H-cup, changes. SRU and FIR likley losers?

by Kingshu Mon 17 Sep 2012, 10:41 am

First topic message reminder :

The best summary of the H-cup debate, I have found is here.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2012/0915/1224324046581.html

The H-cup Pot seams to be split into two seperate payments to the unions, one for performance (after group stages) and one for taking part.

I don't see the performance payments changing,

However the participation split, is the one the French and English wish changed. Currently

"The would leave about €40 million or thereabouts in basic distributions, of which the IRFU, along with their Welsh and Scottish counterparts, receive about 13 per cent. This equates to approximately €5.2 million each. The Italians are understood to receive marginally less, around 11-12 per cent , equating to roughly €4.4 million.

Roughly half of the basic distribution is divided between the French and English, amounting to approximately €10 million each. On the premise that might is right, as well as having 12 and 14 clubs to share, the English and French will argue for a bigger basic share."

breaking this pot down is appears that currently each Union recieves:
RFU = 25%
FRU = 25%
IRFU = 13%
WRU = 13%
SRU = 13%
FIR = 11%

The way I see it the French and English, will be wanting this changed from a Union based divide to a League based divide (6 teams from each league + H-cup and Almin winners). Currently the Pro 12 unions recieve 50% for the participation pot, I believe that the French and English will want to change this to approx 33.33%, whereby it is split (will change slightly to have H-cup and Almin winners league gain some extra);

RFU = 33%
FRU = 33%
IRFU/WRU/SRU/FIR = 33% (and leave it to the Unions to decide how to divide this between themselves)

I believe the Pro 12 will argue for a divide of 8 Pro 12 teams (some or all of qualification based on league position) 6 English and 6 French. For this the split would be;

FRU = 30%
RFU = 30%
IRFU/WRU/SRU/FIR = 40% (and leave it to the Unions to decide how to divide this between themselves)

I believe the second is what will be agreed as it see's the French and English share increase from 25% to 30% and a reduction in number of Pro 12 teams and tougher qualification, plus since with less teams a reduction in payments.

I believe this is what the French were wishing to discuss and threaten pulling out over (and nothing to do with TV deals), and the English TV deal has thrown a complete spanner in the works, for everyone involved and added a new dimension to the talks.

Personally I see that the 4 Pro 12 unions will guarentee one entry per union, with the other 4 being League based.
This means that each H-cup place will be worth 5% of the participation pot.
Meaning the split would be

IRFU and WRU would get between 5-20% each year (from 13% prevously)
SRU and FIR between 5-10% each year (from 13% and 11% prevously)

Think the WRU and IFRU will manage to get around the same money as prevously, maybe even slightly more some years, but will generally average the same.
French and English will both increase by 5%,
The losers are the SRU and FIR who will lose out by 3%-8% each year depending if they get one or two teams in the H-cup.

If all 8 H-cups places are league based it will see.

IRFU and WRU would get between 5-20% each year (from 13% prevously)
SRU and FIR between 0-10% each year (from 13% and 11% prevously)

The losers are (even more so) the SRU and FIR who will lose out by 3%-13% each year depending if they get one or two teams in the H-cup, and recieve 0% if no teams get in top 8.

I think this is the likely outcome of how the H-cup will be run. The TV rights part I have no idea yet and will treat it as a seperate issue.

What are your thoughts would the above be an agreeable solution to you? (TV rights can be discussed on a seperate thread).

by Dubbelyew L Overate Mon 17 Sep 2012, 10:14 pm

TJ wrote:

Care to expand?

by HammerofThunor Mon 17 Sep 2012, 10:16 pm

TJ wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:
TJ wrote:
there has been a clear threat to pull out if their demands hare not met. Its exactly what they have said. I have not made up anything about them at all - its all in their public statements.

No they didn't. They handed their notice in to force a renegotiation (following the French lead, who are apparently angels in all this). What this means is that the Participation Agreement won't be automatically renewed and will have to be renegotiated. Are you suggesting that the old agreement should be held forever?

Premiership Rugby is adamant that English clubs will pull out of the Heineken Cup at the end of next season if their demands for change are not met and that they will be financially better off if they do so because of the £152m TV deal announced with BT Vision last week.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/sep/15/premiership-rugby-heineken-cup-television-rights

You do realize that isn't a quote don't you? I think we've found the core of the problem here. Things written in papers aren't always 100% accurate. The only actual quote in there is the PRL saying change must happen. Doesn't say what the change has to be, it doesn't say that the change must match the proposals. Basically they expect some sort of compromise.

The only quote that I remember you posting regarded Wray saying the European Club competition should be controlled by the clubs. You said this was proof that the PRL want to take control. However I pointed out that most of the unions have either devolved power to their clubs or own the clubs. What this would mean would be a further devolution of the powers (from SRU to Glasgow and Edinburgh, which is the same thing effectively). Main difference would be the Regions in Wales. No-one else really. That, at the moment seems to be the whole thing you're basing your "PRL trying to take control" view on.

by TJ1 Mon 17 Sep 2012, 10:19 pm

You can spin it all you want. You cannot change the meaning of direct quotes from the PRL no matter how much you want.

direct quote - the PRL position is they believe rhe clubs (ie them) should control the competition. this is despite IRB regs and no one else wanting it.

by HammerofThunor Mon 17 Sep 2012, 10:25 pm

No not clubs (them). Clubs that take part. That means the Regions, Provinces, Scottish sides, French Clubs and Italian clubs. Do you honestly not understand that?

By the way, a direct quote is worthless without a reference that can be traced to a reputable source (i.e. not wikipedia). As I happens I know the one you're talking about so I'll let you off.

by TJ1 Mon 17 Sep 2012, 10:33 pm

the prl would have 40% of the vote after their proposals wheras now they have 8%. of course its about power to the PRL and nothing else. its a power grab. its what the PRL have been doing for years adn the spineless RFU bow down to them

I wouyd consider the telegraph and the guardian reasonabley reputale.

by TJ1 Mon 17 Sep 2012, 10:34 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:No not clubs (them). Clubs that take part. That means the Regions, Provinces, Scottish sides, French Clubs and Italian clubs. Do you honestly not understand that?

By the way, a direct quote is worthless without a reference that can be traced to a reputable source (i.e. not wikipedia). As I happens I know the one you're talking about so I'll let you off.

I understand far better than you what is happening here. its a power grab by the PRL - obvious and open.

by HammerofThunor Mon 17 Sep 2012, 10:41 pm

What are the PRL proposals for voting rights? I haven't seen anything on the matter.

Telegraph and Guardian are reputable but you still need to quote actual quotes not written pieces.

Why do you know far better than anyone what's going on here? You may well have some sort of insider information, or psychic ability but it's meaningless unless you can back it up. Currently you appear to be extrapolating from comments. You say on the one hand not to know what the BT deal consists of and then seem to know a lot of deals of the FRENCH proposals. The PRL haven't made ANY specific proposals yet.

by Dubbelyew L Overate Mon 17 Sep 2012, 10:41 pm

TJ wrote:the prl would have 40% of the vote after their proposals wheras now they have 8%. of course its about power to the PRL and nothing else. its a power grab. its what the PRL have been doing for years adn the spineless RFU bow down to them

I wouyd consider the telegraph and the guardian reasonabley reputale.

Perhaps you'd like to do a little research on the ERC board and the current voting rights, and where does 40% come from?

Can't disagree with the spineless RFU, though, although there are encouraging signs under the new regime.

by thebluesmancometh Mon 17 Sep 2012, 10:44 pm

Guys you are going around in circles,

Can we all agree that the PRL wants the tournament controled by the clubs?
The English want changes to the Rabo qual rules?
The French want less games and to not clash with the T14 finals?
And the RFU are the PRL's B***h?

by broadlandboy Mon 17 Sep 2012, 10:52 pm

The English and French want changes to the Rabo qual rules
RFU are not the PRL's B***H or the would have already rubber stamped the BT deal rather than say they are looking into it

by TJ1 Mon 17 Sep 2012, 10:52 pm

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:
TJ wrote:the prl would have 40% of the vote after their proposals wheras now they have 8%. of course its about power to the PRL and nothing else. its a power grab. its what the PRL have been doing for years adn the spineless RFU bow down to them

I wouyd consider the telegraph and the guardian reasonabley reputale.

Perhaps you'd like to do a little research on the ERC board and the current voting rights, and where does 40% come from?

Can't disagree with the spineless RFU, though, although there are encouraging signs under the new regime.

voting numbers. at eh moment the 6 unions control it and the RFU have given half their vote to the PRL - so the prl have 8% of the vote. After the PRL proposals the PRL would have 8 of 20 clubs - so 40#% of the vote.

We will see how it pans out but I think the likeliest is that the French get a bit of what they want and because the PRL have alienated everyone they get a choice of like it or lump it. Less likley is the PRL get thrown out. almost certain not to happen is the PRL get a significant amount of what they want.

Its very clear the PRLK want what is best for the owners of the english clubs and bugger everyone else. I hope they are hoist on their own petard. as they have alienate everyone else now including the RFU and the french its unlikely they will get any concessions I wopuld rhathe rplay a european cup withotue the english clubs than one where the PRL get any significant concessions as that will do enourmous damge to scots and european rugby.

by HammerofThunor Mon 17 Sep 2012, 10:53 pm

thebluesmancometh wrote:Guys you are going around in circles,

Can we all agree that the PRL wants the tournament controled by the clubs? If by clubs you mean participants, including Regions, Provinces, etc then yes
The English want changes to the Rabo qual rules? And the French, it was part of their initial proposal. And actually they want the PRO12 unions to have their qualifications merged
The French want less games and to not clash with the T14 finals?As mentioned above they also wanted more representation (8 french teams originally) and qualification to be league based not union based
And the RFU are the PRL's B***h? Why?

by broadlandboy Mon 17 Sep 2012, 10:55 pm

TJ where does the 8/20 come from
You keep talking as if only the top tier make up European Comp

by Dubbelyew L Overate Mon 17 Sep 2012, 10:56 pm

thebluesmancometh wrote:Guys you are going around in circles,

Can we all agree that the PRL wants the tournament controled by the clubs?
The English want changes to the Rabo qual rules?
The French want less games and to not clash with the T14 finals?
And the RFU are the PRL's B***h?

I can't agree that yet - they certainly have been, but, in stark contrast to previous regimes, RFU seem to be quite circumspect at the moment. Althought RWC2015 looming on the horizon would tend to prevent the boat from rocking, it seems RFU have found themselves in a pretty strong position. They have not given notice to withdraw from ERC, and, from this season. the B&I Cup has been aligned with the Euro club season. It would be perfectly feasible for RFU to enter Championship clubs into a continuing HC, which may persuade Sky to honour their contract and would feic PRL. Subject to legal challenge, they consider that they are in control of Euro TV rights, both post 2014 when ERC accord expires, and post 2016 when the current EPS agreement with PRL expires.

RFU are probably significantly p****d off that PRL dumped the flak from London Welsh's promotion bid on them, and should, if they have English rugby at heart, persuade PRL to draw back from their virtual ring-fencing of the Prem, both with MSC and parachute payments.

The jury is out.

by Dubbelyew L Overate Mon 17 Sep 2012, 10:59 pm

TJ wrote:
Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:
TJ wrote:the prl would have 40% of the vote after their proposals wheras now they have 8%. of course its about power to the PRL and nothing else. its a power grab. its what the PRL have been doing for years adn the spineless RFU bow down to them

I wouyd consider the telegraph and the guardian reasonabley reputale.

Perhaps you'd like to do a little research on the ERC board and the current voting rights, and where does 40% come from?

Can't disagree with the spineless RFU, though, although there are encouraging signs under the new regime.

voting numbers. at eh moment the 6 unions control it and the RFU have given half their vote to the PRL - so the prl have 8% of the vote. After the PRL proposals the PRL would have 8 of 20 clubs - so 40#% of the vote.

We will see how it pans out but I think the likeliest is that the French get a bit of what they want and because the PRL have alienated everyone they get a choice of like it or lump it. Less likley is the PRL get thrown out. almost certain not to happen is the PRL get a significant amount of what they want.

Its very clear the PRLK want what is best for the owners of the english clubs and bugger everyone else. I hope they are hoist on their own petard. as they have alienate everyone else now including the RFU and the french its unlikely they will get any concessions I wopuld rhathe rplay a european cup withotue the english clubs than one where the PRL get any significant concessions as that will do enourmous damge to scots and european rugby.

That's where you need to do a little research - I'll give a clue. Voting rights don't necessarily reflect representation on the board of ERC.

by Swperb Mon 17 Sep 2012, 11:04 pm

The RFU and Premier Rugby Ltd ("PRL") signed their current Agreement to run from 1 July 2008 until 30 June 2016.

As part of the Agreement, PRL shall be solely responsible for negotiating the sale of their own TV, media & Sponsorship rights and giving directions to ERC in respect of England's position on the sale of the TV, media and sponsorship rights related to the European Rugby Cup and European Challenge Cup.

Does this make the deal with BT null and void?

http://www.rfu.com/News/2007/November/News%20Articles/RfuAndPrlSignNewEightYearAgreement#

by ChequeredJersey Mon 17 Sep 2012, 11:08 pm

Don't know if anybody has posted this yet, and I know Moore is very biased, (though also hugely critical of English rugby, the RFu and Premiership Clubs) but here is his point of view as an undeniably knowledgable rugby expert and a lawyer-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/9547001/The-French-clubs-hold-the-key-in-war-over-European-rugbys-riches.html

by ChequeredJersey Mon 17 Sep 2012, 11:09 pm

The point that without the English and French, not only would the HEC have far far less money but also literally no competitive purpose whatsoever however you look at it is an interesting one

by broadlandboy Mon 17 Sep 2012, 11:10 pm

Why?
They have sold the rights for AV matches with the addition of more money if they take part in european competition for which there is no agreement at present

by Dubbelyew L Overate Mon 17 Sep 2012, 11:11 pm

ChequeredJersey wrote:Don't know if anybody has posted this yet, and I know Moore is very biased, (though also hugely critical of English rugby, the RFu and Premiership Clubs) but here is his point of view as an undeniably knowledgable rugby expert and a lawyer-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/9547001/The-French-clubs-hold-the-key-in-war-over-European-rugbys-riches.html

I read that - it seems a precis of these 606v2 discussions from an Anglo point of view. Come clean - which of you is Brian Moore?

by ChequeredJersey Mon 17 Sep 2012, 11:11 pm

Swperb wrote:The RFU and Premier Rugby Ltd ("PRL") signed their current Agreement to run from 1 July 2008 until 30 June 2016.

As part of the Agreement, PRL shall be solely responsible for negotiating the sale of their own TV, media & Sponsorship rights and giving directions to ERC in respect of England's position on the sale of the TV, media and sponsorship rights related to the European Rugby Cup and European Challenge Cup.

Does this make the deal with BT null and void?

http://www.rfu.com/News/2007/November/News%20Articles/RfuAndPrlSignNewEightYearAgreement#

Only if the PRC choose to continue in the European Cups

by HammerofThunor Mon 17 Sep 2012, 11:11 pm

Swperb wrote:The RFU and Premier Rugby Ltd ("PRL") signed their current Agreement to run from 1 July 2008 until 30 June 2016.


As part of the Agreement, PRL shall be solely responsible for negotiating the sale of their own TV, media & Sponsorship rights and giving directions to ERC in respect of England's position on the sale of the TV, media and sponsorship rights related to the European Rugby Cup and European Challenge Cup.

Does this not make the deal with BT null and void?

http://www.rfu.com/News/2007/November/News%20Articles/RfuAndPrlSignNewEightYearAgreement#

I think this is where the exact wording comes into it. The ERC Participation Agreement comes to an end so how does that work. It seem the RFU believe the control reverts back to them. If the BT deal brings more money into Europe I can't see the unions going against it unless it came with some ridiculous caveats. We don't know the specific wording of the BT deal, nor do we know the specific wording of the RFU EPS agreement (although the speed that the RFU responded I reckon they own the rights). We'll wait and see what happens.

by Swperb Mon 17 Sep 2012, 11:11 pm

BT deal

"From 2014-15 it will also have the exclusive rights to matches played by Premiership clubs in any future European competitions, for three years." -BBC

by HammerofThunor Mon 17 Sep 2012, 11:14 pm

What does "future competitions" mean? What'll it mean is that the PRL will have to get the RFU grant the PRL the European rights from 2014. This will come with some compromise I expect. Most likely regarding smoothing of EPS payments or something like that.

by Pot Hale Tue 18 Sep 2012, 12:01 am

Interesting spin on the story published in thisissouthwales online:

"WELSH regions could be offered a share of £100 million when rugby chiefs meet tomorrow to discuss a controversial new TV deal and a possible breakaway European competition.

Premier Rugby (PRL), who represent England's Aviva Premiership clubs, are hoping to persuade the RaboDirect Pro12 sides to sign up for a new European competition, which will be funded by their agreement with BT Vision.

But one of the conditions will be that only eight Pro12 teams — instead of the current ten — will be able to qualify for the new tournament, with league placing determining who makes the cut.

PRL announced a deal with BT Vision last week whereby the broadcaster will show all Aviva Premiership fixtures from 2014 to 2018 and all European matches featuring English teams during the same period.

Just hours after that announcement, however, Sky revealed they had renewed exclusive rights to televise all Heineken Cup fixtures, signalling a tug-of-war between PRL and Heineken Cup organisers European Rugby Cup Ltd (ERC), who claimed the television rights were not PRL's to sell.

The current contract for the Heineken Cup expires at the end of next season, with PRL eager to launch a new European competition.

The ERC claim PRL's European deal with BT Vision contravenes the extension they signed with Sky but, with no European tournament in place for the 2014-15 season, English and French clubs believe the Sky renewal to be invalid.

Sky's new contract is reportedly worth £70 million, while BT Vision have offered £152 million.

With this larger sum at their disposal, PRL aim to convince Welsh, Irish, Scottish and Italian sides to join them in a breakaway competition by offering a share of the increased funds."

And another one from BBC Sport:

"Premiership clubs could be in breach of contract if they implement a Heineken Cup breakaway plan, says former Rugby Football Union chief Martyn Thomas.

Premiership Rugby is the umbrella organisation for the 12 top-flight clubs in England

Premier Rugby has signed a £152m deal with BT Vision to show live European matches from 2014, raising doubts over the future of the Heineken Cup.

Thomas says an agreement between the RFU and clubs prevents this happening.

"It stipulates the clubs must play in the two European competitions up to and including 2015-16," he told BBC Sport.

"If they go ahead with this breakaway they could be liable for a legal challenge and having to pay substantial damages."

Thomas, a former lawyer, was chairman of the RFU when the agreement was signed in November 2007, securing an estimated £110m for Premiership clubs.

The agreement "governs the professional game in England" from 1 July 2008 until 30 June 2016....."

by Pot Hale Tue 18 Sep 2012, 12:28 am

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:
ChequeredJersey wrote:Don't know if anybody has posted this yet, and I know Moore is very biased, (though also hugely critical of English rugby, the RFu and Premiership Clubs) but here is his point of view as an undeniably knowledgable rugby expert and a lawyer-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/9547001/The-French-clubs-hold-the-key-in-war-over-European-rugbys-riches.html

I read that - it seems a precis of these 606v2 discussions from an Anglo point of view. Come clean - which of you is Brian Moore?

Just read that article. For such a knowledgeable guy about rugby and a lawyer, he seems to have made the same mistake as some other journalists in stating that Ireland get four automatic teams in the H Cup. I would have thought any ardent watcher of the H Cup over the years would have noticed that Connacht only appeared in the comp for the first time, two years ago, courtesy of the agreement that the country of the H Cup winner would be allocated another Heineken Cup spot.

His paragraph on this subject has some odd phrasing: "The final point of dispute is the percentage of top teams that automatically qualify for the Heineken. The following figures show this is also inequitable: England 50 per cent; France 43 per cent; Ireland 100 per cent (given they describe and fund Connacht as a developmental province); Wales 75 per cent; Scotland 100 per cent; Italy’s percentage is misleading but guarantees two teams."

I'm not sure what he means by percentage of "top teams" presumably he means the top ranked teams in their leagues since that is 6 and that means that England has 50% of the teams in its league qualifying. The French with 6 out of 14 have 43%. Ireland with 3 out of 12 have 25%, same for Wales, and Scotland and Italy have 2 out of 12 each with 17%.

He also claims that the income of Celtic and Italian clubs is double sometimes treble that of English and French clubs but provides no basis for this assertion. Furthermore, since he uses the IRFU accounts as the example on which to base his argument, he should know that monies from H Cup go to the IRFU who then decide how it is allocated. The only money that the clubs get directly is from their performance in the competition. He quotes the IRFU as saying they get €5m from the ERC. Is he really asserting that the PRL only gets €2m-€3m from the ERC? Or is he purposely comparing apples with oranges?

His quotes from Celtic representatives appear to be tame Celtic journalists and bloggers online - with respect to us all, we're strictly amateurs. He provides no quotes or statements to balance those that he attributes to PRL/LNR. (Largely because there aren't any that he could use.)

His comments on both BT and Sky deals are interesting saying both are open to legal challenge since they were not subject to a tender process. Does Mr Moore believe these are public contracts that should be subject to EU tendering procedures in the Official Journal?

by ChequeredJersey Tue 18 Sep 2012, 12:37 am

I don't see how one can say Ireland (for example) can count as having 3/12 as their representation in the HEC. Either the RABO is a league directly comparable to the T14 and AP in which case 6 teams should qualify, or it is counted as a compilation of 4 mini-Leagues/conferences that happen to play each other alla American sports, in which case each composite nation's representatives can only be taken as a proportion of that nation's clubs playing at that domestic level, as Moore alludes to. The oversight regarding Connacht only qualifying via Leinster's awesomeness is an important one and Moore made a mistake there.

As for the finances and legalities, I have no expertise on these matters so I feel I am unqualified to comment

by Feckless Rogue Tue 18 Sep 2012, 12:54 am

Gerry Thornley has made an interesting observation that the Telegraph (a rival of Murdoch's media) is printing very pro PRL articles, while the Times (owned by Murdoch) is very pro HC and anti BT.

Makes you wonder, that you should take both sides with a pinch of salt. My gut feeling on it is that Sky have been brilliant to rugby. People can moan about pundits and stuff but nobody can deny they've put a lot of money into the game and have helped grow the HC into the major event it's become. I don't really know anything about BT. Media companies have challenged Sky before and some have gone bust and never paid up on the sports deals they've done. Like ITV digital. And I think Setanta UK went belly up didn't they? How do we know BT won't fail too? It's a risk.

At the end of the day I don't care who broadcasts it as long as the European Cup survives. Preferably with all 6 nations. I'd be happy for the money to be re-negotiated. Many English clubs aren't making enough. But McCafferty's fixation on qualification seems silly and irrelevant to me. Leinster would have won 3 HC's in the last 4 years no matter what the qualification rules. And his plans could do unnecessary damage to Scottish and Italian rugby for no good reason. Which would also have negative repercussions in the 6 Nations. Which is the biggest money spinner of all.

by ChequeredJersey Tue 18 Sep 2012, 12:56 am

BT are a lot richer than Setanta though, I believe. But almost certainly there will be biases and we should always take media views with a pinch of salt

by Pot Hale Tue 18 Sep 2012, 1:08 am

ChequeredJersey wrote:BT are a lot richer than Setanta though, I believe. But almost certainly there will be biases and we should always take media views with a pinch of salt

Albeit, BT are putting in an aaaaawwwful lot more money into rugby than Setanta ever did. Their cardboard sets and plastic, re-heated Sky presenters are drivel.

The statements from LNR's Wolff this evening are interesting:

"French clubs have no intention of quitting the European Cup and Challenge competitions and playing in an alternative tournament just with English clubs", the vice-president of the French National Rugby League (LNR) told AFP on Monday.
Wolff said that there was no way the French would do anything as dramatic as walking away hand in hand with their English counterparts.
"The English put a lot of pressure on us in the past few months to accept the idea of an alternative Franco/Anglo club competition almost like it was a condition before discussing anything else," he told AFP.
"That we did not want to do."

It's all getting very wonky. And distrustful.

by ChequeredJersey Tue 18 Sep 2012, 1:23 am

I hope we don't quit it. I like watching us try and beat Europe's best

by Pot Hale Tue 18 Sep 2012, 1:37 am

ChequeredJersey wrote:I don't see how one can say Ireland (for example) can count as having 3/12 as their representation in the HEC. Either the RABO is a league directly comparable to the T14 and AP in which case 6 teams should qualify, or it is counted as a compilation of 4 mini-Leagues/conferences that happen to play each other alla American sports, in which case each composite nation's representatives can only be taken as a proportion of that nation's clubs playing at that domestic level, as Moore alludes to.

Well one can say that since McCafferty's argument is that the possibility of Scottish and Italian clubs not qualifying under his proposals was because they knew what they were getting into when they created the Pro 12 league. His whole standpoint is that it's not four countries, it's 12 teams in a unified league. And only the top 6 should qualify from it.

Thus, if he's saying the creation of the Pro 12 effectively did away with country representation, then a proportion of teams from a league is a fair comparison.

Apparently, tomorrow, PRL are now going to offer a counter-proposal to the Irish counter-proposal of an 8,6 and 6 split with a compromise of top four Pro 12 clubs plus two allocated at will to help guarantee each nation has at least one representative in the Heineken Cup.

So if that deal goes through, and say use last year's 2011/12 table, it could end up as:

England 50% of its league
France 43% of its league

Ireland 2 places - 25% of its league
Wales 1 place - 8% of its league
Scotland 1 place - 8% of its league
Italy - 0% of its league.

Who now gets the remaining two spots? Italy because they're not represented at all? Ok - that might be fair. Now what about the last spot? Next highest ranked i.e. 5th spot?

It's gonna be fun tomorrow.....

by ChequeredJersey Tue 18 Sep 2012, 1:42 am

They could let the top 4/6/whatever in each league have insta-spots and let the rest battle it out in qualifiers, Champions League style? Or would that unfairly load said teams with matches?

by Pot Hale Tue 18 Sep 2012, 1:49 am

ChequeredJersey wrote:They could let the top 4/6/whatever in each league have insta-spots and let the rest battle it out in qualifiers, Champions League style? Or would that unfairly load said teams with matches?

Probably load them. It's a highly divisive move, rather than an uniting one for the Pro 12 clubs. But maybe that's what PRL are banking on. Get say the Irish on side because they'd feel confident about getting at least two sides in, possibly top three, like in 2010/11 season.

On the money front, it seems that BT made a conditional offer of £152 million for the rights to English domestic and European rugby. The supposed breakdown is that £88 million goes to the Premiership over four years.

£64 million would go into the central pot for H Cup along with monies from other TV deals negotiated in territories such as France and Ireland. This would be divided between PRL, PRO12 and Top 14.

by BigTrevsbigmac Tue 18 Sep 2012, 6:49 am

Telegraph today -

Premiership Rugby will enter negotiations with their European counterparts in Dublin on Tuesday promising that, under their proposals for a restructured Heineken Cup, every country will be financially better off in spite of the English clubs’ demand for a larger share of the distribution of central funds.

It is also understood that Premiership Rugby may be prepared to cede ground over their demand that only the top six clubs from RaboDirect Pro 12 league qualify in their vision for a restructured tournament when the current accord expires in 2014.
A compromise position would see the top four Pro 12 clubs qualify, with the other two remaining places left to be awarded to help guarantee each nation has at least one representative in the Heineken Cup, reduced from 24 to 20 teams.
That hybrid model may ease some of the fears of the Pro 12 clubs that the Anglo-French model could leave countries such as Scotland and Italy without any representation in the elite tournament.
Yet it is the promise of increased financial commitment to the central pot on the back of Premiership Rugby’s £152 million deal with BT Vision last week that the English clubs hope could swing Tuesday's negotiations in their favour despite an expected angry reception in Dublin.
The promise of an increase in funding is dependant on their demands being met for significant restructuring of the tournament as well as change in governance and commercial arrangements.

The ERC currently generates around £32 million in profit, 85 per cent of which is distributed between the three leagues, with 15 per cent set aside as bonus payments for those clubs reaching the knockout stages.
The current guaranteed distribution of the profits sees 52 per cent go to the Pro 12 clubs, with the English and French leagues receiving 24 per cent each.
Premiership Rugby’s proposal is for the funding to be split on an equal basis, with each league to receive 33 per cent, with six clubs from each league qualifying for the tournament plus the previous season’s winners and the winners of the Amlin Challenge Cup.
To help achieve this radical overhaul, it is understood the English clubs are prepared to increase their contributions to the central pot to such an extent that the Celtic and Italian clubs will still receive a bigger payout despite the reduction in their share from 52 to 33 per cent.
ERC’s new four-year extension with Sky Sports from 2014 is not thought to be lucrative enough to prevent the Celtic and Italian clubs from losing money if pot was shared equally between the three leagues.
The English clubs are also prepared to help fund a new third tier competition involving clubs from countries such as Georgia, Russia, Spain, Portugal and Romania.
Brian Kennedy, the owner of Sale Sharks, said on Monday night he was hopeful that a deal could be done.
“We’re absolutely 100 per cent committed to this and feel that we have a very robust legal position to approach this as we have done,” Kennedy said.
“Sometimes you have to stand up for what is right, sometimes you have to be strong. We want harmony, for it to be win-win for everybody. There’s sound commercial logic underpinning all this.”
Premiership Rugby’s negotiating stance appeared to be weakened on Monday evening however with the French clubs ruling out a breakaway league as a last option.
Patrick Wolff, the vice-president of the French National Rugby League (LNR), said that his body wanted to continue playing the European Cup with both the English and the Celtic clubs and had resisted serious pressure Premiership Rugby to split from the present competitions.
Wolff said that there was no way the French would do anything as dramatic as walking away hand in hand with their English counterparts.
“The English put a lot of pressure on us in the past few months to accept the idea of an alternative Franco/Anglo club competition almost like it was a condition before discussing anything else,” Wolff said.
“That we did not want to do. Save a catastrophic failure at the negotiations, which I don’t think will happen, we want to play with the Celts and with the English.”
Who will be in the room for today’s talks?
When the English and French clubs served notice to leave the European accord in June, European Rugby Cup sent out invitations to its stakeholders to meet in Dublin today to renegotiate a new accord.
ERC asked the RFU, Premiership Rugby, French Federation de Rugby, Ligue Nationale de Rugby, Welsh Rugby Union, Regional Rugby Wales, Irish RFU, Scottish Rugby Union and the Italian Federation to send representatives.
Among those attending will be Rob Andrew, on behalf of the RFU, while Premiership Rugby has Peter Wheeler, the Leicester Tigers chief executive, and Bath owner Bruce Craig as well as PRL chief executive Mark McCafferty.
ERC will be represented by chief executive Derek McGrath and chairman Jean-Pierre Lux.
The Irish RFU is expected to send chief executive, Philip Browne, and fellow ERC board member Peter Boyle.

by BigTrevsbigmac Tue 18 Sep 2012, 6:55 am

This 'hybrid model' is a compromise solution and one that seems fair to me. I think most rugby supporters hoped for a compromise solution but an overhaul was well overdue.

Fingers crossed for today.

by Pot Hale Tue 18 Sep 2012, 8:59 am

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:This 'hybrid model' is a compromise solution and one that seems fair to me. I think most rugby supporters hoped for a compromise solution but an overhaul was well overdue.

Fingers crossed for today.

It's not a compromise solution. See posts above yours.

by Kingshu Tue 18 Sep 2012, 9:45 am

I don't think the hybrid of 4 +2 would work for the Rabo,

Imagine if the Provinces finish top 4, then you have 2 places to give to three unions to guarentee, a team in H-cup, how do you do that.

Rabo nations will hold out for 8 qualifers, One from each nation guarenteed, rest league based, 6 English and 6 French.

H-cup winners and Almin winners come out of that countries allocation.

Money spilt accordenly,

This means that each H-cup place will be worth 5% of the participation pot.
Meaning the split would be

IRFU and WRU would get between 5-20% each year (from 13% prevously)
SRU and FIR between 5-10% each year (from 13% and 11% prevously)

French and English will both increase their share by 5%, from 25% to 30%

The itialial French stance is softening, and they appear to not want a Anglo/French cup, but a rejigged H-cup.

This is what I think the French will agree with as it see's the French and English share increase from 25% to 30% and a reduction in number of Pro 12 teams and tougher qualification critea for them, plus since with less teams a reduction in payments from 50% to 40%. While still having every nation represented. Also they will have final earlier and played in blocks, and Almin will be relaunched.

This covers what the French are requesting an dshould be agreeable for the French and Rabo unions.

This may not go far enough to applease the English, but if the Rabo nations and French agree, what choice do they have?

by Islingtonv2 Tue 18 Sep 2012, 9:56 am

HammerofThunor wrote:
TJ wrote:My god you guys are naive.

The quote from the PRL shows exactly what they want - control of the competition. the rest of the countries the unions run it not the clubs - and the rfu and prl are at loggerheads anyway.

Loggerheads? Isn't that in Shropshire? Actually the PRL and RFU are getting on pretty well at the moment and the last minor spat was over the initial implementation of the EPS agreement in 2008. How does the quote say the PRL what control. They believe the competition should be run by the teams in it. Since a lot are already owned by their union and the FFR has ceded votes to the French clubs I fail to see you're point.

The PRL have attempted to sell the rights to something that does not exist and even if it did they have no right to do so - and by doing so show their arrogance and scant regard fore the rest of the unions - as well as the French who clearly are dismayed and annoyed by their actions.

What do you think do you think ERC did with it's Sky deal? Sold the rights to a competition that didn't exist and rights they didn't hold. Both equality guilty of the same thing.

remeber what happened when English rugby tied to sell the rights to all the 6N games to sky? forced to back down under threat of being thrown out.

Yes, and do you know why they were threatened to be kicked out? Because the other nations want some of the money. They used their superior numbers to sponge money off the RFU.

there has been a clear threat to pull out if their demands hare not met. Its exactly what they have said. I have not made up anything about them at all - its all in their public statements.

No they didn't. They handed their notice in to force a renegotiation (following the French lead, who are apparently angels in all this). What this means is that the Participation Agreement won't be automatically renewed and will have to be renegotiated. Are you suggesting that the old agreement should be held forever?[/quote]

You do not start a negotiation by putting a gun to someones head and demanding all their money.

It depends how forcible you're negotiating.

No0r do you sell attempt to sell something that belongs to 6 countires on yor own without consulting them - even if they had the power to do so.

You mean like the ERC have done?

really - the arrogance and lack of regard for others will backfire on them. if they had been reasonable and shown some regard for others they might get somewhere. as it is they have alienated the irish, scottish and welsh unions, their erstwhile allies in France and the RFU.

If them selling their share of the TV rights makes more money for everyone why would anybody be alienated by this?

All this talk about they generate the money so should get more of it - what is the european cup with only the PRL clubs in it? Nothing - they need the rest more than the rest need them.

Yet you say Scottish and Italian rugby would completely collapse if the HEC moves on without them. Also the new Premiership deal is probably going to make more money for the clubs than they got previously from the league and HEC. Add in a decent English cup and they should be alright in the near term. It may result in a cup in some of the playing budgets but they won't need them as they won't be competing in Europe.

The french clearly will not back the PRL on this - they are looking for compromise and are aware of the concerns of the other countries. the PRL are playing hardball and have alienated every other stakeholder making it less likely they get anything.

The French were the ones that proposed the changes and PRL have just backed them. Where have you got this idea that the PRL won't compromise and the French will?

Its not about being anti English - its about wanting a fair deal for all not to concentrate power and wealth i the hands of a few english club owners. Its also about understanding how damaging these proposals are to Scottish and Itlain rugby - and thus to european rugby as a whole includingthe 6N.

Fairness is completely objective. There's no such thing in reality. I don't believe you are being anti-English but I do believe misinterpreted the whole situation. Not that losing money from scottish and Irish rugby would be damaging, just the circumstances that have unfolded.

If you can provide some quotes that justice your thought process I don't know how to understand it.[/quote]

and a damn fine place it is too, not Rugby country mind.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Tue 18 Sep 2012, 10:22 am

From today's Grauniad:

European rugby union's big dispute: the key questions

by Paul Rees

What is the dispute about?

The English and French clubs served notice that they would be pulling out of the Heineken Cup and the Amlin Challenge Cup when the current participation agreement ends in May 2014 unless changes are made to the way the tournaments were run. They want 20 teams to take part in the Heineken Cup, down from 24, and qualification for the tournament to be based on merit, ending the right to participation enjoyed by teams in the RaboDirect Pro12

Why are the English and French ready to pull out of such big cups ?

At the heart of the dispute is how the tournaments are run. They argue that as they bring around 80% of the television money to the table and also subsidise the teams from the other four countries, they should have more of an influence on proceedings. The 17 years of professional rugby have seen the old order, when unions ran the game and clubs did as they were told, slowly change. By negotiating a £100m television deal with BT Vision which includes a package for English clubs playing in European competition, Premiership Rugby has acted in contravention of the International Rugby Board's regulations, which stipulate unions must negotiate television contracts, and is deliberately provocative to force the issue.

Haven't we been here before?

Every time the participation agreement comes up for renewal, there is the sound of sabres rattling. The English pulled out of Europe in 1998 in protest at how the IRB was running the game, vesting complete authority in unions, and took the board to the European Court, settling with the Rugby Football Union before the case was heard and signing the eight-year Paris Accord in 1999. In 2006, the English and French clubs served notice they would pull outof the Heineken Cup because they felt the tournament was not maximising its commercial potential and wanted unions and participating teams to run it jointly. The dispute escalated when the French, who were hosting the World Cup that autumn, officially withdrew. The English clubs demanded, and received, half of the RFU's shares on European Rugby Cup Ltdand a new seven-year agreement was only signed as the old one expired

What next?

History shows these disputes usually go to the wire. ERC's stakeholders meet in Dublin on Tuesday to see where the six countries stand on what a new agreement should look like. no decisions will be made but Battle lines will be drawn. Premiership Rugby will go armed with its big hitters, including the Bath chairman Bruce Craig, anxious to persuade the RaboDirect contingent that their aim is to enhance European competition, not destroy it. They want the Amlin Challenge Cup to involve clubs from all six nations – Scotland and Ireland are not represented this season – and a third tournament introduced for the smaller unions such as Russia, Georgia and Portugal

So wait for the compromise?

There may be an attempt to divide and rule with talk of the Celtic unions looking to pacify the French clubs who want the European finals to be brought forward by a month and the group stages played in two groups of three rather than in three blocks as present, but the question is how loudly will money talk? ERC's new deal with Sky is worth £70m over four years; BT's is some £100m. The RaboDirect teams would get less of a percentage than now under Premiership Rugby's plan, with the English and French clubs getting a greater share, but all would increase their revenue because the cake would be substantially larger. While the Rabo unions are prepared to look at the qualification process, they want all six nations to take part in the Heineken Cup every season.

by SecretFly Tue 18 Sep 2012, 10:24 am

Shush! I'm just walking into the ERC building now with me files in mu back pocket.... Jesus! Look who is with the English lads - Hersh! It's going to be a long day.............................

by **Biltong** Tue 18 Sep 2012, 12:51 pm

Geez, reading through all of this will confuse the best politician.

TJ I understand you are taking this personally, but please remember to remain calm and objective without being disrespectful or impatient.

If needed step away and take a kitkat, or teabreak. Wink

by BigTrevsbigmac Tue 18 Sep 2012, 4:38 pm

The ERC has said that Tuesday's meeting in Dublin regarding the future of the Heineken Cup was "productive" and that they will meet again on October 8.

by Kingshu Tue 18 Sep 2012, 4:53 pm

http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/news/18591.php

"The meeting included productive discussions regarding the future of the club game in Europe with a general resolve among all stakeholders to reach agreement towards a new Accord."

Does this rule out BTs desire for a new tourament?

"t was decided that all parties would continue the consultative process at a meeting in Rome on 8 October 2012"
"it was agreed that there would be limited comment from stakeholders at this time."

seams like we won't know much more for a good while, I'd say an agreement be be reached around next summer or this time next year.

by SecretFly Tue 18 Sep 2012, 4:54 pm

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:The ERC has said that Tuesday's meeting in Dublin regarding the future of the Heineken Cup was "productive" and that they will meet again on October 8.

God I do laugh at good spin. I have the real story. I know what went on in there...and it wasn't polite productivity. I'll tell all in the Daily Star on Thursday... right next to the topless picture of McCafferty.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Tue 18 Sep 2012, 5:33 pm

SecretFly wrote:
BigTrevsbigmac wrote:The ERC has said that Tuesday's meeting in Dublin regarding the future of the Heineken Cup was "productive" and that they will meet again on October 8.

God I do laugh at good spin. I have the real story. I know what went on in there...and it wasn't polite productivity. I'll tell all in the Daily Star on Thursday... right next to the topless picture of McCafferty.

Fly, I hope that won't be in Closer, but rather Further Away magazine

by SecretFly Tue 18 Sep 2012, 5:38 pm

Depends how much they offer me Asbo... big payment demands big telephoto lens disclosure.

by HammerofThunor Tue 18 Sep 2012, 6:01 pm

Kingshu wrote:http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/news/18591.php

"The meeting included productive discussions regarding the future of the club game in Europe with a general resolve among all stakeholders to reach agreement towards a new Accord."

Does this rule out BTs desire for a new tourament?

"t was decided that all parties would continue the consultative process at a meeting in Rome on 8 October 2012"
"it was agreed that there would be limited comment from stakeholders at this time."

seams like we won't know much more for a good while, I'd say an agreement be be reached around next summer or this time next year.

No. BT's 'new' competition was just the old competition televised by BT (at least the English games and they're probably hoping for them all). The fact they kept saying 'new' doesn't mean the format will change much/at all. They just want to pave the way to the brave new world.

by Pot Hale Tue 18 Sep 2012, 6:01 pm

SecretFly wrote:Depends how much they offer me Asbo... big payment demands big telephoto lens disclosure.

It's never about the size of your lens, it's about the width of your aperture, the speed of your shutter, etc, etc...

by Artful_Dodger Tue 18 Sep 2012, 7:14 pm

Dunno if this has been posted yet but the French have said they aren't interested in an Anglo-French competition and more worryingly for McCafferty and the PRL have said that they want a Heineken Cup that includes all 6 European tier 1 nations.

6 English, 6 French and 8 Rabo again looking like a real possibility.

http://www.espnscrum.com/scrum/rugby/story/169973.html

by Sponsored content