Celtic nations come together to resist changes to Heineken Cup

First topic message reminder :

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

Martyn Thomas says Ireland, Wales and Scotland have formed a pact not to give in to the English and French demands. Furthermore he thinks the English and French are going to be forced to back down and he describes English and French rugby as "power crazy".

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.

"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."

biltongbek wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Hypothetically if the english and frnech clubs walk away, by when should the other nations start looking at broadcasting agreeements if such a scenario is possible?

Surely they can't wait until the two years are up, it would be too late by then?

If I was them I would already sit around a table and look at a new format and contracts. Just incase it all goes south.

Seeing that nobody has answered my question I will ask again.

I think that by the end of this seasons HEC the powers that be will be a aware of the outcomes they want form the 'talks' and they will also have their plans in place, including a contingency plan, with TV deals all but signed up.

From ERC website:

"This consultation process is a natural progression following applications from the Fédération Francaise de Rugby, the Ligue Nationale de Rugby and Premiership Rugby for a renegotiation of the ERC Shareholder Agreement.

The current agreement, which was signed by all stakeholders in 2007, includes a provision for parties to seek a renegotiation, while the structure and format of both the Heineken Cup and the Amlin Challenge Cup remain in place for a further two years until the end of the 2013/14 season."

Biltong,
surely it's just a normal commercial negotiation, only limited by lead time for coverage, but the sooner the better?

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:From ERC website:

"This consultation process is a natural progression following applications from the Fédération Francaise de Rugby, the Ligue Nationale de Rugby and Premiership Rugby for a renegotiation of the ERC Shareholder Agreement.

The current agreement, which was signed by all stakeholders in 2007, includes a provision for parties to seek a renegotiation, while the structure and format of both the Heineken Cup and the Amlin Challenge Cup remain in place for a further two years until the end of the 2013/14 season."

Biltong,
surely it's just a normal commercial negotiation, only limited by lead time for coverage, but the sooner the better?

Yes I would think the sooenr the better their back up plan is in order te better, it also shows the Premiership and Top 14 that they aren't bluffing by looking how they will proceed after it all goes south.

You certainly don't want to do a rush job, the more time they have, the better and more alternatives they can come up with, which invariably leads to better profitability and sustainability.

The French and English clubs were going to pull out in 2007 because they were unhappy, so i don't know why some people are saying why haven't they done this before, this is coming out of nowhere etc...

gowales wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:I've obviously been reading the wrong things...

I read an article in which the FFR stated that unless renegotiating started they would rethink signing a contract extension.

Then read articles on here regarding the English clubs officially giving notice.

Have the French actually given official notice to be released then?

I don't think have to give an official notice. The English clubs have probably done that to make a point. The French club organisations have verbally said they would though.

I'm not sure if the French clubs could give official notice - as the FFR holds both French shares (much to the clubs' disgust) in ERC that would be for the FFR. Though I'm speculating massively . EDIT, Doubleyew's post suggests that the FFR, the LNR (Top 14 clubs) and the PRC have all issued notice.

Here's RecWatcher's OP quoting the Rugby Paper from May: https://www.606v2.com/t28729-french-and-english-threat-to-the-hc

While ESPN were reporting that the Top 14 and AP clubs had given notice a month ago http://www.espnscrum.com/heineken-cup-2011-12/rugby/story/165014.html - sloppy reporting I suspect

Googling to find an actual French withdrawal announcement brings up this article from 2007! http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/extra/44376-french-clubs-confirm-cup-boycott!

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

They're meeting in September to start discussing it. Lewis seems to be saying the right things "right time", etc. I would have hoped that if both sides were serious about 'going alone' they would have sounded out finances however I can't see sky doing anything to encourage the concept of losing the HEC (ESPN might since they already have some AP and T14 games and have dropped the premier league).

Hmmm... Seems i am wrong then.

I apologise bluesmancometh.

But what would the French do if the Celts don't budge?

gowales, the French and English have both given notice. According to the ERC.

Ok bluesman, I'll take your explanation into why Welsh club footie gets more bums on seats than Welsh Regions rugby

However, if I was a media mogul I might not be pursuaded by the historic reasons and just look at the attendances - using averages, over the season, nearly half a million welsh football supporters (464,660) put their hands into their pockets, got off their backsides and went to watch club football.

Filling the Millenium for the internationals is all very well, but the Heinie is a club competition.

Anyway, my point was not for you Bluesman but for Dowlais, although I accept that you have the right to wade in on behalf of your side.


To get to the question whether have the French actually 'said' they are going to pull out in two years time......

Don't be daft - they don't have to - they are French.

Lighting a gaulloise in a certain way is enough for them and would be a binding contract in any court.

TrailApe wrote:

God, some of the English posters on this thread are coming across as arogant so and so's. Just because you have the biggest population it does not mean you have the most veiwers. Most of the people in England will watch football, cricket, F1, then rugby, the North will mostly watch rugby league for a start.

Well some might come across as arrogant whilst you just come across as ignorant. What an absolute pile of dross you have just spouted.

And whilst we are discussing other sports, what about Swansea and Cardiff City football clubs, 19,946 and 22,100 average attendances last season so perhaps the rugby loving Welsh public may be watching other things other than rugby - if an average of over 42k welsh folk are attending football every week, how many are bothering to watch rugby?

Oh - I keep forgetting, the regions are brand new (only 9 years old) and havn't built up a proper crowd base yet...............

n

Hmmmm yes, the only two decent football clubs in Wales get big crowds, and hundreds of rugby clubs get smaller gates, lets put it like this, Swansea city f.c cover the whole of West Wales, so for a start that is Scarlets and Ospreys, I bet if you combined the two attendances for them then they would not be far off, also for Cardiff city you have the Blues and the Dragons, if you combine their two attendances then you will see a more healthier figure, lets not forget a lot of the cities football sides get support from where proffesional rugby has been taken away e.i the valleys and the Neath area but that is for another argument, I would say that the majority of Wales are supporting rugby in one way or another, the "two" football teams get the rest.

Hammeris the thing on the ERC the clubs and unions. With the french it seems like both but i don't see the RFU mentioned at all only PRL.

I wonder if the italian could be convinced to change sides as their lower league and Italy's development would do better from more Amlin and 3rd teir money/progress. Also the big carrot would be to offer them a fairer slice of the pie as right now they don't get as much as everyone else.

The stick for the Rabo is vote against us and goodbye to the Rabo. Is the Rabo agreement subject to anything on Italy's continuing in the Rabo.

I wonder if the French and english got FIRA AER on board with the changes for adding more teams and having promotion relegation from the 6N by 2020 would that change the playing field.

We are all for helping Europe but would the lower countries siding one way affect all that. I Feel like part of the reason the Agries are in the 4Ns is because of IRB pressure (moving the game on) and not being seen to stop progressing teams.

I wish that FIRA AER were part of the ERC and they could manage the third tier or atleast be able to help move on rugby. European ruby is growing as shown by the number of teams making the B standard in the last few years, only Georgia and Romainia are the constant teams and are getting better slowly.

Not sure how it works with the RFU. The PRL have shares in the ERC and therefore can give notice. I've got a feeling the LNR don't and needed the FFR to do it on their behalf. I could be wrong.

Not sure how it works with the RFU. The PRL have shares in the ERC and therefore can give notice. I've got a feeling the LNR don't and needed the FFR to do it on their behalf. I could be wrong

I think that is correct Hammer as previously the French clubs have been outraged by the votes cast by the FFR in respect of ERC board positions.

[quote="Toadfish"]

beshocked wrote:

Probably the worst ever idea I have ever heard.

Leicester fan by any chance?

Perhaps I was being too subtle for some here but what I was trying to highlight was that not even a completely 'fair' system would be good for everyone.

In principle though I am in favour of tougher qualification as you should have to fight for the right to play in this competition. Do you have that little faith in your Watford boys that they would never get in the top 2 again?

It is hugely flawed still - auto qualification for some teams still, even harder qualification for others.

Of course I think they can make the top 2 again. 2 points from top, 1 point from 2nd.

I am actually probably one of the few people who wouldn't want a radical overhaul of the HC. It just needs a tweak here and there in my opinion.

I wonder if the Italians would agree to have one in the Hc and one in the Amlin if they got a 6th of the ERc and not the 6% or something they have now

They already have 16.7% (I think). I'm pretty sure I read something that said they were given the extra 10% to make it equal split.

ok didn't relize that.

Anyone want to discuss the moral issue if FIRA AER(the rest of europe) side one way or the other. As we know in ireland when ireland is in it the viewing goes up and I am sure that many of the european countries would watch the HC more if they got introduced to club rugby involing their teams. If the celtic countries can get them onside it gives them the moral high ground and look like its the big bad money unions out to reck europe.

Or simply is it a case of FIRA AER have no power either way moral or size

formerly known as Sam wrote:http://origin.irishrugby.ie/save/the_facts.php

Ta, Dubbya.

"1.2. The IRFU has, and continues to receive, very strong financial returns because of the arrangements put in place, centrally, by the Six Nations Council and European Rugby Cup Ltd for the exploitation of broadcasting rights to those events and the equitable distribution of the resulting revenues. Ireland is a small TV market compared to the UK and France. Fortunately for Ireland, however, the broadcasting revenues from Six Nations and ERC are split according to contribution on the pitch, not according to the size of each stakeholder's domestic TV market. Thus, although the Irish TV market contributes only €5 million pa to the central pot (c.€3m to the Six Nations pot and c.€2 million to the ERC pot), the other TV markets contribute much more, and the IRFU therefore receives €16 million each year from the central pot (c.€11m from Six Nations and c.€5m from ERC). This constitutes about 24% of the IRFU's total annual turnover."

Is the section I'll refer you guys to. It's all quite an interesting read though.

Nothing new there, Sam. It should be interesting to see how the IRFU reacts to this. They played the poor mouth role when the Irish government threatened to make the HEC free to air. I think the English and French will try to use that against them in negotiations.

Having said that lets go back to the champions league model again. If a Norwegian team makes it through to the knock out stages they're going to get multiple times the money what their own country pays for TV rights. Its a European competition so theres a European pot.

So....Ireland contributes 2m to the ERC and takes out 5m...

3m euro's is that what all this fuss is about? I'd be interested to see the figures for Scotland, Wales and Italy to see how much more the English and French want in total.

Also this is for me the key sentence in the paragraph...

Fortunately for Ireland, however, the broadcasting revenues from Six Nations and ERC are split according to contribution on the pitch, not according to the size of each stakeholder's domestic TV market.

The FIRA AER don't really have a say in this. However they would have a contribution in a larger European competition structure was implemented (French proposal).

But their inclusion would have to be propped up by the larger nations. Would they get more siding with the RABO or the AF alliance? It's highly likely that the main issue here is that the French and English prop up the RABO countries (again, this is the belief). However, now the Irish provinces seem to be in rude health, decent attendances, good performance, good squads, etc. The WRU are bragging about how they're making loads of money. Maybe things should change. Keep giving the SRU and FIR the same money, take the 'extra' money from the WRU and IRFU and use it to develop the 3rd tier.

3MM euros is a lot of money for a national union.

Esp. given hardly any of them make profit. Its perhaps 70% of the salary bill for 1 of their franchises... if they were to lose it, it would hurt.

Total ERC revenue is about 50m euros (source ERC, in 2010/11) - I assume that is gross, so the distributed profit will be less.

TV revenue is about 30m (source IRFU @2010) with the Sky deal contributing about 41% (source IRFU), approx 12.3m.

15% of revenue is awarded as prize money, roughly 7.5m.

Remainder, approx 42.5m, is distributed equally according to number of participants (source IRFU).

Assuming that the split is only for HC participation (which it may not be), then each of 24 shares is about 1.8m (gross)

Working back the other way, in 2010, IRFU stated that they receive about 5m for, presumably, 3 shares plus a fair bit of prizemoney. Assuming prizemoney is 0.5m, then each share is 1.5m (the assumption of 0.5m has no basis in, fact, instinct, or knowledge and is probably low, but does make the maths easier).

So ERC's running expenses take 0.3m out of each share on those assumptions, about 7m.

If the split is for both HC and Amlin participation, then 42.5m is a tad under 1m for each of 44 shares.


Imponderables:

Do the two extra teams get a full share, or is the split among 22 participants?

How are Amlin participants rewarded? (I believe the English PRL take the ERC distribution and share it 12 ways, so each team gets about half the going rate - except Exeter and London Welsh who will get much less.)

I'd be sad to see the Heinaken Cup disbanded, but truth be told if the Welsh teams replaced those 3 pool games with a new Regions league home and away competition (6 games), instead I think we'd be more than happy. Then maybe a grand final in the millenium stadium at the end of the season with the 1st and 2nd places teams playing, then the 3rd and 4th places teams. It would be a great occasion for all the regions fans to all be in one place for a knees up.

*note - please don't sit the Ospreys fans anywhere near the Turks.... or the Blues for that matter! We'll have Dragons fans either side of us! All two of them.

It's the European Cup so obviously there's a European audience and a European money pot. The pot should be split equally between each team that takes part I reckon. Seems fair. But I think this idea that the pot should be split according to which country has more people watching TV is bizarre.

Here's a simple example. Imagine 3 million people across Europe watched a Leinster HC game. And 1 million people watched an Exeter HC game. Do some posters actually really believe that, because most of the audience Leinster drew resided in England, and because Exeter is also in England, Exeter should get more money than Leinster?? So Leinster should be punished financially for being located in a nation that has less televisions? Regardless of how many people actually watched them (and all the advertisements) across the continent?

And Exeter should reap a huge financial reward simply for being located in a nation with much more televisions? Regardless of how big the continental TV audience was for them? It makes no sense to me. That would just completely ignore the contributions on the pitch to the tournament and simply give nearly all the money to England and France. Every team contributes to make it the best domestic rugby tournament in the world in my opinion. And every team should get an equal share of the pot (and obviously extra for getting further in the comp).

Feckless Rogue wrote:It's the European Cup so obviously there's a European audience and a European money pot. The pot should be split equally between each team that takes part I reckon. Seems fair. But I think this idea that the pot should be split according to which country has more people watching TV is bizarre.

Here's a simple example. Imagine 3 million people across Europe watched a Leinster HC game. And 1 million people watched an Exeter HC game. Do some posters actually really believe that, because most of the audience Leinster drew resided in England, and because Exeter is also in England, Exeter should get more money than Leinster?? So Leinster should be punished financially for being located in a nation that has less televisions? Regardless of how many people actually watched them (and all the advertisements) across the continent?

And Exeter should reap a huge financial reward simply for being located in a nation with much more televisions? Regardless of how big the continental TV audience was for them? It makes no sense to me. That would just completely ignore the contributions on the pitch to the tournament and simply give nearly all the money to England and France. Every team contributes to make it the best domestic rugby tournament in the world in my opinion. And every team should get an equal share of the pot (and obviously extra for getting further in the comp).

+1

+2

It's not just about the numbers watching. It's the numbers subscribing and why they subscribe. If the English pulled out of the HEC then the vast majority of English subscribers would cancel. If the Irish pulled out I doubt it would make much difference to the numbers of English subscribers. Once you've subscribed you watch whatever games are one. So if the English pulled out, very few English subscribers would continue, dropping the viewing of the Leinster games. If the Irish pulled out, the Irish subscribers would probably cancel but this wouldn't have a large effect on the viewing figures for English games. Same with the French (in fact probably more so as there are more Irish in England than in France I would expect).

Does that make any sense?

Shifty wrote:I'd be sad to see the Heinaken Cup disbanded, but truth be told if the Welsh teams replaced those 3 pool games with a new Regions league home and away competition (6 games), instead I think we'd be more than happy. Then maybe a grand final in the millenium stadium at the end of the season with the 1st and 2nd places teams playing, then the 3rd and 4th places teams. It would be a great occasion for all the regions fans to all be in one place for a knees up.

*note - please don't sit the Ospreys fans anywhere near the Turks.... or the Blues for that matter! We'll have Dragons fans either side of us! All two of them.

Solved. We just dump the Welsh because they don't want to play and give the money and places to England and France.

That was easy

HammerofThunor wrote:It's not just about the numbers watching. It's the numbers subscribing and why they subscribe. If the English pulled out of the HEC then the vast majority of English subscribers would cancel. If the Irish pulled out I doubt it would make much difference to the numbers of English subscribers.

But the Irish aren't threatening to pull out so that is a red herring. The question is how much money will everybody lose if the English pull out as they are threatening and who will lose that money. I think the answer is everybody including Sky stand to lose if English clubs pull out.

Also if English clubs pull out and English subscribers cancelled then they wouldn't be able to watch Aviva Premiership rugby either - so I really cant see that happening.

Artful_Dodger wrote:Also if English clubs pull out and English subscribers cancelled then they wouldn't be able to watch Aviva Premiership rugby either - so I really cant see that happening.

ESPN show about twice as many AP games as Sky do, but the ERC TV rights are up for re-negotiation in 2 years time, same as the ERC accord.

Sky have just had to bid over the odds for the next lot of english soccer - eye-watering dosh compared to rugby - so they may not be that interested in bidding much for ERC rights. If the IRFU figures are right, they currently pay a little over 12.3m euros pa. It's probably more apt to discuss how many subscribers ESPN/Setanta/??? would sign up or the value that FTA broadcasters would ascribe to the TV coverage.

Far from not being interested in bidding from ERC rights - I think if ESPN are showing more and more AP games that would make sky value ERC rights a lot more.

ESPN shows twice as many games as Sky. Also all the Premiership Games are shown on the premiership website after the games have finished.

English subscribers have Sky sports for HEC or internationals. If they lose the English HEC games then the only reason for subscribing is the internationals. And they're over a month and that is the minimum period for subscription.

My point over the Irish pulling out was that that is how you determine how much financial value a group add. How much Sky give the ERC for the rights to the English games.

HammerofThunor wrote:
My point over the Irish pulling out was that that is how you determine how much financial value a group add. How much Sky give the ERC for the rights to the English games.

Don't think that comes close to determining how much financial value Ireland add - as has been said time and time again above, the number of Irish tv subscribers isn't close to the amount of value added by the Irish provinces.

Hammer, that does make sense of course. Obviously the English are interested in the competition because English teams compete in it. And if they weren't competing in it interest from England would drop dramatically. I know that. But they are in it. And teams from 5 other nations are in it too. All 6 Nations together make it what it is. The European Cup. The most prestigious prize in European Rugby. And a very highly regarded tournament by rugby fans. It just keeps delivering brilliant matches. To me, losing it would be terrible.

To give nearly all the money to England and France because they have a vastly higher TV audience is unfair, as the other 4 nations make a huge contribution on the field of play to making it something people in England and France watch. It would also have the negative practical effect of killing domestic pro rugby in 4 countries, as all their stars filled the ranks of the top English and French teams. Is that what English rugby fans actually want? I don't think so.

That's why I just have no time for this argument that the countries with the bigger TV audience should get most of the money. TV money should be equally shared to everyone who takes part. By all means, let's look at the finances and how their shared. I actually think each English club should get the same amount as each Irish provinces that takes part. I don't think that happens at the moment.

I'm all for a level playing field. That's why I'd love just one NFL style European competition with a Celtic (&Italian) Conference, a Saxon Conference and a Gallic Conference (the English and French could even keep promotion/relegation with their next tier). No separate leagues. No differing priorities. One Super Comp for everyone. TV money evenly split between each team. A level playing field for all.

No but they only generate value (in form of sponsorship and advertisements, etc) if there are viewers. English fans will NOT subscribe to a TV channel in large numbers if the English are not involved. Once they have subscribed then the Provinces will probably attract more attention out of the non-English sides (and therefore increase sponsorship, advertisement, etc) but this is dependent on the English subscribing in the first place. Of course if it was FTA then the Provinces would very good viewing figures and therefore encourage sponsorship/advertisement.

And then you have the fact that the RABO teams are in something of a collective. How much 'value' do the Scottish, Italian and Welsh teams add from the English market? Much less than the Irish and this waters down their appeal.

Feckless, do we actually know what split in finances the clubs want? You say nearly all money but I've not actually seen and figures.

Just to be clear I'm not advocating any particular system. I disagree that the English and French don't generate more money. I don't think it's unfair for them to want more money than others due to this (especially with the WRU claiming to be earning so much money while the interest in the regions isn't great). However I also don't have any special affection for the HEC. I would pay to watch any competition involving the English teams (even the Anglo-Welsh). After that I have more interest in building that 3rd tier including the Georgians and Russians, etc. I would want a competition to replace the HEC (ideally in one slot) but it wouldn't have to include anyone really (an English cup including the championship clubs would do me)

I think Feckless Rogues point is, although English fans won't subscribe if there's no English teams in it, would they subscribe if there wasn't any Irish, Welsh, Scottish, Italian or French teams in the comp?

Probably not - which means that other teams as well as English add value to English viewers.

This English - Irish popularity contest, fuelled by uninformed opinion, is largely irrelevant.

The English bring a volume of viewers to the table, but probably not as much as the French (who appear to have instigated this renegotiation).

The Irish bring regular success on the pitch and, in the case of Ulster, attractions to the SA TV market.

Welsh, Scots and Italians - ????

BUT, the bigger picture is development of European rugby, primarily financial for the professional teams, but also to invest in the future with the development of viable opponents (and markets) in the non-6N's countries.

That's where the strengthening of the Amlin, to provide TV/sponsorship income, comes in, along with the proposed subsidised 3rd tier competition.

Smirnoffpriest wrote:I think Feckless Rogues point is, although English fans won't subscribe if there's no English teams in it, would they subscribe if there wasn't any Irish, Welsh, Scottish, Italian or French teams in the comp?

Probably not - which means that other teams as well as English add value to English viewers.

Er...yeah they would. If the HEC was replaced with an English cup, I would watch it. If they had some premiership games AND the cup games I'd subscribe. I'm not special or unusual. The involvement of the other teams doesn't have much impact on me. It's makes it more interesting sure, but then it doesn't need to be as attractive as the HEC as the clubs would get ALL of the money generated.

To use one of your terms Hammer - If you think English fans will subscribe in the same way to an English cup as they would the HC then you are deluding yourself.

Wales Scots Italians add just as much to this competition as any other nation!

I have just about had it with this ignorant attitude that only the English and French bring interest to the tournament.

You show me one Englishmen who doesn't thouroughly enjoy putting one over Welsh or Scot counterparts?
You show me one Englishmen who isn't as intrigued by the potential the Italians hold as the rest of us?
Every nation and club who participate contributes as much as any other, they all leave blood sweat and tears on the pitch, they all offer differing styles of play, they all offer differing scenery, places to visit, experiences!

And I need to ask, these 'volumes of viewers' we are all speaking of. How are these quantified?

Sky sports subscribers?
Match viewing figures?

Bluesman,

good riposte

thebluesmancometh wrote:Wales Scots Italians add just as much to this competition as any other nation!

I have just about had it with this ignorant attitude that only the English and French bring interest to the tournament.

You show me one Englishmen who doesn't thouroughly enjoy putting one over Welsh or Scot counterparts?
You show me one Englishmen who isn't as intrigued by the potential the Italians hold as the rest of us?
Every nation and club who participate contributes as much as any other, they all leave blood sweat and tears on the pitch, they all offer differing styles of play, they all offer differing scenery, places to visit, experiences!

And I need to ask, these 'volumes of viewers' we are all speaking of. How are these quantified?

Sky sports subscribers?
Match viewing figures?

+ are they basing viewing figures/subscriptions purely based on location? Is a Welshman in Bath subcribing/viewing being classed as money raised by England or Wales?

Thats my point SS.

There are large pockets of Welsh, Scottish, Irish communities all over England.

If figures are quantified by subscription, who's to know the reasons they signed up?

If figures are quantified by match viewing figures who's to say who's tuned in and watching?

For example, I have sky sports and ESPN. I will watch/record just about every peice of rugby aired, from Aviva pre, championship, England internationals, Super rugby and HC. Even watch the Top 14 show. Am I counted as a fan for all? Despite very little involving welsh clubs?

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:This English - Irish popularity contest, fuelled by uninformed opinion, is largely irrelevant.

The English bring a volume of viewers to the table, but probably not as much as the French (who appear to have instigated this renegotiation).

The Irish bring regular success on the pitch and, in the case of Ulster, attractions to the SA TV market.

Welsh, Scots and Italians - ????

BUT, the bigger picture is development of European rugby, primarily financial for the professional teams, but also to invest in the future with the development of viable opponents (and markets) in the non-6N's countries.

That's where the strengthening of the Amlin, to provide TV/sponsorship income, comes in, along with the proposed subsidised 3rd tier competition.

Good point that. While everyone is fighting for more of the pie, growing the pie is just as important.

Has anyone any figures for TV rights sold abroad? I see that the HEC is on in Spain, Brazil, central Europe among other places. Neil Francis wrote about bumping into German fans at the HEC final. Its slowly growing in popularity and when you compare the HEC matches to the champions league matches its no wonder.

Totally understand why HC is considered important but from an English point of view, the old Pilkington Cup was dropped far too early in preference for cross border matches. To use a football analogy the FA Cup was/is a massive competition and was around long before any European competition.
The French have the same view with their T14 and want to introduce more domestic competition and get the basics right for their domestic game.

The agenda however has been skewed by Unions desperate for both income to pay for centrally controlled franchises as a shortcut to private ownership and leagues ie. Top down.
I have long argued that this is a fundamental flaw in the growth / control of the game. No structure is perfect but control in the hands of a few vested interests (Unions) will not help the game long term. While there is success on the pitch fans will vote for it despite the limited access but once that is not there the fans don't come. A huge risk because the basics are not in place.

I don't like the haggling but some Unions have reduced the number of teams they have put forward leaving a gap to create a viable cross border competition. The French and English teams make up half the competiton but only get a third of the income. It is really as simple as that. Professional sport has no room for sentiment.

You guys are taking this discussion in circles.

I'd rather watch Welsh teams play but in truth if we aren't playing and another game is on I will happily tune in and enjoy it. I watched Scottish games on BBC Alba last season even though I had no idea what they were saying and tuned into an Irish language website to watch some games. Rugby is rugby and talking about cancelling subscriptions is plain silly.

Most Celt fans will watch an English game if there is one on and not a Rabo one, and I'm sure a few English fans on here have tuned into Rabo games too.

The fairest way to divide the money is for there to be an equal amount of Rabo, French and English clubs and all the teams get equal money for the pool stages and bonuses for the knock out stages. I have read differing versions on how the money is divided up. If it is split 6 ways to each Union then it is unfair because Scotland and Italy have more money for doing very little.

I personally don't think the French and English have any right to tell the Rabo teams how they should distribute qualification for their own teams. But their idea isn't all that bad or unfair either.

Looking at the Zebra side which is weaker than Aironi they are in Europe but havent earned it, and Aironi did lose 87-0 at home to Clermont last season in Europe you'd have to say do they deserve to compete in the Heinaken on merit?

Besides it would still be fine for Rabo teams to develop players because there is still no risk of relegation.

Without the English and French we could still have a competiton anyway.
4 pools of 4.

Pot 1 (Welsh)
Ospreys
Dragons
Blues
Scarlets

Pot 2 (Irish)
Munster
Leinster
Ulster
Connacht

Pot 3 (Scottish / Italian)
Zebre
Treviso
Glasgow
Edinburgh

Pot 4
VVA-Podmoskovye (Russia)
Gernika Rugby Taldea (Spain)
Bucharest Wolves (Romania)
Centro Desportivo Universitário de Lisboa (Portugal)

Job done

Proffessional sport also has no room for monopolisation!

The fairest way to divide the money is for there to be an equal amount of Rabo, French and English clubs

Why is that though shifty? Why should 4 of the 6 nations involved share 30% of the funds?

thebluesmancometh wrote:The fairest way to divide the money is for there to be an equal amount of Rabo, French and English clubs

Why is that though shifty? Why should 4 of the 6 nations involved share 30% of the funds?

I'm saying the opposite to that, if the English and French have 6 clubs then those clubs should only get the same amount as any other competing team, not more or less, the Unions should not divide the money up 6 ways, but by the amount of participating teams. Italy and Scotland should not get the same amount as England and France as they have 6 clubs while Italy and Scotland only 2, it is not fair on the English and French.