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.

GFD, one English club director put it quite bluntly and concisely. He said, and I only paraphrase: "we put more bums on TV seats and therefore we should get more of the money"

So far so clear! He was that direct.

Now, I said it before, professional sport isn't an amateur sport - so yes, every union, every club needs money. It's pointless to say some of us want less of it - no, some of us might want more and others just don't want to lose what they already get.

So in answer to the English club director, I asked on another post what actually was putting all the English bums on seats for the HEC in the last half decade or more? To use an analogy, he was saying he had the cinema complexes and I'm asking what were the movies he was showing?

The movies were mostly populated by Irish sides (Pro12 sides). They were the movie stars dragging the English bums to their TVs and therefore giving the TVs their profits on sponsorship segments.................

Who really funds HEC? - the French with their millions of bums, the English with their millions of bums? - or the teams that entertain those bums?

Weren't you just saying somewhere that you believe English fans are interested in English rugby? So I imagine the English watchers are there for the English teams. The French watchers are there for the French teams.

So to continue you're cinema analogy, the English and French games are the Holywood blockbusters that fill the cinemas. Leinster (for example) are more your excellently crafted films with story and great acting but that don't ultimately fill the cinemas.

HammerofThunor wrote:Weren't you just saying somewhere that you believe English fans are interested in English rugby? So I imagine the English watchers are there for the English teams. The French watchers are there for the French teams.

So to continue you're cinema analogy, the English and French games are the Holywood blockbusters that fill the cinemas. Leinster (for example) are more your excellently crafted films with story and great acting but that don't ultimately fill the cinemas.

Oh they do, they do Hammer - you have viewing figures for me now?.

And as for the English and French watching for their own teams - yes, to be sure, to be sure and great that someone is finally admitting the truth of it BUT - and I also said this on the other thread when addressing this analogy - Irish sides lasted longer (Duracel) - there was fewer movies left with the French and English actors by the end. And so by lasting longest in a European competition I think it's reasonable to suggest that the profits from English or French bums watching highly expensive advertising slots for European competition over the last six or so years has been earned by Irish sides (Pro12).

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:

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.

Glasgow, Edinburgh, Scarlets, Munster, Ulster and Connacht are all stronger. Treviso and Leinster could also be stronger.

The English players and coaches talked about the tough league helping them win the HEC. It can't get any clearer than that. If you're talking about the draining schedule back then then surely you should be able to see the benefits of squad rotation. Rabo teams do it, Toulouse do it and Leicester do it.

GFD wrote: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)

They're getting nearly twice as much as the other teams already! How they sort out that money is their own business.

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.

From my reading you seem to have some conflicting ideas in there SecretFly. You say that only the already established clubs will continue to profit, but then extrapolate that to countries and say that the non-established with large population bases will come to rule the roost as a consequence.

If that second part were true do you believe that Rugby can't be expanded into these counties without it harming the traditional nations? Would you prefer it not to be expanded?

Personally, I think that although there is plenty of scope to increase interest and participation in the sport in these countries, it will always have significant difficulty competing against the more traditionally entrenched sports, more so than that experienced in those in which it already has a good foothold.

In terms of finances growing within the game, internationally and in each of the domestic arenas, as with anything that's going to involve expanding the market and increasing revenues. Developing interest in more countries for domestic and international consumption of the game, which in turn draws more backers and greater investment has to be the most surefooted path.

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Weren't you just saying somewhere that you believe English fans are interested in English rugby? So I imagine the English watchers are there for the English teams. The French watchers are there for the French teams.

So to continue you're cinema analogy, the English and French games are the Holywood blockbusters that fill the cinemas. Leinster (for example) are more your excellently crafted films with story and great acting but that don't ultimately fill the cinemas.

Oh they do, they do Hammer - you have viewing figures for me now?.

No, I said "I imagine", more made up internet facts I'm afraid.

And as for the English and French watching for their own teams - yes, to be sure, to be sure and great that someone is finally admitting the truth of it BUT - and I also said this on the other thread when addressing this analogy - Irish sides lasted longer (Duracel) - there was fewer movies left with the French and English actors by the end. And so by lasting longest in a European competition I think it's reasonable to suggest that the profits from English or French bums watching highly expensive advertising slots for European competition over the last six or so years has been earned by Irish sides (Pro12).

I'm not really the best person to pin your "someone is finally admitting the truth of it". I've said all along that I don't support any particular English club and tend to just watch English rugby. Also, I was just expanding on your beliefs (that English people will watch any English games) and looking at what that means.

Another point I made about 3 months ago was that it doesn't matter who is in final, if English teams aren't in the HEC then 'most' (I would think) would subscribe to the TV channel for it. The final will always have attention so it really doesn't matter who's in it if the subscribers are already there (due to English subscription). It's my that Irish involvement doesn't increase subscriptions much outside of the Irish. They do, of course, add a great deal to the quality of the competition in general. But would English subscribers drop out without the Irish? I doubt it. Would the drop in quality be that noticeable without the Irish? I doubt it.

In fact, I think that if the Irish left then the rest of the teams would be closer together in terms of quality (Irish teams being so much better than everyone else on average [Leinster right up there, Ulster and Munster not far behind]). This would make it appear as though the competitive nature had increased. Most people find one sided games a bit boring. So I actually think the Irish involvement is reducing the money for everyone else. [how's that for some first class internet cowpat?]

HammerofThunor wrote:

In fact, I think that if the Irish left then the rest of the teams would be closer together in terms of quality (Irish teams being so much better than everyone else on average [Leinster right up there, Ulster and Munster not far behind]). This would make it appear as though the competitive nature had increased. Most people find one sided games a bit boring. So I actually think the Irish involvement is reducing the money for everyone else. [how's that for some first class internet cowpat?]

Classic, Hammer I'd nearly believe it too. You should pass that on to McCafferty to use as his opening gambit for the Rome meeting. Divide and conquer.

From what I have read the English clubs receive €10million from the h cup each year as it stands. If this alternative deal with BT gives them more than that without participating in the h cup then they could refuse it and be no worse off. If they refuse to participate until their requests are agreed to it could work out brilliantly for them. I can't see a reason why these clubs would stick with a competition that brings them no extra money when these are private businesses and profit is their priority.

The h cup has never been fair in it's treatment of different countries and different clubs. Italian and Scottish sides walk into it, even brand new club sides like Zebre. But giving advantages to Italy for example helps their national side which helps the six nations be stronger which brings in a heap of money and benefits in other ways. So yes, the French and English clubs have had a tougher time comparatively in the h cup but the alternative where only the top six from the pro 12 qualify could end with the six nations shrinking or becoming uncompetitive and losing money, and or the fall in standard in rugby overall in Europe. The h cup is about the bigger picture. Or at least it was.

Will more money for English and French clubs solve their problems? In the long term I don't think so. The more money clubs have, the higher wages go until there are only a few super clubs left standing. How long before the clubs will need yet more money? A pan European salary cap would be more helpful than heaps of cash soon spent.

If the Scots and the Italians no longer get an easy ride that is not suddenly going to stop Irish sides resting players. The union's player welfare program forces them to do this. So the English and French sides will still be facing rested Irish players, and may very well keep losing to such sides. Scottish and Italian rugby though may suffer in quality and financially, perhaps never to recover.

From a player welfare point of view the Irish limited number of matches per year is something that should be expanded to the rest of Europe. The national sides are not going to get more depth by clubs having more money and the unions are for the most part the negotiating partners in the h cup and this would also be a priority. It's kinder to the players and forces sides to create depth as cheaply as they can which means giving young local players opportunities.

No amount of tinkering with qualification will change the fact that there is no relegation in the pro 12 so the only way to take away that advantage is to take it away from the AP and the Top 14 too. I'm sure they'd love that.

johnpartle wrote:

From my reading you seem to have some conflicting ideas in there SecretFly. You say that only the already established clubs will continue to profit, but then extrapolate that to countries and say that the non-established with large population bases will come to rule the roost as a consequence.
If that second part were true do you believe that Rugby can't be expanded into these counties without it harming the traditional nations? Would you prefer it not to be expanded?

Personally, I think that although there is plenty of scope to increase interest and participation in the sport in these countries, it will always have significant difficulty competing against the more traditionally entrenched sports, more so than that experienced in those in which it already has a good foothold.

In terms of finances growing within the game, internationally and in each of the domestic arenas, as with anything that's going to involve expanding the market and increasing revenues. Developing interest in more countries for domestic and international consumption of the game, which in turn draws more backers and greater investment has to be the most surefooted path.

Highlight 1: The established clubs in the big population density areas will continue to flourish. The established clubs in these densely populated areas are already claiming that as an 'advantage' they admit to. They're not shy about it. The French and the English make demands and decide on regime change, and make agreements for European competition without the rights to do so because they already claim that biggness is power and they intend to wield it because they're not happy at the results coming down the line on the field. So yes, I do say established clubs in high density areas countries will continue to flourish and they will be joined in time by developing rugby in other high density areas - money strapped Russia for example And no, the fringes with less density will not be able to compete with salaries and they will have players drain away to the Euro 'superclubs'. You don't agree. Fine, you don't have to - it continues to be my opinion.

Highlight 2: Would I prefer rugby in Europe not to be expanded? I don't think about it. It doesn't concern me. If it happens, it happens. I'm not trying to stop the world, it will turn regardless of my opinions. My arguments are dealing with the idea that if negotiations are going to be serious then these (the ideas I mention on this and other threads) are going to have to be discussed. If not then of course everyone will go their separate ways and England will develop the Portugal, Russian, Georgain links. But do I lie awake at night worrying about Spanish or Russian rugby? No - and neither do you. Hell, I don't even worry about domestic rugby in England. That's your business.

Highlight 3: Rugby Union in Europe will always struggle regardless of being in or out of our little HEC club? No, I don't believe that. We don't agree. Rugby Union does fine in England where it isn't close to being number one sport. Large populations can cater for many sports and make them viable. The beauty of dense populations

Hammer - I said English people support whatever English side happens to be in the HC, either as one of their own clubs or because of them simply being 'English'. You agree with me that that is how you feel about it and yet word it as though you're disagreeing with me? My beliefs? You've confirmed them.

I told you on another thread that the majority of English people support any of the six English teams who might make it to the closing stages of HEC. I said I won't believe that the truth is otherwise. 6 chances for an English victory - each and every year. Don't deny it to Scotland or Italy....

On the point that it doesn't matter who is in the final stages of the HEC, the English public would still pay for their subscriptions and watch. Yes - true - of course. Not my point. The English claim that it is their bums on couches watching TV that should be rewarded because they bring the profits to the TV companies. I'm saying, in practical terms, that is not so - the teams that are providing the entertainment (English, French or Irish) are the profit makers as if you don't have an event, you don't have subscribers to watch the ad breaks. It just so happens that the majority of those sides in the last six or so years have been Irish. You might not want to appreciate that fact but that was the show being watched. Irish sides providing the longest stints of entertainment in HEC. Irish sides furnishing the profits.

It could have been any sides, you say - it wasn't though, was it? It was Irish sides. And therefore the director who talked about English demands because of the money they bring is inaccurate. The TV company pays the deal and makes its return (profits) on the entertainment provided. Irish sides provided a lot of that entertainment in recent years. Don't tell them they don't pay their way

SecretFly wrote:Hammer - I said English people support whatever English side happens to be in the HC, either as one of their own clubs or because of them simply being 'English'. You agree with me that that is how you feel about it and yet word it as though you're disagreeing with me? My beliefs? You've confirmed them.

I told you on another thread that the majority of English people support any of the six English teams who might make it to the closing stages of HEC. I said I won't believe that the truth is otherwise. 6 chances for an English victory - each and every year. Don't deny it to Scotland or Italy....

On the point that it doesn't matter who is in the final stages of the HEC, the English public would still pay for their subscriptions and watch. Yes - true - of course. Not my point. The English claim that it is their bums on couches watching TV that should be rewarded because they bring the profits to the TV companies. I'm saying, in practical terms, that is not so - the teams that are providing the entertainment (English, French or Irish) are the profit makers as if you don't have an event, you don't have subscribers to watch the ad breaks. It just so happens that the majority of those sides in the last six or so years have been Irish. You might not want to appreciate that fact but that was the show being watched. Irish sides providing the longest stints of entertainment in HEC. Irish sides furnishing the profits.

It could have been any sides, you say - it wasn't though, was it? It was Irish sides. And therefore the director who talked about English demands because of the money they bring is inaccurate. The TV company pays the deal and makes its return (profits) on the entertainment provided. Irish sides provided a lot of that entertainment in recent years. Don't tell them they don't pay their way

I think there is a big difference between some viewers sticking around to watch the closing stages of a competition they have been a part of and tuning in to watch one they haven't, irrespective of the show on offer. If there wasn't that difference in appetite there would be a lot more English viewers of SuperRugby, Top14 & PRO12.

If there were no English teams involved in the HC (not going to happen in my opinion, compromises from all sides will be made) the viewing figures here would drop significantly.

mbernz wrote:


I think there is a big difference between some viewers sticking around to watch the closing stages of a competition they have been a part of and tuning in to watch one they haven't, irrespective of the show on offer. If there wasn't that difference in appetite there would be a lot more English viewers of SuperRugby, Top14 & PRO12.

If there were no English teams involved in the HC (not going to happen in my opinion, compromises from all sides will be made) the viewing figures here would drop significantly.

I agree on both counts. There will be compromises, England will be involved, and if no English sides were involved the interest of English viewers would fall dramatically. Hmm, that's three counts actually. Nevermind

Not disputing those - I say English people watch because they like English involvment - natural and nothing wrong with it. So too do other nations like to watch for their national contributions......
But the director I alluded to is wrong in saying PRL bring the profits to the TV companies - no they don't. The profits come from the product on display. The product on display brings the profits, and a lot of it isn't PRL clubs (the European part anyway). The sides that end up in HEC bring the product that sells the event and gives TV companies their income for that specific competition. In short, the sides that are in it and last longest in it pay - their - way. Mr. Director (think it was Saracens, not sure) doesn't acknowledge that. If PRL bring in the profits for the domestic aspect of their TV deals, that's their business and nobody else in Europe cares. But if he wants to use domestic accounts to shore up his European supremacy argument then he is quite simply wrong.

SecretFly wrote:

mbernz wrote:


I think there is a big difference between some viewers sticking around to watch the closing stages of a competition they have been a part of and tuning in to watch one they haven't, irrespective of the show on offer. If there wasn't that difference in appetite there would be a lot more English viewers of SuperRugby, Top14 & PRO12.

If there were no English teams involved in the HC (not going to happen in my opinion, compromises from all sides will be made) the viewing figures here would drop significantly.

I agree on both counts. There will be compromises, England will be involved, and if no English sides were involved the interest of English viewers would fall dramatically. Hmm, that's three counts actually. Nevermind

Not disputing those - I say English people watch because they like English involvment - natural and nothing wrong with it. So too do other nations like to watch for their national contributions......
But the director I alluded to is wrong in saying PRL bring the profits to the TV companies - no they don't. The profits come from the product on display. The product on display brings the profits, and a lot of it isn't PRL clubs (the European part anyway). The sides that end up in HEC bring the product that sells the event and gives TV companies their income for that specific competition. In short, the sides that are in it and last longest in it pay - their - way. Mr. Director (think it was Saracens, not sure) doesn't acknowledge that. If PRL bring in the profits for the domestic aspect of their TV deals, that's their business and nobody else in Europe cares. But if he wants to use domestic accounts to shore up his European supremacy argument then he is quite simply wrong.

http://www.espnscrum.com/heineken-cup-2012-13/rugby/story/169773.html

This is what Nigel Wray - chairman of Saracens said. He's not mr director.

This is what he said:

"The Heineken Cup was set up by the Unions and fair play that they created it," he told ESPN. "There is no doubt that the English and French clubs contribute by miles the biggest part of the revenue and we don't get our just reward. That must be put right.

"The structure is clearly wrong in that we have to knock each other out to get into the tournament and all the other guys stroll in. And that's not right - we have to fight to get in and we provide most of the revenue. The terms have to be changed.

"I don't blame anybody in particular. If I was Wales, Scotland, Ireland and Italy - which is the majority and therefore out vote England and France - then I'd want to keep the situation as it is. That's perfectly normal. But from the point of view of England and France that doesn't make sense.

"The answer is that the Heineken Cup is obviously a tremendous tournament but the terms need to be tweaked. And the only way that is going to change is by making a noise. If you sit there quietly then the status quo will remain and that's not right. But this doesn't mean that we don't want the other four nations in - of course we do. We want a great European Cup but not on these terms."

SecretFly wrote:I told you on another thread that the majority of English people support any of the six English teams who might make it to the closing stages of HEC. I said I won't believe that the truth is otherwise. 6 chances for an English victory - each and every year. Don't deny it to Scotland or Italy....

I can write as authoritatively as anyone else on the proclivities of the majority of English people - which isn't much at all.

I feel that the English tend to look on the HC and Amlin competitors more as individual clubs, rather than sub-national representatives. Casual interest in the HC will exist, but real interest only if "my" team is in it, and ends when "my" team is eliminated. About half of the AP-aligned English support will have more interest in the Amlin than HC.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/sep/17/european-rugby-heineken-cup-tv-deal

Nigel Wray's chat with the guardian is interesting too.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I told you on another thread that the majority of English people support any of the six English teams who might make it to the closing stages of HEC. I said I won't believe that the truth is otherwise. 6 chances for an English victory - each and every year. Don't deny it to Scotland or Italy....

I can write as authoritatively as anyone else on the proclivities of the majority of English people - which isn't much at all.

I feel that the English tend to look on the HC and Amlin competitors more as individual clubs, rather than sub-national representatives. Casual interest in the HC will exist, but real interest only if "my" team is in it, and ends when "my" team is eliminated. About half of the AP-aligned English support will have more interest in the Amlin than HC.

I think it's a good toss at finding a moral highground, Dubbleyew. And like I keep saying, I don't for a minute believe it. Not a word of it. English people, the majority of them, know exactly who they are and like the idea and support what is theirs. There is no genetic difference in their sense of being English to other people's sense of self. And if nothing else, history itself is pretty blunt on proving it.

No, most Northampton supporters would not be supporting Biarritz over Harlequins. We can pretend they would to get us over the sticky position of those guaranteed 6 spots, but very few will fall for it. Besides, with all this yawning going on around the European competition, with all the apathy about it, you'd wonder why English clubs want to be in it/control it at all. And then, from those same people we hear that they want to expand it?? "Yeah, like who is in that final?" "It's one of them Spanish sides against one of that Russian lot" "Oh yeah? Who cares, won't be watching".

Any story will do. But few of them are adding up. Mr Wray (undirector!) wants what he wants. He doesn't talk about his beloved Saracens, he talks about English and French..he talks 'nation'.

I think I agree with Secret.
I know that many English rugby 'fans' mainly follow 6N, then maybe their AP club and some fans wil follow the HC. In the later HC stages if a top English club is still in the comp, with English 6N internationals on the park, then yes of course the English audience will tend to identify with that HC team. (Barring the occasional local AP club 'hate' effect).
And this national fan following is what BT plan to be be selling the product into. It is a professional/ commercial game these days? It maybe seen as 'unfair', but fact of life is, BT / Sky are bound to recognise the British Isles centre of gravity of the English speaking audience. As a rugby fan from the old amateur days, I can understand how distasteful some of this new fangled commercialisation can seem. The European rugby community cobble together entry qualification criteria to try to even out some of this pull and give some weighting back to the smaller nations. But I would make a bet that whatever else comes from these discussions there will also be:

a/ involvement of 'English' clubs
b/ a weighted qualification fudge to keep it pan European
c/ squabbling over the spoils
d/ and finally an agreement

Like the HC, only potentially bigger. And we have to hope better.

I can honestly say I haven't watched a live HC final on TV since the nineties, although I did watch a semi final a few years ago when it was Bath and a quarter final last season - the wife is from Edinburgh and we watched them deservedly beat a rather bedraggled looking Toulouse at Murrayfield. I also did actually go to see Wasps beat Toulouse at Twickenham as it was a free ticket from a wasps fan and swore I wouldn't go again and have to listen to joyous Wasp fans.....although now Wasps are lucky to be in the Amblin, which is real reversal of fortunes.

Recwatcher wrote:I can honestly say I haven't watched a live HC final on TV since the nineties, although I did watch a semi final a few years ago when it was Bath and a quarter final last season - the wife is from Edinburgh and we watched them deservedly beat a rather bedraggled looking Toulouse at Murrayfield. I also did actually go to see Wasps beat Toulouse at Twickenham as it was a free ticket from a wasps fan and swore I wouldn't go again and have to listen to joyous Wasp fans.....although now Wasps are lucky to be in the Amblin, which is real reversal of fortunes.

Apologies for belittling the Amlin those few days ago Recwatcher. It wasn't my intention to do so, but yeah, I kinda realise that it might have appeared insensitive. England is such a big place population-wise and has many more clubs than here in Ireland - you kinda get bunkered into your own place and your own context. But I realise it's just not humanly possible that the many clubs in England can all participate in HEC and that yes, Amlin becomes for them an important competition to progress and to make inroads...and that many self-important HEC sides find themselves playing in it and are more than happy to. Apologies again..

Nothing wrong with your allegiance Secret - it is just not the only way.

The night after the Wasps win was memorable though until it got somewhat blurred somewhere in Clapham.....

Recwatcher wrote:The night after the Wasps win was memorable though until it got somewhat blurred somewhere in Clapham.....

Memories indeed We (English) were World Champs We (Wasps) were HEC Champs & won the Premiership the following week.

Hadn't seen that Guardian article with the Wray interview before. I know it was written before the Dublin meeting, but its predictions for what would happen in Dublin ended up being pretty wide of the mark.

The figure of £100m for the European English matches was trotted out as if it was a known fact, but gives no indication of what the source is.

I find it extraordinary that BT would be willing to put £100m on the table for three years for just the English matches. You have to figure that there were some underlying conditions attached to that - like making sure that PRL brings everyone else along into a new comp. it would certainly give the French and Irish a strong negotiating position for what they could potentially sell their rights for.

SecretFly wrote:

johnpartle wrote:

From my reading you seem to have some conflicting ideas in there SecretFly. You say that only the already established clubs will continue to profit, but then extrapolate that to countries and say that the non-established with large population bases will come to rule the roost as a consequence.
If that second part were true do you believe that Rugby can't be expanded into these counties without it harming the traditional nations? Would you prefer it not to be expanded?

Personally, I think that although there is plenty of scope to increase interest and participation in the sport in these countries, it will always have significant difficulty competing against the more traditionally entrenched sports, more so than that experienced in those in which it already has a good foothold.

In terms of finances growing within the game, internationally and in each of the domestic arenas, as with anything that's going to involve expanding the market and increasing revenues. Developing interest in more countries for domestic and international consumption of the game, which in turn draws more backers and greater investment has to be the most surefooted path.

Highlight 1: The established clubs in the big population density areas will continue to flourish. The established clubs in these densely populated areas are already claiming that as an 'advantage' they admit to. They're not shy about it. The French and the English make demands and decide on regime change, and make agreements for European competition without the rights to do so because they already claim that biggness is power and they intend to wield it because they're not happy at the results coming down the line on the field. So yes, I do say established clubs in high density areas countries will continue to flourish and they will be joined in time by developing rugby in other high density areas - money strapped Russia for example And no, the fringes with less density will not be able to compete with salaries and they will have players drain away to the Euro 'superclubs'. You don't agree. Fine, you don't have to - it continues to be my opinion.

Highlight 2: Would I prefer rugby in Europe not to be expanded? I don't think about it. It doesn't concern me. If it happens, it happens. I'm not trying to stop the world, it will turn regardless of my opinions. My arguments are dealing with the idea that if negotiations are going to be serious then these (the ideas I mention on this and other threads) are going to have to be discussed. If not then of course everyone will go their separate ways and England will develop the Portugal, Russian, Georgain links. But do I lie awake at night worrying about Spanish or Russian rugby? No - and neither do you. Hell, I don't even worry about domestic rugby in England. That's your business.

Highlight 3: Rugby Union in Europe will always struggle regardless of being in or out of our little HEC club? No, I don't believe that. We don't agree. Rugby Union does fine in England where it isn't close to being number one sport. Large populations can cater for many sports and make them viable. The beauty of dense populations

I wasn't raising you on that I disagreed with your initial points, I could understand you claiming one or the other and wouldn't have questioned you on it regardless of my agreement, but think the logical progression to claim both is strained.

My opinion (not that it's worth much) is that I agree the established clubs with a good fan base to draw upon will continue to be successful. Certain developing rugby areas may have large populations it can draw upon but I think they will have considerable difficulty converting that into an effective fan base. Large populations can indeed cater for many sports, become very able in them and make them viable, but that doesn't necessarily translate to them being popular to the degree that they can become powerhouses that will dominate the sport as you describe (particularly in the financial aspect). Newly developing sports very rarely if ever reach enough critical mass to gather that level of bums on seats or viewers, particularly when in competition with well established sports for the same sort of resource or follower.

The reason I asked about your position on developing the sport worldwide was that the conclusions of your post seemed to be against it, but you've cleared up that it isn't really an issue for you.

johnpartle wrote:


I wasn't raising you on that I disagreed with your initial points, I could understand you claiming one or the other and wouldn't have questioned you on it regardless of my agreement, but think the logical progression to claim both is strained.

My opinion (not that it's worth much) is that I agree the established clubs with a good fan base to draw upon will continue to be successful. Certain developing rugby areas may have large populations it can draw upon but I think they will have considerable difficulty converting that into an effective fan base. Large populations can indeed cater for many sports, become very able in them and make them viable, but that doesn't necessarily translate to them being popular to the degree that they can become powerhouses that will dominate the sport as you describe (particularly in the financial aspect). Newly developing sports very rarely if ever reach enough critical mass to gather that level of bums on seats or viewers, particularly when in competition with well established sports for the same sort of resource or follower.

The reason I asked about your position on developing the sport worldwide was that the conclusions of your post seemed to be against it, but you've cleared up that it isn't really an issue for you.

Your opinion is every bit as legitimate as mine, John. The problem for those that will discuss this at official level is that they're going to have to take on board quite different opinions and try to come to a mix of them that will satisfy everyone enough to go on with some kind of European event.
I've been hit a lot of times with people questioning my opinion on this one (natural in a debate - I don't mind it. It's certainly a debate to get your teeth into) but maybe I've just developed a habit of saying "Well, guys, it's my opinion and you don't share it. That's all we can settle on" So maybe I was doing that to you unawares. But I do read and listen to other opinions. I ain't Jehovah

Wasn't being indignant or had felt offended SecretFly, so no need to explain yourself mate . With that highlighted comment, although I'd consider myself to have a decent amount of business experience and acumen, I was more questioning what in truth I really know about the inner workings, development and inter-relations of sporting organisations.

Viewpoint from within Edinburgh on how they're looking to develop across league and cup - interesting reading and like the sound of it. Bradley has been a breath of fresh air. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/rugbyunion/article3536831.ece

You only have him on loan..............................................

SecretFly wrote:You only have him on loan..............................................

"You"?

Em................................ "they"?

SecretFly wrote:GFD, one English club director put it quite bluntly and concisely. He said, and I only paraphrase: "we put more bums on TV seats and therefore we should get more of the money"

So far so clear! He was that direct.

Now, I said it before, professional sport isn't an amateur sport - so yes, every union, every club needs money. It's pointless to say some of us want less of it - no, some of us might want more and others just don't want to lose what they already get.

So in answer to the English club director, I asked on another post what actually was putting all the English bums on seats for the HEC in the last half decade or more? To use an analogy, he was saying he had the cinema complexes and I'm asking what were the movies he was showing?

The movies were mostly populated by Irish sides (Pro12 sides). They were the movie stars dragging the English bums to their TVs and therefore giving the TVs their profits on sponsorship segments.................

Who really funds HEC? - the French with their millions of bums, the English with their millions of bums? - or the teams that entertain those bums?

Thanks for reply Secretfly.

In terms of what is fair, as a starting point sharing the pot equally between each team that competes to me is the only logical answer (note - the starting point bit). To be clear this is split by team not by union as it's the teams that participate and therefore generate the money not the unions. Give or take the odd 0.1% this what we have at the moment between the English, French, Irish and Welsh. The Scottish and Italians get more per team and my point is that this is unfair unless it's justified in some other way. At the moment I have not seen anyone give a credible reason for this to continue. Most responses seem to be that's what we get at the moment and shouldn't change (is this being "greedy", is this being a "bully"?).

The Scottish share is higher due to the disbanding of the Borders resulting in their 13% only being split between 2 teams rather than 3 as is the case for Irish and Welsh. So it appears the original set up was designed to split broadly evenly per team with the Italians getting a bit extra (perhaps to help grow the game in that country or didn't they used to be able to get 3 teams in?). As a starting point this should therefore be reset. So for example it means if we drop to 20 teams then each gets 5%.

As mentioned at the outset of my post this is the most logical starting position with any adjustments needing to be justified.

The English and French have the millions of bums to try and argue they should get more than the average. Personally I would prefer it if it was kept equal but I can certainly see their argument.

I also agree with your point about the Irish teams bringing the quality to the table in recent years. However, I think you are placing far too much weight on it if you're saying it balances out the millions of bums. Few reasons why:

- I believe teams are already awarded more revenue on top of the base splits for progressing further in the competition so naturally the better teams (Irish in recent years) get more money. I have no problem with that but doesn't change the base splits.
- There are 79 games each year in the HEC. Of these 72 are in the group stages (12x6) and 7 are then after (4 quarters, 2 semi and final). Obviously on average people are more interested in the 7 but over 90% of the games which generate the revenue are played by teams regardless of their ability.
- The interest in the 72 games is much more to do with your nationality. For example, I will generally try watch all games involving all the English teams but in terms of the rest of those group games only the Leinster v Clermont games really interest me (arguably the two best teams in the comp). Not a chance I'm watching Zebre v Connacht or Glasgow v Castre (no disrespect). Clearly others will have different views and other games will interest them.
- Even if I did want to watch all the games it's virtually impossible given there 12 games per weekend so you do have to pick and choose (unless you lock yourself a room for 48 hours and just watch rugby and sleep). The majority of the millions of bums will choose teams from their own countries.

GFD - in fairness to the point that SecretFly is arguing, there is another aspect to the broadcasting, and that is the scheduling. Over recent years, even at pool stage, the matches featuring Irish teams have been given many (not all) of the prime times slots. Now Sky ain't dumb. The amount of viewers they have in Ireland who would watch Munster, Ulster or Leinster arguably, no matter their provincial allegiance, would still be far outweighed by the UK, or more accurately,the GB viewership. Prime time slots attract the highest advertising bucks. And they gave those to matches featuring Irish teams, so there must be some viewer value in the Irish teams in the UK in TV terms.

I don't know if Sky publish stats - Nielsen ratings, etc - for the H Cup,but it would be interesting.

Can anybody be bothered to go back through the years to check the time slots for each team? I know I can't but it would be interesting to see how it breaks down (some could even make it up as no-one will check)

GFD, SecretFly will be glad he's found someone else who is English and will watch English teams rather than just their own club. I can't remember what the point was over that but still...

Ye goys really need to get laid. I mean. Really.

BT sponsored McCafferty blow-up dolls for sale.

Sorry, should we all be in an imaginary pub sending each other icons of drinks?

HammerofThunor wrote:Sorry, should we all be in an imaginary pub sending each other icons of drinks?

Possibly. But not necessarily.

We meet up at Satan's will. Last gig was truly a religious experience.

And never be sorry. Its always far too late.

.?

HammerofThunor wrote:Can anybody be bothered to go back through the years to check the time slots for each team? I know I can't but it would be interesting to see how it breaks down (some could even make it up as no-one will check)
..

Ok, you goaded me into it. I checked and all the matches involving Irish teams since November 26 2006 have been on average 32.53% higher than the nearest other match relative to the other teams in the pool, allowing for non-English speakers, pockets of plastic paddies hiding in bedsits in Loughborough, and whether there was rain in northern Ayrshire after 2.34pm.

Other than that, here's a tiny slice. According to BARB, on the week ending 23 Jan 2011, the pool matches that weekend that made it into top ten ranking were:

Sat
15.21- 191 Munster v London Irish or Ospreys v Toulon
17.30 - 169 Edinburgh v Cardiff
13.00 - 110 Biarritz v Bath or Aironi v Ulster
Sun
13.00 - 141 Tigers v Treviso
15.00 - 133 Wasps v Toulouse or Dragons v Warriors

Racing Metro v Leinster and Saracens v Clermont on the Friday didn't make the top ten.

HammerofThunor wrote:Can anybody be bothered to go back through the years to check the time slots for each team? I know I can't but it would be interesting to see how it breaks down (some could even make it up as no-one will check)

The details of all the fixtures in the HC's history can be found here if you get bored:

http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/matchcentre/fixtures_heineken_cup.php

timhen wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Can anybody be bothered to go back through the years to check the time slots for each team? I know I can't but it would be interesting to see how it breaks down (some could even make it up as no-one will check)

The details of all the fixtures in the HC's history can be found here if you get bored:

http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/matchcentre/fixtures_heineken_cup.php

Yeah, I know. We were talking about TV viewing figures relating to who's the 'biggest draw' for sponsors/advertising.

PotHale, I don't really know what that means. Were all those games in the top ten UK viewing figures for that weekend? That seems unbelievable. Or were they in the top ten of viewed HEC games that year? Also, when is primetime for TV?

HammerofThunor wrote:

GFD, SecretFly will be glad he's found someone else who is English and will watch English teams rather than just their own club. I can't remember what the point was over that but still...

The point was you have six guaranteed places, Hammer - I know, I know - amnesia and all that, it's been a long debate, we've all forgotten why we're talking.
Six Guaranteed places is the charge behind the point that all English people eternally have six reasons to watch HEC. Not just the one place that poor Leicester has to fight tooth and nails to get and them bad Italian sides just walking in and having their spots guaranteed, like. Not just the one place poor Harlequins had to scrap for all year, losing tons of blood and sweat and only getting there by a whisker in the end, whilst the evil Edinburgh walked in with their private members club pass.

Six Guaranteed Places for English sides.

Now, Newsflash... McCafferty has duly banned me from any further comment on this topic, by order of BT. So this is alas my final comment on this topic until the decision is finally made on the future. It's been fun, it's been boring, its been frustrating, it's been longwinded (yeah, that'll be me) and it's over. So long, Hammer - meet you on other topics and give my regards to McCafferty, tell him 'no hard feelings;, he had to do it to me - it's just business - I understand.

maybe our TV population is six times bigger (more)

Can't comment gregor - McCafferty will sue me.
...but...
HEC ain't a TV dinner prize, it's a rugby playing prize
... and Italy has 60 million people (two teams) - many TVs, England has 53 million (6 teams) - many TVs

Don't tell BT I said that. That really is my final comment.

London Welsh eye up HC:
"London Welsh chairman John Taylor has predicted leading English and French clubs will not form a breakaway competition amid the row over the future shape of the Heineken Cup. Taylor predicts a compromise will be struck to avoid a split in the game. "I would certainly not like to see a breakaway English-French competition," said Taylor. "

Secret, sorry to hear that is your last word !

(when my kids were 'yes but' hormonal teenagers, I would say: "...ok then, let me finish what I am saying then you can have the last word" ..which usually in fact flummoxed them.)

yes but............................................................................................................................

Yes, no, maybe, I don't know..can you repeat the question?

The argument about audience numbers doesn't hold water. A hundred thousand MORE people watched last years final, between two Irish sides, than ever before. (According to Lux in Equipe) So who is actually putting bums on seats in front of tvs in England and France? Last year Leinster and Ulster were.

Plenty of people have been tuning in for years to watch teams from other countries duke it out. It's not as simple as "my country has a bigger audience than yours" Other teams contribute to the "product" that is being sold internationally as well as in the six countries involved.

To give an analogy if last years champions league final was watched by forty million people in Russia , who's teams didn't make the final, compared to say twenty million in the UK, should the Russian clubs get more of a cut of the profits from the champions league? Should the Russians have more teams in it compared to other countries that have been more successful? Do these arguments even come up in soccer?

Finals are a small part of what companies pay TV rights for, the numbers tuning in to watch their side and the other teams in their group week in week out during the stages is what adds it up for them and gives the rights their value. Saying that more tuned in than ever last year means little, the same is true pretty much every year irrespective of who is playing.

Of course teams that are more successful shouldn't be looked over purely because of demographics, but the couple of sides that are likely to miss out from the proposed qualification changes haven't shown much sign of that. In the mean time they can look to prove themselves in that regard in the Amlin where they will have more similar quality opponents and be more competitive, offering a far better springboard to future success.

There's a lot of chat about which region deserves how much revenue etc and while there is undoubtedly a lot more to this argument ask yourself this question:

If you assume the HC deal with everyone in it was worth €100m, how much would it be worth if:

a) The English weren't involved
b) The English and French weren't involved
c) The Irish weren't involved