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.

do you think we will every see a euro league with say 3 divisions

Brendan wrote:do you think we will every see a euro league with say 3 divisions

Think the French love the Top 14 to much to ever consider it, anyway we'd lose a lot of derbys rivalelly etc etc.

Brendan wrote:do you think we will every see a euro league with say 3 divisions

Nah, by the sound of what I am hereing on this thread it will be all apocalyptic by the time they get around to that.

Not really Kingshu, there's a lot of factors at work and it doesn't revolve around Leinster winning the last two HEC's. Hell, I'm glad you are winning in the way you are as it is promoting a healthy rugby vision based on solid set piece, dynamic forwards and pragmatic backs displays. It is certainly preferable to the forward only attritional game pedalled by the likes of Toulon.

The AP clubs are being leaned on to make sure their stadiums are up to scratch by the RFU. This is due to a) the RWC coming to England in a couple of years time and the RFU wanting to shove in as many rugby venues as possible (whilst putting all the high profile games at Twickers ) and b) because of the evolving farce surrounding LW's promotion and the RFU's list of requirements for a promoted team.

There is also a growing problem of the Japanese and French sides plundering all the best talent. This has led to wage inflation in a time of recession and the clubs want the extra cash out of the HEC to allow them to remain competitive and rise to the new salary cap in a degree of comfort.

There's also a slight sense of annoyance that some of the AP clubs are struggling whilst the WRFU are posting healthy profits and the Irish Teams funded by their Union and further aided by the rather hefty central contracts are retaining the like for like players AP Teams are struggling to with ease. These are beneficiaries of the combined pot system and the English clubs are looking at it as, well we provide a much bigger portion than them and yet they are reaping the financial rewards.

To be fair I can understand why the English and french clubs are doing it, don't agree with the way they are, but understand the reason.

However the Northampton's coachs recent comments were a bit out of line.
If hes saying Pro 12 teams all rotate more and hence can aim at the big games why doesn't he say he wishes he could do it as well.

RFU limit the number of NEQ per team (more than at present)
An alos place a limit on the number of games an english player can play in a season, this will force all teams in the prem to rotate, and hence keep it even,

Brendan wrote:do you think we will every see a euro league with say 3 divisions

Nah, reckon we'll have to settle for a 3 tier European-wide cup competition

Kingshu wrote:
RFU limit the number of NEQ per team (more than at present)
An alos place a limit on the number of games an english player can play in a season, this will force all teams in the prem to rotate, and hence keep it even,

The RFU can't limit the number of NEQs per team, that would be illegal under EU law. In say Ireland where top players are centrally contracted the IRFU can choose to only contract players eligible for Ireland. If the RFU want more EQPs playing they can only offer incentives to encourage the teams to do it.

On the latter point I agree. I do think the number of games a player can play should be reduced. I think it's 32 at the moment, and that may have been okay when it was introduced, but with players getting bigger and the game becoming more physical I think it needs to be reduced. 28 or so seems to be about as much as players play in countries like Ireland, and the players seem to be fitter and suffer fewer injuries as a result.

Kingshu wrote:To be fair I can understand why the English and french clubs are doing it, don't agree with the way they are, but understand the reason

I thought the French clubs wanted to just negotiate the change, the French union blocked it. So the clubs forced the negotiation by handing the notice. What else should they do?

However the Northampton's coachs recent comments were a bit out of line.
If hes saying Pro 12 teams all rotate more and hence can aim at the big games why doesn't he say he wishes he could do it as well.

Well this is going to be sorted out next season. One of the Ulster posters was organizing a group of posters to track the rotation (whether due to injury, etc) for the various teams in the Jeff and PRO12. We'll see what happens.

RFU limit the number of NEQ per team (more than at present)
An alos place a limit on the number of games an english player can play in a season, this will force all teams in the prem to rotate, and hence keep it even

How exactly can the RFU enforce this? Others have quotas and more control because their teams are much more reliant on the funding the unions provide. The RFU have been increasing funding to the clubs, largely based on the number of English players playing (as well as EPS payments). Perhaps in a few years the clubs will depend heavily on the money and the RFU can threaten to stop it. But it's too early for that (and wouldn't do any good to those already running at massive debt).

An update on this topic. The Celtic teams are standing there ground. What'll the English and French do next?

http://www.espnscrum.com/heineken-cup-2011-12/rugby/story/166705.html

Premiership Rugby's hopes of forcing a re-vamp of the Heineken Cup have been dealt a blow by reports that resistance to the proposed changes is growing.

English rugby chiefs and their French counterparts, the Fédération Francaise de Rugby (FFR) and the Ligue Nationale de Rugby (LNR), have all recently served notice on European Rugby Cup Ltd (ERC) in a move that will possibly see them leave the competition in two years time should a new agreement not be signed.

The move was intended to force a debate on the future of Europe's premier club competition with the Anglo-French partners hoping to force a number of changes including the reduction of the number of clubs in the competition from 24 to 20 with the top six from their leagues and the RaboDirect PRO12 plus the defending champions and the Amlin Challenge Cup winners qualifying for the competition.

European rugby bosses have since initiated a review of the structure and format of both the Heineken Cup and the Amlin Challenge Cup but according to Martyn Thomas, the former Rugby Football Union chairman and ex-director of ERC, their calls for a radical overhaul are unlikely to secure enough support to trigger changes.

"The Celtic Unions have made a pact that this time they will not roll over in the face of any threats," he told The Rugby Paper. "If they keep their nerve when the going gets tough, the French and English clubs will be forced to back down.

"The Welsh, Irish and Scottish Union are determined not to give in. If the English and French clubs don't back down and walk away from the tournament, the Celts will say: 'That's a shame but if you don't want to play in the Heineken Cup as we know it and love it, tough'.

"It's all about brinkmanship. The top English and French clubs are power crazy. They are driven by a join belief that they are the people who command the most money from television for live coverage. That rather flies in the face of the fact that five of the last six teams represented in the last three finals did not come from England. Despite that, they have no regard for the revenue generated by Welsh, Irish and Scottish teams."

He continued: "Like most things in professional sport, this is about money and the English and French teams want more. They may dress it up in all sorts of ways but that's the reality. There will be some tough times ahead."

Somehow don't think it was ever about all or nothing for either side. I wouldn't pay too much attention to Thomas. He's always been full of Poopie and now he's bitter about being forced out. If the celtic unions refuse to negotiate then the clubs will pull out.

What Thomas singly fails to recognise is that the French clubs feel they would be better off not participating in the HC and instead adding more league games. French club rugby certainly could survive without it, or replacing it with a shorter anglo french competition.

Yes maybe it wouldnt be the premier competition, and yes it wouldnt be the best solution for rugby, but the point is the French and possibly the english could survive a split. Italian, Scottish and Welsh rugby would be in dire trouble without that income.

Rightly or wrongly the power does lie with the clubs who draw large audience figures and attract the big TV and sponsorship money and distribute to the others. Its no more unsavoury than the self interested parties in the "celtic" nations holding on to their leeching and free passes for their clubs.

Thomas isnt a figure who commands much respect, especially when it comes to talking about the power hungry and people manipulating situations for their own gain against the interests of the game

HammerofThunor wrote:Somehow don't think it was ever about all or nothing for either side. I wouldn't pay too much attention to Thomas. He's always been full of Poopie and now he's bitter about being forced out. If the celtic unions refuse to negotiate then the clubs will pull out.

South Africans are possibly pulling out of the S15. If both this and the HC opt outs come into force, Celtic Rugby should possibly expand the Rabbo to include our SA counterparts. Additionally without the HC it would allow Celtic sides to sort out the fixture list (given the Welsh Regions dont take the Anglo/Welsh cup seriously) and allign it with Australia & New Zealand. We could then see the possibilty of a World club cup.

Personally I cant see the English clubs pull out. Seems like an empty threat to me.

We could then see the possibilty of a World club cup

The Peter's have already gone on record as having opened communications previously with the SANZAR lot about a world club championship. They couldn't get the scheduling to work but the money was all arranged in a once every couple of years rotation. Can't see the Celtic lot selling the prospect of a competition between the Rabo and the Super 15 or SA though. They just don't generate enough revenue to make it worthwhile. England and France will probably be able to generate the required income but there will be issues with the French inflexibility.

Welshmushroom, I doubt if SA will pull out of the Super XV, we lose on the finances yes, but Jurie Roux is a smart cookie, I am sure come the next contract negotiations he will get his 6th spot for a team in Super rugby, and the reality is SA can't look to the north until there is a global season.

Apart from that, I wouldn't want us to move up north to be honest.

Welshmushroom wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Somehow don't think it was ever about all or nothing for either side. I wouldn't pay too much attention to Thomas. He's always been full of Poopie and now he's bitter about being forced out. If the celtic unions refuse to negotiate then the clubs will pull out.

South Africans are possibly pulling out of the S15. If both this and the HC opt outs come into force, Celtic Rugby should possibly expand the Rabbo to include our SA counterparts. Additionally without the HC it would allow Celtic sides to sort out the fixture list (given the Welsh Regions dont take the Anglo/Welsh cup seriously) and allign it with Australia & New Zealand. We could then see the possibilty of a World club cup.

Personally I cant see the English clubs pull out. Seems like an empty threat to me.

HA!

You really think SA would go with the celtic countries if that happened?

They would go straight to France and England my friend, you can bet on that.

gowales wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Somehow don't think it was ever about all or nothing for either side. I wouldn't pay too much attention to Thomas. He's always been full of Poopie and now he's bitter about being forced out. If the celtic unions refuse to negotiate then the clubs will pull out.

South Africans are possibly pulling out of the S15. If both this and the HC opt outs come into force, Celtic Rugby should possibly expand the Rabbo to include our SA counterparts. Additionally without the HC it would allow Celtic sides to sort out the fixture list (given the Welsh Regions dont take the Anglo/Welsh cup seriously) and allign it with Australia & New Zealand. We could then see the possibilty of a World club cup.

Personally I cant see the English clubs pull out. Seems like an empty threat to me.

HA!

You really think SA would go with the celtic countries if that happened?

They would go straight to France and England my friend, you can bet on that.

Even if we did, we are involved in a threesome at the moment, getting into bed with England and France is just another threesome, better the devil you know than the devil you don't know.

If the three biggest money generating unions got into bed how would the rest of us do.

Another thing is I'm not sure that the Eng/Fra would enjoy headed down to SA every month. The Sout africans are use to it and all games would be at better times but I'm not sure that any of the european countries would last going sown there.

In all sports we europeans think that eastern europe is a big trek and thats only half way to South Africa.

If england and france pulled out I think I would like to see us adding represtive teams form a couple of european countries and maybe one from canada and the US both based on the east coast.
If you made sure that the Eastern and western teams weren't in the same group the travel would be fine.

You could also invite the second level of French and English teams to enter aswell maybe the top 4 from each country.

In the report it talks about the french union and the french clubs but only the english clubs.

Can anyone tell me what the RFU's position is. I know they don't see eye to eye with the big clubs. What is there stance and are they likely to give it to the championship sides if the big boys don't want it as a softer for all the money they promised them

Brendan, the RFU and the Championship clubs aren't getting on so well at the minute. The whole RFU hoop jumping to get into the AP as well as the promised tv revenue payments stemming from the Championship playoffs (which the clubs didn't want and the RFU insisted on) having come in at under the promised amount. Que two law suits against the RFU, LW winning the first and then the Championship clubs filing against the RFU is still under tense negociation.

The RFU and PRL famously don't get on, I think the RFU are staying firmly out of it and are just getting their own house in order. The PRL won't opt for anything that will lose them money and the RFU will keep a finger in any pot that is likely to have cash in it.

Sam how do you think it would go if there were a Anglo-French cup. I see it as being between and run by the clubs and they wouldn't let their unions have a say in it. Because of that I'm not sure that the PRL would let the RFU have is finger in the pie.

Does the PRL have a voting majority or a higher level of approval

The HC isnt that big a money spinner for the clubs as the unions take a big chunk of the cash, although not as much as they used to it still increases the threat of breakaway club led competitions. The old AngloWelsh cup was a real cash cow for both countries clubs as the revenue was going direct to the participants. An Anglo French competition could in theory match the total revenue of the HC to those countries clubs through greater representation.
Its certainly more realistic than the "Celtic"clubs being able to go it alone with two versions of the same competition or the RFU nominating second tier English sides for it and that being viable.

Really though its not in anyones interest, least of all the paying public to see the HC torn apart. Some kind of deal needs to be reached,battle lines have been drawn but bombastic and misleading statements like those by Thomas do nothing to help the process.

Weve been down this road before. Some kind of deal will be reached, someone will be upset. Being honest though are we really happy with the bloated HC in its current form? Im not.

Yeah I think that is whateverone forgets these are starting lines and no doubt will will changeon both sides.

I do think that a three teir competition instead of a two teir competition is going to happen as they look to tap into more markets. I would like to see a Team based in NY and one in Toronto play in the third tier and it could be a representive side for each country. I think there are enough Expats there who would go watch matches. It is also only 5hrs flight and big money markets aswell.

I also would like to see the HC be played in one block or atleast the groups in one and the knockouts in the other block. The advantage the S15 have is not so much the standard but the continious higher standard. We have two weeks evey now and then

I would like to see a Team based in NY and one in Toronto play in the third tier and it could be a representive side for each country.

Not really a European Cup then is it. Logistically a nightmare especially if they are playing in the third teir against small Eastern European teams and semi pro outfits from Spain and Portugal. I should think those clubs could do without the major cost of flying their squad to America and back. The Americans won't turn out for a third tier competition when College Football season is on (College football is practically a religion).

Other than that I'm all for the games being played in regimented blocks with the final done and dusted before the regular season playoffs so competition on every front is promoted.

PSW you are certainly correct that this is just battle lines being drawn. The Anglo-French Alliance will take a bit more cash and re-arrange the schedule a bit, the Celtic teams will keep the majority of their representation and it will all carry on. Just the knashing of teeth and lawyers have to go first.

This must strengthen SA position in S15 with the threat of leaving & joining Fra/Eng.If SA did leave S15 would there be enough money left for Aus/NZ to continue?How would the other countries cope if the big three money unions went in together?

Well the good thing is that the Rabo would get more players from down there. The bad news is that NZ and Aus would scrap their no playing over seas policy which wouldn't be good for the rest of us.

Its only a matter of time before the shifts to the money counties as is seen with the number of good NZ players and even SA players leaving at younger ages to move north and have ambitions of playing for thier new county.

Does anyone know how much the second tier of NZ and SA pay their players compared to europe.

There's one point I'm not to clear on. Why do the English clubs believe that they generate most of the money? Do they? I've heard posters say that the IRFU "takes out" more than they "put in". All the IRFU "puts in" is their three teams. And they take out exactly what their owed for TV revenue from a continental TV audience, not just the relatively small Irish TV audience.

There were two Irish teams in the HC final this year. Let's just say for example that two million people watched the HC final. And 80% of the audience were English. Do people believe that this means 80% of the TV revenue from that match is owed to English clubs who didn't even make it to the final? Why does the nationality of the TV viewer matter?

For Sky in particular I'm sure they see their audience as "Britain and Ireland". They sell the same packages across the board. The different nationalities mean nothing to them in this regard. I'm sure the notion that, say Leicester Tigers, want more money because a million people in London watched two Irish teams play is rather meaningless to them, as it is to me.

The English and French clubs do generate the most money.

Ireland is catching up but the rest of the Euro nations are light years behind

For the size of Europe I would like to see a 2 division euro league with feeds from the countries into it akin to the set up in most soccer.

I know the french love the t14 but i think they are more and more likely to follow the money

Feckless Rogue wrote:There's one point I'm not to clear on. Why do the English clubs believe that they generate most of the money? Do they? I've heard posters say that the IRFU "takes out" more than they "put in". All the IRFU "puts in" is their three teams. And they take out exactly what their owed for TV revenue from a continental TV audience, not just the relatively small Irish TV audience.

There were two Irish teams in the HC final this year. Let's just say for example that two million people watched the HC final. And 80% of the audience were English. Do people believe that this means 80% of the TV revenue from that match is owed to English clubs who didn't even make it to the final? Why does the nationality of the TV viewer matter?

For Sky in particular I'm sure they see their audience as "Britain and Ireland". They sell the same packages across the board. The different nationalities mean nothing to them in this regard. I'm sure the notion that, say Leicester Tigers, want more money because a million people in London watched two Irish teams play is rather meaningless to them, as it is to me.

Feckless, not that I am an expert when it comes to the media, but the way I understand it it works this way.

I'll use the Super rugby and Tri Nations as an example.

The bigger the television audience of a specific nation (on pay tv), the more the broadcaster can pay for tv rights for a tournament.

So if Super Sport televises in SA with a number of 35 + million that was given the other day and OZ and NZ has a television audience of 15 million combined, it stands to reason that the viewers contributions is what leads to how much rugby makes.

A compromise will be achieved.

Probably top Ir/It/S/W side plus the next top two.

biltongbek wrote:

Feckless Rogue wrote:There's one point I'm not to clear on. Why do the English clubs believe that they generate most of the money? Do they? I've heard posters say that the IRFU "takes out" more than they "put in". All the IRFU "puts in" is their three teams. And they take out exactly what their owed for TV revenue from a continental TV audience, not just the relatively small Irish TV audience.

There were two Irish teams in the HC final this year. Let's just say for example that two million people watched the HC final. And 80% of the audience were English. Do people believe that this means 80% of the TV revenue from that match is owed to English clubs who didn't even make it to the final? Why does the nationality of the TV viewer matter?

For Sky in particular I'm sure they see their audience as "Britain and Ireland". They sell the same packages across the board. The different nationalities mean nothing to them in this regard. I'm sure the notion that, say Leicester Tigers, want more money because a million people in London watched two Irish teams play is rather meaningless to them, as it is to me.

Feckless, not that I am an expert when it comes to the media, but the way I understand it it works this way.

I'll use the Super rugby and Tri Nations as an example.

The bigger the television audience of a specific nation (on pay tv), the more the broadcaster can pay for tv rights for a tournament.

So if Super Sport televises in SA with a number of 35 + million that was given the other day and OZ and NZ has a television audience of 15 million combined, it stands to reason that the viewers contributions is what leads to how much rugby makes.

I got Sky to watch the English clubs. Since I already had it I would watch the regions and provinces. I wouldn't get sky to watch the regions and provinces. I imagine that's similar to most people. I'd be very surprised if my people from NH get sky to watch S15. IF the HEC went the vast majority of English rugby followers would probably drop it for ESPN (if they haven't already). On top of the tv subscriptions you've got sponsorship money. The more viewers the more sponsorship money generated.

The stuff about the IRFU was relating to a document they issued a few years back. they didn't want the HEC to be protected FTA in Ireland as this reduced negotiating power and dropped money. In their figures they had Ireland getting about 2.5 times the money they generated for TV. I think that's where it's come from.

Brendan wrote:For the size of Europe I would like to see a 2 division euro league with feeds from the countries into it akin to the set up in most soccer.

I know the french love the t14 but i think they are more and more likely to follow the money

The money is in T14, thats the point they are making. they get bigger crowds for those games and want to add more, the HC is too time consuming to enable that. The domestic audience for french is huge.

As an example, When England 6Ns home matches were contracted out to Sky, TV audiences dropped from ~5m to ~0.5m.

The bean-counters' at the RFU were thankfully finally overcome by the realists there. HQ was always going to be full for major internationals but mainstream public awareness could be generated only by free-to-air exposure.

British Lions audience figures in England have plummeted over the years since Sky took them over.

In reality, Unions should weigh the the P/L account against maintaining a wider public profile - or sink down the RL channel of minority interest sports.

Returning to any possible schism in HEC rugby, it may be pertinent to ask why there has been no commercial interest in the UK to bid for Rabo broadcasting rights.

Portnoy wrote:Returning to any possible schism in HEC rugby, it may be pertinent to ask why there has been no commercial interest in the UK to bid for Rabo broadcasting rights.

Because there's a much smaller TV audience. Plus, each nation tends to be only interested in games with their own teams playing. RTE never show a match that doesn't involve an Irish side. The PRO12 has just never been popular enough.

The Heineken Cup is different. It's far more popular. People tend to watch multiple games involving multiple nations. Because it's a brilliant competition. It's worth buying for Sky. But I just don't understand why the nation with more TV viewers should get more money. There's probably a large number of English people who are attracted to the HC because it's a cross border competition involving English and foreign teams. There's probably loads of Irish/Welsh/Scottish/French people living in England who watch their sides while sitting on a couch in England. Why does it matter where the TV viewer is located?

I've always thought it would be fairest if the TV money should be allocated per team, not per union. That's a concession I'd be happy to make. Not sure how that would effect the finances of the Celtic teams, but more money would go to English sides and maybe help them compete better. But I don't know why the location of the TV viewers should have anything to do with it.

[quote="Feckless Rogue"]

Portnoy wrote: There's probably loads of Irish/Welsh/Scottish/French people living in England who watch their sides while sitting on a couch in England. Why does it matter where the TV viewer is located?

So why don't Sky show Rabo games?

Personally I stop watching the HEC once the last English side is out. I doubt I'm alone.

[quote="DaveM"]

Feckless Rogue wrote:

Portnoy wrote: There's probably loads of Irish/Welsh/Scottish/French people living in England who watch their sides while sitting on a couch in England. Why does it matter where the TV viewer is located?

So why don't Sky show Rabo games?

Personally I stop watching the HEC once the last English side is out. I doubt I'm alone.

So fairly early doors usually then, DaveM?

Dave M - if your Welsh and you want to see all the weslh Rabo games, whilst living in England, you do need to have Sky (or one of the alternative subscrition tv) as S4C is not on freeview in England (or atleast if it is I aint ever found it when I have been there).

Feckless Rogue wrote:

Portnoy wrote:Returning to any possible schism in HEC rugby, it may be pertinent to ask why there has been no commercial interest in the UK to bid for Rabo broadcasting rights.

Because there's a much smaller TV audience. Plus, each nation tends to be only interested in games with their own teams playing. RTE never show a match that doesn't involve an Irish side. The PRO12 has just never been popular enough.

The Heineken Cup is different. It's far more popular. People tend to watch multiple games involving multiple nations. Because it's a brilliant competition. It's worth buying for Sky. But I just don't understand why the nation with more TV viewers should get more money. There's probably a large number of English people who are attracted to the HC because it's a cross border competition involving English and foreign teams. There's probably loads of Irish/Welsh/Scottish/French people living in England who watch their sides while sitting on a couch in England. Why does it matter where the TV viewer is located?

I've always thought it would be fairest if the TV money should be allocated per team, not per union. That's a concession I'd be happy to make. Not sure how that would effect the finances of the Celtic teams, but more money would go to English sides and maybe help them compete better. But I don't know why the location of the TV viewers should have anything to do with it.

See theres the difference. Rabbo fans think its brilliant because the "domestic" league is still riven with problems and not taken entirely seriously by the participating teams (Ospreys won it FFS). In France and England the majority of fans feel more attachment to the domestic leagues which draw bigger average crowds, despite in theory being less prestigious events.

But I don't know why the location of the TV viewers should have anything to do with it.

I'd imagine because Sky agree a deal with each individual Union/League Company. The PRL and French equivalent have more bargaining power because Sky need to agree a deal with them in order to pull in the majority of their nations fan base. I suspect that the HEC is organised so that the individual Union/Organisation control the HEC viewing rights in their own country. That means that the French and English who have the bigger viewing populations will be able to agree far bigger deals in terms of tv revenue. T

his is all currently added to the pot and then split in some predetermined way. The English and French just want some more cash out of the deal now that the Welsh and Irish are making healthy profits and some of the English and French clubs could do with a cash injection. When the last agreement was signed it was probably the case that Wales, Scotland and Ireland weren't in as good a shape as they are now and so were given more money from the central pot. That is an assumption as the details of the cash splits logic aren't freely available it seems.

I remember readings somewhere (possible the IRFU document) that 85% is based on entry into the HEC, 15% is based on success. I think it basically works out that it's split on the number of games you play (if you're successful you play more games).

6 pools with 12 games in each (6 lots of 2 games). So that's 72 pool games. There are 7 (4+2+1) knockout games. Those 7 games are about 10% of the total games, weigh them more as more people watch them...works out about right.

It'll be interesting if one of the out comes is that each union negotiate their own home games and keep the money themselves.

It'll be interesting if one of the out comes is that each union negotiate their own home games and keep the money themselves

Hammer that would be ideal for England and France as their deals with tv companies are much bigger and hence why the revenue is put into a pot and split. That would be the worst outcome for the Celtic nations.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

It'll be interesting if one of the out comes is that each union negotiate their own home games and keep the money themselves

Hammer that would be ideal for England and France as their deals with tv companies are much bigger and hence why the revenue is put into a pot and split. That would be the worst outcome for the Celtic nations.

Not as bad as you think. More people around Europe might want to watch Leinster ahead of Exeter for example.

profitius wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

It'll be interesting if one of the out comes is that each union negotiate their own home games and keep the money themselves

Hammer that would be ideal for England and France as their deals with tv companies are much bigger and hence why the revenue is put into a pot and split. That would be the worst outcome for the Celtic nations.

Not as bad as you think. More people around Europe might want to watch Leinster ahead of Exeter for example.

There we go then. That's the way forward, let each union sort out it's own TV deals and then keep the money. That way the French and English clubs will have their comeupance when they get less than they expect.

HammerofThunor wrote:

profitius wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

It'll be interesting if one of the out comes is that each union negotiate their own home games and keep the money themselves

Hammer that would be ideal for England and France as their deals with tv companies are much bigger and hence why the revenue is put into a pot and split. That would be the worst outcome for the Celtic nations.

Not as bad as you think. More people around Europe might want to watch Leinster ahead of Exeter for example.

There we go then. That's the way forward, let each union sort out it's own TV deals and then keep the money. That way the French and English clubs will have their comeupance when they get less than they expect.

The top teams might benefit but overall, less money would be gotten because sky will pay extra for the whole package.

Personally I'd like to see HEC on free to view TV even if that means the teams would take a financial hit.

On a side note, I think the Celtic unions are in a better bargaining position now due to the gaining strength of the Rabo league.

profitius wrote:On a side note, I think the Celtic unions are in a better bargaining position now due to the gaining strength of the Rabo league.

Well the Irish Union is for sure. Less could be claimed for the other Celtic unions in the HEC (let alone Italy).

Top teams might benefit but other wouldn't? How would that work. The PRL and RFU would organise their own TV package and split it between the clubs. It wouldn't be done on a club by club basis.

Maybe if the French and English clubs pull out it will be on Free-to-Air.

Portnoy wrote:

profitius wrote:On a side note, I think the Celtic unions are in a better bargaining position now due to the gaining strength of the Rabo league.

Well the Irish Union is for sure. Less could be claimed for the other Celtic unions in the HEC (let alone Italy).

The Welsh and Scots are well on their way to paying off their stadium debts. Theres more fans attending games and the Rabo league is getting less negative press now that the Ospreys won it. The quality of teams and squads also look to be on the rise for this coming season so things are generally going in an upward direction in terms of quality and how people perceive the league.

Not as bad as you think. More people around Europe might want to watch Leinster ahead of Exeter for example.

Profitius I don't think it's a popularity contest. Considering all the cash is put into a solitary pot and the Irish take out 3 times more than they put in (Dubbya provided those figures sometime ago) I don't think things would be as rosy for them. Particularly when they are so relient on the IRFU funded central contracts to maintain their best players.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Not as bad as you think. More people around Europe might want to watch Leinster ahead of Exeter for example.

Profitius I don't think it's a popularity contest. Considering all the cash is put into a solitary pot and the Irish take out 3 times more than they put in (Dubbya provided those figures sometime ago) I don't think things would be as rosy for them. Particularly when they are so relient on the IRFU funded central contracts to maintain their best players.

Those figures are very much debatable. When you have all Irish finals in the HC as we did this season, Ireland isn't just bringing in money from Irish TV viewers.