New H-cup, minus the English likely?

First topic message reminder :

According to Gerry Thornley in today's article the FFR have more power than their clubs when it comes to negotiating and their priority is to make sure that the French players play less rugby, for the sake of the national side, and also so that they can compete in the playoffs in the Top 14 without any clash with the H cup. This is the gist of what Patrick Wolff, vice president of the LNR (represents French clubs) says in the quote below:

"But much stricter French law and the strength of the French Federation, whose president Pierre Camus signs off any television deal involving the French team or its clubs, means the LNR could not go down the English clubs’ route.

“The Heineken Cup is a very good competition and we don’t want to kill it,” added Wolff. “We love the Heineken Cup in France. Sometimes we complain, because we are French first, then because the Celts don’t play as many games as us. But I can’t imagine that the French will allow the big games like Clermont against Leinster not to happen. We will do our best to keep these type of games.”
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2012/0915/1224324046581.html

If they can make the same money but have a reduced number of competitors they may well be happy with that. If the English leave both of these outcomes could be accomplished without too much hardship to one side. They may well also want more money and tougher qualification rules for the pro 12 sides but their priorities are not the same as the English clubs. Would the LNR and public be happier with a smaller competition that included the best sides in Europe (mostly from the pro 12) or one with the next best sides in Europe involving only one other country?

Whatever way these negotiations go this way that people have gone of playing out each stage/ idea in public is a very bad idea. People are far less likely to back down and compromise if they think that they will lose face for going back on a previous statement. Pride could play as big a part as logic and greed in this process.

Update: From the Guardian, 25th Sept
"They opened talks directly with some South African and French clubs. This has hampered the negotiations. It is hard to talk with them. We may have to move on without the English, though I do not want it."
ERC chairman, Jean Pierre Lux quoted in the Guardian today.

Full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/sep/25/bt-deal-heineken-cup-illegal

He couldn't have made it clearer that they are considering a h cup without English clubs.

Cheers

I was going to repeat post the same but I had other things to do rather than reply to HTs posts questioning the facts we keep giving him.

Scrumdown wrote:Sky have offered £70 million for the heineken cup. It has been reported in various newspapers that BT offered an additional £30 million for the same rights and therefore it is reasonable to assume that the headline figure of £152 million is split £100m heineken cup and £52m premiership.

That's interesting. Is there an official source from Sky/ERC that said £70m for the next H Cup agreement? I haven't seen one.

Could you quote a newspaper source that reported that an additional £30m was offered by BT for the same rights? I only ask because the BT deal has only ever been quoted as being for English team matches so they could hardly have offered for the same rights as Sky has agreed with ERC. How would BT know what Sky offered since they announced first?

I find it highly unlikely that PRL would have accepted the same amount of money that they agreed with SKy four/five years ago for Premiership rights from BT this time around.

There are a number of media reports saying that the split of the £152m is more a 50/50 per year I.e £88m for premiership over four years, and £64m for European games for English games over three years. Thus about £21/22m per year for each comp. But I have no official source for this, merely media reports same as yourself.

No doubt it will all eventually come out in the wash.

maestegmafia wrote:Cheers

I was going to repeat post the same but I had other things to do rather than reply to HTs posts questioning the facts we keep giving him.

What facts do you have about the money split though, maesteg? There is only speculation. By media. And by you. And by me. And by others. The only figure put into the public domain officially by PRL is £152m. After that, it's media speculation. And people repeating that speculation.

Read back through the thread and if not this the myriad of others.

maestegmafia wrote:Read back through the thread and if not this the myriad of others.

Oh come on. It's a simple question. What facts are there about the split of monies?

HammerofThunor wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Actually Wolff has never suggested they would consider a competition without the English. He's just said they won't consider an Anglo-French competition while the competition with the Celts AND English is on the table.

So....What you are saying is....He has not ruled out a comp with just the Rabo teams, but he has ruled out a comp WITHOUT them.

Your own keyboard said it.

Er no. He said he wouldn't consider a competition without the Celts and English unless there was a break down in the negotiations. That means they would consider such a competition if their conditions aren't met. This is on the back of Franglo Cup suggestions but he doesn't say any 'new' competition would include on or the other.

Er Yes. Everyone wants a comp with all of the six nations clubs. (Well, you have said that you don't really care that much as you are only interested in the Prem) That's a given.

At no stage have I seen any French person quoted as saying they would consider a comp without the Rabo unions teams. I have seen several that either say they would go ahead without the English or that they would not be interested in an Anglo French comp.

What the French or anyone else REALLY want or what they would be prepared to accept is another matter which will most likely not emerge for many months.

But your "Er no" is definitely untrue.

Think it boils down to;

English and French say ERC have not been maximising revenues from H-cup.

English (PLC), want more money generated, not sure if they really want a bigger share of it, and they have said 'they aren't intrested in the slices but the size of the cake', which is fair enough, given that they have proved the ERC are not generating the best possible deals. Way they have gone about this will anger most unions, including their own. Also want harder qualifiction for Pro 12 teams. Are prepared to look at alternatives to H-cup.

English (RFU), what H-cup to continue and to make peace beween clubs and rest of Europe.

French, (Clubs and Union), want H-cup to continue, but want revenue looked after better, final brough forward, and games played in blocks (even as far as one solid block), reduction of teams and hence number of games, harder qualifaction for Pro 12 as well. Improved Almin cup, and a 3rd teir cup introduced.

Pro 12, don't want to lose revenue, or have the risk that a Union may not get a place in H-cup. Would be happy for status quo to continue.

Think that sums up everones stance at present.

Kingshu wrote:Think it boils down to;

English and French say ERC have not been maximising revenues from H-cup.

English (PLC), want more money generated, not sure if they really want a bigger share of it, and they have said 'they aren't intrested in the slices but the size of the cake', which is fair enough, given that they have proved the ERC are not generating the best possible deals. Way they have gone about this will anger most unions, including their own. Also want harder qualifiction for Pro 12 teams. Are prepared to look at alternatives to H-cup.

English (RFU), what H-cup to continue and to make peace beween clubs and rest of Europe.

French, (Clubs and Union), want H-cup to continue, but want revenue looked after better, final brough forward, and games played in blocks (even as far as one solid block), reduction of teams and hence number of games, harder qualifaction for Pro 12 as well. Improved Almin cup, and a 3rd teir cup introduced.

Pro 12, don't want to lose revenue, or have the risk that a Union may not get a place in H-cup. Would be happy for status quo to continue.

Think that sums up everones stance at present.

Pro12 is a league name - nothing more. Pro12 wants nothing, demands nothing. I'm not being smart, that distinction must be understood. If it's not understoood then there is no point in debating.

The bottom club in the AP is controlled by the same administrators as the top club in the AP. The PRL speak in this debate because the PRL have an obligation to a block of teams that create an entire league.

Pro12 has no obligations or interests - it's a name. The discussions are taking place between six entities not three. You could even subdivide that and talk of RFU and PRL as a subdivision.

The teams involved in the competition that is called the Pro12 do not speak as one - they have their individual requirements, their own administrators, they are independent from each other in thought and in deed. The contributing teams and their unions will be wanting their distinctive views listened to.

The most pertinent point probably is that the Pro12 is actually the closest in resemblance to the HEC itself - many disparate parties trying to organise an event and knowing that every side needs to have a voice.

maestegmafia wrote:The SA link is a pipe dream as SA is tied up with Murdock.

Murdoch may have a say in SA rugby but Supersport (Naspers owned) run the TV coverage of rugby in South Africa.

cp10 wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:The SA link is a pipe dream as SA is tied up with Murdock.

Murdoch may have a say in SA rugby but Supersport (Naspers owned) run the TV coverage of rugby in South Africa.

Correct. Murdoch has NZ and Aus tied up, NOT SA.

SecretFly wrote:

Kingshu wrote:Think it boils down to;

English and French say ERC have not been maximising revenues from H-cup.

English (PLC), want more money generated, not sure if they really want a bigger share of it, and they have said 'they aren't intrested in the slices but the size of the cake', which is fair enough, given that they have proved the ERC are not generating the best possible deals. Way they have gone about this will anger most unions, including their own. Also want harder qualifiction for Pro 12 teams. Are prepared to look at alternatives to H-cup.

English (RFU), what H-cup to continue and to make peace beween clubs and rest of Europe.

French, (Clubs and Union), want H-cup to continue, but want revenue looked after better, final brough forward, and games played in blocks (even as far as one solid block), reduction of teams and hence number of games, harder qualifaction for Pro 12 as well. Improved Almin cup, and a 3rd teir cup introduced.

Pro 12, don't want to lose revenue, or have the risk that a Union may not get a place in H-cup. Would be happy for status quo to continue.

Think that sums up everones stance at present.

Pro12 is a league name - nothing more. Pro12 wants nothing, demands nothing. I'm not being smart, that distinction must be understood. If it's not understoood then there is no point in debating.

The bottom club in the AP is controlled by the same administrators as the top club in the AP. The PRL speak in this debate because the PRL have an obligation to a block of teams that create an entire league.

Pro12 has no obligations or interests - it's a name. The discussions are taking place between six entities not three. You could even subdivide that and talk of RFU and PRL as a subdivision.

The teams involved in the competition that is called the Pro12 do not speak as one - they have their individual requirements, their own administrators, they are independent from each other in thought and in deed. The contributing teams and their unions will be wanting their distinctive views listened to.

The most pertinent point probably is that the Pro12 is actually the closest in resemblance to the HEC itself - many disparate parties trying to organise an event and knowing that every side needs to have a voice.

ok, ok should have typed Pro 12 Unions but they all still want the same as mentioned above.

Kingshu wrote:

ok, ok should have typed Pro 12 Unions but they all still want the same as mentioned above.

Ah I know what you mean...you have to find shorthand ...and shorthand is what you were doing. Accept that in principle but I'm saying it doesn't really work in principle or in practice as no, I don't think all of the Pro12 unions do agree on the problems or solutions.

Scottish union will want rugby to survive and that will mean having an International side into the future...and that will mean wanting two teams fighting at the top end of European competition. You need at the very least two sides to concoct a decent international side. If Scotland doesn't have two sides in HEC then those players already there will drift away to where the money and competition is...away from Scotland that is.

So I'm sure they'll be expressing thoughts of this nature to the others.

Some sections of the Irish and maybe even moreso of the Welsh administrators seem more willing to imagine a Pro12 with only six up for grabs places (on merit). So already there is divergence of thoughts on problems and solutions within the Pro12 itself. Indeed, it might become more of a battle area onto itself if people begin distrusting each other within it. The PRL segment mightn't be the complex one at all when things really kick off.

Kingshu wrote:
French, (Clubs and Union), want H-cup to continue, but want revenue looked after better, final brough forward, and games played in blocks (even as far as one solid block), reduction of teams and hence number of games, harder qualifaction for Pro 12 as well. Improved Almin cup, and a 3rd teir cup introduced.

French don't have any problem with the finances. I don't think they really care about the qualification process they want less teams and the tournament dates changed to work better with the season.

All things that the Rabbo teams are happy with. The French have made a point of saying that they want a European competition with all nations currently involved to remain so.

The PRL and BTs announcements did
Try to make it sound like the French were aligning with England but that looks incorrect now.

maestegmafia wrote:

Kingshu wrote:
French, (Clubs and Union), want H-cup to continue, but want revenue looked after better, final brough forward, and games played in blocks (even as far as one solid block), reduction of teams and hence number of games, harder qualifaction for Pro 12 as well. Improved Almin cup, and a 3rd teir cup introduced.

French don't have any problem with the finances. I don't think they really care about the qualification process they want less teams and the tournament dates changed to work better with the season.

All things that the Rabbo teams are happy with. The French have made a point of saying that they want a European competition with all nations currently involved to remain so.

The PRL and BTs announcements did
Try to make it sound like the French were aligning with England but that looks incorrect now.

Bit of a contradiction there. How do the French get less teams without any changes to the qualification process? I think some are being incredibly blinkered in how they view the French position in this. If they are so happy with the HC why have they served notice?

Less teams and qualification process are two different scenarios.

Wales, Ireland, France and England have a qualification process. Only Scotlanf and Italy don't.

Reduction of teams could be from France England Wales and Ireland losing one team each for the idealist 20 places the french want, and the scots and Italians would be un-effected.

The qualification scenario alleging that the RP12 teams have an unfaire advantage is an English not French argument.

Less teams= less teams.

French want less teams? Send less teams

QED

Toadfish wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Kingshu wrote:
French, (Clubs and Union), want H-cup to continue, but want revenue looked after better, final brough forward, and games played in blocks (even as far as one solid block), reduction of teams and hence number of games, harder qualifaction for Pro 12 as well. Improved Almin cup, and a 3rd teir cup introduced.

French don't have any problem with the finances. I don't think they really care about the qualification process they want less teams and the tournament dates changed to work better with the season.

All things that the Rabbo teams are happy with. The French have made a point of saying that they want a European competition with all nations currently involved to remain so.

The PRL and BTs announcements did
Try to make it sound like the French were aligning with England but that looks incorrect now.

Bit of a contradiction there. How do the French get less teams without any changes to the qualification process? I think some are being incredibly blinkered in how they view the French position in this. If they are so happy with the HC why have they served notice?

Complete opinion piece here
(Note, I'm coming in from an outsider's perspective so hopefully less biased than most)

Honestly, I think both the French and English clubs served notice because no-one else in the ERC wanted to even discuss changes - understandable when everyone else is fairly happy. Back in 2007 they pushed for change and didn't get it, perhaps they're trying to be more forceful this time as a result

-The French clubs would love to expand Top14 to Top 16, and would need to clear 2 weeks in the season to do so, hence their desire for a smaller HEC/Amlin. Moving the timings gets the HEC out of the way of their domestic playoffs. And I'm sure they won't complain if a competition restructure means more money for them

-The English clubs have their eye on the cash. Previously (and I'm sure i've seen it quoted by an English club source back when they posted their notice to withdraw) their TV income came 80% from the AP and 20% from Europe. BT has presumably offered them a significantly better deal for both. A smaller HEC would also suit them in terms of top player workload.

-Ireland are very happy with the status quo. They get a minimum 3 teams entered, and they run 3 teams + Connacht as a development side. The cash they get out of ERC and 6N plus Irish tax law allows them to run provincial squads that are almost as strong as the cashed up French, and they are better able to rest top players through the season, facilitating development. They could be tempted by more cash, judging that their other advantages will keep them competitive.

-Wales are reasonably happy with the status quo. However given low crowd numbers and debt levels at the regions could be tempted by more cash, especially if (see below) a more competitive pro12 could be marketed into ground attendance.

-Scotland and Italy are most threatened by changes to the status quo. Based on recent years' Pro12 results they would struggle to qualify both of their respective clubs for a trimmed down HEC

-Rest of Europe - currently the only way for a non-6N club to qualify for the HEC is to win the Amlin. Granted none of them are anywhere near that level as yet, however they'd love a plan to be in place to recognise them if and when that changes.

-IMO the Pro12 would be a more interesting competition if there was more of a performance edge to qualifying. So far this season both the AP and Pro 12 have had (as a neutral spectator) some good games and some poor onces, but overall the AP has been better. Not as good as the ITM Cup mind you . A better quality Pro 12 would hopefully become more attractive to spectators and TV viewers


-The English Clubs signing a Euro comp deal with BT before the shape of such a competition was known was stupid and antagonistic. Generally the PRL's public negotiating stance has been overly confrontational - if that's the same behind the scenes I fear for the HEC.
-ERC signing a Euro comp deal with Sky before the shape of such a competition was known was stupid was stupid and antagonistic.

maestegmafia wrote:Less teams and qualification process are two different scenarios.

Wales, Ireland, France and England have a qualification process. Only Scotlanf and Italy don't.

Reduction of teams could be from France England Wales and Ireland losing one team each for the idealist 20 places the french want, and the scots and Italians would be un-effected.

The qualification scenario alleging that the RP12 teams have an unfaire advantage is an English not French argument.

Part of a qualification process is the number of teams that qualify and so in your example England, France, Ireland and Wales would be effected. Number of teams and qualification process are linked.

You seem remarkably clear on the French position in this matter. Do you have some links you can provide to clarrify this? Seems another contradiction that you claim the rabo nations would be fine with any changes the French wanted yet the French were so frustrated at not being able to get any changes made they gave their notice?

The possibilities are driving Welsh fans Schizo.

No English = good, improves the % chances for the rest, esp Welsh. And as a bonus avoids humiliation of losing to an 'English' club.

No English = bad. No panto villain to boo, and no schadenfreud when English club gets knocked out, esp if by a Welsh region. And as a negative bonus: reduced spoils for all at the TV ticket office.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:Complete opinion piece here
(Note, I'm coming in from an outsider's perspective so hopefully less biased than most)


-IMO the Pro12 would be a more interesting competition if there was more of a performance edge to qualifying. So far this season both the AP and Pro 12 have had (as a neutral spectator) some good games and some poor onces, but overall the AP has been better. Not as good as the ITM Cup mind you . A better quality Pro 12 would hopefully become more attractive to spectators and TV viewers


-The English Clubs signing a Euro comp deal with BT before the shape of such a competition was known was stupid and antagonistic. Generally the PRL's public negotiating stance has been overly confrontational - if that's the same behind the scenes I fear for the HEC.
-ERC signing a Euro comp deal with Sky before the shape of such a competition was known was stupid was stupid and antagonistic.

I'll let you off with assuming inside England is outside the bias zone. Yep, you're Kiwi, but with a quiet accurate English version opinion on the topic ("advantages" being the one certainty that is even above being debated obviously)

Yes, preferences are legit but I'd personally prefer a competition to start out at a certain tempo and then grow and grow and grow. This is the way Pro12 works. What you see in October isn't the same as what you see at the end of the season. Better is in the eye of the beholder but proof is that 'better' rests with Pro12 for now in terms of the style of rugby played and the results accruing from it. Five of the last eight in HEC last year were Pro12 sides...no, not there by advantage, there because they were winning games against the big league sides. Scoring points, outperforming and playing a better brand of rugby than their competitors. You don't get to QF of HEC by rights or by advantages. You get there by playing rugby.
I'd prefer see my side be best in HEC than in League. It seems it's the other way round in French and English leagues. So be it, a preference again. But French and English preferences (about which should be more competitive; HEC or League) shouldn't be imposed on others who disagree.

ERC had legal rights to sign a deal with Sky, it was given those rights by the owners of ERC (6 unions). If PRL don't know this, their controlling body the RFU do. PRL did not have a legal right to look for control of a European event with BT. They had a right to sell their domestic competition to BT but not to do the trading for other European clubs on the make up of a new European competition.

Toadfish wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:Less teams and qualification process are two different scenarios.

Wales, Ireland, France and England have a qualification process. Only Scotlanf and Italy don't.

Reduction of teams could be from France England Wales and Ireland losing one team each for the idealist 20 places the french want, and the scots and Italians would be un-effected.

The qualification scenario alleging that the RP12 teams have an unfaire advantage is an English not French argument.

Part of a qualification process is the number of teams that qualify and so in your example England, France, Ireland and Wales would be effected. Number of teams and qualification process are linked.

You seem remarkably clear on the French position in this matter. Do you have some links you can provide to clarrify this? Seems another contradiction that you claim the rabo nations would be fine with any changes the French wanted yet the French were so frustrated at not being able to get any changes made they gave their notice?

The French wanted changes but only really to dates and the number of teams reduced to 20 entrants.

They did not and never have stipulated that anyone should be excluded, that is the PRLs idea. The PRL were very quick to lead the press to believe that they were aligned with the French but is clearly not true.

You can find a bunch of articles on different sites all about it.

The telegraph ran a good piece that I referenced yesterday.

SecretFly wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:Complete opinion piece here
(Note, I'm coming in from an outsider's perspective so hopefully less biased than most)


-IMO the Pro12 would be a more interesting competition if there was more of a performance edge to qualifying. So far this season both the AP and Pro 12 have had (as a neutral spectator) some good games and some poor onces, but overall the AP has been better. Not as good as the ITM Cup mind you . A better quality Pro 12 would hopefully become more attractive to spectators and TV viewers


-The English Clubs signing a Euro comp deal with BT before the shape of such a competition was known was stupid and antagonistic. Generally the PRL's public negotiating stance has been overly confrontational - if that's the same behind the scenes I fear for the HEC.
-ERC signing a Euro comp deal with Sky before the shape of such a competition was known was stupid was stupid and antagonistic.

I'll let you off with assuming inside England is outside the bias zone. Yep, you're Kiwi, but with a quiet accurate English version opinion on the topic ("advantages" being the one certainty that is even above being debated obviously)

Yes, preferences are legit but I'd personally prefer a competition to start out at a certain tempo and then grow and grow and grow. This is the way Pro12 works. What you see in October isn't the same as what you see at the end of the season. Better is in the eye of the beholder but proof is that 'better' rests with Pro12 for now in terms of the style of rugby played and the results accruing from it. Five of the last eight in HEC last year were Pro12 sides...no, not there by advantage, there because they were winning games against the big league sides. Scoring points, outperforming and playing a better brand of rugby than their competitors. You don't get to QF of HEC by rights or by advantages. You get there by playing rugby.
I'd prefer see my side be best in HEC than in League. It seems it's the other way round in French and English leagues. So be it, a preference again. But French and English preferences (about which should be more competitive; HEC or League) shouldn't be imposed on others who disagree.

ERC had legal rights to sign a deal with Sky, it was given those rights by the owners of ERC (6 unions). If PRL don't know this, their controlling body the RFU do. PRL did not have a legal right to look for control of a European event with BT. They had a right to sell their domestic competition to BT but not to do the trading for other European clubs on the make up of a new European competition.

I didn't say the ERC deal with Sky was illegal. I thought it was stupid, given that the English and French clubs had already served notice, it would have been smarter to hold off until the dust had settled. That way lay the complete moral high ground. The ERC is still on higher ground than PRL, but not as strong as it was.

Fair point on the growth in intensity - but does it lose something for the teams that are no longer in contention for the playoffs towards the end of the season?

maestegmafia wrote:

Toadfish wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:Less teams and qualification process are two different scenarios.

Wales, Ireland, France and England have a qualification process. Only Scotlanf and Italy don't.

Reduction of teams could be from France England Wales and Ireland losing one team each for the idealist 20 places the french want, and the scots and Italians would be un-effected.

The qualification scenario alleging that the RP12 teams have an unfaire advantage is an English not French argument.

Part of a qualification process is the number of teams that qualify and so in your example England, France, Ireland and Wales would be effected. Number of teams and qualification process are linked.

You seem remarkably clear on the French position in this matter. Do you have some links you can provide to clarrify this? Seems another contradiction that you claim the rabo nations would be fine with any changes the French wanted yet the French were so frustrated at not being able to get any changes made they gave their notice?

The French wanted changes but only really to dates and the number of teams reduced to 20 entrants.

They did not and never have stipulated that anyone should be excluded, that is the PRLs idea. The PRL were very quick to lead the press to believe that they were aligned with the French but is clearly not true.

You can find a bunch of articles on different sites all about it.

The telegraph ran a good piece that I referenced yesterday.

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16024_8108022,00.html

Clermont general manager Jean-Marc Lhermet has added his voice to the growing number of calls for a change to the Heineken Cup qualification rules.

"Is it really appropriate always to have two Italian clubs in the group stage? Is it normal that some teams automatically qualify while others have to fight for their place? I am not sure," said Lhermet.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:I didn't say the ERC deal with Sky was illegal. I thought it was stupid, given that the English and French clubs had already served notice, it would have been smarter to hold off until the dust had settled. That way lay the complete moral high ground. The ERC is still on higher ground than PRL, but not as strong as it was.

Fair point on the growth in intensity - but does it lose something for the teams that are no longer in contention for the playoffs towards the end of the season?

The French served notice but they didn't want to leave according to all French sources they want to part of ERC and they want a European cup with or without the English.

What is absolute bizarre is that though the French and English served notice they also agreed at a meeting that ERC could make a new four year deal with sky.

This, among many French sources in articles and interviews that state that the French don't want to leave the HEC, they just want to re-neg terms, tweak the deal a bit. A wish which the ERC granted them.

The PRL representative and Leicester Tigers CEO Peter Wheeler was at that meeting on June the 6th. He knew that ERC had signed the deal, he likely knew the French wanted to only re-neg terms and details on dates and size of comp, but the PRL still brokered a deal with BT and tried to lead us all to believe they were firmly aligned with the French.

As I have said from the start of this the PRL are not going to come out of this well, their tactics have been childish, it seems no one is impressed with their dealings including the RFU.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:Not as good as the ITM Cup mind you

First season watching ITM Cup (and Super Rugby) and it's a lot more entertaining than NH games (apart from Edinburgh games!).

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:-Scotland and Italy are most threatened by changes to the status quo. Based on recent years' Pro12 results they would struggle to qualify both of their respective clubs for a trimmed down HEC

SRU have increased the budgets by £500k to £750k (up to £4.5m) so we're expecting more. At least top 6 of the table of the Pro12 if not both in the QF plus more in roads to the HEC.

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Actually Wolff has never suggested they would consider a competition without the English. He's just said they won't consider an Anglo-French competition while the competition with the Celts AND English is on the table.

So....What you are saying is....He has not ruled out a comp with just the Rabo teams, but he has ruled out a comp WITHOUT them.

Your own keyboard said it.

Er no. He said he wouldn't consider a competition without the Celts and English unless there was a break down in the negotiations. That means they would consider such a competition if their conditions aren't met. This is on the back of Franglo Cup suggestions but he doesn't say any 'new' competition would include on or the other.

Er Yes. Everyone wants a comp with all of the six nations clubs. (Well, you have said that you don't really care that much as you are only interested in the Prem) That's a given.

At no stage have I seen any French person quoted as saying they would consider a comp without the Rabo unions teams. I have seen several that either say they would go ahead without the English or that they would not be interested in an Anglo French comp.

What the French or anyone else REALLY want or what they would be prepared to accept is another matter which will most likely not emerge for many months.

But your "Er no" is definitely untrue.

Mr Wolff said that the English were putting pressure to agree a theoretical Franglo cup before the negotiations. They refused and said they wouldn't consider it unless negotiations break down. They primarily want a European Cup with the Celts and the English. What does that mean? Excepting language errors, I take that to mean they will negotiate for the HEC. If their minimum changes aren't met they will consider leaving. This could mean the PRL don't accept everyone else's position, or it could mean everyone else doesn't accept the French position. Given the context regarding the talk about a Franglo Cup (which is dangerous given the nature of newspapers to put quotes out of order and context) it suggests he was meaning, if the PRO12 unions don't agree to their changes then they will consider a Franglo cup. But as I said, it could mean the PRL don't agree and it's a Freltalian Cup. But nowhere have they directly ruled out a Franglo Cup, unlike the headlines.

The only Frenchman who said anything about a competition without the English has been the Chairman of the ERC, who doesn't represent the French (that I know of)

Okay so I have come across an article in Sud Ouest that discusses this. There was another (that I can't find) that I read where the head of the LNR (group representing clubs in France) says he was approached by the PRL and asked to agree to a French-Anglo cup almost as a prerequisite to talks. He was not happy with this. In this article the head of the FFR (who would have to agree to a new competition) dismisses it out of hand. It also says that the president of Bath contacted the presidents of some French clubs directly. This suggests that not having got agreement from the LNR rep they went straight to the clubs. I bet the LNR are just thrilled with that.

http://www.sudouest.fr/2012/09/24/pas-de-coupe-franco-anglaise-829803-8.php
"The negotiations on the future of the European Cup began in a cold atmosphere in Dublin last week, because of the position of the English clubs.

Not content with having sold to British Telecom broadcasting rights of other shareholders of the ERC that don't belong to them, the English have waved the threat to create an Anglo-French Cup, which would replace the European Cup, in case of a failure in the discussions.

The presidents of French clubs were approached by Bruce Craig, president of Bath, and were interested.

The problem is that such a competition needs to be validated by international bodies and federations. "There is no question, answers Pierre Camou, president of the FFR. There will never be a recognized Franco-English competition. Or I suppose they could play with thirteen or fourteen with a octagonal ball. "

Any clue whatsoever what "Or I suppose they could play with thirteen or fourteen with a octagonal ball. " means?

HammerofThunor wrote:Any clue whatsoever what "Or I suppose they could play with thirteen or fourteen with a octagonal ball. " means?

I'm guessing he's suggesting the IRB have a patent on the rules of rugby union, so the clubs would have to play a variation of the rules if they went World Series Cricket and split away.

That wasn't an issue for WSC, SuperLeague or various competitors to NFL, so I'd say it was a wee wisecrack.

HammerofThunor wrote:Any clue whatsoever what "Or I suppose they could play with thirteen or fourteen with a octagonal ball. " means?

He's French. Anyone remember " When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea."

Your selective reading and presentation of only one side of the argument is a bit surprising maestegmafia.

maestegmafia wrote:The French served notice but they didn't want to leave according to all French sources they want to part of ERC

The English have said exactly the same thing. Quotes attributed to Mark McCafferty:

"I want to emphasise that our objective is to remain in the Heineken Cup."

"We are ambitious for rugby in Europe. We do not want to go down the Anglo‑French Cup route"

"We are committed to finding an agreement including competitions which not only involve all teams from the existing European countries but also the emerging rugby markets."


And Patrick Wolff, vice-president of the Ligue Nationale de Rugby has said:

"If the negotiations fail, we will see what our alternative options are. What's important for us is that these negotiations are completed by the end of autumn.

"This schedule is very important for us - we must have something agreed by October or November.

"If we don't we'll have to look at how the nine dates set aside for European competition can be used in other ways."

maestegmafia wrote:What is absolute bizarre is that though the French and English served notice they also agreed at a meeting that ERC could make a new four year deal with sky.

Again depends on who you listen to, PRL have said:

"We also note ERC's reference to its Board Meeting on 6 June 2012. No specific broadcast deal was presented or voted on at this or any subsequent ERC Board meeting. In any case any such deal could not have included matches involving Premiership Rugby clubs."


And the other leagues haven't come out firmly on either side of what was said in that regard, though prior to the recent meeting Patrick Wolff did say:

"It is not our understanding that ERC only have the right to negotiate TV rights. At the meeting we want to know exactly who has this right."



I also find it quite odd that you insist the French clubs don't want changes to the qualification process, they've stated exactly that on numerous occasions. Most recently:

Jean-Marc Lhermet, AS Clermont general manager, said, "Is it really appropriate always to have two Italians clubs in the group stage? Is it normal that some teams automatically qualify while others have to fight for their place? I am not sure"

Patrick Wolff, said in listing what they were putting forward to the ERC at the recent meeting, "We also believe it would be interesting - even for the Celts - if the RaboDirect teams have to qualify like the English and French clubs do."



For the future competition the French want renegotiations in almost all aspects of the old HC agreement. And they'll get it, they're very much in the driving seat. The top level European Cup will continure with all the usual countries involved. There will certainly be a clear out of some of the ERC top management as well. Lux hasn't been a popular Chairman in France & England and I can't see him surviving this both in terms of lack of leadership and financial direction (whatever the different opinions of the various unions on the BT deal England came up with it's pretty clear the ERC could have done a fair bit better than what they've negotiated).

I have the patent on the octagonal ball......................... waiting for the call from BT.

HammerofThunor wrote:Any clue whatsoever what "Or I suppose they could play with thirteen or fourteen with a octagonal ball. " means?

It means that if French and English Clubs want to organise a competition outside of the Erc/Irb etc. then they will not be playing Rugby Union but some other sport, perhaps one with an octagonal ball and 13 or 14 players.

monwy wrote:"We are committed to finding an agreement including competitions which not only involve all teams from the existing European countries but also the emerging rugby markets."

Pointedly he sees "markets" where other people here have been talking teams, clubs, nations, unions, ability, competitiveness, and leagues.

Yep, I do think the Profits Cup is the only deal in town for some of these rugby administrators

monwy wrote:Your selective reading and presentation of only one side of the argument is a bit surprising maestegmafia.

Hmm I guess if you are English you really see this argument differently to everyone who is not English.

SecretFly wrote:

monwy wrote:"We are committed to finding an agreement including competitions which not only involve all teams from the existing European countries but also the emerging rugby markets."

Pointedly he sees "markets" where other people here have been talking teams, clubs, nations, unions, ability, competitiveness, and leagues.

Yep, I do think the Profits Cup is the only deal in town for some of these rugby administrators

As has he:

"Everyone benefits and far from looking to shrink the game in Europe, we propose to introduce a third competition to include teams from countries like Russia, Spain, Georgia and Portugal."


Surely it's usual for people to use a mix of language to describe the same thing.

Those markets as financial entities are not significant to the English anytime soon, but in any case I think it pretty naive to think that the administrators shouldn't strongly be considering the finances of the organisations they are part of and deal with. Rugby will have issues growing if its finances don't also.

maestegmafia wrote:

monwy wrote:Your selective reading and presentation of only one side of the argument is a bit surprising maestegmafia.

Hmm I guess if you are English you really see this argument differently to everyone who is not English.

Well, first off, I'm not English, I've lived In England since a child and consider it my home, but I don't consider myself English/British.

What I see is you gleaming stuff from articles that only presents one side, giving no representation from the other, as I have shown above. I don't take any particular side in this argument, I think they all have their positives and their faults, the only opinion I have offered is that the French have the reins and will be the deciding factor, getting exactly what they want.

monwy wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

monwy wrote:Your selective reading and presentation of only one side of the argument is a bit surprising maestegmafia.

Hmm I guess if you are English you really see this argument differently to everyone who is not English.

Well, first off, I'm not English, I've lived In England since a child and consider it my home, but I don't consider myself English/British.

What I see is you gleaming stuff from articles that only presents one side, giving no representation from the other, as I have shown above. I don't take any particular side in this argument, I think they all have their positives and their faults, the only opinion I have offered is that the French have the reins and will be the deciding factor, getting exactly what they want.

Just want to make it clear monwy is not a second account of mine. Moderators may check my IP.

monwy wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

monwy wrote:"We are committed to finding an agreement including competitions which not only involve all teams from the existing European countries but also the emerging rugby markets."

Pointedly he sees "markets" where other people here have been talking teams, clubs, nations, unions, ability, competitiveness, and leagues.

Yep, I do think the Profits Cup is the only deal in town for some of these rugby administrators

As has he:

"Everyone benefits and far from looking to shrink the game in Europe, we propose to introduce a third competition to include teams from countries like Russia, Spain, Georgia and Portugal."


Surely it's usual for people to use a mix of language to describe the same thing.

Those markets as financial entities are not significant to the English anytime soon, but in any case I think it pretty naive to think that the administrators shouldn't strongly be considering the finances of the organisations they are part of and deal with. Rugby will have issues growing if its finances don't also.

Finances growing means that a select few keep growing because winning in a bigger competition means more share of the bigger profits available. It also inevitably means an ending of the salary cap as of course that will be another 'advantage' that the French will then have that needs to be ended for 'fairness' sake.

This new reality will mean the big boys will form another top 'gentleman's club' and transfer titles and, more importantly, top paid and skilled players between them. It means that the sides that begin to slide begin to lose support, money, legitimacy, and home grown players. Home grown players will want a taste of a top 'club' and the inducements will be top prices.
The top once again becomes separated from the poor 'outsiders' (habitual low tier sides) and we're back to square one - only this time the landscape has changed and the countires with the biggest populations enjoy the top table between them: England, France, Georgia, Russia..perhaps even Germany.

So much for the idea of creating a more inclusive 'market'. No, the real plan is to reorganise the market to drop the small countries in favour of the large ones...and then suck the quality players from the smaller nations towards the big superclubs.

I know big nations, France and England, have the right to think money...but really, the rest of us aren't dumb...and the platitudes about opening up Europe for the good of the game *emotional tears* is really a long term plan for closing down Europe into a more profitable cartel - than the present overly-Celtic-friendly one. Their right to do so..but our right to expose the hopelessly lame excuses put forward for wanting the change.

maestegmafia wrote:
Hmm I guess if you are English you really see this argument differently to everyone who is not English.

Looking at the posts from Pete C (Kiwireddevil) and Monwy, it would seem you see things differently if you're not English, Welsh, Irish or Scottish. Have any French posters spoken on the issues?

SecretFly wrote:Finances growing means that a select few keep growing because winning in a bigger competition means more share of the bigger profits available. It also inevitably means an ending of the salary cap as of course that will be another 'advantage' that the French will then have that needs to be ended for 'fairness' sake.

This new reality will mean the big boys will form another top 'gentleman's club' and transfer titles and, more importantly, top paid and skilled players between them. It means that the sides that begin to slide begin to lose support, money, legitimacy, and home grown players. Home grown players will want a taste of a top 'club' and the inducements will be top prices.
The top once again becomes separated from the poor 'outsiders' (habitual low tier sides) and we're back to square one - only this time the landscape has changed and the countires with the biggest populations enjoy the top table between them: England, France, Georgia, Russia..perhaps even Germany.

So much for the idea of creating a more inclusive 'market'. No, the real plan is to reorganise the market to drop the small countries in favour of the large ones...and then suck the quality players from the smaller nations towards the big superclubs.

I know big nations, France and England, have the right to think money...but really, the rest of us aren't dumb...and the platitudes about opening up Europe for the good of the game *emotional tears* is really a long term plan for closing down Europe into a more profitable cartel - than the present overly-Celtic-friendly one. Their right to do so..but our right to expose the hopelessly lame excuses put forward for wanting the change.

The English cap won't go. Still the middle majority control the PRL and they don't want to even increase it, never mind get rid of it. Not only that but the RFU won't allow it.

There has been no suggestion of the 'new' split of cash. So far the PRL have been talking about a bigger cake. Don't get me wrong, they want more money. But again it's predicting something based on speculation. Fun for a forum but meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

HammerofThunor wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Finances growing means that a select few keep growing because winning in a bigger competition means more share of the bigger profits available. It also inevitably means an ending of the salary cap as of course that will be another 'advantage' that the French will then have that needs to be ended for 'fairness' sake.

This new reality will mean the big boys will form another top 'gentleman's club' and transfer titles and, more importantly, top paid and skilled players between them. It means that the sides that begin to slide begin to lose support, money, legitimacy, and home grown players. Home grown players will want a taste of a top 'club' and the inducements will be top prices.
The top once again becomes separated from the poor 'outsiders' (habitual low tier sides) and we're back to square one - only this time the landscape has changed and the countires with the biggest populations enjoy the top table between them: England, France, Georgia, Russia..perhaps even Germany.

So much for the idea of creating a more inclusive 'market'. No, the real plan is to reorganise the market to drop the small countries in favour of the large ones...and then suck the quality players from the smaller nations towards the big superclubs.

I know big nations, France and England, have the right to think money...but really, the rest of us aren't dumb...and the platitudes about opening up Europe for the good of the game *emotional tears* is really a long term plan for closing down Europe into a more profitable cartel - than the present overly-Celtic-friendly one. Their right to do so..but our right to expose the hopelessly lame excuses put forward for wanting the change.

The English cap won't go. Still the middle majority control the PRL and they don't want to even increase it, never mind get rid of it. Not only that but the RFU won't allow it.

There has been no suggestion of the 'new' split of cash. So far the PRL have been talking about a bigger cake. Don't get me wrong, they want more money. But again it's predicting something based on speculation. Fun for a forum but meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

Agreed. Lots of speculation - which is good fun.

Then will the cap not remain an 'advantage' enjoyed by one league over the other leagues? Won't that be as 'unfair' as all the 'advantages' the Pro12 were enjoying, when they were beating the sides without the caps anyway (the French).... maybe they were cancelling out each others advantages there (the French and the Irish)

But why was/is it an issue that Pro12 have conceived advantages that make the HEC process unfair and the French don't have an 'advantage' when they have blank chequebooks to offer players?

Doesn't that rile the PRL? Or is France just too big to mess with? Better to pretend they don't have an 'advantage' at all and let's none of us talk about salary caps and lack of them.

BTW..the caps will come under pressure. Wasn't there already talk that they will be reviewed next year? Thought i heard something on the grapevine.

They've been increased this year. There was a suggestion that Sarries and Bath were going to court as the cap is a breach of competition law, or some such Poopie. They are constantly under pressure but they certainly won't go completely. I'm reasonably sure they're reviewed most years. Several times the decision was to keep it the same.

The only thing the English bring to Europe is money. A pure guess would say the PRO12 teams/unions are more reliant on the HEC money than the French, who have a very financially rewarding league and plenty of sugar daddies. The English have no barginning power over the French. Without a shadow of a doubt they would want a cap on the French lower than the current one.

HammerofThunor wrote: Without a shadow of a doubt they would want a cap on the French lower than the current one.

But they don't make a public issue of it like they do about the Pro12 issues? The suggested 'unfairness' comes from Pro12 as regards HEC competition and yet sugardaddy stuff from the French is blatantly 'advantageous' in theory throughout the HEC, even though it's proving less so in practice....for now!

Honestly, the PRL would be taken more seriously if they just said they want more money. Thats the bottom line and thats why they're trying to change the whole tournament just so they can make a bit more money. They talk about growing the game but if they were serious they wouldn't be looking to kick out the weak Italian teams.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:
-IMO the Pro12 would be a more interesting competition if there was more of a performance edge to qualifying. So far this season both the AP and Pro 12 have had (as a neutral spectator) some good games and some poor onces, but overall the AP has been better. Not as good as the ITM Cup mind you . A better quality Pro 12 would hopefully become more attractive to spectators and TV viewers

Super rugby teams don't have to qualify to play in that. I've never heard a person say it lacks something because of that. Theres been some poor games in that too in empty stadiums.

The quality of the pro 12 is going up every year. The reason there were so many HEC 1/4 finalists from the pro 12 last year is because those teams are used to playing in a tough league against quality opposition.

Not only is the pro 12 not getting the credit it deserves but people have gone the opposite way and say that the HEC success is because the pro 12 is so easy! Makes f-all sense to me. When English teams were winning it they said it was because they had a tough league and the English league was the best at the time. The rising standard of the Magners/Rabo league was the reason Irish teams started to win the HEC in recent years. Guess what, the pro 12 looks to be better again this season.

profitius wrote:Honestly, the PRL would be taken more seriously if they just said they want more money. Thats the bottom line and thats why they're trying to change the whole tournament just so they can make a bit more money. They talk about growing the game but if they were serious they wouldn't be looking to kick out the weak Italian teams.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:
-IMO the Pro12 would be a more interesting competition if there was more of a performance edge to qualifying. So far this season both the AP and Pro 12 have had (as a neutral spectator) some good games and some poor onces, but overall the AP has been better. Not as good as the ITM Cup mind you . A better quality Pro 12 would hopefully become more attractive to spectators and TV viewers

Super rugby teams don't have to qualify to play in that. I've never heard a person say it lacks something because of that. Theres been some poor games in that too in empty stadiums.

The quality of the pro 12 is going up every year. The reason there were so many HEC 1/4 finalists from the pro 12 last year is because those teams are used to playing in a tough league against quality opposition.

Not only is the pro 12 not getting the credit it deserves but people have gone the opposite way and say that the HEC success is because the pro 12 is so easy! Makes f-all sense to me. When English teams were winning it they said it was because they had a tough league and the English league was the best at the time. The rising standard of the Magners/Rabo league was the reason Irish teams started to win the HEC in recent years. Guess what, the pro 12 looks to be better again this season.

Not sure if Zebre are that strong & the Ospreys, Dragons & the Blues look weaker to me this year. Leinster have put out teams without their strongest players at the start of the season as dictated by their union.This does not happen in the AP to the same extent.
English success in the HEC in the past has been despite the handicap of having a draining league schedule not because of the strength of it. Something which has not been credited in the past.

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote: Without a shadow of a doubt they would want a cap on the French lower than the current one.

But they don't make a public issue of it like they do about the Pro12 issues? The suggested 'unfairness' comes from Pro12 as regards HEC competition and yet sugardaddy stuff from the French is blatantly 'advantageous' in theory throughout the HEC, even though it's proving less so in practice....for now!

Sorry, I thought I already said they don't mention it because they have no bargaining power over the French so what's the point?

Long time reader first time poster.

I just don't understand the views being set out that the PRL/English are the only ones looking to maximise their own revenues - i.e. the other Unions aren't and only do things for the love of the game!

It has been referenced elsewhere that the current split of revenue is

English/French 25%
Irish/Welsh/Scottish 13%
Italian 11%

Some will see that and say it's unfair the English and French are getting the biggest slice. But if you look at it in terms of the split per HEC team who participates it's:

English/French 4.2% (25%/6)
Irish/Welsh 4.3% (13%/3)
Scottish = 6.5% (13%/2)
Italian = 5.5% (11%/2)

Arguably this significantly overstates the English/French if the money is actually spread across all teams in their league (e.g English = 2.1%). Irish and Welsh also overstated if you look at it like that (maybe Italian too but I'm not sure on their structure below the two in the Pro12).

Having considered the above, I just don't understand how it is reasonable to retain these splits unless everyone is saying we'll do it to subsidise rugby in Scotland and Italy.

The point being the English (and French to a lesser extent) are being labelled as greedy for wanting a change but the other unions are not being labelled as greedy for wanting to retain a system which is unfair. So who's being greedy? Obviously everyone is! Aren't they?

(this is without considering the thorny issue of who brings the revenue to the table)

HammerofThunor wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote: Without a shadow of a doubt they would want a cap on the French lower than the current one.

But they don't make a public issue of it like they do about the Pro12 issues? The suggested 'unfairness' comes from Pro12 as regards HEC competition and yet sugardaddy stuff from the French is blatantly 'advantageous' in theory throughout the HEC, even though it's proving less so in practice....for now!

Sorry, I thought I already said they don't mention it because they have no bargaining power over the French so what's the point?

.................a sense of.................fairness?
"We have issues and here's all of them" - not; "we have issues here's the ones we're going to mention". Fairness - the word they did happen to mention.