H-cup a realistic solution, accepable to you poll?

First topic message reminder :

I know there are a lot of articles on this already, but below is what I believe the outcome will be, and I just wish to know, would the below be acceptable to 606 fans, do they agree on the compromise?

The way I se it there are two pots assigned to the H-cup, one that gets awarded to teams in knock out stages which I don't see changing, the other is for taking part in H-cup which I see as the one that is the issue.

Currently for participation each Union recieves (this is basic, then topped up by knockout round payments):
RFU = 25%
FRU = 25%
IRFU = 13%
WRU = 13%
SRU = 13%
FIR = 11%

I believe the Pro 12 will argue for 8 Pro 12 teams (one from each Union, the rest league based) 6 English and 6 French. Winners of H-cup and Almin come out of that countries allocation

For this the split would be(this is then topped up by knockout round payments): ;
FRU = 30%
RFU = 30%
IRFU/WRU/SRU/FIR = 40% (5% for each team in H-cup at least one per Union)

Final bought forward as per the French wish.

This see's the French and English share increase from 25% to 30% and a reduction in number of Pro 12 teams, tougher qualification, plus since with less teams a reduction in payments. Each Pro 12 Union gets guarenteed 5%, and an additional 20% is up for grabs.

The TV deal is the second issue, the French and English have long said that it is being undersold by the ERC, and it looks like the PLC have highlighted this. The PLC sold the rights for just the English teams for 3 years for around £80 million, and ERC sold all nations for 4 Years for around £70 million.

I think every union will be upset, suspect long term the ERC will go back to selling the rights for everyone, but will be monitored better by the unions that they are getting the best possible deal. However for the next 3/4 years not sure what will be worked out as a temporary basis.

SecretFly wrote:Because that's where it's at, Hammer. That's where it is at. The PRL mention money. They're not afraid to mention money...but then they get all that money talk snuggled into a big comfy 'inclusive' duvet to try and disguise it all, to soften the texture of their ambitions.

Everything you say is money. Virtually every defence you make of them is money - deals, brokering, contracts, markets..................

But I thought the whole thing was about money. The argument for not allowing Scotland to drop out of the HEC was regarding the loss of money. Same for Italy. We've heard they'll sponsorship interest, etc. Money money money. The IRFU wrote a paper explaining to the Irish government that they shouldn't protect the HEC as FTA because this would lose them money. The professional clubs areguably do more for their areas in terms of rugby development than the RFU

Regarding 'best in Europe', it's horseshit isn't it?. If the top teams from the PRO12 qualify it will still be the 'best' out of the teams that can qualify. If Scotland have to be represented for it to be the 'best in Europe' then why not the Georgians? Either it's the best teams out of the 6 unions, in which case the 3 leagues cover this, or it's about the best in Europe so all unions should be able to gain automatic qualification at whatever minimum level is set (i.e. HEC level if the Scots want it).

My idea of competition is simply for the competition. Try your best and I'm happy. Always try and improve, always review your system. But I wouldn't want to 'sacrifice' the domestic league in anyway to improve performance at International or European levels.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I wasn't hitting the Amlin, Rec, I was hitting, forcefully hitting yes, the suggestion that sides should be happy to be in it as they look with delighted little faces at their 'betters' above them who are dropping the pennies their way benevolently

Sides play in it because it's what it is, it gives games and it gives experience but I detest the idea amongst the 'Haves' - and I'd include my own side of Leinster in this - that the poor lads, the 'Have-nots, should be content on the bottom where they belong and, sure, won't they be delighted with themselves there, bless 'em.
No, I'd be happy in the idea that the bottom sides want to knock our blocks off and take our place. That's competition, that's the attitude we need in sport. It's haughty to assume what 'lesser' sides should be satisfied with their lowly lot. It's alien to me.

That sounds suspiciously like condoning real competition for HC places, and that those HC places should be earned. Somewhat at odds with the protectionism of the comfy Pro12 qualifications. I have noted the opinion that English and French teams are protected, but I refute it since no individual teams are protected.

However, would you be in favour of qualification purely by performance in Euro comps? Bottom 4, or 6, or 8 in HC get demoted to Amlin next year, and replaced by the best Amlin teams?

For your point to work, Dubbleyew - for it to work, you're asking me to believe one thing. And this has got interesting because it's an issue that keeps being evaded. For your point about my beliefs to work, you in turn are asking me to believe that should an English club reach a final of the HEC, and should they meet a Welsh, Irish Scottish, Italian or French side there, you - you - would not natually support the English club over the other side. In other words, you are asking me to believe that English people and club followers are purists..that the home club is everything and that the presence of six chances every year for HEC glory means absolutely nothing to those followers if their own home club isn't involved.

For what you say to work, I have to believe that, and I have to believe the majority of your countrymen share that view. Simple truth is I don't. I don't believe it, and won't ever be coaxed to believe it. When an English side gets to a final of a HEC, the vast majority of English club supporters will support that side - as English, as a respresentative of them, as one of their League, as a proving ground for a declaration of what nation/league is best in Europe. They will gain pride in a victory of an English side. They have that cultural participation and 6 chances for victory each and every year that the HEC has been run - not because the sides have earned it but because 6 chances for the big prize are written in stone in the ERC agreement.

So - all that reasoning constantly put out there that English sides have to fight for their 6 places is only pertinent to the internal workings of the AP league itself, it has no impact on the number of English clubs any of us meet in HEC every single year. It's a constant - every year the HEC comes round, England have their 6 clear and present chances of winning it. It is nation - it's not simply club. It's a competition between clearly delineated areas of Europe wrapped in national borders. To suggest it isn't is a lie.

Now, I am from Leinster (smug basterde!) - Lucky me for now, might be crying by the end of the year. But if I am crying at lack of Leinster presence at the business end of HEC, I'll be soon drying my eyes and building up the same head of steam if Munster or Ulster get to the QFs. Just because my side is out, doesn't mean I'm going to be chasing after Toulouse or Harlequins in my club purity sense of commonality. Nope, I'll be firmly fixed on the next great Irish hope - no ifs, ands or buts - with the most passionate conviction, I'll be supporting league 'enemies' - and exclusively the Irish ones - because they are of me.

All I'm saying is that that is how it is. We all want one or two of our own clubs/Provinces in HEC because it's what we are - regional beasts with tribal sensitivities. Now, if England and France have those tribal loyalties in a club competition protected then I'm saying so to do other regions have rights. We play together every year at International level, we should offer the same rights in club competition to Scotland, Italy, Wales and Ireland.

6 chances to win something is 6 chances..and that's more than 3 chances or 2 chances. We live with the 'inequality' of that one...but we'll fight for our individual rights of representation. We are not a one nation league and we won't be judged so. When some suggest Scotland and Italy should take themselves off to Amlin and be happy about it, that is pointedly claiming that they have less rights at the HEC table than England or France. I say not so. If rights exist at all then we'll share them or separate.

HammerofThunor wrote:

My idea of competition is simply for the competition. Try your best and I'm happy. Always try and improve, always review your system. But I wouldn't want to 'sacrifice' the domestic league in anyway to improve performance at International or European levels.

There you go...once again, yet again, we come to the conclusion that we don't agree on pretty much anything involving rugby, Hammer.

We don't agree on the game itself - my feeling is that a European competition without England would be pointless as it wouldn't be one at all. We wouldn't be competing against the best that England can provide - we wouldn't really be testing ourselves - we'd be lying to ourselves.

We don't agree on League being dominant to European competition. Players know where they want to play, it's why the 'holidaying' SH ones cruise into Pro12 - for HEC not for Pro12.

We don't agree on the fallacy of the word 'best'. Yes, there is a best side in rugby in Europe each year. Every league has a best side at the end of the season. Competition is always to be best...even though you're only dreaming about it as you play your game a thousand miles from the top.

We don't agree that money and more money and more money is some kind of goal and answer to something all by itself. For the sport to grow, we're told, it needs more and more money. Yeah, where does the more and more money go? To players, coaches and directors. Will it improve and widen the game being played? Naive for one to think so. Money is a goal in itself? Not for me.

We simply don't agree on virtually anything related to rugby, Hammer, and I'm sure we'll come to that conclusion a few more times after more long, long debates

Without a doubt.

I'm not saying money should be the be all and end all. But it's certainly not one sided on the PRL. All sides are doing it.

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

My idea of competition is simply for the competition. Try your best and I'm happy. Always try and improve, always review your system. But I wouldn't want to 'sacrifice' the domestic league in anyway to improve performance at International or European levels.

There you go...once again, yet again, we come to the conclusion that we don't agree on pretty much anything involving rugby, Hammer.

We don't agree on the game itself - my feeling is that a European competition without England would be pointless as it wouldn't be one at all. We wouldn't be competing against the best that England can provide - we wouldn't really be testing ourselves - we'd be lying to ourselves.

We don't agree on League being dominant to European competition. Players know where they want to play, it's why the 'holidaying' SH ones cruise into Pro12 - for HEC not for Pro12.

We don't agree on the fallacy of the word 'best'. Yes, there is a best side in rugby in Europe each year. Every league has a best side at the end of the season. Competition is always to be best...even though you're only dreaming about it as you play your game a thousand miles from the top.

We don't agree that money and more money and more money is some kind of goal and answer to something all by itself. For the sport to grow, we're told, it needs more and more money. Yeah, where does the more and more money go? To players, coaches and directors. Will it improve and widen the game being played? Naive for one to think so. Money is a goal in itself? Not for me.

We simply don't agree on virtually anything related to rugby, Hammer, and I'm sure we'll come to that conclusion a few more times after more long, long debates

Mostly to Leinster? The rugby world is agog as to which player's pension will be enhanced by their recruitment to Leinster for the latter part of the season, to maximise IRFC's pursuit of glory and, well, perhaps. just perhaps, the money as well.

Or am I being cynical?

Dubbleyew,

Top AP sides couldn't afford a grisly Kiwi for part of a season????

Leinster, the super exotic Province held together by its collection of foreign mercenaries?

You've read the blubs!

Five is the total any Irish side can have of them sort. When Leinster played English and French sides they were facing sides with 10 and 11 foreign exotic types in them. Clermont had...I counted 11 for one of our games against them last year (highly paid exotic types too - every one of them).

Money?

Does a team get paid for winning the HEC? Is it cynical for you to suggest money doesn't chase after success? Hmm, I don't know, you'd have to answer that one.

I do know though that success, either for Munster or Leinster didn't begin with money or fancy players - money didn't create them. It's a lesson for clubs who continually say they need more money before success. Try being successful first and then reap whatever money that follows.

Didn't Munster and Leinster have the finances of the IRFU behind them? Didn't they have all the 6 nations money to spend? Aren't international matches still the largest contributor of money to the IRFU? So surely when things went professional the financial backing was there. No idea how things went in Ireland generally around that time.

Tigers are a pretty good example of building things up. Started off owning their own ground and built up from there. Most of the players they seem to bring would be around the journeyman sort of level and yet they seem to get a lot out of them.

HammerofThunor wrote:Didn't Munster and Leinster have the finances of the IRFU behind them? Didn't they have all the 6 nations money to spend? Aren't international matches still the largest contributor of money to the IRFU? So surely when things went professional the financial backing was there. No idea how things went in Ireland generally around that time.

Tigers are a pretty good example of building things up. Started off owning their own ground and built up from there. Most of the players they seem to bring would be around the journeyman sort of level and yet they seem to get a lot out of them.

Who were they spending the big bucks on, Hammer? Keeping the Irish players at home that nobody wanted in the first place? Keeping the humpy, hoofy, dubiously soft muscled, small and weedy or long and stringy fellas away from the big clubs in Europe and SH who were crying out for them?

Nacewa came with a big price on his head... Contepomi was an outlandish price. Doug Howlett, we're still paying the IMF back for his wage cut. Tigers were a 'professional' outfit long before anything in Ireland got around to thinking itself professional. Tigers had real tough games against Irish sides when they were in the ascendancy. That's when the HEC was really tough...................................... hmmmm, funny, I don't remember us being so tough back then, but like everything I suppose it's all in the eye of the beholder.

Leinster have a fraction of the wage bill of the big French teams. They also can only have 5 foreign players in their whole squad. Three would be starters. Their success is built on producing home grown talent from their academy. Like D'arcy, O'Driscoll, Horgan, Hickie, Sexton, Firtzgerald, Kearney, O'Brien, Heaslip, Jennings, Cullen, O'Kelly, Healy etc. etc. etc.

It's far cheaper to produce the stars yourself, and it makes victory even sweeter. And it's the mark of all the greatest teams in the history of the HC. Most notably the multiple winners. You can't buy the type of commitment and passion the local lads bring to the team. It infects the foreigners who are sprinkled in too.

Do we actually have any figures on how much Leinster spend on wages. Also, how much of the international players' pay goes on internationals and how much goes to top up provincial pay. Without that you can't say how much the wage bill is.

Fly, I didn't say you were spending the money, just saying you had it. You were saying that the Provinces didn't have money in the beginning. I was querying it without knowing anything real (like usual)

HammerofThunor wrote:Just out of curiosity why are you always posting along the lines of the PRL wanting money but the other unions not?

The PRL isn't a union (though I could be corrected on that). They were an outfit set up to represent the interests of a specific group of English clubs. Their remit isn't even for the benefit of English rugby, just the narrow field that is the Jeff clubs.

What the PRL is trying to do, and what they are achieving in many ways, is to manipulate their way into being the decision maker in English rugby, effectively being equal with the RFU but wanting to have a veto right on any decisions being made.

What isn't mentioned here is what does the RFU do with the funds that they get? Do they burn piles of it? Is it all wasted? Does it fund underage clubs and sponsor/support lower leagues and the wider well-being of rugby union in England.

Does any of that matter to the PRL? Their task is to protect and improve the security and prosperity of their members.

I haven't seen any debate here on whether any of these deals is better for English rugby, it seems to have been assumed that so long as the PRL gets more that is all that matters. But are the Jeff clubs the only thing that matters?

I meant other unions rather than RFU. Whether PRL is a 'union' or not depends on your definition. They're a body that represents the best interests of it's members, clubbing together as they're stronger than when apart. But that's semantics and not really important.

Good point about the RFU. But I haven't seen anywhere any proposed structures of funding for the 'future' HEC so can't really comment on what will happen. But the current system has the RFU getting half(?) of the English money for doing bugger all. All the non-English unions (not sure about what the French do with theirs) use the money generated from the HEC to fund their top level...don't they? The PRL have just cut out the middle man, they get their part direct and the RFU can spend their part on everything else (largest amateur structure in the World by far).

Also the LNR have 4 out of the 5 French votes on matters regarding the ERC. The FFR can take these back in matter of national interest (how they forced through Lux). So both the FFR and RFU think that the clubs should be the main players in the day-to-day running of the ERC.

I still haven't seen anything which would suggest the PRL would gain more power from any of this.

From their actions to date they are trying to gain more power. They have inserted themselves in both the supply of teams (which is obviously their remit) and negotiation of revenues. They have sold 'their' tv rights (which is legally disputed at the minute) to a third party and are looking to sell some of that revenue stream back into the ERC. That move is trying to gain more control (which is power after all).

Also, you note they are cutting out the middle man and get paid direct, and the RFU still get their part. But the RFU's share is now up for negotiation so will they get the same amount of money to fund their international team and the largest amateur structure in the world by far. If anything, PRL will have become the middle man in that move.

Everything is up in the air at the minute and still being negotiated. I'm just pointing out that PRL doesn't automatically mean the best for europe or even the best for the game in England. They are negotiating for their own gain and have a long standing history of conflict with the RFU which is smoothed over by a lot of people on the boards.

HammerofThunor wrote:I meant other unions rather than RFU. Whether PRL is a 'union' or not depends on your definition. They're a body that represents the best interests of it's members, clubbing together as they're stronger than when apart. But that's semantics and not really important.

Good point about the RFU. But I haven't seen anywhere any proposed structures of funding for the 'future' HEC so can't really comment on what will happen. But the current system has the RFU getting half(?) of the English money for doing bugger all. All the non-English unions (not sure about what the French do with theirs) use the money generated from the HEC to fund their top level...don't they? The PRL have just cut out the middle man, they get their part direct and the RFU can spend their part on everything else (largest amateur structure in the World by far).

Also the LNR have 4 out of the 5 French votes on matters regarding the ERC. The FFR can take these back in matter of national interest (how they forced through Lux). So both the FFR and RFU think that the clubs should be the main players in the day-to-day running of the ERC.

I still haven't seen anything which would suggest the PRL would gain more power from any of this.

I don't think that's right. I'm pretty sure all the English ERC cash gets shuffled on to PRL who share it out fairly equally (according to P share nonsense) between 13 teams. RFU no doubt get pretty hefty expenses for Rob Andrew attending board meetings, though.

In that respect RFU are fairly neutral in all this, but may have an agenda with PRL to help fund the RFU Championship, smoothing of EPS payments, Minimum Entry Criteria, the list goes on. How robust they will be in negotiating with PRL is anyone's guess - mine is that they will soft pedal it, not wanting civil war ahead of RWC 2015. RFU have two trump cards - granting of TV rights beyond the current EPS (both domestic and home Euro), and the ability to enter Championship teams in future ERC competitions (they haven't withdrawn from ERC).

thebandwagonsociety wrote:From their actions to date they are trying to gain more power. They have inserted themselves in both the supply of teams (which is obviously their remit) and negotiation of revenues. They have sold 'their' tv rights (which is legally disputed at the minute) to a third party and are looking to sell some of that revenue stream back into the ERC. That move is trying to gain more control (which is power after all).

The PRL have half of the English shares. The LNR have 80% of the French votes so the PRL has less power than the LNR. Also the PRL has about half as many shares as the SRU (I think that's right). The BT TV deal has more to do with pointing out the 'failures' of the ERC in terms of dealing with TV rights rather than control.

Also, you note they are cutting out the middle man and get paid direct, and the RFU still get their part. But the RFU's share is now up for negotiation so will they get the same amount of money to fund their international team and the largest amateur structure in the world by far. If anything, PRL will have become the middle man in that move.

Don't understand that, sorry.

Everything is up in the air at the minute and still being negotiated. I'm just pointing out that PRL doesn't automatically mean the best for europe or even the best for the game in England. They are negotiating for their own gain and have a long standing history of conflict with the RFU which is smoothed over by a lot of people on the boards.

The PRL have got on pretty well with the RFU since 2008. The last argument was over the RFU blocking an increased premiership (to 14) and before that McGeechan complained that Sackey had to be rested as part of the EPS deal even though he hadn't played due to injury, but Easter was injury call up and didn't need to be rested even though he played all the games. That was in 2008. Since that, nothing. You say the PRL are doing things for themselves...well isn't everyone?

The RFU to negotiate for the larger English game, the PRL is there to negotiate for the top level of English rugby. IRFU negotiate for both the wider Irish game and the Provinces, same for the SRU and FIR. LNR have the interests of the top French clubs, the FFR have the interest of the wider French game. Not sure how the votes are split in Wales, the RRW have a seat on the board but I don't know how many (if any) votes they have. The PRL have 1/12 of the shares of the ERC. I've seen nothing to suggest this will be increased.