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.

LordDowlais wrote: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.

Technically, it's the PRL not the RFU.

Two different entities, who don't like each other very much.

snoopster wrote:

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.

So if Ireland can do it - and so too the rest of the rugby world, why can't the english and french create a self sustaining structure?

welsh rugby hasn't got any money - take the benefactors out of the super clubs and we'd be in trouble

slartibartfast wrote:
So if Ireland can do it - and so too the rest of the rugby world, why can't the english and french create a self sustaining structure?

welsh rugby hasn't got any money - take the benefactors out of the super clubs and we'd be in trouble

Different argument - I'm waiting for LordDowlais to name names here. Who are the greedy owners?

Though if the RFU and WRU centrally contracted players as the IRFU did then I imagine English and Welsh rugby wouldn't need owners to fund their clubs.

Big wrote: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).

You can't really compare the two. The RFU has to generate more money. Each Union pumps most of it's money into grass root clubs. Every club even at the bottom levels are given thousands each year to keep them in business. Wales has 314 clubs, England has 1,809 clubs! Most of Englands extra money is simply given to those extra clubs to keep them going.

Secondly the WRU and RFU account their turnover differently, all the Money from TV and sponsorship etc the regions make goes through the WRU accounts first, then is distributed to the Regions in the form of grants. the premiership rugby limited has the English money their clubs make and they distribute it to their own clubs. The WRU accounts look a lot more healthy from this slight of hand, their just a middle man taking money in and passing it on the the regions that have earned it.

snoopster wrote:

slartibartfast wrote:
So if Ireland can do it - and so too the rest of the rugby world, why can't the english and french create a self sustaining structure?

welsh rugby hasn't got any money - take the benefactors out of the super clubs and we'd be in trouble

Different argument - I'm waiting for LordDowlais to name names here. Who are the greedy owners?

Though if the RFU and WRU centrally contracted players as the IRFU did then I imagine English and Welsh rugby wouldn't need owners to fund their clubs.

Snoopster, who are the one's making noises about this ? They are the greedy ones, now can you please stop trying to put bullets in my mouth to cause arguments, we all know where this is coming from.

Shifty wrote:

Big wrote: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).

You can't really compare the two. The RFU has to generate more money. Each Union pumps most of it's money into grass root clubs. Every club even at the bottom levels are given thousands each year to keep them in business. Wales has 314 clubs, England has 1,809 clubs! Most of Englands extra money is simply given to those extra clubs to keep them going.

Secondly the WRU and RFU account their turnover differently, all the Money from TV and sponsorship etc the regions make goes through the WRU accounts first, then is distributed to the Regions in the form of grants. the premiership rugby limited has the English money their clubs make and they distribute it to their own clubs. The WRU accounts look a lot more healthy from this slight of hand, their just a middle man taking money in and passing it on the the regions that have earned it.

Thats some money the RFU make. They're probably the richest union in the world. Theres where the English clubs should be focusing their attention.

Recwatcher wrote: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.

That's a good thing imo,you only have to look at the preofessional soccer leagues throughout Europe to realise what giving the clubs power does.It leads to a cartel where all the money goes to the top and you have boring uncompetitve leagues with the same clubs competing year in,year out.Only a rich Abramovich type figure can change that and it's ruined the game as far as I'm concerned.

Shoulder, which bit, the cartel or the sugar daddy spending to join the cartel?

Soreshoulder, The analogy with football is simply satellite tv in the last 15 years, with the huge contracts has made football the preserve of some billionaires. The original Division One was much more open.
However, rugby like football is already on the Sky gravy train and business models have been based on tv revenue, rather than turnstiles - you can't turn back the clock...unfortunately.

The clubs have been accused as greedy but somehow the Unions who get more back than their contribution are being hard done by. Strange times.

Both,I used to love football but it's the same teams year in,year out at the top of each league and that won't change.The top teams now have squad players that would wallk onto teams at the middle and bottom of the league.

As for the sugar daddys a new team coming through should be a good thing,it should feel fresh but instead I look at Chelsea,City and Blackburn in the past and all I can think is they've bought their success.There is no element of a team of players improving together,learning from defeat and then breaking through instead it's just buy in top players and bang you're suddenly a contender.

Recwatcher wrote:Soreshoulder, The analogy with football is simply satellite tv in the last 15 years, with the huge contracts has made football the preserve of some billionaires. The original Division One was much more open.
However, rugby like football is already on the Sky gravy train and business models have been based on tv revenue, rather than turnstiles - you can't turn back the clock...unfortunately.

The clubs have been accused as greedy but somehow the Unions who get more back than their contribution are being hard done by. Strange times.

Yes,the clubs formed the Premier League and broke away from the old football league.Teams used to have to give up a percentage of their gate receipts to the away team (I can't remember the exact numbers).The PL vastly reduced or possibly abolished that altogether,the old football league used to distribute TV money throughout the entire league but now only PL teams get that money with the bigger teams getting more of it (the rich get richer).

I don't think the clubs are being greedy,they're doing what's best for themselves that's only natural but you only have to look at football to see where it leads imo.The French are much further down the road and it's horrible to see they don't care about international rugby and want to flog their players more and more every year.

LordDowlais wrote:
Snoopster, who are the one's making noises about this ? They are the greedy ones, now can you please stop trying to put bullets in my mouth to cause arguments, we all know where this is coming from.

I'm not sure what "trying to put bullets in my mouth" means but I'm just trying to clarify what you are saying... frankly you just seem to be throwing an ill thought out insult at the side you don't like without putting any thought into it, so perhaps you can make it clearer to me?

asoreleftshoulder wrote:Yes,the clubs formed the Premier League and broke away from the old football league.Teams used to have to give up a percentage of their gate receipts to the away team (I can't remember the exact numbers).The PL vastly reduced or possibly abolished that altogether,the old football league used to distribute TV money throughout the entire league but now only PL teams get that money with the bigger teams getting more of it (the rich get richer).

I'm pretty sure that money is still distributed down through the different levels of football by the Premier League.
Not that I don't agree with your overall point - the top clubs get proportionally more money now compared to the smaller teams which has effectively made it a closed shop except for teams who can afford to buy into it.

I do think though that rugby is a long, long way from that and might well never get there - there really just isn't the money around for that. The only danger is from an incredibly rich owner coming in who can afford to pay football type wages to collect the World's best players... and the two leagues that is most likely to happen in (England and France) both have salary caps in place which prevent that.

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.

What an extraordinary post - full of generalisations and prejudice.

DaveM 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.

What an extraordinary post - full of generalisations and prejudice.

I am far from prejudice, if you do not like my thoughts on this situation then that's up to you after all it is a free world in which we live. It is just the fact that when you get to the bare bones of it we all know what it is about, MONEY, when did it ever stop being about rugby ? The people who are making noises about this just want more. More money will not make your teams play any better so what will be the next thing the rfu and the English clubs grizzle about when they do not qualify from their respective groups ? Not only do they want more money they want to interfere with how the Rabbo is run. They should sort out the inadequacies in their own league before they start bitching about every thing and everyone else.

So if Ireland can do it - and so too the rest of the rugby world, why can't the english and french create a self sustaining structure?

Slartibartfast the reason the Irish are sustainable is because they take out 3 times more tv revenue then they put in. If the English clubs just took their share of the tv revenue their clubs would be richer. Of course that wouldn't be fair and the English clubs aren't after that. They do however, want a more representative allocation of the tv revenue which is mainly generated by themselves and France. Why should England and France subsidise the Rabo nations?

You can't really compare the two. The RFU has to generate more money. Each Union pumps most of it's money into grass root clubs. Every club even at the bottom levels are given thousands each year to keep them in business. Wales has 314 clubs, England has 1,809 clubs! Most of Englands extra money is simply given to those extra clubs to keep them going.

Shifty, I'm a treasurer of a small social club and I can't remember the last time we received any money to 'keep us going' from the RFU. We've previously managed to get our hands on a quick ton for some training equipment and have made the most of some of their free CPD courses for our aspiring coaches but as a percentage of our overall income over my tenure I'd say the RFU contribution in cold hard cash was well under 5%.

Sam - I understand that the large amount of TV revenue comes for England and France, however would people stil be subscribing for their rather expensive TV deals if they were not going to be seeing the best teams on it? If the Rabo nations were to leave the Eng/Fra teams to pull out and go it alone, then would the Anglo-French competition get as many people to sign up to Sky to watch it?

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Sam - I understand that the large amount of TV revenue comes for England and France, however would people stil be subscribing for their rather expensive TV deals if they were not going to be seeing the best teams on it? If the Rabo nations were to leave the Eng/Fra teams to pull out and go it alone, then would the Anglo-French competition get as many people to sign up to Sky to watch it?

Also the HC is watched in more countries than the six nations as proved on here by our SH friends on here who watch it. If the HC was scrapped for an Anglo/French comp then they would loose their customers who want to see all the European side in it from all around the rugby world.

LordDowlais wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Sam - I understand that the large amount of TV revenue comes for England and France, however would people stil be subscribing for their rather expensive TV deals if they were not going to be seeing the best teams on it? If the Rabo nations were to leave the Eng/Fra teams to pull out and go it alone, then would the Anglo-French competition get as many people to sign up to Sky to watch it?

Also the HC is watched in more countries than the six nations as proved on here by our SH friends on here who watch it. If the HC was scrapped for an Anglo/French comp then they would loose their customers who want to see all the European side in it from all around the rugby world.

I'm afraid thats not proof.

As Sam says, the majority of TV revenue for the HC comes from England & France, without those countries involved it would cease to be.

Sam - I understand that the large amount of TV revenue comes for England and France, however would people stil be subscribing for their rather expensive TV deals if they were not going to be seeing the best teams on it? If the Rabo nations were to leave the Eng/Fra teams to pull out and go it alone, then would the Anglo-French competition get as many people to sign up to Sky to watch it?

Personally I subscribe to Sky and ESPN because I play on a Saturday and so tend to find it difficult to get to WR. Seeing as Sky and ESPN televise nearly every Tigers game over the course of a season I get to see nearly all the games when I want to. My subscription would not change a jot if the HEC was replaced by something else as I would still want to play for my local rugby team on a Saturday and watch the Tigers game when I got in from the pub.

It's only you Rabo fans that sign up to Sky just for the HEC, the English and French fans sign up to see their teams play, that won't change because of the HEC changes. Let's face it the HEC won't end it will only change, some of the Anglo/French demands will be accepted some will be modified but in the end the changes will take place in one form or another.

Shifty - I'm aware that the RFU have a much bigger club and school structure to support and need a bigger turnover. I was merely responding to the WRU are making a bundle comments and trying to set it in context. Their finances are good, and massively improved from a few years back when they were on the brink - but it is still a fairly small organisation by comparison and making smaller profits. I think I also made it clear that this is a side issue from the Heineken Cup, as it is the clubs rather than the unions that are debating the issue (at least in France and England, I think participation is still governed by the unions in the other nations?). Also that much of the claimed profit is already used to support the clubs so in both cases there isn't necessarilly a huge amount more that can be used even if headline profit figures sound great.

How much do you reckon sky pay for the S15? I don't think it's very much even though the best teams in the world are playing in it. As I said earlier, if I have Sky I'll watch Leinster (if an English team wasn't on at the same time and my wife hasn't given me a limit to number of games I can watch), but I won't get Sky to watch Leinster. The amount generated in overseas market is tiny compared with that generated in the countries involved (complete guess but let's pretend it's a fact). It just doesn't have the pull of the premier league. It would be interesting to find out how much the Champion League draws in from outside Europe compared with the money from inside.

I know this has dragged on for a while but is the issue not as much between the PRL and RFU and the french equivalent. The Celtic nations Clubs/regions get more from their union then the the French and English.

As has been pointed out the clubs are in trouble if anything happens and they lose income or a backer leaves eg wasps.

I feel like the Os and Blues feel that they could command more from a deal then they would get via the WRU being split 4 ways.

As far as I know the CL and UEFA Cup are run by Uefa which is owned by the unions. The differnece is that money is given to the club on how they do, with also money going to the unions.

The problem the French and English have is that if all the english got to the Quarter they would get the same as if they all come last. There does need to be a rewarding of teams aswell a gate receipts. That lays at the feet of the ERC and not the Rabo countries. If money was split 75-25 between the unions and the clubs/regions would that make a differnce.

Personally I would rather see the places stay at union level as it is in soccer (each fa nominate their teams how they wish). There should be 2 french and english 1 welsh and Irish, scottish and Italian with the winners of the HC and Amlin aswell. Unions can deceide what they wish to do with their place. The Italians might deceide that they can make more from selling their place to a french Club like Toulon this year and have their teams in the Amlin.

The remaining places would be according to country points ie all the ERC points. You then deceide how many extra each union gets. The better teams/unions do the more places they get. You cap it four extra for any union.

If the HC dropped to 16 teams the SRU might see it as a better option as the union would still get money regardless of how many teams they had, they would only lose the the team share.

As has been pointed out the clubs are in trouble if anything happens and they lose income or a backer leaves eg wasps.

Brendan that is true of some clubs but not all. Certainly teams like Bath, Sale and Newcastle (previously Wasps before the new consortium) are heavilly relient on 1 man's interest in their club being maintained. However, for a number of others the scenarios are very different, Sarries have a Saffa consortium pumping cash in but are also part owned by Nigel Wray a local man with a long term interest in the club. Gloucester have the Walkainshaw family running the club as majority shareholders, Exeter are in a similar boat as well and Saints have a local businessman as the majority shareholder running the club. Quins are a limited company with an elected board as are Tigers who are owned purely by the fans (the sale of the original Tigers shares were devised to stop an outsider investor buying them up). Not sure about LI.

A lot of those clubs are financially sustainable without being profitable. They use what cash they have to develop the club, sometimes with a cash injection or small loan to balance out the loss here or there. The only clubs who regularly post a profit are those hoarding funds ahead of further ground developments (Tigers, Saints and Exeter Chiefs).

formerly known as Sam wrote:Personally I subscribe to Sky and ESPN because I play on a Saturday and so tend to find it difficult to get to WR. Seeing as Sky and ESPN televise nearly every Tigers game over the course of a season I get to see nearly all the games when I want to. My subscription would not change a jot if the HEC was replaced by something else as I would still want to play for my local rugby team on a Saturday and watch the Tigers game when I got in from the pub.

Or you could just watch the match in the pub and save yourself £40+ a month. Out of interest do you watch football etc on the Sky as well, or are you like my old man and it was bught for rugby and rugby only (as in if the rugby was all on the Beeb he would ditch Sky)? I know a lot of people who get Sky for the football in August and Cancel their subscriptions when the season ends, then take it out as their wife the following season and do the same, and over and over.

formerly known as Sam wrote:
It's only you Rabo fans that sign up to Sky just for the HEC, the English and French fans sign up to see their teams play, that won't change because of the HEC changes. Let's face it the HEC won't end it will only change, some of the Anglo/French demands will be accepted some will be modified but in the end the changes will take place in one form or another.

Exactly. So we're (Rabo nations) not getting anything extra off English or French viewers because they're not paying for Sky to watch the HEC while Rabo fans are.

Sky sports costs about €400+ per year. Just 10,000 extra subscribers makes €4m for sky. There are about 14 million people living in Ireland, Wales and Scotland, so you can see where I'm going here. English fans are paying for it anyway while the Keltic rugby fans are going to buy it especially for the HEC.

So instead of looking at the viewing figures for the games and saying the English has more we should be looking at who pays more money for the HEC.

There was a debate before about the EHC going free to air in Ireland. The IRFU were dead against it. The IRFU likes this current arrangement because they're benefiting but not like they say. Its a nice little arrangement they have with sky where both the IRFU and Sky benefit but Irish people have to pay up.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

As has been pointed out the clubs are in trouble if anything happens and they lose income or a backer leaves eg wasps.

Brendan that is true of some clubs but not all. Certainly teams like Bath, Sale and Newcastle (previously Wasps before the new consortium) are heavilly relient on 1 man's interest in their club being maintained. However, for a number of others the scenarios are very different, Sarries have a Saffa consortium pumping cash in but are also part owned by Nigel Wray a local man with a long term interest in the club. Gloucester have the Walkainshaw family running the club as majority shareholders, Exeter are in a similar boat as well and Saints have a local businessman as the majority shareholder running the club. Quins are a limited company with an elected board as are Tigers who are owned purely by the fans (the sale of the original Tigers shares were devised to stop an outsider investor buying them up). Not sure about LI.

A lot of those clubs are financially sustainable without being profitable. They use what cash they have to develop the club, sometimes with a cash injection or small loan to balance out the loss here or there. The only clubs who regularly post a profit are those hoarding funds ahead of further ground developments (Tigers, Saints and Exeter Chiefs).

Sam what I was getting at is that if money drops due to attendance, sponsership, tv money, etc could cause a team to start losing money. If tigers attendance dropped by 500 people per game how would that affect their income (I know unlikely but just as an example)

Because the unions have money (SRU and WRU getting more as they reduce debt) they can cover losses for a few years akin to NZ. Nz are now finding out that they can only hold it up for so many years but it is still longer then say Tigers or others could.

So My point was that clubs need to know that if they do well they get rewarded which is not the current case. Did Sarries get more money from the ERC/Union (excluding gate) then tigers as they won their group but tigers came 3rd or do they all get the same pot for being in it

profitius wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:
It's only you Rabo fans that sign up to Sky just for the HEC, the English and French fans sign up to see their teams play, that won't change because of the HEC changes. Let's face it the HEC won't end it will only change, some of the Anglo/French demands will be accepted some will be modified but in the end the changes will take place in one form or another.

Sky sports costs about €400+ per year. Just 10,000 extra subscribers makes €4m for sky. There are about 14 million people living in Ireland, Wales and Scotland, so you can see where I'm going here. English fans are paying for it anyway while the Keltic rugby fans are going to buy it especially for the HEC.

Only problem in Ireland most people that like sports that would get SKysports have it already as we like sports.

I would love to know by what skysports went up by in the three places when HC was purchased by sky

Or you could just watch the match in the pub and save yourself £40+ a month. Out of interest do you watch football etc on the Sky as well, or are you like my old man and it was bught for rugby and rugby only (as in if the rugby was all on the Beeb he would ditch Sky)?

Well I do watch bits of F1, Football (if it's interesting or Leicester City are on) and then the missus likes her athletics so if there's anything like that or connected to the Olympics she'll watch that. To be fair we get pretty good use out of the Sky Sports Channels (Including ESPN) but if rugby was dropped from them then I'd cancel them. It's not quite so easy as merely going down the pub to watch the games instead either as some clash when I'm playing (I can't be running around ball in hand and at the pub at the same time) or when the missus is out running one of her half marathons (she's as big a Tigers fan as me) so the Sky+ option is great. Also it's about £6 a round in the local pub and there's one round per half a game so £12 a game isn't really that economical when Tigers are on practically weekly.

If 500 people less came to WR every week then yeah Tigers would feel it Brendan but the Tigers are still a massive industry. They have seriously big conference and wedding venues as well as renting out their facilities to other rugby organisations as and when (Oadby Wiggs play at Oval Park, WR hosts corporate sevens events and the annual varsity game between Leicester Uni and De Montford). They could last a long time on the built up layers of income they have, even more so once the club owned hotel and car park go in next to the ground.

Exactly. So we're (Rabo nations) not getting anything extra off English or French viewers because they're not paying for Sky to watch the HEC while Rabo fans are.

Profitius that's not how it works. Sky pays to be the sole broadcaster of HEC in a region, the contracts to broadcast HEC in England and France are worth substantially more than to broadcast in Ireland, Wales or Scotland. All the contract money goes into a pot and is divided up. England and France put more into that pot due to their bigger contracts and merely want more of the money the negociate and generate to come back to them.

It's already been said the Welsh and Irish regions turn a nice profit, they should use that to fund the provinces they control rather than denying clubs that generate the majority of the money and who don't get big union hand outs.

Brendan wrote:So My point was that clubs need to know that if they do well they get rewarded which is not the current case. Did Sarries get more money from the ERC/Union (excluding gate) then tigers as they won their group but tigers came 3rd or do they all get the same pot for being in it

According to the IRFU document referenced earlier 85% of the pot is split based on representation and 15% is split on performance. How exactly this is done is not stated.

And that Irish document wasn't about whether the HEC should be free-to-air but whether it should be protected as free-to-air. The IRFU didn't want it as it would reduce the competition for the rights and hence the money (talk about greedy).

I also only got Sky for the rugby. I tend to pick it up and drop it again for the England internationals. I had ESPN for the premiership games. I have now dropped both as all the English club games are available on the Premiership website (not live, I think about 3 hours after the finish). That's my main interest. I may well get Sky again for a month in November for the internationals (and I do like the ESPN coverage so a may get that again when the season starts). I rarely watch anything else on the sports channels, the odd Stoke game if I've nothing better to do, but I usually get bored pretty quick).

Does anyone else feel that this debate is similar to Nero fiddling whilst Rome has a kindling fire burning?

Much bigger problems than rugby may determine any outcome of any quick (or slow) ERC compromises.

Spain is now under intense pressure to stabilise its part of the Euro. And if it can't, the whole house of cards may collapse and bring Sterling down with it.

If Spain goes under, then Italy and France will and therefore the EZ and this squabble will in retrospect seem like a stupid debate.

Portnoy wrote:Does anyone else feel that this debate is similar to Nero fiddling whilst Rome has a kindling fire burning?

Much bigger problems than rugby may determine any outcome of any quick (or slow) ERC compromises.

Spain is now under intense pressure to stabilise its part of the Euro. And if it can't, the whole house of cards may collapse and bring Sterling down with it.

If Spain goes under, then Italy and France will and therefore the EZ and this squabble will in retrospect seem like a stupid debate.

Good point. What am I wasting my time watching rugby for? I might as well just sit on the floor and cry with worry.

Sam I know that Tigers a a solid business but my point was that Rugby isn't a big profit sport. Soccer teams that get into the CL can add millions onto their profits

My point is that a team has to know that they will be rewarded and I don't think that is happening as I think the 15% performance is given to the union. Does the PRL deceide how to give out the HC money for the clubs

Portnoy wrote:Does anyone else feel that this debate is similar to Nero fiddling whilst Rome has a kindling fire burning?

Much bigger problems than rugby may determine any outcome of any quick (or slow) ERC compromises.

Spain is now under intense pressure to stabilise its part of the Euro. And if it can't, the whole house of cards may collapse and bring Sterling down with it.

If Spain goes under, then Italy and France will and therefore the EZ and this squabble will in retrospect seem like a stupid debate.

Hmm, well the 'bigger' issue that you refer to is a financial/political/economic one, so somewhat different to the largely rugby-related debate that we are having here. But of course there is some sort of relationship, just as there is between the 'bigger' issue and the price of 'shrooms, for example?

However, As,

This thread has been cooking just as the pertinent and latest Euro financial crisis has begun to unfold.

If the Euro collapses, then Sterling will.

Rugby will not be immune from the effects any more than mushroom farmers.

Port - thing is this is a rugby board, so the discussion is about the european rugby competitions and not about the financial states of nations. I bet if you go on a policitcal thread somewhere on the web you would struggle to see andyone talking about he English/French handing their notice in to the ERC.

Portnoy wrote:However, As,

This thread has been cooking just as the pertinent and latest Euro financial crisis has begun to unfold.

If the Euro collapses, then Sterling will.

Rugby will not be immune from the effects any more than mushroom farmers.

So it's not really just this debate which is deserving of your Nero analogy - it could be anything that we're discussing and we're still all phooked?

Yes Portnoy, if the Euro goes down in flames we are all screwed but let's not go into that.

Sam I know that Tigers a a solid business but my point was that Rugby isn't a big profit sport. Soccer teams that get into the CL can add millions onto their profits

Millions to their turnover. UEFA recently added financial fair play rules in order to stop clubs simply running up huge amounts of debt whilst backed by sugar daddies. We're talking £100m+ here, the kind of money that would take decades to earn back and the amounts where any consortium looking to buy would have no chance of paying off. There's very few football clubs that run at a profit, Arsenal and Man Utd are pretty much the only two in the Premiership that run as feasible businesses. Sadly for Man Utd their owners have saddled them with millions of takeover debt.

My point is that a team has to know that they will be rewarded and I don't think that is happening as I think the 15% performance is given to the union. Does the PRL deceide how to give out the HC money for the clubs

I'd imagine there is an agreement in place and I'd imagine that it spreads the money around more equally. The PRL will always back that method of smoothing competition and tv income even if it annoys the bigger clubs. It's probably on the same basis as the RFU pay outs for international player representation, that is smoothed. It's not perfectly equal as in everyone gets a share but the club responsible for providing the international player in question gets a bit more than the rest. It keeps the league competitive and it keeps all clubs on the receiving end of cash so that surviving a bad season is a little easier.

Not at all. But if a huge affecting influence occurs on a rugby team - say a potential flu epidemic - would that be irrelevant?

In terms of forthcoming negotiations, the potential state of various currencies has to be considered doesn't it

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Exactly. So we're (Rabo nations) not getting anything extra off English or French viewers because they're not paying for Sky to watch the HEC while Rabo fans are.

Profitius that's not how it works. Sky pays to be the sole broadcaster of HEC in a region, the contracts to broadcast HEC in England and France are worth substantially more than to broadcast in Ireland, Wales or Scotland. All the contract money goes into a pot and is divided up. England and France put more into that pot due to their bigger contracts and merely want more of the money the negociate and generate to come back to them.

It's already been said the Welsh and Irish regions turn a nice profit, they should use that to fund the provinces they control rather than denying clubs that generate the majority of the money and who don't get big union hand outs.

When it was threatened to go free to air on Irish TV the IRFU kicked up a fuss saying the rules would be changed regarding the pot. Importantly, BSKYB and the ERC also were against the move. Theres a reason why they use the pot system and I bet Sky were behind it.

The best thing English clubs could do is expand on their 'one player outside the salary cap' idea. Make it 4 or 5 or based on a ranking system over time. That way the bigger clubs can fight on both fronts using those players.

[quote="formerly known as Sam"]

It's already been said the Welsh and Irish regions turn a nice profit, they should use that to fund the provinces they control rather than denying clubs that generate the majority of the money and who don't get big union hand outs.

The RFU turn a bigger profit, the English clubs should maybe look at this instead, of trying to take away Irish Hcup cup money.

I think there is a simple way to solve this whole issue over who is being greedy, taking the money earned by others etc.
Each team in the 6Ns arranges their own TV deal to establish the demand for that nation's rugby product and the pooled money from the HC is then split on the same basis. Of course last time England tried that, the Celts threatened a boycott as they wanted a slice of England's money.

Portnoy I'm well prepared for the imminent financial implosion and collapse of civilization. I've been hoarding and growing my own food. I've made a spear out of an old broom stick to help me with hunting. It'll also help with the tribal warfare that sure is to come. I've found a nice cave to hide out in.

Soon I'll be nice and warm in front of the fire in my cave, eating a dog I caught, and chuckling to myself about how apt it was that western civilization was ended by the Greeks.

Rugby will be the last thing on my mind.

Feckless Rogue wrote:Portnoy I'm well prepared for the imminent financial implosion and collapse of civilization. I've been hoarding and growing my own food. I've made a spear out of an old broom stick to help me with hunting. It'll also help with the tribal warfare that sure is to come. I've found a nice cave to hide out in.

Soon I'll be nice and warm in front of the fire in my cave, eating a dog I caught, and chuckling to myself about how apt it was that western civilization was ended by the Greeks.

Rugby will be the last thing on my mind.

I too have prepared Feckless Rogue, while you are in a cave eating a dog, I'm for moving into your house and eating whats in the fridge/freezer.

Classic, kingshu

Laugh all you want lads, I've got a spot marked out in the Cheviots - plenty of fresh running water, good grazing and whilst the soil is thin, you could manage a big vegtable garden.

Not many dogs though - I'll just have to eat Sheep, venison ang goat.

Oh and it many metres above sea level, so I'm safe if the ice caps melt.

Cymroglan wrote:
Tell me why it's being done now then and not when English sides were dominating?
If you think I'm being silly then fine but I also believe you are being extremely naive if you think they are pulling out for any other reason

It WAS done when English (and French) sides were dominating. The English pulled out after their first 3 seasons having won one and been runners up in the other two. It was threatened again in 2007 when we had an all English final, and but for Munster's win in 2006 the English (5 wins 1 runner up) and French teams (2 wins and 5 runners up) had been dominating the tournament since 1999.

The RFU turn a bigger profit, the English clubs should maybe look at this instead, of trying to take away Irish Hcup cup money

It took something like 7 years for the EPS agreement to come into place. It's far easier just to stop subsidising Irish rugby.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

The RFU turn a bigger profit, the English clubs should maybe look at this instead, of trying to take away Irish Hcup cup money

It took something like 7 years for the EPS agreement to come into place. It's far easier just to stop subsidising Irish rugby.

but then we mipe not win anymore Sam, oh wait thats the point. Boo