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

by Shifty Mon 11 Jun 2012, 9:31 pm

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.

by Artful_Dodger Thu 14 Jun 2012, 1:06 am

sheephead wrote:Why would it have been worth a lifetime ban? I made a comment about fans throwing projectiles at players.

No you didn't you made a comment about Irish people and balaclava's.

by Londonirishollie Thu 14 Jun 2012, 2:58 am

With only 3 AP clubs making a profit and many making big losses, clubs falling into administration and liquidation is not as far away as some may think. It only takes the owner to stop pumping money into the club and it could fail. It is therefore vital that English clubs become self sufficient as soon as possible, and a clear way of doing this is by maximise there income.

The survival of the club game in England, is vital for the popularity of the sport. If a few clubs were to fail (I know it seems like miles away but look at how Wasps almost went bust and the likes of Leeds, Portsmouth and Rangers in the roundball game and for me there is a realisation that it is not that far away) and the english club system as a whole were to fail there would be no high level english rugby to watch week to week. Regionalisation would not work as unlike Ireland and there provinces there are no historical borders that are used for other cultural purposes (GAA and Fleadhs e.t.c.) and it would lead to a situation like the Welsh regions found themselves in.

So while many Irish and Welsh posters are labelling it as pure "greed". I think that maximising revenue is a responsible thing for clubs in England to do, to ensure the survival of domestic rugby however it must be balanced with ensuring it does not lead to the failure of the domestic game in Ireland, Wales, Scotland or Italy by taking too much of the pot.

I think the RABO teams need to realise without English and French involvement, it just becomes a "Rabo Cup" with a very limited TV audience, leading to limited revenue and a downfall in quality as they would be unable to keep there best players due to the financial power of clubs especially in France, (has already been seen to an extent more so with Welsh players). If this were to happen i think domestic rugby in these countries would take a massive hit, as there would not be the big names plying their trade in that country to bring in new supporters/maintain old ones. So the attitude of "Bye we can cope without you" is very naive as the Irish provinces success in the Heineken is what has driven the popularity increase of rugby in Ireland.

So while money is the main issue i feel it is more to do with survival rather than greed. And a compromise is in the interest of all parties to ensure self sufficient clubs/provinces/regions can be created in all countries (which should be the long-term aim of ALL unions).

Lets hope this is all sorted out quickly so we can enjoy the Heineken Cup for many years to come!!

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Thu 14 Jun 2012, 7:49 am

Artful_Dodger wrote:
sheephead wrote:Why would it have been worth a lifetime ban? I made a comment about fans throwing projectiles at players.

No you didn't you made a comment about Irish people and balaclava's.

Can you both stop regurgitating something that was dealt with a ways back

by LordDowlais Thu 14 Jun 2012, 8:01 am

Why do people keep alluding to the fact that without the English or the Fench that other unions would struggle. I posted a link on this thread earlier and I suggest that the English posters on hear should read it. It will tell you that the WRU surpassed all other unions in the world for making a profit, I can tell you now that all this did not come from the "mighty" France and England, you do realise that the WRU can make money from murchandise and jersey sales and from playing other naions. I will post the link again and I would suggest that you all read it:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-18351251

by sheephead Thu 14 Jun 2012, 8:29 am

Im happy to kiwi. <rest of comment removed> - saying you're happy to stop, then carrying on the argument is a little self-contradictory - KRD

by TrailApe Thu 14 Jun 2012, 9:03 am

Why do people keep alluding to the fact that without the English or the Fench that other unions would struggle. I posted a link on this thread earlier and I suggest that the English posters on hear should read it. It will tell you that the WRU surpassed all other unions in the world for making a profit, I can tell you now that all this did not come from the "mighty" France and England, you do realise that the WRU can make money from murchandise and jersey sales and from playing other naions. I will post the link again and I would suggest that you all read it:-

We are not talking about the Unions here but about the Clubs, Provinces and Regions.

If you think the WRU can keep your four regions floating without the millions of ££££ that comes from the broadcasting rights, well good for you, you ghave nothing to worry about.

Although why so many Welsh players are trotting across to France when they have the richest Union in the world is a mystery.......

by LordDowlais Thu 14 Jun 2012, 9:15 am

TrailApe wrote:
Why do people keep alluding to the fact that without the English or the Fench that other unions would struggle. I posted a link on this thread earlier and I suggest that the English posters on hear should read it. It will tell you that the WRU surpassed all other unions in the world for making a profit, I can tell you now that all this did not come from the "mighty" France and England, you do realise that the WRU can make money from murchandise and jersey sales and from playing other naions. I will post the link again and I would suggest that you all read it:-

We are not talking about the Unions here but about the Clubs, Provinces and Regions.

If you think the WRU can keep your four regions floating without the millions of ££££ that comes from the broadcasting rights, well good for you, you ghave nothing to worry about.

Although why so many Welsh players are trotting across to France when they have the richest Union in the world is a mystery.......

First off, nobody said we were the richest in the world, but at the moment we are making the most profit percentage wise. Secondly, the WRU do subsadise the regions here in Wales, and lastly the players are off to France as we have a salary cap and the French do not. If you have read the article you would have noticed that it said we have surpassed all other nations in terms of percantage profit making in the last five years, so if France and England were to leave us we would not struggle, but we would probably make less of a profit. But we would not go bust like some of you are suggesting.

by snoopster Thu 14 Jun 2012, 9:51 am

LordDowlais wrote:
First off, nobody said we were the richest in the world, but at the moment we are making the most profit. Secondly, the WRU do subsadise the regions here in Wales, and lastly the players are off to France as we have a salary cap and the French do not. If you have read the article you would have noticed that it said we have surpassed all other nations in terms of percantage profit making in the last five years, so if France and England were to leave us we would not struggle, but we would probably make less of a profit. But we would not go bust like some of you are suggesting.

I think you have misunderstood what you posted. It isn't saying the Welsh are making the biggest profit but that their business has grown at the fastest rate, which is something else. I would imagine the WRU would be shouting it from the roof tops if they started making more money than the RFU, who consistently make a large profit year on year, that they don't even mention profit there suggests they're probably breaking even - income has likely been going up but so has expenditure, hence the business has grown so quickly.

by LordDowlais Thu 14 Jun 2012, 10:02 am

snoopster wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
First off, nobody said we were the richest in the world, but at the moment we are making the most profit percentage wise. Secondly, the WRU do subsadise the regions here in Wales, and lastly the players are off to France as we have a salary cap and the French do not. If you have read the article you would have noticed that it said we have surpassed all other nations in terms of percantage profit making in the last five years, so if France and England were to leave us we would not struggle, but we would probably make less of a profit. But we would not go bust like some of you are suggesting.

I think you have misunderstood what you posted. It isn't saying the Welsh are making the biggest profit but that their business has grown at the fastest rate, which is something else. I would imagine the WRU would be shouting it from the roof tops if they started making more money than the RFU, who consistently make a large profit year on year, that they don't even mention profit there suggests they're probably breaking even - income has likely been going up but so has expenditure, hence the business has grown so quickly.

How can they be breaking even when they are reducing their debt on the stadium by more than half ? Surely they must be making some profit so that can plough money into things, they are not going to plugh money they dont have. This is a quote I have taken from the article "The WRU said it had outperformed all other rugby unions in the world by achieving a compound annual growth rate of 13.4% over a five-year period" Now I am not saying that they have more money or made more money, what I have said is that they are improving more than any other nation over the last five years and not all of this is down to France and England, people on here need to realise things, for instance the Welsh Jersey is only second to the All Blacks in world wide sales.

by snoopster Thu 14 Jun 2012, 10:17 am

LordDowlais wrote:How can they be breaking even when they are reducing their debt on the stadium by more than half ? Surely they must be making some profit so that can plough money into things, they are not going to plugh money they dont have. This is a quote I have taken from the article "The WRU said it had outperformed all other rugby unions in the world by achieving a compound annual growth rate of 13.4% over a five-year period" Now I am not saying that they have more money or made more money, what I have said is that they are improving more than any other nation over the last five years and not all of this is down to France and England, people on here need to realise things, for instance the Welsh Jersey is only second to the All Blacks in world wide sales.

sorry but I lack the time and inclination to find and trawl through the WRU's last annual report. The general rule is though that they boast of the best news they have - in this case it is paying off debt and growing the business... however businesses generally don't boast about growth if they can boast about profit, and the WRU doesn't boast about profit.
Of course those figures will include income from the 6Ns and the HEC TV deals - the IRFU received 16 million Euros in 2009/10, so the Welsh will have made at least as much from that source. Losing that would have huge implications for the WRU.

by TrailApe Thu 14 Jun 2012, 10:28 am

Well thre WRU's going to need all that cash if the rest of the regions follow the Blues example - was it £2 million down?

If the WRU don't bail then out, the Blues are going to have to meet that shortfall somehow. Now I understand that they have moved from the Cardiff City ground back to their spiritual home and can expect more support (or so they hope) but if the HC money dries up they are going to really feel the pinch.

In England and France, those clubs that need a top up go to their owners - who do Cardiff go to?

for instance the Welsh Jersey is only second to the All Blacks in world wide sales.

I'll take your word for it (although others might not), but surely that's just an indication of the way Welsh rugby is set up - it's a top down thing and there's a lot of people will buy the shirt and perhaps go to the Millenium for a couple of games but will never go near any of the regions games.

Are you suggesting that Welsh Rugby (Grass roots through to the Regions and the national side) can exist on the proceeds of ticket sales at the Millenium and the sales of shirts?

by Big Thu 14 Jun 2012, 10:53 am

For the record the most recent WRU financial report gives a turnover of £54.3m, less than half the RFU turnover at £136.3m. I have read articles in which a £26m profit from the above is claimed for the Welsh which sounds remarkable but is really referring to operating profit which was £40m over the same period for the RFU. It sounds great, but then they spend most of it (quite reasonably) on non-operational costs, e.g. supporting both pro and grass roots clubs, paying off debt, etc.

Anyway, this is a bit of a side issue as it is not the national unions that are arguing. It is the finances of the clubs and regions that are the issue when it comes to the Heineken Cup. I think it's fair to say that there are teams on both side of the border that are struggling despite the financial health of the international game.

I've no love for PRL and think there is a lot they could do to get their own house in order. However, I also see no reason that they should be obliged to compete in a tournament if the costs of competing exceed the revenues generated in it's current format (which is I believe the short and simple of it).

by formerly known as Sam Thu 14 Jun 2012, 11:05 am

lastly the players are off to France as we have a salary cap and the French do not

Lord D, isn't the Welsh wage cap only HEC related? The French do have a salary cap, it is set at eight million Euros. That is a hefty amount and not all clubs in France spend that much. I'm unsure what the 8m covers but I'd assume it was only the senior playing team.

by ScarletSpiderman Thu 14 Jun 2012, 11:47 am

formerly known as Sam wrote:
lastly the players are off to France as we have a salary cap and the French do not

Lord D, isn't the Welsh wage cap only HEC related? The French do have a salary cap, it is set at eight million Euros. That is a hefty amount and not all clubs in France spend that much. I'm unsure what the 8m covers but I'd assume it was only the senior playing team.

Sam yeah the cap is for the HEC/Amlin squad, however to be fair that is tends to be our full squad, although we do did into feeder clubs for players sometimes, but that does tend to be a pay-per-play basis.

by Hookisms and Hyperbole Thu 14 Jun 2012, 12:12 pm

The problem for the EPL is that the Rabo teams can see straight through their complaints. If the EPL was actually serious about having a fair competition then the solutions are relatively easy. The French, in a ideal world, want a Champions League style competition with four groups of four, with matches properly spread out over the season and not bunched up as they currently are. They are prepared to compromise with 20 teams rather than the 24, but they absolutely would have less if they could. This would mean that 'bigger' teams would be in the Amlin from the start making it more prestigious, at least in theory.

With the finances the EPL are also asked a flat increase in revenue to 33%, which the French would demand equality with. So France and English sides would 66% of the pot, with the Rabo taking the other third. This would be perfectly fair if not for the fact, and a lot of posters and English owners need reminding of this, the Rabo is not national league and it represents four different unions. That would mean that the Irish, Welsh, Scottish and Italian unions would take away just 8% (roughly) each whilst the English and French sides took 33% each. Even with more English sides in the competition, the divide would mean them taking double the revenue of Welsh and irish equivalents which is completely unfair.

The EPL is simply trying to paper over the cracks of their own dire mismanagement of their own league where only four clubs in the previous financial year made a profit, and according to their own doom and gloom mongering attendances in many cases are falling, and the mass hypocrisy of teams telling sides looking for promotion that their stadiums are not up to scratch whilst themselves playing in dilapidated facilities. If the EPL were truly serious they might suggest to the make the playing field level that;
a) The French lower the salary cap, and the EPL either remove theirs, or have theirs based on revenue and turnover.
b) The Rabo teams should be forced to qualify on merit. The French ideal model of 16 teams you might have 5 French teams, 5 English and 6 from the Rabo. That could be the top six, or 2 Irish, 2 Welsh, 1 Scottish and 1 Italian to ensure the Unions are all represented.
c) The EPL is reduced to 10 teams to have fewer games, reduce costs, and ensure that a stronger player base throughout the league. This might, in theory, ensure stronger rosters of players and stop the influx of substandard foreign players.
d) The Heineken Cup divided equally between the unions and the teams. There should be perhaps three revenue streams from the competition money; one pot divided equally so each union receives 16.67% of revenue; one where each club receive an equal share so 5% if 20 teams, 6.25% if 16 teams or whatever; extra prize money depending on qualification for quarter finals, semis and final.

If the EPL was actually serious about 'fairness' this is the sort of thing they would be proposing. All they are looking for is extra money, not to cover expenses, but to cover their own internal falling revenues.

by wrfc1980 Thu 14 Jun 2012, 1:09 pm

What a load of rubbish you are talking! Avivva premiership attendnces rose by 1.1% with an additional 100,000 people watching games live compared to the previous year, see the below artcile.

Great news for the Aviva premiership, the attendances have risen 1.1% from last year see the below article.

AVIVA PREMIERSHIP Rugby is booming, with the news that England's top clubs recorded a rise in attendances this season.

With a year on year drop expected, due to the Rugby World Cup, Premiership Rugby is delighted to confirm that attendances have in fact risen.
* Total attendance: 1,697,177
* Average Attendance in 2011-12: 12,572
* Number of Sell outs: 28
* Attendance rise: 1.1%
During the last World Cup season - in 2007-08 - Premiership attendances were down 6%.
"In the context of this year this is a remarkable result for Aviva Premiership Rugby," said Premiership Rugby Chief Executive, Mark McCafferty, who confirmed that crowds across Aviva Premiership Rugby, including the semi-finals and final were up 1.1% year on year.
"It is due to the support of our loyal fans and the hardwork put in by each and every one of our 12 Aviva Premiership Rugby clubs."
The figures, which confirm an average attendance across Aviva Premiership Rugby of 12,572, compared to 12,433 in 2010-11, also showed a remarkable rise in the last 12 years.
Back in the 1999-2000 season the average Premiership attendance was 5,476, so in that time they have grown 130%.
"Facilities are the key to this rise. Compare our stadiums now to the way they were 12 years ago and many clubs are unrecognisable.
"We've also managed to increase the number of sell outs, year on year, from 22 to 28 and it was only two months ago that Saracens and Harlequins set a new world record for a club game when 83,761 came to Wembley to watch their Aviva Premiership Rugby match.
"Last Saturday's Aviva Premiership Rugby Final was a triumph as well with 81,779 packed into Twickenham. Everyone involved in Aviva Premiership Rugby, and all our partners,should be very proud."

by Hookisms and Hyperbole Thu 14 Jun 2012, 1:21 pm

wrfc1980 wrote:What a load of rubbish you are talking! Avivva premiership attendnces rose by 1.1% with an additional 100,000 people watching games live compared to the previous year, see the below artcile.

Great news for the Aviva premiership, the attendances have risen 1.1% from last year see the below article.

AVIVA PREMIERSHIP Rugby is booming, with the news that England's top clubs recorded a rise in attendances this season.

With a year on year drop expected, due to the Rugby World Cup, Premiership Rugby is delighted to confirm that attendances have in fact risen.
* Total attendance: 1,697,177
* Average Attendance in 2011-12: 12,572
* Number of Sell outs: 28
* Attendance rise: 1.1%
During the last World Cup season - in 2007-08 - Premiership attendances were down 6%.
"In the context of this year this is a remarkable result for Aviva Premiership Rugby," said Premiership Rugby Chief Executive, Mark McCafferty, who confirmed that crowds across Aviva Premiership Rugby, including the semi-finals and final were up 1.1% year on year.
"It is due to the support of our loyal fans and the hardwork put in by each and every one of our 12 Aviva Premiership Rugby clubs."
The figures, which confirm an average attendance across Aviva Premiership Rugby of 12,572, compared to 12,433 in 2010-11, also showed a remarkable rise in the last 12 years.
Back in the 1999-2000 season the average Premiership attendance was 5,476, so in that time they have grown 130%.
"Facilities are the key to this rise. Compare our stadiums now to the way they were 12 years ago and many clubs are unrecognisable.
"We've also managed to increase the number of sell outs, year on year, from 22 to 28 and it was only two months ago that Saracens and Harlequins set a new world record for a club game when 83,761 came to Wembley to watch their Aviva Premiership Rugby match.
"Last Saturday's Aviva Premiership Rugby Final was a triumph as well with 81,779 packed into Twickenham. Everyone involved in Aviva Premiership Rugby, and all our partners,should be very proud."

According to Nigel Wray himself n an interview with 5 Live he said that the attendances matches at Wembley have distorted the figure overall. And I didn't claim what I said in this regard was me opinion or indisputable fact, merely that it is the position put forward by the EPL. Read an interview from this time last year between Paul Ackford and Nigel Wray for further details. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/8454455/Paul-Ackford-Premiership-heading-for-a-crisis-as-attendances-and-revenues-fall.html
So, either Wray and his fellow executives and owners are greatly exaggerated, or McCafferty is massaging problems in some Premiership clubs by lumping them together into on set of facts and figures.

by Dubbelyew L Overate Thu 14 Jun 2012, 1:24 pm

There are 44 teams competing in the ERC competitions currently, 14 from France, 12 from England, 6 from Italy, 4 from Ireland and Wales, 2 from Scotland and 1 each from Spain and Romania.

12/44 is about 27%, 4/44 is about 9%, etc.

Is that fair or should there be weighting towards participation in the more senior tournament? If there is weighting, should that be a reward for successful teams or should it be awarded regardless of ability (i.e. merit-based qualification for HC or not)?

Should there be some weighting towards clubs from countries which provide a bigger proportion of the pie, or should it be split equally?

Should ERC stagnate under the control of the hidebound unions, or should it seek to develop with the more dynamic clubs, particularly to exploit the potential of the Amlin to become more meaningful with a wider interest and generating much-needed money?

by Irish Londoner Thu 14 Jun 2012, 1:47 pm

With regard to the "record attendances" firstly they count the London Double Header/other Twickenham games - e.g the Quins V Saracens game, and the "Saracens at Wembley" games - and secondly the largest crowd attendance at Wembley was done with the aid of a lot of low priced and free tickets (not that this is a bad thing).
Done a quick bit of maths from the Avivia website and about 20% of the total attendace is from the Twickenham/Wembley games.
And let's face it outside of Tigers, Staints and Quins do any club regularly get support in the tens of thousands (yes Gloucester do ! -apols to Cherries fans).
I'd suggest that more people went to Wembley to see Saracens/Quins than the total number who went through the gates of Vicarage Road all season....as for the increase in "sell outs" how many of these were outside the top three ?
Regarding the idea of splitting the revenue 3 ways - England, France and the Rabo, the Rabo may was well tell them to get stuffed now as professional rugby would be unsustainable without that income - certainly in Italy and Scotland and possibly in Wales.
Whlist this is not in the direct gift of the RFU, I'd suggest that collapsing NH rugby and by extension turning the 6 nations into a two horse race would not be something they would countenance.

by Guest Thu 14 Jun 2012, 1:53 pm

Very good point Dubbleyew and doubt you will get an answer from some on here accusing privately owned clubs of being greedy.
In a similar way that those accusing the French and english of trying to dictate the R12 structure forget that they had imposed on them the ditching of domestic leagues and the creation of a transnational league on the basis that their Unions could not afford professional leagues regardless of whether private concerns would be interested....and concentrating test players into a couple of 'clubs'.

Privately owned clubs versus centrally owned and thus controlled structures will always clash and it depends on whether you consider top down or bottom up structures to be viable long term as the way to go.

by Irish Londoner Thu 14 Jun 2012, 2:24 pm

Rec - can't comment for others but certainly not many people in Ireland felt that the "ditching of the domestic league" was "imposed" on them - certainly the provincial model was rapidly taken on by the supporters, even those who support club sides but as mentioned by other posters inter-provincial rivalry is long established in Ireland and I'll admit this has not been so sucessful in Wales.
Essentially the English and French clubs are taking money to support businesses whereas in more cases the Rabo teams want the money to support and develop rugby - what the PRL have to be careful of is that they don't kill the golden goose whilst trying to get themselves a bigger egg. PRL appear to be looking for a Champions League, devil take the hindmost format where the rich get richer and rest get poorer and weaker year by year, good for Tigers, Northampton, Saracens and Quins - maybe not so good for Wasps, London Irish, etc. who may end up "doing a Leeds" in pursuit of the money, and of course it will make the aspirations of any Championship clubs completely pointless as assuming they can get into the Aviva, their sole role will be as whipping boys for a "season in the sun" before going back down, wiser and deeper in debt, unless of course a passing oligarch/sheik gets interested and decides to turn a previously smallish club into the Man City of rugby.
Incidentally if that did happen - how long before the top four would soon be crying foul and desperately trying to re-write the rules again to preseve their status ?

by **profitius** Thu 14 Jun 2012, 2:56 pm

Just for the record. I'm not arguing against the proposals because I'm Irish. I'ma Munster fan and Munster look like they could comfortably qualify for the HEC for years to come.

The most important thing the HEC can do is help grow the game around Europe. I wouldn't mind Irish teams having to accept less money but I would be worried about the other teams who need the money more.

Having a third European tournament for developing nations is the best proposal I saw.

by Hookisms and Hyperbole Thu 14 Jun 2012, 3:03 pm

Recwatcher wrote:Very good point Dubbleyew and doubt you will get an answer from some on here accusing privately owned clubs of being greedy.
In a similar way that those accusing the French and english of trying to dictate the R12 structure forget that they had imposed on them the ditching of domestic leagues and the creation of a transnational league on the basis that their Unions could not afford professional leagues regardless of whether private concerns would be interested....and concentrating test players into a couple of 'clubs'.

Privately owned clubs versus centrally owned and thus controlled structures will always clash and it depends on whether you consider top down or bottom up structures to be viable long term as the way to go.

Who imposed the Celtic League on the IRFU, WRU and SRU? Are you suggesting that the RU or EPL and FRR imposed this on the Celtic nations? There is absolutely no comparison between French and English interference now and self-imposed creation in 2001. The WRU imposed the region system on Welsh rugby, not a foreign outside body. By the way you do know who the Welsh teams in the 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 Celtic League were don't you?

by formerly known as Sam Thu 14 Jun 2012, 3:06 pm

Profitius the third tier competition is part of the Anglo/French European competition makeover and to be honest is probably the best part of it. There's enough tv money to subsidise that third tier (costs will be small) and give the smaller nations something worth watching.

No one wants to go and watch their local team get hammered by 50 odd points by someone else's second team. They want to be in a competition with some meaning they could actually win. That'll get people through the turnstyles and encourage teams on with the additional financial carrot of competing in the remodelled Amlin Cup should they win the third tier.

by TrailApe Thu 14 Jun 2012, 3:15 pm

Essentially the English and French clubs are taking money to support businesses whereas in more cases the Rabo teams want the money to support and develop rugby

You'll have to explain that a bit more because you have totally lost me.

Are you saying English rugby is being used as a cash cow to feather the nests of greedy industrialists?

by **profitius** Thu 14 Jun 2012, 3:38 pm

The latest example of sky flexing their muscles. The Scottish teams are voting on whether or not to retain Rangers in their league or relegate them to the third division.

Sky TV threaten to tear up TV deal if Ibrox club is demoted to Division Three

SKY TV are poised to tear up their £110million deal to screen Scottish football if Rangers are thrown into the Third Division.
The broadcasting giants agreed their five-year deal with the SPL on the basis of four money-spinning Old Firm clashes a year.
And sources close to talks between Sky and the SPL say without those audience-grabbing games, Sky will have no commercial reason to stay in Scotland.
But one way out could be for Rangers to be demoted to the First Division in the hope they could bounce straight back in a season.
A Sky insider said: “Three years without Rangers, while Rangers climbed from the Third Division to the Second, then the First and then the SPL, would blow the whole deal out of the water.
“If Rangers are kicked out of the SPL, the longest Sky will wait for them to return is a year.
“It’s just not worth it commercially if it’s going to be any longer than 12 months with no Old Firm league games while Rangers climb back up the leagues.
“Four Old Firm games a season is what Sky export around Britain and around the world – that’s what they pay for.
“No Rangers equals no Sky, unless Gers are back very soon.”
The Sky deal, which also involves broadcaster ESPN, is worth £16million a year to the SPL – plus at least another £6million a year from spin-offs, such as shirt sponsorships and pitchside adverts, which would collapse without TV cameras at games.
The threat to the contract emerged on Tuesday after HM Revenue and Customs – the club’s biggest creditor – refused to agree a company voluntary arrangement to bring Rangers out of administration.
Prospective buyer Charles Green will now have to form a new company to run the club as the old one go into liquidation – and the newco will have to apply for entry to the SPL.
A creditors’ meeting at Ibrox today will rubber-stamp the liquidation.
The chairmen of the other 11 SPL clubs then face an impossible dilemma.
If they allow newco Rangers to stay in the top flight, they would enrage many of their own supporters who want to see the club hammered.
Some fans are even threatening to boycott their own teams if the punishment is not severe enough.
But if the chairmen fall into line with their fans and send the new Rangers to the Third Division, they risk financial meltdown.
There are profound fears that six current top-flight clubs could go to the wall without TV money – and that could kill the Scottish game.
The only room for compromise, sources say, would be for Rangers to be demoted only to the First Division. They would be expected to fight their way back to the top flight the following year.
And Sky hope a one-division relegation option would satisfy the desire to hammer the newco for the sins of Craig Whyte, without crippling the SPL.
The SPL are expected to announce a date for a crucial debate and vote on Rangers in the next few days.
Eight of 12 SPL clubs would be required to vote to relegate Rangers to a lower league, if the lower leagues would accept the Ibrox side. The showdown will come before the SPL AGM in mid-July.
The Sky insider said: “Sky have a duty to get a return on the investment they have made.
“It’s not about an agenda against one side of the Old Firm – it’s a business case.Advertising revenues, particularly from Old Firm matches, would be severely affected. Old Firm matches have the potential of bringing in more than a million viewers.
“Taking such matches out of the equation is very damaging. They would be prepared to wear it for a year but any longer would not be viable.”
The TV deal with Sky and ESPN ensures that the SPL are given a pot of £80million over five years.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2012/06/14/rangers-in-crisis-sky-tv-threaten-to-tear-up-tv-deal-if-ibrox-club-is-demoted-to-division-three-86908-23895647/

by Irish Londoner Thu 14 Jun 2012, 3:42 pm

TA - it was a response to the comment by Rec "Privately owned clubs versus centrally owned and thus controlled structures will always clash and it depends on whether you consider top down or bottom up structures to be viable long term as the way to go."
The English and French clubs are private entities and have making money as their primary objective - they have to generate income to stay in business, whether this is from trying to get a bigger slice of HEC money or holding weddings and conferences at their grounds. Even with this income most Avivia clubs would be snookered without the support of a benefactor/friendly bank.
On the other hand the Rabo clubs (apart from the Welsh) are effectively "owned" by their unions for the purpose of developing professional rugby their financial needs and priorities are different - e.g. the money the IRFU have used to support the development of Connacht as a viable provincial side.

by snoopster Thu 14 Jun 2012, 3:57 pm

Irish Londoner wrote:Essentially the English and French clubs are taking money to support businesses whereas in more cases the Rabo teams want the money to support and develop rugby

doesn't that need something adding onto the end?
Essentially the English and French clubs are taking money to support businesses whereas in more cases the Rabo teams want the money to support and develop rugby in their own countries
Though I think at least two Welsh teams want things changed as well and I seem to remember the two Italian sides (obviously one now gone and been replaced) would happily ignore requests of their union when it came to doing things to benefit the national team.

I think both sides are motivated by self interest here - one side is the English and French clubs (and two Welsh sides) looking out for their best interests and the other side is the Welsh, Irish, Scottish and Italian unions looking out for their best interests. Though the third tier idea put out by the clubs is at least a fillip towards rugby outside of their own interests - will the Rabo Unions offer up something similar, for rugby outside their own nations?

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 14 Jun 2012, 4:07 pm

snoopster wrote:
Irish Londoner wrote:Essentially the English and French clubs are taking money to support businesses whereas in more cases the Rabo teams want the money to support and develop rugby

doesn't that need something adding onto the end?
Essentially the English and French clubs are taking money to support businesses whereas in more cases the Rabo teams want the money to support and develop rugby in their own countries
Though I think at least two Welsh teams want things changed as well and I seem to remember the two Italian sides (obviously one now gone and been replaced) would happily ignore requests of their union when it came to doing things to benefit the national team.

I think both sides are motivated by self interest here - one side is the English and French clubs (and two Welsh sides) looking out for their best interests and the other side is the Welsh, Irish, Scottish and Italian unions looking out for their best interests. Though the third tier idea put out by the clubs is at least a fillip towards rugby outside of their own interests - will the Rabo Unions offer up something similar, for rugby outside their own nations?

So where do we think that leaves the English and French unions, or the semi-autonomous Irish, Scottish, Italian (and other two Welsh sides) clubs? From a strictly politicking p.o.v., presumably the RFU and FFR would prefer not to see their clubs succeed in this game of brinkmanship, for fear that they would lose even more power to the clubs come their own negotiations?

by snoopster Thu 14 Jun 2012, 4:15 pm

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:So where do we think that leaves the English and French unions, or the semi-autonomous Irish, Scottish, Italian (and other two Welsh sides) clubs? From a strictly politicking p.o.v., presumably the RFU and FFR would prefer not to see their clubs succeed in this game of brinkmanship, for fear that they would lose even more power to the clubs come their own negotiations?

that would be my guess - you may remember the French were on the bring of civil war when the new chairman of ERC was elected, as the clubs wanted to vote for Peter Wheeler with there vote but the FFR used a rule that allows them to cast the clubs vote themselves if it is for the good of French rugby (Gods know how you really define that!).
Of course they also, I imagine, don't want to risk a serious split with their clubs either so they might try to keep out of it, regardless of which result they prefer.

by Irish Londoner Thu 14 Jun 2012, 4:16 pm

So basically the deal on offer from England/France is we will support a third tier competition in exchange for most of the money ? Tremendously selfless of them I (don't) think.
Snoop I didn't think I needed to add "in thier own countries" as obivously each home union looks to develop their own home game, isn't funding development outside the top tiers the responsibility of the IRB (although I understand that the larger unions contribute to this) - of course the IRB would have more money to do this if they weren't being held to ransom by New Zealand always looking for more money ? Whistle

by Guest Thu 14 Jun 2012, 4:24 pm

My comment was that the R12 was imposed on the French and English leagues as their commitment to a European competition.
The Oz cricket model that was copied by Sanzar and then by NH unions has a lot to answer for, by creating inherently unstable, unaccountable structure and with power concentrated into a few officials and players is not a model to aspire to.

Unions have simply taken a short cut to rugby 'success' by concentrating and owning contracts of an elite base of players rather than developing their own domestic leagues. Unions can't afford professional leagues, so the assumption is that countries as whole cannot. That is simply not the case but it does require private ownership and relinquishing an element of control. That is clearly beyond some Unions.

by formerly known as Sam Thu 14 Jun 2012, 4:27 pm

And let's face it outside of Tigers, Staints and Quins do any club regularly get support in the tens of thousands (yes Gloucester do ! -apols to Cherries fans).

Irish Londoner I'd expect Bath and the Exeter Chiefs to also be averaging over the 10k mark. Sarries and Sale are moving to new grounds in order to help promote larger crowds and there has been rumours for some time that Wasps may move back into London when the new consortium get their act together.

The latest example of sky flexing their muscles. The Scottish teams are voting on whether or not to retain Rangers in their league or relegate them to the third division.

Profitius, the reason Sky are flexing their muscles over that is because the Old Firm Derby is the only Scottish football match that draws any interest whatsoever. Nearly every other game is largely ignored except by a small niche of dedicated fans. Remove the Old Firm games and Sky might as well not bother with the SPL live games.

With the finances the EPL are also asked a flat increase in revenue to 33%, which the French would demand equality with. So France and English sides would 66% of the pot, with the Rabo taking the other third. This would be perfectly fair if not for the fact, and a lot of posters and English owners need reminding of this, the Rabo is not national league and it represents four different unions.

No Hooki old chum but it might be more representitive of where the tv money is flowing from. I personally expect that figure if accurate to change over the course of the negociations, you start big and 'allow' yourself to be negociated down.

Oh and the AP house is in order ta, the salary cap has been proven to be an effective tool when monitoring clubs finances and keeping the league competitive.

by Hookisms and Hyperbole Thu 14 Jun 2012, 4:40 pm

[quote="formerly known as Sam"]

No Hooki old chum but it might be more representitive of where the tv money is flowing from. I personally expect that figure if accurate to change over the course of the negociations, you start big and 'allow' yourself to be negociated down.

I would be interest to know how money is spent in other comparative contexts. In terms of Sky money to the Premier League do Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool get more money because they have more fans putting money into the system than other clubs, or because they have more games on live? How is Champions League money allocated? Would Man Utd just as an example have received more money in 2011-2012 than Trabzonspor or Ajax who finished in the same positions in their groups? How is Premiership rugby revenue spent? Is it split evenly, then with performance related revenues, or do the biggest clubs with the most followers therefore buying the most subscriptions getting the most money?
By the way I am asking these as questions a sI don't know the answers. I find it overly simplistic to say that because France and England have bigger customer bases they automatically get the most money. In that scenario they will continue to get richer and richer at the expense of everyone else who are in the competition.

[quote="formerly known as Sam"]

Oh and the AP house is in order ta, the salary cap has been proven to be an effective tool when monitoring clubs finances and keeping the league competitive.

Not according to the owners of Northampton and Saracens in talking to the press over the past year. The bigger clubs are arguing the salary cap has limited their European ambitions because they don't have the squad depth to compete in two competitions. This is the problem with the EPL position being fed to the media- it is full of holes and hypocrisy and everyone can see it. When you read the actual proposals some of them have merit, but the finance will be a major sticking point.

by snoopster Thu 14 Jun 2012, 4:44 pm

Irish Londoner wrote:So basically the deal on offer from England/France is we will support a third tier competition in exchange for most of the money ? Tremendously selfless of them I (don't) think.
Snoop I didn't think I needed to add "in thier own countries" as obivously each home union looks to develop their own home game, isn't funding development outside the top tiers the responsibility of the IRB (although I understand that the larger unions contribute to this) - of course the IRB would have more money to do this if they weren't being held to ransom by New Zealand always looking for more money ?

I never argued it was selfless - that doesn't mean that it isn't a positive move regardless of the motivation.
I'm not sure that your comment was very clear at all - it sounded like the unions were acting for the benefit of "rugby" while the clubs were driven by self interest. The way you seem to be defining it now, the clubs also want the money to support and develop rugby. I'm not sure what the difference is, except by changing the phrasing made the clubs sound much worse and the unions much better?

by snoopster Thu 14 Jun 2012, 4:46 pm

formerly known as Sam wrote:Irish Londoner I'd expect Bath and the Exeter Chiefs to also be averaging over the 10k mark. Sarries and Sale are moving to new grounds in order to help promote larger crowds and there has been rumours for some time that Wasps may move back into London when the new consortium get their act together.

Attendance figures here, they also show how much the games at Wembley and Twickenham distort the crowd figures...
http://www.statbunker.com/rugby/btb/index.php?PL=competition&Code=8217249&statType=home_Att

by LordDowlais Thu 14 Jun 2012, 4:50 pm

All this smacks of typical English arrogance. We are the biggest so we want the most. Rugby was around before the HC and if we go back to that then so be it. Just because you cannot compete you are trying to change the rules, I will tell you all one thing, you will not win any fans over this, there is always as long as we beat the English mentality as there is, now it will just get worst. There is not a snowballs chance in hell that the rfu will get to change the setup in the Rabbo, they might get more money, but that will not change what is really wrong with English rugby, and that is play not to loose, until they take a whole new ethos on the game nothing will change, except for the money men who will just get richer. You need to get rid of all the substandard foreign journey men, encourage players to play off the cuff rugby, tell them to embrace the game, make going against the grain a way of life, not something that should not be done, then only then will English rugby compete, and all the money in the world cannot ingrain that into you players.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 14 Jun 2012, 4:53 pm

LordDowlais wrote:All this smacks of typical English arrogance. We are the biggest so we want the most. Rugby was around before the HC and if we go back to that then so be it. Just because you cannot compete you are trying to change the rules, I will tell you all one thing, you will not win any fans over this, there is always as long as we beat the English mentality as there is, now it will just get worst. There is not a snowballs chance in hell that the rfu will get to change the setup in the Rabbo, they might get more money, but that will not change what is really wrong with English rugby, and that is play not to loose, until they take a whole new ethos on the game nothing will change, except for the money men who will just get richer. You need to get rid of all the substandard foreign journey men, encourage players to play off the cuff rugby, tell them to embrace the game, make going against the grain a way of life, not something that should not be done, then only then will English rugby compete, and all the money in the world cannot ingrain that into you players.

LD, I know that this is an emotive issue, but we honestly can't go back to those days, we can't undo what's happened since then, just not possible - in the end, the game is now professional, and I suspect we'll find a way to make European club competition work for everyone

by Hookisms and Hyperbole Thu 14 Jun 2012, 4:56 pm

I don't know about the 'if you don't like it, stuff them' attitude towards the EPL. The Top 14 could survive handily without the Heineken Cup, thought the wage cap might have to be lower. The Premiership would probably suffer, but the Rabo certainly would. That said, in the medium to longer term if the Rabo sides had to play their strongest sides week in, week out then the attractiveness of that league in terms of TV money, bringing fans through the gates etc would probably increase. But the IRFU would definitely suffer, and would not be able to pay the big central contracts and we would lose talent to England and especially France. Connaught would fold. I don't think that is a doomsday scenario.

by LordDowlais Thu 14 Jun 2012, 5:03 pm

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:All this smacks of typical English arrogance. We are the biggest so we want the most. Rugby was around before the HC and if we go back to that then so be it. Just because you cannot compete you are trying to change the rules, I will tell you all one thing, you will not win any fans over this, there is always as long as we beat the English mentality as there is, now it will just get worst. There is not a snowballs chance in hell that the rfu will get to change the setup in the Rabbo, they might get more money, but that will not change what is really wrong with English rugby, and that is play not to loose, until they take a whole new ethos on the game nothing will change, except for the money men who will just get richer. You need to get rid of all the substandard foreign journey men, encourage players to play off the cuff rugby, tell them to embrace the game, make going against the grain a way of life, not something that should not be done, then only then will English rugby compete, and all the money in the world cannot ingrain that into you players.

LD, I know that this is an emotive issue, but we honestly can't go back to those days, we can't undo what's happened since then, just not possible - in the end, the game is now professional, and I suspect we'll find a way to make European club competition work for everyone

More money means more greed, the more greed and more money the bigger the losses, the bigger the losses the more emphasis on not loosing, the more emphasis on not loosing the more negative the game becomes, see a pattern here ? The English sides will not have more ability with the extra money, but the fear of loosing will rise ten fold and as a result the rugby becomes more negative. Let them carry on I say, they wil only find something else to moan about when they are still not winning both domestically or nationally. steam

by Knowsit17 Thu 14 Jun 2012, 5:20 pm

It's not worth giving them a third of the revenue when they already have a quarter. Looks like plain and simple greed to me and if so the other participants should bid them farewell and turn away, not let themselves get bullied into rolling over.

The AP reaks of self-importance and personal priorities being placed above what's good for the general game, the others representatives should not cave if they have any sense of justice and integrity. And once the Jeffers have shouted themselves hoarse it's only a matter of time before they realize they've shot themselves in the foot. I can imagine the air of scandal and the heads rolling already. They'll want back in eventually.

Would it not be at all possible to dole out the spare places to Georgian, Russian, Spanish and Romanian clubs? We could have more Italian sides too. I'm sure they'd jump at the opportunity to test themselves at a higher level and further their development as rugby nations.

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Thu 14 Jun 2012, 5:23 pm

Irish Londoner wrote:So basically the deal on offer from England/France is we will support a third tier competition in exchange for most of the money ? Tremendously selfless of them I (don't) think.
Snoop I didn't think I needed to add "in thier own countries" as obivously each home union looks to develop their own home game, isn't funding development outside the top tiers the responsibility of the IRB (although I understand that the larger unions contribute to this) - of course the IRB would have more money to do this if they weren't being held to ransom by ~~New Zealand~~ the Tier 1 unions always looking for more money ?

Fixed that for you Wink

. They all voted for it ...

by LordDowlais Thu 14 Jun 2012, 5:25 pm

Where do they think this extra money will go ? I can tell you for certain the fans will not see any of it. It will not be put back into rugby, ticket prices will still go up, the only people who will benefit are the greedy owners. All this extra money will do is rip the soul out of their rugby, and I say let the have it.

by snoopster Thu 14 Jun 2012, 5:31 pm

LordDowlais wrote:Where do they think this extra money will go ? I can tell you for certain the fans will not see any of it. It will not be put back into rugby, ticket prices will still go up, the only people who will benefit are the greedy owners. All this extra money will do is rip the soul out of their rugby, and I say let the have it.

Which greedy owners?

by Knowsit17 Thu 14 Jun 2012, 5:41 pm

snoopster wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:Where do they think this extra money will go ? I can tell you for certain the fans will not see any of it. It will not be put back into rugby, ticket prices will still go up, the only people who will benefit are the greedy owners. All this extra money will do is rip the soul out of their rugby, and I say let the have it.

Which greedy owners?

Most likely the heads of the PRL and the owners of the clubs I think he means. Generally those at the top.

by HammerofThunor Thu 14 Jun 2012, 5:42 pm

Nice to read that not all the Welsh are falling back on pathetic racial steroetypes

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/18424654

They're going to sit down and discuss the future format. They're not going to kowtow but are going to negotiate. Some sense.

by LordDowlais Thu 14 Jun 2012, 5:43 pm

Knowsit17 wrote:
snoopster wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:Where do they think this extra money will go ? I can tell you for certain the fans will not see any of it. It will not be put back into rugby, ticket prices will still go up, the only people who will benefit are the greedy owners. All this extra money will do is rip the soul out of their rugby, and I say let the have it.

Which greedy owners?

Most likely the heads of the PRL and the owners of the clubs I think he means. Generally those at the top.

Yes you've got it. thumbsup

by snoopster Thu 14 Jun 2012, 5:47 pm

Knowsit17 wrote:
snoopster wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:Where do they think this extra money will go ? I can tell you for certain the fans will not see any of it. It will not be put back into rugby, ticket prices will still go up, the only people who will benefit are the greedy owners. All this extra money will do is rip the soul out of their rugby, and I say let the have it.

Which greedy owners?

Most likely the heads of the PRL and the owners of the clubs I think he means. Generally those at the top.

And how many of them make any money from rugby?
Most clubs are run at a loss and the few that aren't are using the small profit they make to improve their facilities. If you think there are greedy owners, sat at home counting all the money they make from rugby then you are fooling yourself, the owners of the English clubs would be happy to be able to match the spending of the Irish provinces without having to fund it themselves.

by slartibartfast Thu 14 Jun 2012, 5:54 pm

I keep hearing the format is unfair becuase all Rabo teams qualify - no they don't. Only the top 3 welsh teams qualify.

Apologies if am I confused?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/18409108

by LordDowlais Thu 14 Jun 2012, 6:03 pm

English rugby is slowly loosing it's soul. The one's I feel sorry for are the genuine fans. This is not the first time that the rfu has done something along these lines, if the English fans on here are happy with this situation then so be it, but can you honestly say what ever the outcome of this whole embarrassing affair the English clubs will perform any better, they will still be struggling to compete against the top teams, anyway, the English teams are not in the competition long enough to demand more money as they are not on tele towards the end of the tournement.

by Sponsored content