snowballs chance in hell of their team winning the thing against the super powers of european football. That's how I believe the HC should be. Otherwise we'll have a closed shop to the richest teams in Europe and we'll never grow the game in Europe. It would be a travesty IMO if one of the nations in the Rabo missed out in some way, and this is a distinct possibility in a league ranked rather than union allocated system.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Sky would never take on the Rabo, there's minimal interest from the majority of its viewers (English) in a low quality league.

If the English/French pulled out they'd form an alternative competition that Sky would no doubt take on.

Sgt_Pooly, you are such an arrogant ......., why do you see the Rabbo as a low quality league ? It obviously is not. Four grand slams in seven years between Wales and Ireland plus the Irish teams dominating the HC and Edinborugh getting to the semi's this year, but all this from a low quality league, also the Cardiff Blues won the Amlin a few years back. Just give it a rest will you. Both our leagues has it's cons and plusses, but you seem hellbent on just causing more friction. You are giving the rest of the English supporters a bad name. Thank god thay are not all like you.

I am not arrogant thank you. My father is Irish and an Ulster fan and he echoes my statements.

This is where the Celts generally misunderstand. You say the RABO is a strong league then come up with claims about Grand Slams, Heiniken Cups etc.

I at no point said the Celtic countries were poor (they aren't) or stated that the Celtic Regions were poor (they aren't).

What I did say is the RABO is a weak league. You look at the top players and they hardly play a game in the RABO (they'll be a few odd ones that do) as there is no requirement to fight for league position. Two of the NH's top players in Adam Jones & Stephen Ferris played only a handful of RABO games yet turned out for most HC games.

I love watching all types of rugby but often tune in to a RABO match to watch second string lineups and not great quality rugby (often poor crowds also but a different point).

This is why I think the RABO is a poor league and would be vastly improved if teams had something to fight for.

Sgt, just to be clear, this is a thread about European competition and has nothing to do with the Rabo league - it is after all the individual unions that enter teams and not the league

[quote="AsLongAsBut100ofUs] Sgt, just to be clear, this is a thread about European competition and has nothing to do with the Rabo league - it is after all the individual unions that enter teams and not the league [/quote]

+1000

Under the Anglo/French proposals it might not be the individual unions that enter the teams for much longer. That would have a knock on effect onto the Rabo which Sgt quite rightly points out.

Personally I think there's too much all or nothing about the HEC and it was about time the Amlin was strengthened with a bit more Rabo influence and I like the idea of a subsidised third tier to help developing countries come into the European party. The Premier Rugby notification is just a statement of intent.

Yea it kinda ending up going that way after Lorddow's comments, apologies.

LordDowlais wrote:This would then leave sky in a strong position to have the monopoly on all British and Irish rugby and it would then only be a matter of time before they start eyeing up the six nations, world cup and autumn internationals, they already have the summer tours and super rugby.

There is no danger of Sky dominating British and Irish rugby any time soon. The Six Nations are protected on terrestrial TV and the BBC have a contract for a while yet. The Aviva Premiership primary broadcaster is ESPN at the moment, with Sky also showing some games. Sky has ERC competitions and Summer and Autumn internationals but that wouldn't change. Super Rugby is irrelevant to a discussion about B&I rugby.

2ndtimeround wrote:Its not just the Rabo teams that would lose financially, the English teams would also as does anyone really believe a business as sharp as SKY would still pay big money for a tournament that excludes the Irish sides and would therefore be viewed as 2nd class.

They would probably fill the void left by the HC with an Anglo-French cup, and Sky would undoubtedly bid for the rights to this. They might not pay as much as they would for the HC so the financial pot would be smaller, but there would be no one to share it with. I guess the PRL and Top14 would sell the rights in their own country to whoever and just keep their own revenue. With the ERC agreements they all sell their own rights, but then the revenue gets shared. The English and French TV deals contribute the vast majority of this pot.

Sky could pay less than half of what they do for the current ERC comps and the PRL would still take more money.

Financially, England and France would not lose out. If anything they would make more money, especially if they also expanded their respective domestic leagues. Why would they aggravate for a change that would lose them money?

There was also discussions between senior Premier Rugby bosses and SANZAR representitives before the last deal was signed with the Chairman from Leicester Tigers looking for a NH vs SH cup. It didn't fit in with the HEC/Super15 seasons but if the HEC isn't there expect that idea to quickly become a possibility with the big money tv deals available through the French and English leagues drawing the SANZAR nations into a deal.

The French and English bring the most money to the pot, losing the HEC would be a serious loss but they'll be ready to bring in something else that will be equally as financially beneficial. The issue will be for the Rabo sides/unions that are heavilly relient on HEC income, they don't have the tv deals to make big money approaches to SANZAR and without the English and French there's no crowd drawing potential left in Europe, the other 6N unions already provide teams to the Rabo.

Some very emotive words out there for what is purely a commercial decision.

Population figures from wiki

France 63,460,000 (metropolitan France)
Italy 59,464,644
England 51,809,700
Ireland 6,380,661 (both political entities included)
Scotland 5,222,100
Wales 3,006,400

Now obviously size of population does not indicate the popularity of Rugby within each country, England for example has Soccer and League to dilute the figures and in Italy (perhaps the sleeping giant?) rugby is not a great crowd puller, but it gives an idea of what leverage the different Unions might have with the Media Corporations.

I very seriously doubt that the Anglo-French authorities have given notice without sounding out the various parties concerned and will have a viable financial plan to cover most contigencies.

On this board we all love rugby, and there will be purists among us that will enjoy a game without having any ties to either team, however Jo Public out there needs a hook to hang their hat on, so English Jo Public and French Jo Public might be willing to keep up subscriptions to watch 'their' sides slug it out in a bore fest whilst not have any interest in a sparkling match between sides from different countries.

It's just economics and remember our sport has to have funding. Some of us think that free to watch TV rugby is a god given right - well it isn't, someone, somewhere, has to pay for it.

It will be interesting to see how the negotiations evolve over the next 2 years, it would be a real shame if the HEC came to an end.

What I don't understand, apart from turkeys not voting for Christmas, is why a streamlined HC would be so bad? If the HC was shrunk to say 16 teams based on league positions, surely that would improve the HC, as well as improving the AP and the Rabo by making them more competitive and removing the chance of deadrubbers which fans tend to shy away from?

This would also have the effect of strengthening the Amlin and make it into a better competition in its own right. Surely for the likes of the newly formed Zebre RFC, more fans would be attracted if they could go on a little cup run in the Amlin, rather than getting a thrashing 6 times and then just trying again the next year?

Of course in real life money comes into the equation...

Bathman_in_London wrote:It will be interesting to see how the negotiations evolve over the next 2 years, it would be a real shame if the HEC came to an end.

What I don't understand, apart from turkeys not voting for Christmas, is why a streamlined HC would be so bad? If the HC was shrunk to say 16 teams based on league positions, surely that would improve the HC, as well as improving the AP and the Rabo by making them more competitive and removing the chance of deadrubbers which fans tend to shy away from?

This would also have the effect of strengthening the Amlin and make it into a better competition in its own right. Surely for the likes of the newly formed Zebre RFC, more fans would be attracted if they could go on a little cup run in the Amlin, rather than getting a thrashing 6 times and then just trying again the next year?

Of course in real life money comes into the equation...

Thats the problem its a major gamble for the scottish teams and italian teams to agree to have 1 or 2 of there teams in the amlin and not the top teir, the media coverage for the amlin is nowhere near as good as the heini and im guessing the participation money for being involved in the amlin is less aswell, they would need to hope that with the changes the amlin cup gets better or the pro 12 being more competetive brings in the fans but if i doesn't then the teams won't survive. edinburgh got 38,000 crowd in the quarters but we struggle to get over 4000 in the pro 12. The scottish and italian teams are there to take part in the top teir of european rugby, if there not in the top teir then questions will be asked from our own domestic clubs about the reason for having them.

I think it would obviously be devastating to the finances of the PRO12 sides if the English and French walked out and played among themselves. In the long term it could result in an exodus of Celtic players to France and England. Maybe that's why some of the replies from the posters from PRO12 nations have been so aggressive and angry. The English clubs have basically said they're happy to financially cripple rugby in 4 nations to get a little bit more money and (they believe) improve their chances of winning.

But clearly, a split in European rugby is not desirable for the health of the game at all. Does anyone know what the stance of the RFU and FFR is? Are they on the same page as their clubs? I doubt it. I doubt they want this split to happen. For them, and for rugby as a whole, international rugby takes precedence. And the whole point of the HC is to give domestic European teams exposure to each other to raise the standard of European rugby and ultimately benefit the test teams.

It was not conceived to hand money and glory to English clubs. It was conceived to benefit everyone. For example if Harlequins spent the next few years trying to beat Leinster, and improved their squad, and their tactics and finally matched and surpassed them, then their exposure to this top class Irish side will have benefited English rugby. The HC is for the benefit of all 6 Nations who own and run it.

totally agree with Feckless, but TBH I think a compromise will be reached. It's in the interest of all parties to reach one. How about:

16 teams
4 English, 4 French, 2 Irish, 2 Welsh, 1 Scottish, 1 Italian (done on League positions preferably), winner of the HC, winner of the Amlin.

The Amlin would therefore become also more competitive too, surely a good thing?

For all the benefits of the Rabo structure viz the HC, I also believe it severely affected Ireland in the last 6N, in that when they reached the England game they gassed badly due to not being used to playing so many consecutive weeks of high intensity rugby.

But why do the irish only get 2 places?

because they're only four Irish teams?

Feckless Rogue wrote:I think it would obviously be devastating to the finances of the PRO12 sides if the English and French walked out and played among themselves. In the long term it could result in an exodus of Celtic players to France and England. Maybe that's why some of the replies from the posters from PRO12 nations have been so aggressive and angry. The English clubs have basically said they're happy to financially cripple rugby in 4 nations to get a little bit more money and (they believe) improve their chances of winning.

But clearly, a split in European rugby is not desirable for the health of the game at all. Does anyone know what the stance of the RFU and FFR is? Are they on the same page as their clubs? I doubt it. I doubt they want this split to happen. For them, and for rugby as a whole, international rugby takes precedence. And the whole point of the HC is to give domestic European teams exposure to each other to raise the standard of European rugby and ultimately benefit the test teams.

It was not conceived to hand money and glory to English clubs. It was conceived to benefit everyone. For example if Harlequins spent the next few years trying to beat Leinster, and improved their squad, and their tactics and finally matched and surpassed them, then their exposure to this top class Irish side will have benefited English rugby. The HC is for the benefit of all 6 Nations who own and run it.

Feckless, I believe that they are slightly more agnostic than their clubs - the two unions already have fairly antagonistic relationships with their clubs as it is

Mad for Chelsea wrote:because they're only four Irish teams?

Ye ...and?

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:because they're only four Irish teams?

Ye ...and?

50% representation of every nation in the Rabo, one third for England and France. All countries lose representatives from the current format, seems about right to me. A better question would be: why should Ireland be given preferential treatment? that's what you seem to be asking for...

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:because they're only four Irish teams?

Ye ...and?

50% representation of every nation in the Rabo, one third for England and France. All countries lose representatives from the current format, seems about right to me. A better question would be: why should Ireland be given preferential treatment? that's what you seem to be asking for...

Well considering how we get some of the biggest crowds and considering how 3 of our teams have been very succesful over recent years i think it would be harsh if we only got 2 but it would be hard to come up with a far system with only 16 teams

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:because they're only four Irish teams?

Ye ...and?

50% representation of every nation in the Rabo, one third for England and France. All countries lose representatives from the current format, seems about right to me. A better question would be: why should Ireland be given preferential treatment? that's what you seem to be asking for...

Well considering how we get some of the biggest crowds and considering how 3 of our teams have been very succesful over recent years i think it would be harsh if we only got 2 but it would be hard to come up with a far system with only 16 teams

yep which is why this was my best effort. I'm not a huge fan of the "best second-placed" rule as a whole, and 16 teams makes that easier. Right now of course according to my system Ireland would have 3 teams anyway as they seem to keep winnning the thing

Ye im not a huge fan of it either and i think its because of the seedings...just look at the group cardiff and biaritz got its rediculous

So under the English and French plans in principle one of Munster Ulster and Leinster lose out after competing in the competition since its beginnings and Connacht who beat the current English champions, Quins, last season shouldnt be there and Edinburgh who made the semis miss out too?

Surely if they want to be more competitive they should look at the overuse of their players as some are playing in 3 competitions for club, LV, AP and HC, plus also playing for their country too whereas the Irish teams dont have such a problem and the top Welsh players dont play as much for their clubs

Some of the comments on here are predictable, to what is basically a business reaction of privately owned commercial clubs against central Union franchises.

On the playing side, when the 'celtic' teams were originally allowed to ignore their own leagues and allocate specific teams into a 'transnational' setup, that fragile balance between the two models became unbalanced as one model naturally gained advantage by putting all Test experienced players into a couple of teams.

The current HC setup between the leagues is unbalanced in the same way an Italian team is currently considered a '10 pointer' in the HC pools.

I would prefer an HC competition, but not at the expense of the clubs being financially viable, in order to fund greedy Unions unable to devolve power elsewhere.

A meritocratic structure based on devolved ownership, as opposed to unaccountable central ownership with artificial allocation is the way to go for secure long term future for a European competition and the game generally.

My initial reaction is to go "oh well, bye then", but with a bit of reflection maybe there should be some attempt to accomodate what the English and French see as genuine concerns.
This is obviously a negotiating position rather than a geniune threat, there will be some moaning but I'll be surprised if much changes other than maybe an extra place each to France and England.
Does anyone really think the Top 14 and PRL can work together in any sort of harmony - how long before the English teams start moaning about the salary cap compared to the French for example ?
What needs to be established is what the HEC is for, is it an elite competition designed to make the best teams play each other and make the already (comparatively) rich richer a la Champions League, or is it designed to stimulate interest in club rugby, grow the game in Europe and give players the chance to play at the top club level ?
Also regarding the TV income, I'd be interested in the viewing figures for rugby per se on SKY/ESPN, I'm sure a lot of people watch it becuase they are rugby fans and you get it as part of the sports package anyway but I am sceptical about how many people pay out purely for the rugby - I'd suggest that 95% of sports channel subscriptions are for association football and the remaining 5% are a mix of purely golf, cricket and rugby fans.
The French/English would be well advised to do the maths before storming off and attempting to set up a cross channel series, as for bringing in the SA teams, assuming they would willingly drop out of the tri-nations league, given the north-south thing do they play in our winter or theirs ?
Lastly - since one of the main gripes is about the lack of promotion/relegation in the Rabo, maybe they could sort out the Aviva closed shop first ?

Recwatcher wrote:Some of the comments on here are predictable, to what is basically a business reaction of privately owned commercial clubs against central Union franchises.

On the playing side, when the 'celtic' teams were originally allowed to ignore their own leagues and allocate specific teams into a 'transnational' setup, that fragile balance between the two models became unbalanced as one model naturally gained advantage by putting all Test experienced players into a couple of teams.

The current HC setup between the leagues is unbalanced in the same way an Italian team is currently considered a '10 pointer' in the HC pools.

I would prefer an HC competition, but not at the expense of the clubs being financially viable, in order to fund greedy Unions unable to devolve power elsewhere.

A meritocratic structure based on devolved ownership, as opposed to unaccountable central ownership with artificial allocation is the way to go for secure long term future for a European competition and the game generally.

Rec, would all the unions have to have the same structure/ownership model then?

As, I would answer that by saying what do the Unions have to do with it ? A professional club competition should not be answerable to a central union who run the national side.

In some ways the HC has distorted the game by reducing access by fans to a couple of teams for short term success. That has huge risks on any number of levels.

Recwatcher wrote:As, I would answer that by saying what do the Unions have to do with it ? A professional club competition should not be answerable to a central union who run the national side.

In some ways the HC has distorted the game by reducing access by fans to a couple of teams for short term success. That has huge risks on any number of levels.

Gotcha i guess this goes back to what you feel that the Heino should represent á la Griff's thread?: https://www.606v2.com/t30830-heineken-cup-what-should-it-represent

maybe they could sort out the Aviva closed shop first ?.

Heh heh - was suprised this trook so long to appear.

Any team can be promoted to the Premiership as long as they fulfill the requirements both on and off the pitch. These requirements are known to all of the clubs in the Championship and have not changed much since the last time this happened (9 years ago) with Rotherham.

The farce that is going on currently is because LW couldn't be arsed to follow the procedures, and when woke up to the fact that they were going to miss out on ££££ due to their non-compliance, they tried to pull a rabbit out of the hat and could only manage a ferrit.

I'd suggest that 95% of sports channel subscriptions are for association football and the remaining 5% are a mix of purely golf, cricket and rugby fans.

I'll not question your data here, although I have a sneaking suspicion that you are guessing, but the cold hard facts are that 5% of the French+English viewers are still a hell of a lot more than 5% of Ireland+Scotland+Wales (Italy whilst has huge potential is still not a factor - yet). If the Media moguls decided to split the sports out, I'm sure then the Rabbo audience would then start to come a lot closer to the AngloFrench audience, but at the minute they don't so the popularity of Rugby vs Footy in England and France doesn't matter, its the sports package that's sold - and there is more fat beer swilling English couch potatoes and Fat Wine swilling French couch pomme de terres than there is of their counterparts in the RABBO countries.

If you can take any comfort from it, your rugby is being part-subsidised by lager swilling ManU and Chelsea fans.

And just to remind you - we are in a double dip recession, only two or three premiership clubs made a profit this year and the RFU is not going to rush and bankroll any of the clubs - they have got to maximise their revenue as much as possible.

TrailApe wrote:

maybe they could sort out the Aviva closed shop first ?.

Heh heh - was suprised this trook so long to appear.

Any team can be promoted to the Premiership as long as they fulfill the requirements both on and off the pitch. These requirements are known to all of the clubs in the Championship and have not changed much since the last time this happened (9 years ago) with Rotherham.

The farce that is going on currently is because LW couldn't be arsed to follow the procedures, and when woke up to the fact that they were going to miss out on ££££ due to their non-compliance, they tried to pull a rabbit out of the hat and could only manage a ferrit.

I'll add to that the inexplicable brainfarts that caused Brizzle to feck up their nailed on promotion 3 years on the trot.

I'll add to that the inexplicable brainfarts that caused Brizzle to feck up their nailed on promotion 3 years on the trot

"Doing a Bristol" may slip into the Jeff devotee's vocabulary.


Athough, because of Brizzle's clusterflick, we might still yet play premiership rugby next season - and given the coaching team that's being assembled, might even get a chance, in a few years or so, to dip our snout into the HC trough.

Strange times we live in.

There has been a lot of talk of letting the English and French go. I would not want that to happen but if it did the broadcasting rights for an Anglo/French competition would be many times what a Celtic/Italian competition would receive. This is not based on Rugby reasons but Rugby watching populations.

Let's hope it doesn't happen but if it does it could be the end of Welsh and Scottish professional rugby which are on life support financially anyway.

Recwatcher wrote:As, I would answer that by saying what do the Unions have to do with it ? A professional club competition should not be answerable to a central union who run the national side.

In some ways the HC has distorted the game by reducing access by fans to a couple of teams for short term success. That has huge risks on any number of levels.

It was the Unions that set up the HC,of course they should have a say in how it's run.The club system is a horrible way to run any sportinh competition as you cn see by looking at the various football leagues throughout Europe.All are dominated by 2-4 teams and the only way any new team can break through is by getting some rich owner to buy success.French rugby is well down that path already and English rugby will follow if the Union doesn't keep a tight rein on the salary cap.

Trail, absolutely a finger in the air guess but probably not too far out I'd say.
To put it another way how many subscriptions would Sky Sports/ESPN lose if they didn't have football but kept cricket rugby and golf - never mind the loss of pub/club subscriptions. Personally I'm not actually sure that there is a huge demand for televised club level rugby.

All are dominated by 2-4 teams and the only way any new team can break through is by getting some rich owner to buy success.French rugby is well down that path already and English rugby will follow if the Union doesn't keep a tight rein on the salary cap.

Asoreleftshoulder, is that why 3 different teams have won the AP in the last 3 years and only one of those has a wealthy backer. Quins and Tigers are both self sufficient. The English game just doesn't have the cash to go toe to toe with the Japanese and French clubs so is never likely to become a football style pay your way to success. That is backed up by the Premier Rugby enforced salary cap which requires a 75% vote to raise, if the smaller clubs band together they can easily stop any future raises. LI, Wasps and Falcons have been doing that for a few years.

The club system in England has been working for many years before professionalism and is working well under professionalism. It is certainly better than allowing the RFU to oversee the clubs, those numpties can barely get the international side to function let alone organise regions and teams within those regions to replace the clubs. I also like our domestic league it has heritage and great rivalries, a lot of Welsh fans would love to go back to their club system and do away with the regions. Only the Irish provinces truely work as a 'region system' in the NH and that's because they were already divided into them before hand.

Perhaps English clubs should concentrate on making their players better in order to compete in both league and HC rather than spending all their efforts in trying to change everyone else's structure.

Perhaps they should get rid of promotion/relegation themselves?

Oh no they can't. It would mean fielding weaker teams for league matches and we all know that Sky wouldn't allow that now would they?

formerly known as Sam wrote:

All are dominated by 2-4 teams and the only way any new team can break through is by getting some rich owner to buy success.French rugby is well down that path already and English rugby will follow if the Union doesn't keep a tight rein on the salary cap.

Asoreleftshoulder, is that why 3 different teams have won the AP in the last 3 years and only one of those has a wealthy backer. Quins and Tigers are both self sufficient. The English game just doesn't have the cash to go toe to toe with the Japanese and French clubs so is never likely to become a football style pay your way to success. That is backed up by the Premier Rugby enforced salary cap which requires a 75% vote to raise, if the smaller clubs band together they can easily stop any future raises. LI, Wasps and Falcons have been doing that for a few years.

The club system in England has been working for many years before professionalism and is working well under professionalism. It is certainly better than allowing the RFU to oversee the clubs, those numpties can barely get the international side to function let alone organise regions and teams within those regions to replace the clubs. I also like our domestic league it has heritage and great rivalries, a lot of Welsh fans would love to go back to their club system and do away with the regions. Only the Irish provinces truely work as a 'region system' in the NH and that's because they were already divided into them before hand.

Yes that is why I said the French are well down that path and England will follow if the Union doesn't keep the salary cap.

I know the club system worked before and still is working but if the clubs get too much control then like the football it will be destroyed.The clubs will always fight for more control so it can be a tough job for the RFU to keep control.

Evening all. Just had an idea. If the English want a more even playing field, can the rabo teams ask for the same. By that I mean, the French and English clubs playing in Europe having to keep to the same wage cap as the welsh teams?

Found this on another forum and thought it was quite interesting:

Essentially the English, French and Welsh clubs were denied the opportunity to re-negotiate from within the tent because of some pretty low back stabbing by the FFR.

So they have to "resign" to start any negotiations on anything.

From my understanding what they want is
* Funding Formula. Currently this is split per union, they want split per team.
* Amlin Cup, this is a pressing concern for the lower clubs who actually play in it. They want this beefed up and the way to do it is to cut the HC to 20 and get some of the Rabo teams in it.
* Justice. French no longer recognise ERC bans as of right and re-hear all the cases, English are considering this too as ERC justice is considered so poor. Tiger were furious at the lack of evidence when Micky Young was suspended and then ERC made Tigers pay ERC's costs to the tune of £10k. Typical RFU costs are £500. Also enforcement of regulations such as secondary sponsor's boards and the fair split of monies from quarter finals.
* Seedings. Current seeding system isn't very good, though none of the others have been either. Proposed system is 5 seeds with the seeded teams being the 3 league winners and the 2 HC finalists.
* Set up, as has been said ERC is a union construct and the English and French clubs bitterly want that to change to club run organisation. They want Leinster and Munster to represent themselves not via the IRFU. The Weslh "regions" are in favour of this apparently. This is likely to actually be the sticking point for the Anglo-French alliance. The English and French leagues will be the partners not the unions or nothing will happen.
* 3rd tier growth competition. They want to expand ERC's reach and grow non-international rugby in the rest of Europe. I think that would be a better place for the Spanish for example, provided their were clear pathways for good teams to progress to the Amlin then Heineken Cup.


The general feeling is the pie isn't divided fairly and that it isn't as big as it could be either. Everything else is a debate about how to achieve growing that pie.

English and French sides leavig the HC would be financially catastrophic for the Rabo sides. However, only watching English sides playing French ones would not be fun (particularly given the French style of play). A compromise will be reached, and the way Rabo clubs qualify will change.

6 from each league, plus the two cup winners seems fair, with an expanded Amlin.

Just to stir the pot,would the SA clubs(not the S15 teams) be interested in a tri nations club competition with England & France. Bring the 3 financial powerhouses together. Time zones similar but dont know travrling distances.

To be honest I am not too worried about the English or the French pulling out of the HEC. IN the end of they day they have the right to pull out of it if they do not think it is in their best interest etc. I don't think it will be all doom and gloom without them to be perfectly honest. The Amlin could be restructured to take the celtic nation sides from the B&I Cup and the Italian prem sides, and the HEC could be a knock out Rabo competition. Personally I would missing seeing the likes of Toulouse, Leicester etc, however I would deal with it, as the lower level leagues (welsh Prem, Italian Prem etc) would be improved.

I do find things like the Saints blike saying that it is an unfair competition due to the Prem sides having to qualify and the Rabo teams not. I do think that maybe he should have looked up the facts before coming out and talking tosh. There are 11 Rabo sides in the HEC next season and 7 had to qualify through the same means as the Prem and Top14 sides.

To put it another way how many subscriptions would Sky Sports/ESPN lose if they didn't have football but kept cricket rugby and golf - never mind the loss of pub/club subscriptions. Personally I'm not actually sure that there is a huge demand for televised club level rugby.

Irish Londoner - I agree with what you are saying and alluded (poorly) to that in my previous response.

However, from the Broadcasters point of view it makes sense to bundle everything up and flog it in a big package. If they stripped out the minor sports and sold them seperately, they would have to reduce the prices, no way are you going to pay the same £££ to watch only Rugby than you are paying to get a bundle of sports which includes Rugby. So the Rugby afficianado has to pay over the top for his fix as (from what I have heard) Sky mainly panders to the footie lot.

Having spouted all that blether I must confess that I won't put my hand in my pocket to pay for either Sky or ESPN, so it's more than likely that I'm talking a load of crap - although when it comes down to it there is still more money to be squeezed out of the French and English public than there is out of the Rabbo teams, so it makes sense that they will be keeping an eye on the Anglo-French developments and be planning accordingly.

Like sheep - we are only here to be fleeced.

asoreleftshoulder the RFU has next to no control over the AP Clubs. The Premier Rugby organisation which is an umbrella group for the AP Clubs runs the league and they enforce the salary cap, arrange the spsonsorships and tv rights etc. The only thing the RFU have imposed on the league is the requirements for promotion, we can all see how well that's gone. The less the RFU have to do with the club game the better.

sheephead the arguement is that the money in unfairly split and despite the English and the French bringing the big tv and sponsorship deals they aren't getting a representitive split of the cash. This is hindering club finances in England and France whilst propping up Welsh and Scottish rugby. By enforcing the changes they hope the Rabo will take on more meaning (which might actually draw some crowds outside of Ireland) and big up the Amlin so that can become more prestigious and generate more cash.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs it wouldn't be the first time Tigers were left furious by the ERC's very dodgey penalty proceedures. Corry was also banned on nothing but a baseless accusation by Ospreys coaches in which they initially blamed Julian White and then switched target. As with the Young case there was no hope of a retrial because of the evidence being so flimsy that there was barely a case at the start let alone anything to actually contradict it with. Basically the ERC saw it as a chance to get money out of the club. The handling of the Ricky Januarie and 16th man sagas also didn't go down to well.

So the Rugby afficianado has to pay over the top for his fix as (from what I have heard) Sky mainly panders to the footie lot.

TA on a normal AP weekend there is normally 2 to 3 sometimes 4 games of rugby shown between Sky and ESPN. During the european weekends there is as many as five or six with practically every game being available via the red button.

formerly known as sam - thanks for that explanation of the Sky/ESPN format.

From your personal experience, whats the best between ESPN and Sky if your a Jeff Junkie (obviously as a Falcons fan, HC rugby is not a big issue )

TA - if you don't have either Virgin will give you ESPN free if you sign up with them Sky charge extra for it.

The ESPN coverage wipes the floor with Sky when it comes to the AP games. ESPN have Ben Kay and Austin Healey giving very in depth coverage of specific facets of play that relate to the game ahead (e.g. the review of Alesana Tuilagi's defensive style ahead of the AP final was spot on), which is very interesting but doesn't drag on. Austin and Ben often take to the pitch to explain what they are discussing as well which is a handy visual aid. ESPN also utilise guest analysts which are normally injured players from one of the teams playing which gives a better insight into the game.

Sky are far more rigid in their structure using the same 'big names' to discuss each game and often only talking in generalities with some video analysis to back up their points. Sky fail massively in that they have no post match discussion of the games where as ESPN bring the winning coach into their little hut for a chat with the analysts as well as interviewing the losing coach with a reporter.

Sky have a trump card in that they alone have all the Euro rugby coverage and the international friendlies where as ESPN only have a couple of AP games, a couple of T14 games and the pre season 7s tournaments.

A pox on all your/our houses.

The inevitable con9sequence of going professional is that filthy lucre would disharmonise the erstwhile happy sporting relationships.

But when the bean-counters come in an and have their way, sure as night follows day, the Shylock in them will be to exact a full pound of flesh.

However there will be the innate financial realisation that we (whoever the 'we' is) need them (same argument) as much as the other way round.

A compromise will be arrived at.

The financially driving forces of lucrative markets I suspect will prevail over the rabo (Ireland (the one nation which has any clout)). But the comparative size of markets is so skewed as to make the eventual outcome inevitable.

Let the English and French teams off I say. The other 4 nations will stick together and it won't be long when the English and French come crawling back.

They need the 4 smaller countries more than the smaller countries need them. For instance the Celtic (and Italian) countries could threaten to pull out of the 6 nations. Automatically that would be a big financial hit for the French and English unions so less money for the clubs.

A competition involving English and French clubs wouldn't have half the appeal of the HEC. People are dreaming if they think English teams wouldn't take a financial hit for pulling out of the HEC. Part of the reason Sky are paying what they're paying is for non soccer loving subscribers from the Celtic countries who fork out for sky just for the rugby. Sky will fight tooth and nail to retain the HEC.


At the end of the day its a European competition and every country has a right to decide who they send into the HEC. I'd prefer the Rabo league to be based on qualifying places but that would exclude the Italians from Europe and thats no good for growing the game.