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

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).

A couple of points I'd like to make.


There seems to be an unwillingness to recognise the quality of the Rabo teams. The English and French are basically saying that Leinster are winning all the time because they have it easy. They are not challenged in the Rabo league because no team tries to win games in that.


This idea of "sending out weakened squads" is nonsense and they make it sound like teams want to lose. Its called squad rotation and squad rotation makes teams stronger especially when the business end of the season comes along. The English and French are basically admitting their players are knackered and they want the Rabo teams to knacker out their players too. Its the first time I've ever seen that in any sport.


Regarding the Irish money from the pot. For years we heard how the Irish teams and fans played a big part in making the HEC the competition it is today with fans travelling in numbers etc. A bigger and better competition means more money from sky. Should things like that be automatically overlooked?


Does the German population pay more than the Spanish to watch champions league matches? I would say so.
Do Spanish teams receive more money than German teams? Much more I'd say.
Do the Germans complain? No they understand how the system works.


It seems the English are relying on the French to back them up. The problem is I couldn't see the likes of Clermont or Toulouse wanting to joing another competition even for extra money. Toulouse especially have a great record in the HEC and are proud of it.


The real reason the English want changes is because of the domestic trouble they're having in terms of finances. They need more money and are turning to the HEC to get it. We all hear about the Rabo teams needing the HEC but what we don't hear about is the HEC needs the Rabo teams just as much. The English should not be allowed muscle in and cream off more profits than they're worth. Just like the champions league example the best teams like Barcelona are the teams everyone wants to watch and it isn't just Spanish people. Irish people don't watch league of Ireland soccer they watch English premiership soccer. The Irish money goes to the English teams, not the Irish teams. I never heard anyone complaining about that!

Brian Moore summarises some aspects of the finances -

'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.
The unwillingness to alter these percentages with more competition for places in the RaboDirect is that it could mean no Scottish or Italian clubs. If they are genuinely concerned, why don’t the Irish and Welsh concede one of their automatic places, making their percentage nearer but still equal to, or better, than England and France? Those places would guarantee Scottish and Italian representation or do they only care about this fundamental principle as long as it doesn’t cost them anything?
I suspect reform of automatic qualification and a commercial compromise with rights holders will now be negotiated, but anyone who thinks this would have happened without drastic action is a naive simpleton. And this action has brought more money for all, a thank you would be nice.'


Here here to that!

Biltong wrote: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.

I am not taking this personally - I am incredibly frustrated at the selfishness of the PRL and the inability of the English posters to understand why the PRL are so malign in their influence. If it ain't broke do not fix it. Going down the PRL road would destroy pro rugby in Scotland and Italy and badly damage it in wales. However the PRL don't care. People need to see ths and need to understan that this is not about rugby - this is about the PRL grabbing money and power at the expense of everyone else.

However the PRL having alienated everyone else will find they cannot get their way I hope - the rest of the unions need to stand up to them and if necessary let them resign. i don't know what they will do with no one to play. Italy and Scotland must have those two guearenteed places

So BigTrev you and Moore want to take the percentages of the countries (Wales Ireland Scotland and Italy) whereas the PRL and the French equivelant want to deal with the Rabo League, it's one or the other I'm afraid. You want your cake and eat it yourself.

From planetrugby.com:

French clubs won't join breakaway

The vice-president of the French National Rugby League (LNR) Patrick Wolff said his organisation wanted to continue playing the European Cup with both the English and the Celtic clubs but had resisted serious pressure from the heads of the English Premiership to split from the present competitions.

All the stakeholders in European Rugby Cup (ERC - the tournament organisers) which are the respective national league authorities and federations from the Six Nations playing countries are set to meet on Tuesday in Dublin at the request of the French and the English to negotiate a new deal for the competitions from the 2014/15 season.

The English and French teams believe the European Cup's current format is weighted in favour of the Celtic nations as Leinster and Munster have won five of the last seven editions between them.

Leinster have won three of the last four European Cups and their rivals in England and France claim that is partly a result of a qualification system that allows them to rest their players during the PRO12 season.

The English and French sides believe no more than six PRO12 teams should qualify, although that would put at risk the involvement of Scottish and Italian sides who currently qualify automatically.

However, 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.

"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.

"For us, there is a product (the European Cup). This product must be improved at the negotiations.

"We wish that everything will be resolved by the end of the year. Rugby has no interest in being swept up in uncertainty during two years.

"It is imperative that everyone structures things properly in their own country."

Wolff's conciliatory tone ahead of the talks was in contrast to his English counterparts (Premiership Rugby) who last week announced to great fanfare a TV deal with BT Vision worth £152 million ($245 million) over four years from next season.

However, continental rugby chiefs say a clause granting BT exclusive live broadcast rights to matches played by Premiership clubs in any future European competitions from 2014-15 for three years is invalid.

In a statement issued following a board meeting at its Dublin headquarters last Wednesday, ERC said the "purported deal" was in breach both of International Rugby Board (IRB) regulations and an ERC board mandate.

The statement said it was "unanimously agreed" at an ERC board meeting on June 6 that ERC would conclude a new four-year agreement with satellite broadcaster Sky Sports for the UK and Ireland exclusive live broadcast rights to the European Cup and the European Challenge Cup until 2018.

However, following that ERC statement BT's executive director Mark Watson said that he was willing to create a new European competition when the present deal with ERC ends at the climax of the 2013-14 season.

Isolation for the PRL, and an eventual compromise, seems ever more likely. I believe that this is good

Cheers for the info Asbo, the French seem to be going along the lines of what I thought they would

"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."

"For us, there is a product (the European Cup). This product must be improved at the negotiations."

I don't see how any of that suggests Isolation for the PRL. The only difference between the PRL and the LNR is that the PRL were trying to nail down the details of the potential Franglo Cup before the negotiations. The French won't until it's needed. Both are saying the competition MUST change. Both are saying they'd prefer to stay in the competition over a Franglo Cup. The main difference between the stances is the way the media are writing the stuff around it.

HammerofThunor wrote:

"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."

"For us, there is a product (the European Cup). This product must be improved at the negotiations."

I don't see how any of that suggests Isolation for the PRL. The only difference between the PRL and the LNR is that the PRL were trying to nail down the details of the potential Franglo Cup before the negotiations. The French won't until it's needed. Both are saying the competition MUST change. Both are saying they'd prefer to stay in the competition over a Franglo Cup. The main difference between the stances is the way the media are writing the stuff around it.

Thunor, my friend, not having a go at the English, after all I am predominantly an English club supporter. But it is clear that the French are unwilling to countenance an Anglo-French breakaway - that is what I meant by 'isolation for the PRL', and I stand by that - I believe that a healthy compromise will be reached.

TJ wrote:

Biltong wrote: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.

I am not taking this personally - I am incredibly frustrated at the selfishness of the PRL and the inability of the English posters to understand why the PRL are so malign in their influence. If it ain't broke do not fix it. Going down the PRL road would destroy pro rugby in Scotland and Italy and badly damage it in wales. However the PRL don't care. People need to see ths and need to understan that this is not about rugby - this is about the PRL grabbing money and power at the expense of everyone else.

However the PRL having alienated everyone else will find they cannot get their way I hope - the rest of the unions need to stand up to them and if necessary let them resign. i don't know what they will do with no one to play. Italy and Scotland must have those two guearenteed places

If Italy and Scotland get the same share of collective money from the Europot (that is a theoretical if) but one or other or both of each of their teams play in the "Amlin" instead of the HC, what are the consequences that you consider will lead to the destruction of Pro rugby in those countries?

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

TJ wrote:

Biltong wrote: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.

I am not taking this personally - I am incredibly frustrated at the selfishness of the PRL and the inability of the English posters to understand why the PRL are so malign in their influence. If it ain't broke do not fix it. Going down the PRL road would destroy pro rugby in Scotland and Italy and badly damage it in wales. However the PRL don't care. People need to see ths and need to understan that this is not about rugby - this is about the PRL grabbing money and power at the expense of everyone else.

However the PRL having alienated everyone else will find they cannot get their way I hope - the rest of the unions need to stand up to them and if necessary let them resign. i don't know what they will do with no one to play. Italy and Scotland must have those two guearenteed places

If Italy and Scotland get the same share of collective money from the Europot (that is a theoretical if) but one or other or both of each of their teams play in the "Amlin" instead of the HC, what are the consequences that you consider will lead to the destruction of Pro rugby in those countries?

Dub, we both know that you can't look at the money in absolute terms, let's be sensible. It has to be in relative terms in order to maintain competitiveness - otherwise, TJ is right, Scotland (and Italy too, I suspect) will go even further backwards - is that really what you want, whether at national or pro-club level?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

"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."

"For us, there is a product (the European Cup). This product must be improved at the negotiations."

I don't see how any of that suggests Isolation for the PRL. The only difference between the PRL and the LNR is that the PRL were trying to nail down the details of the potential Franglo Cup before the negotiations. The French won't until it's needed. Both are saying the competition MUST change. Both are saying they'd prefer to stay in the competition over a Franglo Cup. The main difference between the stances is the way the media are writing the stuff around it.

Thunor, my friend, not having a go at the English, after all I am predominantly an English club supporter. But it is clear that the French are unwilling to countenance an Anglo-French breakaway - that is what I meant by 'isolation for the PRL', and I stand by that - I believe that a healthy compromise will be reached.

Isn't the whole point that the PRL don't actually want to breakaway and don't expect wholesale changes to be made but just get a discussion on a "fair" compromise?

[quote="Dubbelyew L Overate"]

TJ wrote:

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

If Italy and Scotland get the same share of collective money from the Europot (that is a theoretical if) but one or other or both of each of their teams play in the "Amlin" instead of the HC, what are the consequences that you consider will lead to the destruction of Pro rugby in those countries?

This is a nonsensical thought - its simply not possible. the amlin does not generate the money and the BT deal does not guarantee enough even if it were going to happen which it is not. No one is offering this anyway. Remember the 150 million figure include all aviva games as well.

We need the top rank games as well as the money - and its simnply not possible to have the same amount of money and only one team in the top tier. Without eth top games crownds wil simply dissaper with the undesirable knock on effects that will have including revenue. the two big gates taht Edinburgh got in thei years cup have allowed them to expand their squads this year - not allthe money comes from TV rights. We had 20 000+ for two games thats a significant boost to the clubs finances nearly a million extra income

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

"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."

"For us, there is a product (the European Cup). This product must be improved at the negotiations."

I don't see how any of that suggests Isolation for the PRL. The only difference between the PRL and the LNR is that the PRL were trying to nail down the details of the potential Franglo Cup before the negotiations. The French won't until it's needed. Both are saying the competition MUST change. Both are saying they'd prefer to stay in the competition over a Franglo Cup. The main difference between the stances is the way the media are writing the stuff around it.

Thunor, my friend, not having a go at the English, after all I am predominantly an English club supporter. But it is clear that the French are unwilling to countenance an Anglo-French breakaway - that is what I meant by 'isolation for the PRL', and I stand by that - I believe that a healthy compromise will be reached.

But they're saying the same thing with different words. They haven't said they won't consider a Franglo cup. They've said they'll only consider it if negotiations break down. They also say the competition MUST change. How is that different to what the PRL are saying. They've said they want to keep the HEC. They've said that changes MUST happen. The only difference is they've looked into the Franglo Cup before negotiations. I don't see how that possibly indicates the PRL are isolated. The changes that MUST happen to appease the French would almost certainly appease the English as well. The French have said they want to play with the Celts and the English. No indication whatsoever they would consider a competition without the English (I'm guessing missed out the Italians was a slip of the tongue).

Of course a compromise will be reached. I've never understood why anybody ever thought that was in doubt. No parties have said they won't negotiate since the notice was given. For some reason this idea the PRL were all or nothing got around and became an internet FACT. Both the PRL and the LNR have said changes must occur. That's the point of negotiation. The PRO12 unions may even be willing to change the qualification and numbers if the finances and structures are sound. We just don't know.

Hmm, I'm not so sure about that - from what I've read the two main issues for the French, other than money, are:

1. Heino final in April instead of May in order not to conflict with the T14 final
2. Pool stages to played as two lots of 3 matches, rather than 3 lots of 2 matches.

Anyhew, clearly we are looking at the same words and interpreting their gist differently. Nothing really that can form a decent discussion, so I'll leave it there

Fair enough

edit: I'd say the only proposals that the PRL have mentioned was during the backing of the original French proposals. Since then there haven't been any English proposals (as far as I'm aware). The media just keep repeating the original French proposals

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

TJ wrote:

Biltong wrote: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.

I am not taking this personally - I am incredibly frustrated at the selfishness of the PRL and the inability of the English posters to understand why the PRL are so malign in their influence. If it ain't broke do not fix it. Going down the PRL road would destroy pro rugby in Scotland and Italy and badly damage it in wales. However the PRL don't care. People need to see ths and need to understan that this is not about rugby - this is about the PRL grabbing money and power at the expense of everyone else.

However the PRL having alienated everyone else will find they cannot get their way I hope - the rest of the unions need to stand up to them and if necessary let them resign. i don't know what they will do with no one to play. Italy and Scotland must have those two guearenteed places

If Italy and Scotland get the same share of collective money from the Europot (that is a theoretical if) but one or other or both of each of their teams play in the "Amlin" instead of the HC, what are the consequences that you consider will lead to the destruction of Pro rugby in those countries?

Dub, we both know that you can't look at the money in absolute terms, let's be sensible. It has to be in relative terms in order to maintain competitiveness - otherwise, TJ is right, Scotland (and Italy too, I suspect) will go even further backwards - is that really what you want, whether at national or pro-club level?

As, if it's relative terms, than France is and will continue to be the big threat in Europe for wage inflation - I say that without knowing the distribution of BT money, but I think it's a fair assessment. Nothing that's under discussion will change that, since it's the strength of their domestic competition that fuels their financial strength, whether it's the sugar-daddy, corporate sponsorship or municipal stadia.

You're making a different point - I'm challenging that playing in the Amlin (an enhanced stronger Amlin) rather than HC will cause destruction to Scottish and Italian pro rugby. You, if I understand correctly, are saying that even if Scottish and Italian rugby get equal or more Euro money, they will be getting less of an increase than the English, which will lead to the destruction of pro rugby in those countries. I don't buy that destruction is the inevitable consequence of either.

[quote="TJ"]

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

TJ wrote:

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

If Italy and Scotland get the same share of collective money from the Europot (that is a theoretical if) but one or other or both of each of their teams play in the "Amlin" instead of the HC, what are the consequences that you consider will lead to the destruction of Pro rugby in those countries?

This is a nonsensical thought - its simply not possible. the amlin does not generate the money and the BT deal does not guarantee enough even if it were going to happen which it is not. No one is offering this anyway. Remember the 150 million figure include all aviva games as well.

We need the top rank games as well as the money - and its simnply not possible to have the same amount of money and only one team in the top tier. Without eth top games crownds wil simply dissaper with the undesirable knock on effects that will have including revenue. the two big gates taht Edinburgh got in thei years cup have allowed them to expand their squads this year - not allthe money comes from TV rights. We had 20 000+ for two games thats a significant boost to the clubs finances nearly a million extra income

TJ,
the collective money from both the Amlin and HC are what is distributed by ERC currently, and I have seen nothing in any of the proposals that alters that. If the Scots and Italians negotiate that they get a similar share of the combined collective money, regardless of whether they play in "HC" or "Amlin", it is not nonsensical, and it is what I expect is likely to happen. You make the point that Edinburgh's Cup run has generated a financial boost, but why couldn't they do the same by qualifying for the "HC" in the future? It may make it harder, but the harder it's earned, the sweeter it is, no?

It is nonsense - the amlin creates very little money, without the HC money the Scottish teams would not be able to maintain squads of sufficient quality to qualify for the HC. This is the issue - you are immediatly putting the scottish and italian clubs into a downward financial spiral from which they would never recover.

Do you really think the PRL will accept Scotland getting 10% of the slightly larger pot without any teams in the HC? Not a chance.Remeber the 152 million figure is for a much larger tournament and also includes the aviva money. there will not be enough money to pay teams playing in the second tier anything like as much as they get now - especially as the PRL teams want the lions share

You cannot have your cake and eat it. If you want a vibrant and healthy europe wide competition then you need to ensure a floor for the weaker nations .

TJ wrote:It is nonsense - the amlin creates very little money, without the HC money the Scottish teams would not be able to maintain squads of sufficient quality to qualify for the HC. This is the issue - you are immediatly putting the scottish and italian clubs into a downward financial spiral from which they would never recover.

Do you really think the PRL will accept Scotland getting 10% of the slightly larger pot without any teams in the HC? Not a chance.Remeber the 152 million figure is for a much larger tournament and also includes the aviva money. there will not be enough money to pay teams playing in the second tier anything like as much as they get now - especially as the PRL teams want the lions share

You cannot have your cake and eat it. If you want a vibrant and healthy europe wide competition then you need to ensure a floor for the weaker nations .

It's not HC money that you're talking about, it's ERC money. Most of it comes from HC, because, as you say, the Amlin generates less, but all the income from both competitions are pooled and distributed in the current proportions. The English teams currently get the same share of England's proportion regardless of whether they compete in HC or Amlin.

PRL are very conscious of adequate shares going to clubs in the secondary competition - half of their stakeholders play in it every year, and, by the sounds of it, will continue to do so.

Teams in the Amlin will get less income from fewer bums on seats and, perhaps, less club sponsorship, but there will still be games featuring "big brands" like Stade Francais and Perpignan.

If the "Amlin" is rehashed as seems to be proposed, all the games will be fairly competitive with the minnows competing in a third tier, and only promoted to the "Amlin" on merit. This, I think, will enhance the competition, and the hope is that it will then generate more income - we don't know if that hope is recognised in the BT deal.

Added to this is a decent chance (better than in "HC"?) to reach the knockout phase, which then gives an extra game or more, so more club income. Not relevant to this discussion, but I hope that the parachuting of "HC" failures into "Amlin" knockout stops.

What I'm trying to say is that competing in the Amlin doesn't mean being banished to the financial wilderness. At the moment, to some it may feel like being banished to the sporting wilderness in comparison to HC, but it is still rugby that will be played against different opponents.

On top of all that, Scottish and Italian teams, whatever the outcome of the discussions, will still have a good chance to compete in the "HC", whether they have both places guaranteed, or one, or none.

An interesting perspective in today's Herald:

A whole new ball game?

by Kevin Ferrie, Senior Sports Writer

The automatic presence of Scotland's professional teams in the Heineken Cup has been a major factor in the row that is threatening to wreck the competition and Scottish rugby may gain most, once it is settled.

Nothing was more transparent than the insincerity of English Premiership Rugby's claim last week that its controversial £152m deal with BT Vision is good for European rugby as a whole.

The immediate reaction of Heineken Cup organisers ERC Ltd, the umbrella organisation which had clearly been wrong-footed confirmed that this was was nothing more than a blatant grab for money and control.

What it also made clear was the willingness of big London-based institutions to favour the English market with the curious, some might say arrogant, claim that BT Vision have bought rights to TV coverage in the whole of the UK demonstrating the sort of contempt they have for Celtic negotiators.

It is not the first time English clubs have manoeuvred this way but professional rugby was in its infancy when they made their botched bid for greater control of the Heineken Cup 13 years ago. Back then, they failed to break up the Celtic Unions and while English clubs were joined in their Heineken Cup boycott by Cardiff and Swansea those clubs were probably the biggest losers, ultimately failing to sustain full independent status after returning to the fold when effectively replaced by provincial operations part-owned by the Welsh Rugby Union.

This time around, the stakes are much bigger, though, and clearly the belief of English clubs and their backers is that they can dictate terms by being able to offer irresistible money to those they favour as worthy of the chance to be involved in a new European tournament. That is a very real danger. However, a pan-European competition only maintains the sort of charm that has turned the Heineken Cup into world rugby's best competition short of, and perhaps even including, the Test arena if the feeder competitions are themselves credible.

This, in turn, relates to English frustration at the way the smaller Celtic countries, now joined by the Italians, have created a domestic competition which is measurably better than theirs.

As well as the results in the Heineken Cup, itself, where Celtic superiority is now approaching supremacy, the myth that the quality is somehow inferior was exposed as long as two years ago when it was first calculated that, on average, more international players play in the RaboDirect Pro12 than in the English Premiership each week.

However, as a closed competition, in line with American and Australasian professional sports in being free of relegation, it has also generated a culture where talent can be developed, nurtured and managed, resulting in Ireland and Wales also overperforming on the Test stage compared with England, in spite of superior rugby numbers.

The English Premiership is determined to level the playing field not only by increasing the participation percentages in European competitions in its favour, but by dictating to the Celts and Italians how they should run their domestic competition.

To some extent, they seem likely to succeed in that since the revenues likely to be on offer will prove hugely seductive to the Irish and Welsh, confident as they are that their respective big threes – Leinster, Munster, Ulster, Cardiff, the Ospreys and the Scarlets – will qualify annually for the top European competition.

Towards that end, yesterday's discussions are understood to have been conducted on a relatively amicable basis with representatives of neither side looking to force the issue regarding the disagreement over the legal standing of their respective deals.

What does seem certain is that a streamlined competition, whether the existing Heineken Cup or a new English-controlled version, will emerge once this is resolved. On the face of it, then, the Scots would, along with the Italians, be the biggest losers and it is hard to argue against that from a Scottish perspective because of all the six competing nations they have the least potential, in isolation, to contribute.

With PRO12 television revenues having consequently been split by rather complex mechanisms to reflect what each country is bringing to the table that has, at times, left SRU executives looking like petulant children stuck in the corner when negotiations are ongoing, complaining that it's not fair that Scottish broadcasters are not playing the game.

That has been different where the Heineken Cup is concerned where the English and French in particular think it is not fair that the Scots and Italians gain so much while contributing relatively little either competitively or in terms of generating interest due to the way sponsorship and broadcast revenues are distributed.

Yet by seeking to force matters, the English Premiership has potentially left the company that has previously had the biggest say in all of this, BSkyB, out in the cold which could well be a great outcome for the Celts and Italians and, most particularly, the Scots.

Sky's willingness to fill its schedules with Southern Hemisphere rugby suggests that, much closer to home and featuring UK-wide household names, the Pro12 can fill the huge gaps left in its schedule when it no longer has rights to English Premiership rugby.

A network deal would have to be shared among the Celtic and Italian partners, but even more important would be Sky's marketing support which is so effective that it has managed to allow the English Premiership to retain its extraordinary image of itself as superior to the Pro12 in spite of all available evidence.

Short-term, then, it seems inevitable that Scottish rugby will lose its automatic right to have at least one of its teams and perhaps both in Europe's top competition from 2014 onwards.Beyond that, however, if the Pro12's negotiators do the job they should, the gains should outstrip the losses in terms of both income and the promotion of professional rugby in Scotland.

Blimey, that would put the cat amongst the pigeons at Celtic Rugby Ltd - in what proportions would the collective Sky money for Pro12 be distributed? Equally or in proportion to their viewership/contribution?

It'd be a great outcome for all, though.

Good article from the Herald and from a rugby spectators point of view it clearly restates the key point that Profitius made yesterday, which is that, the English and French propose to reduce the standard of Eauropean Cup Rugby to a level that their teams can win.

Leaving asside all the confusing financial and national interest discussions this one fact should unite all of who love the sport to say no! Reducing the quality of play is not the way we want the sport to go.

Lets face it our individual national teams cannot match the Southern Hemispere ones now without us actively planning to reduce the quality our players compete at!

Very interesting. if sky took up the rabo then it would be worth a lot more.

What a load of dribble. Plucky brave scots pitted against the evil fat cat pompous English, they've made a pantomime out of it. What a snoozefest of a bias article.

If any of the Scots teams aren't good enough to get in the top 6 of the RABO to get into HC, as proposed, then maybe they should look for a better business model, end of. Heaven forfend they take personal responsibility when they can blame the English for everything short of the sky falling down.

Just look at Exeter, solid plans, built on, and gone from Championship club to HC rugby in ahandful of years. From graft, solid and sustainable planing.

The English are changing their tune every few seconds, one minute its a new tournament with the French and BT the next minute the French say they arent interested and the English claim all they were interested in was a revised HC - full of xxxx.

the problem is that the rabo is not how we want to celtic teams to be seen as. If the italians leave the Rabo does the Rabo still get the same places, i doubt it.

Saying that if the Rabbo countries became one test side we would have the best team in the NH and would push the 3NH teams.

Interesting indeed. I personally love the Rabo and actually think in the greater scheme its more important to the Unions involved than the ERC.

The ERC is fantastic but we have a great, growing product and its important the Rabo teams stick together as opposed to sell each other out to facilitate a European deal.

The quality is there it's just making it as financially benificial to the teams involved as possible. A big TV deal is the next step I think.

AlastairW wrote:What a load of dribble. Plucky brave scots pitted against the evil fat cat pompous English, they've made a pantomime out of it. What a snoozefest of a bias article.

If any of the Scots teams aren't good enough to get in the top 6 of the RABO to get into HC, as proposed, then maybe they should look for a better business model, end of. Heaven forfend they take personal responsibility when they can blame the English for everything short of the sky falling down.

Just look at Exeter, solid plans, built on, and gone from Championship club to HC rugby in ahandful of years. From graft, solid and sustainable planing.

Why should 4 unions get 6 places whereas two unions get 12 places? Where is the best rugby played? Hint - its not the aviva :-)

An HC consisting of 6 english, 6 french and 6 rabo would not be as good a competition as what we have now. If the englisha dn French want less teams in the HC then they have to give up some of their places. its not a comprimise if everyone but you have to give up something.

Terrible article. Aren't articles supposed to be based on some sort of facts rather than 'wouldn't it be nice if SKY came and saved us' masquerading as 'SKY are going to save us'. They may one day buy the rights to the Rabo but they certainly aren't going to pay much for it. Look at the difference between how much they pay for the EPL vs the SPL? One day you guys might actually realise that what a broadcaster will pay will be directly linked to the size of market it can access.

And as for the point 'The Rabo is better because after years of research it's been discovered that on average there are more internationals playing in the Rabo' well congratulations. The Rabo is the league for 4 countries as apposed to 1. You would have to be seriously worried if this wasn't the case.

Artful_Dodger wrote:The English are changing their tune every few seconds, one minute its a new tournament with the French and BT the next minute the French say they arent interested and the English claim all they were interested in was a revised HC - full of xxxx.

Absolute tripe. Here is a link to an article the day the new deal was announced:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/sep/12/premiership-rugby-bt-deal-broadcast

And here is a quote from Mark McCafferty in the article that day:

"I want to emphasise that our objective is to remain in the Heineken Cup," he said. "The television deal we have agreed with BT will increase the size of the pot for everyone in Europe. Scotland and Italy will benefit: what we want is to increase the size of the cake rather than argue about slices."

Seems like nothing has changed to me in the last few days.

Toadfish - the BT deal is for " an exciting new competition" direct quote from BT.

BT have been the ones banging on about a 'new competition', etc. that's because they want to start relatively afresh so everyone forgets about Sky. I wouldn't even be surprised if the announcement of it was forced through by BT for their own reasons.

Edit: Any competition after 2014 can be classed as 'new' even if it was excatly the same.

I thought seeming domestic TV rights to a pay-to-view channel was whoring youself out? Or is that only if it's the English?

TJ wrote:Toadfish - the BT deal is for " an exciting new competition" direct quote from BT.

So BT are talking out of their arses, so what? They told me my broadband would be working the day I moved house and guess what, that was bullsh*t too.

Legal reasons I'd say if Sky own the rights to the HEC. Any European competition shown on BT will likely be billed as a brand new tournament regardless of format.

Mark McCafferty " We do not want to go down the Anglo‑French Cup route, but if nothing changes it is something we would have to do."

so they do not want to stay in the HC - they want a new competition on their terms or they walk away.

Anyway chaps - we are rather going round in circles. I hope that some of you now understand why this proposal is so disliked outside of the PRL ad the dangers inherent within it. Fairness is subjective for sure mut might over right is never fair

TJ wrote:Why should 4 unions get 6 places whereas two unions get 12 places? Where is the best rugby played? Hint - its not the aviva :-)

An HC consisting of 6 english, 6 french and 6 rabo would not be as good a competition as what we have now. If the englisha dn French want less teams in the HC then they have to give up some of their places. its not a comprimise if everyone but you have to give up something.

These 4 unions made the conscious choice to enter into a unified league, and as Rodders said, the RABO is a great product (strike me down! ). These 3 leagues span the majority of W-EU and should contribute an equal amount of teams for a true 'cream of the crop' competition - The HC.

As it is it's unfair that teams that are not the top flight are diluting the HC brand by receiving nigh on guarenteed entrance, becasue their union demand a place, the same unions that made the decision to go it as a single league. Simply, if you're not good enough to be in the top 6 of the league you chose to be part of, you're certianly not good enough to be in what the HC should represent. It would also make the RABO season ticket holders see a sight more competitive games every week/fortnight.

So if the rabo splits back into Irish, Scots. etc leagues do the Scots then get 6 places?

If it was the true cream of the crop there would not be many English teams in the HC at all - why should they get 6 guarenteed places for the mediocre teams they have?

Edit - sorry - meant to be satirical not to be read as true - shows the daftness of the argument tho.

I don't think you can have a true European league without representatives of each country.

For me a fair compromise would be 6 French, 6 English, 2 Welsh, 2 Irish, 1 Scottish, 1 Italian guaranteed.

That means the top 50% from each Union get a slot. The winners of the previous year and Amlin get automatic qualification.

TJ wrote:So if the rabo splits back into Irish, Scots. etc leagues do the Scots then get 6 places?

If it was the true cream of the crop there would not be many English teams in the HC at all - why should they get 6 guarenteed places for the mediocre teams they have?

Edit - sorry - meant to be satirical not to be read as true - shows the daftness of the argument tho.

We both know the RABO won't split so your hypothetical arguemnt is simple beligerance. If you can't get into RABO top 6 to get into HC, you certainly don't deserve extra HC monies. As opposed to whining about it, get your head down and come up with a plan to put you in contention. You have a ring fenced league, what more do you want?

Just another cheap pop at English clubs - that's not an arguement, that's just trolling. Try harder.

rodders wrote:I don't think you can have a true European league without representatives of each country.

For me a fair compromise would be 6 French, 6 English, 2 Welsh, 2 Irish, 1 Scottish, 1 Italian guaranteed.

That means the top 50% from each league get a slot. The winners of the previous year and Amlin get automatic qualification.

Sold, lets close the deal!

Top 50% from each Union, I meant not league. Sorry.

TJ wrote:Mark McCafferty " We do not want to go down the Anglo‑French Cup route, but if nothing changes it is something we would have to do."

so they do not want to stay in the HC - they want a new competition on their terms or they walk away.

Anyway chaps - we are rather going round in circles. I hope that some of you now understand why this proposal is so disliked outside of the PRL ad the dangers inherent within it. Fairness is subjective for sure mut might over right is never fair

Wolff has also said their MUST be change. He's just said they won't look at a Franglo Cup unless the negotiations break down. He's also said they want the negotiation done by Christmas, which would give plenty of time to orgainse a new competition if things break down. I prefer the French method but I also understand the PRL looking into the alternatives. Weren't several posters on here saying that the PRO12 unions should talk to US, SA, etc about possible other competitions so they can tell the PRL to off during the negotiations? The French know there could be a Franglo Cup if it falls through. That's all they need before the negotiations.

rodders wrote:I don't think you can have a true European league without representatives of each country.

For me a fair compromise would be 6 French, 6 English, 2 Welsh, 2 Irish, 1 Scottish, 1 Italian guaranteed.

That means the top 50% from each Union get a slot. The winners of the previous year and Amlin get automatic qualification.

Why is that fair? its not a compromising. the rabo teams loose - the english and french do not. Check the dictionary definition of comprimise.

If you want a reduction in teams then
5 french, 5 English ( decide qualification how how want) 8 rabo is fairer

AlastairW wrote:

TJ wrote:So if the rabo splits back into Irish, Scots. etc leagues do the Scots then get 6 places?

If it was the true cream of the crop there would not be many English teams in the HC at all - why should they get 6 guarenteed places for the mediocre teams they have?

Edit - sorry - meant to be satirical not to be read as true - shows the daftness of the argument tho.

We both know the RABO won't split so your hypothetical arguemnt is simple beligerance. If you can't get into RABO top 6 to get into HC, you certainly don't deserve extra HC monies. As opposed to whining about it, get your head down and come up with a plan to put you in contention. You have a ring fenced league, what more do you want?

Just another cheap pop at English clubs - that's not an arguement, that's just trolling. Try harder.

Its true -tho - the English teams do not bring much quality to the HC. How many english teams in the last 8? which would produce better rugby? Hc without english or a franglo cup?

TJ wrote:

rodders wrote:I don't think you can have a true European league without representatives of each country.

For me a fair compromise would be 6 French, 6 English, 2 Welsh, 2 Irish, 1 Scottish, 1 Italian guaranteed.

That means the top 50% from each Union get a slot. The winners of the previous year and Amlin get automatic qualification.

Why is that fair? its not a compromising. the rabo teams loose - the english and french do not. Check the dictionary definition of comprimise.

If you want a reduction in teams then
5 french, 5 English ( decide qualification how how want) 8 rabo is fairer

It fair from the point of view that it ensures that each Union has representation and that the representation is proportional to the number of sides competing...well actually the French should get 7 but lets not get bogged down by detail....

Look I want it left alone...actually from an Irish perspective top 6 Rabo teams qualifying would actually benefit us as the IRFU could pump more into Connacht and we'd have a decent shot of getting 4 teams in at times.

The idea that the Italians and possibly Scots not getting goes against the ethos of what the tournament is about for me.

TJ wrote:

AlastairW wrote:

TJ wrote:So if the rabo splits back into Irish, Scots. etc leagues do the Scots then get 6 places?

If it was the true cream of the crop there would not be many English teams in the HC at all - why should they get 6 guarenteed places for the mediocre teams they have?

Edit - sorry - meant to be satirical not to be read as true - shows the daftness of the argument tho.

We both know the RABO won't split so your hypothetical arguemnt is simple beligerance. If you can't get into RABO top 6 to get into HC, you certainly don't deserve extra HC monies. As opposed to whining about it, get your head down and come up with a plan to put you in contention. You have a ring fenced league, what more do you want?

Just another cheap pop at English clubs - that's not an arguement, that's just trolling. Try harder.

Its true -tho - the English teams do not bring much quality to the HC. How many english teams in the last 8? which would produce better rugby? Hc without english or a franglo cup?

Think you'd do well to remember that it's the Irish that have been dominating the HC, not the Rabo league. And since you all love to see your qualification on the basis of countries rather than leagues perhaps Wales, Italy and Scotland should have their participation questioned on the 'quality' they bring to the HC. Your argument, not mine. Last time I checked I think the French, English and Irish had contributed a similar number of winners to the HC compared to a big fat zero for the rest.

You'd also do well to remember that these things tend to be fairly cyclical in nature. The Irish are doing great now, who knows the French might be the ones to dominate the next few years.

AlastairW wrote:

TJ wrote:So if the rabo splits back into Irish, Scots. etc leagues do the Scots then get 6 places?

If it was the true cream of the crop there would not be many English teams in the HC at all - why should they get 6 guarenteed places for the mediocre teams they have?

Edit - sorry - meant to be satirical not to be read as true - shows the daftness of the argument tho.

We both know the RABO won't split so your hypothetical arguemnt is simple beligerance. If you can't get into RABO top 6 to get into HC, you certainly don't deserve extra HC monies. As opposed to whining about it, get your head down and come up with a plan to put you in contention. You have a ring fenced league, what more do you want?

Just another cheap pop at English clubs - that's not an arguement, that's just trolling. Try harder.

AlW, Why are you bringing up how the Rabo unions choose to organise a league between them? It comes across as tho you are suggesting it be changed - can sound like an outsider telling others how to run their own business? Should we be grateful that the AP and T14 "allow" us to have a ring-fenced league? Comments like this make me (and others) question the motivation here

TJ wrote:

AlastairW wrote:

TJ wrote:So if the rabo splits back into Irish, Scots. etc leagues do the Scots then get 6 places?

If it was the true cream of the crop there would not be many English teams in the HC at all - why should they get 6 guarenteed places for the mediocre teams they have?

Edit - sorry - meant to be satirical not to be read as true - shows the daftness of the argument tho.

We both know the RABO won't split so your hypothetical arguemnt is simple beligerance. If you can't get into RABO top 6 to get into HC, you certainly don't deserve extra HC monies. As opposed to whining about it, get your head down and come up with a plan to put you in contention. You have a ring fenced league, what more do you want?

Just another cheap pop at English clubs - that's not an arguement, that's just trolling. Try harder.

Its true -tho - the English teams do not bring much quality to the HC. How many english teams in the last 8? which would produce better rugby? Hc without english or a franglo cup?

If you're using that angle, then Edinburgh don't end up bringing anyting to the RABO by ending up second to last - or relegation position if you will.

Stop moving the goal posts to suit your agenda, this isn't an arguement about the quality of the constituent leagues, it's about fairness in the selection of teams for the plaudits that go with HC selection. At the moment it isn't, you get it easy.

AlastairW wrote:

We both know the RABO won't split so your hypothetical arguemnt is simple beligerance. As opposed to whining about it, get your head down and come up with a plan to put you in contention. You have a ring fenced league, what more do you want?

Just another cheap pop at English clubs - that's not an arguement, that's just trolling. Try harder.

I don't understand this argument,the HC was set up to give clubs from he 6Nations a European competition,it was never mean to be just about having the best teams involved.Just because you want it to be that way doesn't make it so.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:AlW, Why are you bringing up how the Rabo unions choose to organise a league between them? It comes across as tho you are suggesting it be changed - can sound like an outsider telling others how to run their own business? Should we be grateful that the AP and T14 "allow" us to have a ring-fenced league? Comments like this make me (and others) question the motivation here

I just can't see fairness at the moment. English clubs have to fight relegation, get into the top 6 of the AP, then enjoy a HC place. Whereas no matter how sub-par a scots club in their league, they get a free pass into the HC and can concentrate on that without having to worry about relegation. Hardly fair.

Then you have people bemoaning how hard done by they are, and pointing the finger of blame at anyone and everyone else.