European rugby talks end with no solution to impasse

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/19878759

Talks over the future direction of European rugby have broken up with no solution to the impasse.

The meeting in Rome ended after six hours with rugby executives agreeing to continue negotiations in Dublin on 30 October.

The existing European Rugby Cup deal expires in 2013.

English Premiership and French clubs want changes to the Heineken Cup format from 2014 and have threatened to quit the competition.

The row was further complicated when Premiership Rugby and European Rugby Cup Ltd struck separate television deals for the rights to show their games.

Speaking after Monday's meeting, Rugby Football Union chief executive Ian Ritchie told BBC Sport: "I think it's not going to be resolved in one meeting. It's got to be seen as a priority but it's not going to be sorted this week or next."

In a statement the European Rugby Cup, the body which runs European club rugby tournaments, said: "The meeting featured six hours of comprehensive discussion on a broad range of issues raised by stakeholders including the structure and format of the European club rugby tournaments.

"All parties reaffirmed their desire to see European club rugby's tournaments continue to grow and develop further and to involve all of the current participant stakeholders."

red_stag wrote:

greytiger wrote:

- Winning Heineken Cup nation gets another place Connacht

No. Winning Heineken Cup league gets another place
Next team in the rabo. It could be Welsh/Scottish/Italian

I will never accept this. I would rather give the places to England and France.

On what basis Staggy? Surely when the whole debate was started it was about meritocracy rather than nationalism.

Going back to this meritocracy that's why I think the winner of the Amlin and HC should auto qualify.

As Kingshu says they should come from the own countries' allocation.

I personally think winning the HC is more impressive than finishing 5th in a respective league. Amlin is slightly more debatable but then again it's rewarding success in Europe.

Because I do not agree on lumping the four Pro 12 nations together.

It is a point I feel extremely strongly on.

Basically I think places in the HC should be fixed every year like Kingshu says irrespective of who wins the Amlin and HC.

6 AP
6 Top 14
8 Pro12 - 2 Irish,2 Welsh, 1 Italian, 1 Scottish

Next two best sides in the Pro12.

beshocked wrote:Basically I think places in the HC should be fixed every year like Kingshu says irrespective of who wins the Amlin and HC.

6 AP
6 Top 14
8 Pro12 - 2 Irish,2 Welsh, 1 Italian, 1 Scottish

Next two best sides in the Pro12.

No probs with that.

If (say) Ulster wins the HEC in year x and failed to qualify in the Rabo (an extreme Edinburgh scenario from last year), what would happen to their subsequent HEC challenge?

If Ulster win the HC they qualify. They take one of the two Irish Spots. The other Irish sides would fight for the other spots. I think basically coming 8th would get you a spot.

So if (say) Connaught won the Amlin in the above scenario in year x, presumably Leinster and Munster would have to scrap for Rabo qualification.

Is there any allowance for extra national club/side places in this model or is it a pure meritocracy?

A lot of emotive words being thrown around here. Fairness, worth, greed.

I doubt it will change anyone's entrenched positions, but:
1) Let's put the supposed "greed" of AP owners in perspective. NH Rugby as a professional sport only makes money at the international level. Most clubs/provinces/regions are not profitable. The money to keep them going has to come from somewhere. In England, that is from the owners, most of whom have lost millions on rugby and will lose more before it's profitable. They aren't saints, but they are mostly propping up a game they love.

2) The current financial arrangements around ERC result in a net transfer of value from the English and French clubs to the Rabo provinces/regions/clubs. The big TV audience (and therefore money) is in England and France. The way the funds are currently shared doesn't reflect that. To some extent that's a good thing - the competition needs the full range of nations. But the BT deal seems to be offering everyone more money in absolute terms and the English clubs more in relative terms; neither seems unreasonable.

3) Trying to equate absolute numbers of places in the competition with fairness is ridiculous. The professional game supports different numbers of clubs in each country and the level of participation is mathematically disproportionate - 50% or fewer of the English and French clubs, 100% of Scottish and Italian clubs. Fair? I support this to the point where I'd say that participation by each nation should be guaranteed. But when it reaches a point that Rabo position has almost no bearing on qualification, the tournament loses something.

4) I don't think it's a question of whether the AWC/LV= or Amlin is "worth" a place in the HEC. The reason that place is tied to winning the event is so that teams make an effort to win them. Would anyone really bother with these tournaments if there were no HEC place attached? Perhaps this point is hard to understand if you support a team whose qualification for the HEC is guaranteed. But don't try to tell me it's not (dammit!) fairer that a team gains entry to a competition by virtue of winning something than that they are handed it on a plate year after year.

greytiger wrote:So if (say) Connaught won the Amlin in the above scenario in year x, presumably Leinster and Munster would have to scrap for Rabo qualification.

Is there any allowance for extra national club/side places in this model or is it a pure meritocracy?

no extra spaces, if Connacht, (or even another provice as qualification for h-cup would be hard) won the Almin, they would be in H-cup, with 2 Welsh, 1 Scottish and 1 Italian, highest Irish side, and 2 based on league regardless of nationality.

So say Connacht won Almin, and Leinster Hcup, Ulster and Munster would have to try to get one of the 2 positions based on league regardless of nationality.

Or, just dump any league/national qualification and make it merit based purely on Euro performances.

Demote the bottom 4, or 6, or 8 HC teams to next season's Amlin, and promote the top 4, or 6, or 8 Amlin, perhaps with playoffs.

Kingshu wrote:

greytiger wrote:So if (say) Connaught won the Amlin in the above scenario in year x, presumably Leinster and Munster would have to scrap for Rabo qualification.

Is there any allowance for extra national club/side places in this model or is it a pure meritocracy?

no extra spaces, if Connacht, (or even another provice as qualification for h-cup would be hard) won the Almin, they would be in H-cup, with 2 Welsh, 1 Scottish and 1 Italian, highest Irish side, and 2 based on league regardless of nationality.

So say Connacht won Almin, and Leinster Hcup, Ulster and Munster would have to try to get one of the 2 positions based on league regardless of nationality.

Well. Apart from that the fact that nations would have guaranteed places* it seems reasonable.

*That kind of thinking does nothing to shatter the 6Ns glass ceiling.

Poorfour wrote:A lot of emotive words being thrown around here. Fairness, worth, greed.

I doubt it will change anyone's entrenched positions, but:
1) Let's put the supposed "greed" of AP owners in perspective. NH Rugby as a professional sport only makes money at the international level. Most clubs/provinces/regions are not profitable. The money to keep them going has to come from somewhere. In England, that is from the owners, most of whom have lost millions on rugby and will lose more before it's profitable. They aren't saints, but they are mostly propping up a game they love.

2) The current financial arrangements around ERC result in a net transfer of value from the English and French clubs to the Rabo provinces/regions/clubs. The big TV audience (and therefore money) is in England and France. The way the funds are currently shared doesn't reflect that. To some extent that's a good thing - the competition needs the full range of nations. But the BT deal seems to be offering everyone more money in absolute terms and the English clubs more in relative terms; neither seems unreasonable.

3) Trying to equate absolute numbers of places in the competition with fairness is ridiculous. The professional game supports different numbers of clubs in each country and the level of participation is mathematically disproportionate - 50% or fewer of the English and French clubs, 100% of Scottish and Italian clubs. Fair? I support this to the point where I'd say that participation by each nation should be guaranteed. But when it reaches a point that Rabo position has almost no bearing on qualification, the tournament loses something.

4) I don't think it's a question of whether the AWC/LV= or Amlin is "worth" a place in the HEC. The reason that place is tied to winning the event is so that teams make an effort to win them. Would anyone really bother with these tournaments if there were no HEC place attached? Perhaps this point is hard to understand if you support a team whose qualification for the HEC is guaranteed. But don't try to tell me it's not (dammit!) fairer that a team gains entry to a competition by virtue of winning something than that they are handed it on a plate year after year.

Just on point 2 about the TV rights,

40% more viewers in the UK tunned in the Watch the q-final between Munster and Ulster than the Saracens Q-final the same day. Now is it fair if the RFU keep all the TV money for Viewers in England?
I believe that its the package of the H-cup that sells, and as such the package should be sold together and divided, under the BT deal would that game have been shown in the UK? and if so would Munster and Ulster profited from it, or would the ones that gained most be English clubs that weren't playing as England increases its relative share?

Just as a slight sidetrack - it's quite pointed that the grumbles (rightly so) from disgruntled English clubs concerning their grounds not being considered for the WC is based on the annoyance that rightful tradition is being tossed aside in preference for......................... money.
It annoys them that a chase on the part of the WC organisers for Profit would deny them their right to have low capacity rugby grounds hold WC games.

Yep, so far so righteous. But then we have these very same clubs claim bluntly that the requirements for HC change is money - the pusuit of it and the creation of something called 'profit' from it.

Sometimes tradition is the moral threat used to kill the idea of cold profit - and then of course sometimes tradition is ridiculed to better champion that goal of cold profit.

Sincerity can be all things to all men obviously

Poorfour wrote:A lot of emotive words being thrown around here. Fairness, worth, greed.

I doubt it will change anyone's entrenched positions, but:

2) The current financial arrangements around ERC result in a net transfer of value from the English and French clubs to the Rabo provinces/regions/clubs. The big TV audience (and therefore money) is in England and France. The way the funds are currently shared doesn't reflect that. To some extent that's a good thing - the competition needs the full range of nations. But the BT deal seems to be offering everyone more money in absolute terms and the English clubs more in relative terms; neither seems unreasonable.

Nonsense - how does money go from England to Scotland here - it does not. this is simply wrong. the product is the HC and thats what creates the money which is then divided between the participating unions. See the post above. How much would an HC where most of the games are between midplace english and French clubs be worth? Without Italian and Scots representation and with fewer Welsh / Irish it would be worth less

3) Trying to equate absolute numbers of places in the competition with fairness is ridiculous. The professional game supports different numbers of clubs in each country and the level of participation is mathematically disproportionate - 50% or fewer of the English and French clubs, 100% of Scottish and Italian clubs. Fair? I support this to the point where I'd say that participation by each nation should be guaranteed. But when it reaches a point that Rabo position has almost no bearing on qualification, the tournament loses something.

Again nonsense. The SRU created a structure that fits in with the Rabo and the HC. Scotland culd easily have more clubs but the money would be spread to thin to produce quality. If England had only 6 pro clubs they would be profitable and of a very high quality. do not penalise Scotland and Italy because of the shortcomings of your countries setups. Sort out your shortcomings do not penalise others to handicap them to make them equal to your own handicapped clubs.

TJ wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:The problem remains that Scotland (and Italy) cannot afford to lose places in the Heino from the perspective of their national teams - we have few enough players competing at the highest club level as it is, to effectively halve that will in the long-term ensure that Scotland never compete for the 6Ns again - we simply won't have enough players that are playing at the right standard

and it would effectively mean the end of pro rugby in Scotland and Italy if the English proposals were followed thru. Once your team failed to qualify you would lose money meany reduced playing budgets meaning smaller lower quality squads meaning never qualify again. Scots teams do not run at a deficit unlike English ones. No rich people pouring cash in. within a few years it would only be 4 nations inthe HC and Italy and Scotland would never be competative again inthe 6N. Is that what you want? simply so some English club owners get more money?

English proposal was 8 teams from each league. French proposal was 6 teams from each league. I'd worry about the French proposals more if I was you.

TJ, money goes from English subscribers to the TV company paying to watch English teams, from the Tv company to the ERC, from the ERC to the SRU.

Pot Hale, cheers. My memory doesn't go that far back (I was more into the Champions League back then )

The HEC format was set-up when the situation was different to what it is now. I honestly don't see why people are so afraid of a negotiation...unless they're afraid they getting something they don't deserve and everyone will agree to take it off them.

TJ, money goes from English subscribers to the TV company paying to watch English teams, from the Tv company to the ERC, from the ERC to the SRU.

thats not so - they chose to watch the q-final between Munster and Ulster rather than the Saracens Q-final the same day. So actually its the Irish that subsidies the english by your reckoning. the subscribers are payingto atch the HC which has more than English teams in it and without the non english teams it is less valuable.

Also Scots Irish and french subscriber money goes to English clubs.

There is no subsidy to Scotland from England - its offensive nonsense to suggest there is.

[quote="HammerofThunor

TJ, money goes from English subscribers to the TV company paying to watch English teams, from the Tv company to the ERC, from the ERC to the SRU.

quote]

I'd say it would be more accurate to say, money goes from English subscribers to the TV company paying to watch H-cup teams, from TV company to ERC, shared between Unions that created the product people are paying to watch

or more accurate again,
I'd say it would be more accurate to say, money goes from UK and Irish subscribers to the TV company paying to watch H-cup teams, from TV company, same in France and Italy, to ERC shared between Unions that created the product people are paying to watch.

Poorfour wrote:A lot of emotive words being thrown around here. Fairness, worth, greed.

Trying to equate absolute numbers of places in the competition with fairness is ridiculous. The professional game supports different numbers of clubs in each country and the level of participation is mathematically disproportionate - 50% or fewer of the English and French clubs, 100% of Scottish and Italian clubs. Fair? I support this to the point where I'd say that participation by each nation should be guaranteed. But when it reaches a point that Rabo position has almost no bearing on qualification, the tournament loses something.

Your percentages of participation are based on numbers of teams within a league (in the case of England). Don't forget that the number of teams within leagues has varied over time, including the AP. In the second season of the H Cup in '96/'97, all 6 Nations participated for the first time. It was a 20 team competition - as is being proposed now. The participation split by union was 4 teams from France, Wales and England, 3 teams from Scotland and Ireland, and 2 from Italy. it stayed this way until the 2000 season, when numbers increased for England and France.

The winner of the AW Cup has no bearing on league position, but still wins a spot. The winner of the Challenge Cup has no bearing on league position. Does the tournament lose something as a result?

4) I don't think it's a question of whether the AWC/LV= or Amlin is "worth" a place in the HEC. The reason that place is tied to winning the event is so that teams make an effort to win them. Would anyone really bother with these tournaments if there were no HEC place attached? Perhaps this point is hard to understand if you support a team whose qualification for the HEC is guaranteed. But don't try to tell me it's not (dammit!) fairer that a team gains entry to a competition by virtue of winning something than that they are handed it on a plate year after year.

You seem to forget that Welsh teams participate in the AW Cup, but only an English winner is guaranteed a Euro spot, yet the Welsh teams still compete.

TJ wrote:
Nonsense - how does money go from England to Scotland here - it does not. this is simply wrong. the product is the HC and thats what creates the money which is then divided between the participating unions. See the post above. How much would an HC where most of the games are between midplace english and French clubs be worth? Without Italian and Scots representation and with fewer Welsh / Irish it would be worth less

It would be worth less but an HC with no English or French would be worth less than that. Its not a level playing field

Or to be clearer
taking again the example,

"40% more viewers in the UK tunned in the Watch the q-final between Munster and Ulster than the Saracens Q-final the same day"

The Irish provinces bring much more to the competation than just the Irish TV viewers subscription fees,

To view it as English teams bring in the English subscription fees, isn't accurate. The viewing numbers are increased because they are playing the best in Ireland (change to France, Wales etc), and to not give the Provinces some credit for that is wrong.

It not entirley down to people wanting to watch English clubs, they are paying to watch English clubs play the best teams in Europe, (and sometimes the best clubs in Europe without an English club involved), and to not give the other teams from Europe credit for that is misguided.

The great irony - and I have to emphasis this - of the French telling the Pro 12 to change their league is that half the French teams don't take the HEC seriously, the competition the discussions are about!!! You couldn't make it up. At least the English teams always try to win HEC games so credit to them for that.

Interesting facts, Kingshu, but are they actually relevant to the point you're making? The UK includes England, Wales, Scotland and, erm, Ulster, and the RFU (well, actually the PRL) is not looking to keep all the TV money for viewers in England. The deal only covers, IIRC, home games played by English teams, and PRL are proposing to put the European element of that into the communal pot.

If I understand it correctly, the BT deal for English club games is worth more than the Sky deal in its entirety. PRL would like to keep a bigger proportion of the pot, but the pot itself is big enough that everyone gets more money

TJ wrote:

TJ, money goes from English subscribers to the TV company paying to watch English teams, from the Tv company to the ERC, from the ERC to the SRU.

thats not so - they chose to watch the q-final between Munster and Ulster rather than the Saracens Q-final the same day. So actually its the Irish that subsidies the english by your reckoning. the subscribers are payingto atch the HC which has more than English teams in it and without the non english teams it is less valuable.

Also Scots Irish and french subscriber money goes to English clubs.

There is no subsidy to Scotland from England - its offensive nonsense to suggest there is.

On a % of the take per team entered basis Scotland receives more money than any other country TJ, and the Scots with their 2 teams get paid more than the Italians with their 2. So yes there is some subsidy.

The Elephant in the room for the top English clubs could be the fact that they have to share their money will all the English teams. Therefore English teams who are not making the HEC benefit.

So in theory, some English teams who are not in the HEC might be getting as much TV money as Leinster for example. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.

Kingshu wrote:Or to be clearer
taking again the example,

"40% more viewers in the UK tunned in the Watch the q-final between Munster and Ulster than the Saracens Q-final the same day"

Kingshu, if it ever got to the stage where each team negotiated their own package the Irish teams could make more money. I'd have little doubt about that. However, long term the rich will grow richer and the poor will be poorer and alot of the competitiveness of the HEC will be lost.

The Scots and Italians could be the ones who end up taking the biggest hit after the negotiations. The 2 weakest unions..

[quote="Pete C (Kiwireddevil)"]

TJ wrote:

TJ, money goes from English subscribers to the TV company paying to watch English teams, from the Tv company to the ERC, from the ERC to the SRU.

On a % of the take per team entered basis Scotland receives more money than any other country TJ, and the Scots with their 2 teams get paid more than the Italians with their 2. So yes there is some subsidy.

Quite happy to have that anomaly removed. However it is still not a subsidy.

sub·si·dy (sbs-d)
n. pl. sub·si·dies
1. Monetary assistance granted by a government to a person or group in support of an enterprise regarded as being in the public interest.
2. Financial assistance given by one person or government to another.
3. Money formerly granted to the British Crown by Parliament.

profitius wrote:The Elephant in the room for the top English clubs could be the fact that they have to share their money will all the English teams. Therefore English teams who are not making the HEC benefit.

So in theory, some English teams who are not in the HEC might be getting as much TV money as Leinster for example. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.

Kingshu wrote:Or to be clearer
taking again the example,

"40% more viewers in the UK tunned in the Watch the q-final between Munster and Ulster than the Saracens Q-final the same day"

Kingshu, if it ever got to the stage where each team negotiated their own package the Irish teams could make more money. I'd have little doubt about that. However, long term the rich will grow richer and the poor will be poorer and alot of the competitiveness of the HEC will be lost.

The Scots and Italians could be the ones who end up taking the biggest hit after the negotiations. The 2 weakest unions..

Indeed. unless they are protected in 10 years the 6N will be a 4 Nations with the end of pro rugby in Scotland and Italy and thus the end of competitive international teams

as said earlier the first change I see is the qualifaction based on 6,6,8 as outlined earlier.

The second change is TV deals, I can see that the PLC deal highlights that there is more money to be gotten for TV and maybe sponsorship as well, ERC seamed to not maybe be doing the best job. (however they may have taken the view that the sky deal means more people can afford to watch the rugby and would have higher viewing figures hence promoting rugby to a wider audance, but recieve less money for that).

I can see that all Unions will agree that the next TV deal has to be done by the ERC as a package, but that the Unions will be keeping a closer eye on these deals, and the making of them before anything is signed, to make sure they are the best available, a change in the ERC that deals with this is envitable.

I don't know how the TV will be sorted for next 4 years though, both signed contracts can't run side by side, a decision will need to be made and compromise made. maybe that they are split for next four years after that they are sold as one, depends on contracts and which one they can wiggle out off etc.

I also believe that as said above some French teams don't take an intrest in the H-cup, if sponsorship and TV money could be increased they would. At present its said they make more in the TOP 14 than Europe. Theres no way that a cross boarder compatition with a far bigger viewership against the Elite in Europe should bring in less per game than a domestic League. Once this is recitified so that each game is more valuable than a Top 14 game, then they will take it seriously, and really push for the knock outs.

3rd thing to change is format, 20 teams, French want it played in 2 blocks of 3 rather than 3 blocks of 2, and Final bought forward to April.
To be hoest this is the one I care about least. 3 blocks of 2 I like better as if you have an injury crises it affects only 1/3 of the games rather than 1/2. I'm not fond of 3 best runners up either as finish second in a tough group is a bigger achiement than finishing second in an easy group, but the latter is the one to progress normally.

a complete overall maybe looked at?

Of course Test rugby "makes" money. Unions have little outlay compared to their income. However they would struggle to exist if they didn't have the professional players to populate the teams, so the pro-clubs are just as much a part of a Union's balance sheet as are its amateur and junior teams. Obviously pro-clubs are going to want more money for themselves, but that has to come at a price and it seems the English and French want that expense to be borne by other Unions, which is patently unfair.

How does having large TV audiences mean that the French and English should have a bigger slice of the "European" pie? Such large home audiences must mean that they already get far more money from their domestic competitons than their Celtic counterparts, and so they should be far more competitive to start with. If the European money is proportionately much larger than that which their domestic product commands, then that demonstrates the HEC is a far more attractive product with the participation of the other Unions' teams. Therefore restricting the numbers from other Unions may mean the French and English get a bigger slice but from a smaller pie.

Why should the winner of either the Amlin or the HEC get automatic qualification for either themselves or anyone else to the following year's competition? This cheapens the competition by implying that it's not enough to actually win the Cup in itself. Would anyone seriously be motivated to win the Heineken Cup because it gained them automatic entry into the er... following Heineken Cup? The Amlin argument is easier, BUT if it is simply viewed as a vehicle to qualify for the HEC it will never have any real status of it's own.

However some value could be attached to Amlin performance by allowing the winner entry into HEC qualification playoffs. So the HEC qualifiers would be 8 PRO12; 5 English;5 French + 2 from preseason playoffs. The playoff teams would comprise one from each league and the highest finishing Amlin team. These four would be drawn (home sides first) into two fixtures, with the two winners going through.

Poorfour wrote:Interesting facts, Kingshu, but are they actually relevant to the point you're making? The UK includes England, Wales, Scotland and, erm, Ulster, and the RFU (well, actually the PRL) is not looking to keep all the TV money for viewers in England. The deal only covers, IIRC, home games played by English teams, and PRL are proposing to put the European element of that into the communal pot.

If I understand it correctly, the BT deal for English club games is worth more than the Sky deal in its entirety. PRL would like to keep a bigger proportion of the pot, but the pot itself is big enough that everyone gets more money

Not meaning to be pernickety, but you mean Northern Ireland, not Ulster, there is a difference. Ulster is bigger than Northern Ireland, to use it in that context 3 of the 9 counties would be saying, poorfour, says we're part of the UK now, when did that happen? do I have to move? and can I still like Guinness?

but back on point
"PRL would like to keep a bigger proportion of the pot, but the pot itself is big enough that everyone gets more money"

Thsi would be bad for rugby, ok the Italians and such like would get more money, but the % difference between rich and poor teams would increase, it would become harder and harder for them to keep hold of thier best players, and competativeness would decrease over time.

I'm actually surprised that they only get around 11% while SRU gets 13% same as Wales and Ireland, I actually feel that the FIR are hard done by.
think maybe FIR and SRU should have 12% each and IRFU and WRU 13% each or each get 12.5%.

TJ wrote:

TJ, money goes from English subscribers to the TV company paying to watch English teams, from the Tv company to the ERC, from the ERC to the SRU.

thats not so - they chose to watch the q-final between Munster and Ulster rather than the Saracens Q-final the same day. So actually its the Irish that subsidies the english by your reckoning. the subscribers are payingto atch the HC which has more than English teams in it and without the non english teams it is less valuable.

Also Scots Irish and french subscriber money goes to English clubs.

There is no subsidy to Scotland from England - its offensive nonsense to suggest there is.

It's not really fair to match up Saracens vs Clermont with Munster and Ulster.

1st things first a Irish derby is going to be more popular than this particular Anglo-French match up.

Saracens got poor attendances at VR because they were in the process of getting a new stadium so no effort went into attracting people to this game.

They are the joker in the pack because they don't currently have a home.

I am sure that if Saracens had Quins,Leicester or Saints in a HC quarter final they would be able to get 40k plus for a game at Wembley or Twickenham.

I'm not sure all the teams would agree to the ERC negotiating the TV deal. The 4th thing on the list is reform of the ERC to be more accountable and professional.

another thing I've wondered, and hopefully can be resolved for next cup

it ok saying smaller teams can get to H-cup if they win the Almin, is it really set up that way?

What would happen if Bucureşti Wolves won the Almin.

Next season they qualify for H-cup but who loses out? English,French italian?

Then say they play in the H-cup, do well and make the Knockouts, the only way they can qualify for it the next year is by going on and winning it? they would had a better chance by finishing runner up dropping to Almin and winning it again? surly thats not right.

I hope that the Unions look at helping th eSmaller unions set up professional leagues, east west seams a good idea (apart from the Russia/Georgia issue).

beshocked wrote:

TJ wrote:

TJ, money goes from English subscribers to the TV company paying to watch English teams, from the Tv company to the ERC, from the ERC to the SRU.

thats not so - they chose to watch the q-final between Munster and Ulster rather than the Saracens Q-final the same day. So actually its the Irish that subsidies the english by your reckoning. the subscribers are payingto atch the HC which has more than English teams in it and without the non english teams it is less valuable.

Also Scots Irish and french subscriber money goes to English clubs.

There is no subsidy to Scotland from England - its offensive nonsense to suggest there is.

It's not really fair to match up Saracens vs Clermont with Munster and Ulster.

1st things first a Irish derby is going to be more popular than this particular Anglo-French match up.

Saracens got poor attendances at VR because they were in the process of getting a new stadium so no effort went into attracting people to this game.

They are the joker in the pack because they don't currently have a home.

I am sure that if Saracens had Quins,Leicester or Saints in a HC quarter final they would be able to get 40k plus for a game at Wembley or Twickenham.

Its TV viewers in the UK not crowds at game thats being talked about.

TJ wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

TJ wrote:TJ, money goes from English subscribers to the TV company paying to watch English teams, from the Tv company to the ERC, from the ERC to the SRU.

On a % of the take per team entered basis Scotland receives more money than any other country TJ, and the Scots with their 2 teams get paid more than the Italians with their 2. So yes there is some subsidy.

Quite happy to have that anomaly removed. However it is still not a subsidy.

sub·si·dy (sbs-d)
n. pl. sub·si·dies
1. Monetary assistance granted by a government to a person or group in support of an enterprise regarded as being in the public interest.
2. Financial assistance given by one person or government to another.
3. Money formerly granted to the British Crown by Parliament.

Hmmm, it would appear to depend which dictionary you use

— n , pl -dies
1. a financial aid supplied by a government, as to industry, for reasons of public welfare, the balance of payments, etc
2. English history a financial grant made originally for special purposes by Parliament to the Crown
3. any monetary contribution, grant, or aid

alternately
noun, plural sub·si·dies.
1. a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.
2. a sum paid, often in accordance with a treaty, by one government to another to secure some service in return.
3. a grant or contribution of money.
4. money formerly granted by the English Parliament to the crown for special needs.


In all fairness, the more accurate term in this case is probably cross-subsidy:
cross-subsidise
verb
subsidise (a business or activity) out of the profits of another business or activity.

Semantics are fun

Kingshu wrote:

beshocked wrote:

TJ wrote:

TJ, money goes from English subscribers to the TV company paying to watch English teams, from the Tv company to the ERC, from the ERC to the SRU.

thats not so - they chose to watch the q-final between Munster and Ulster rather than the Saracens Q-final the same day. So actually its the Irish that subsidies the english by your reckoning. the subscribers are payingto atch the HC which has more than English teams in it and without the non english teams it is less valuable.

Also Scots Irish and french subscriber money goes to English clubs.

There is no subsidy to Scotland from England - its offensive nonsense to suggest there is.

It's not really fair to match up Saracens vs Clermont with Munster and Ulster.

1st things first a Irish derby is going to be more popular than this particular Anglo-French match up.

Saracens got poor attendances at VR because they were in the process of getting a new stadium so no effort went into attracting people to this game.

They are the joker in the pack because they don't currently have a home.

I am sure that if Saracens had Quins,Leicester or Saints in a HC quarter final they would be able to get 40k plus for a game at Wembley or Twickenham.

Its TV viewers in the UK not crowds at game thats being talked about.

Still the same thing.Different match ups have different appeals. Obviously an Irish derby would have done well with the Irish viewers. Similarly if it was a Saracens match vs one of sides I mentioned it would get more popularity.


Saracens vs Clermont unfortunately is not a compelling rivalry. I hate to say it but Clermont have beaten the better side every time by some distance.

Plus Saracens are hardly the most attractive side for neutrals to watch are they?

What I am saying is that it's unfair to single out one English side.

If you are saying Irish you have to include all Irish sides such as Connacht if you are saying English you include the biggest draws like Leicester,Quins and Saints.

Beshocked thats the piont tho the TV rights are for the HC not for english clubs!

Munster / Ulster a big draw in England, Sarries / Sale not so much. the value is in the entirety not in the parts. the sum is greater than the parts

beshocked wrote:

Kingshu wrote:

beshocked wrote:

TJ wrote:

TJ, money goes from English subscribers to the TV company paying to watch English teams, from the Tv company to the ERC, from the ERC to the SRU.

thats not so - they chose to watch the q-final between Munster and Ulster rather than the Saracens Q-final the same day. So actually its the Irish that subsidies the english by your reckoning. the subscribers are payingto atch the HC which has more than English teams in it and without the non english teams it is less valuable.

Also Scots Irish and french subscriber money goes to English clubs.

There is no subsidy to Scotland from England - its offensive nonsense to suggest there is.

It's not really fair to match up Saracens vs Clermont with Munster and Ulster.

1st things first a Irish derby is going to be more popular than this particular Anglo-French match up.

Saracens got poor attendances at VR because they were in the process of getting a new stadium so no effort went into attracting people to this game.

They are the joker in the pack because they don't currently have a home.

I am sure that if Saracens had Quins,Leicester or Saints in a HC quarter final they would be able to get 40k plus for a game at Wembley or Twickenham.

Its TV viewers in the UK not crowds at game thats being talked about.

Still the same thing.Different match ups have different appeals. Obviously an Irish derby would have done well with the Irish viewers. Similarly if it was a Saracens match vs one of sides I mentioned it would get more popularity.


Saracens vs Clermont unfortunately is not a compelling rivalry. I hate to say it but Clermont have beaten the better side every time by some distance.

Plus Saracens are hardly the most attractive side for neutrals to watch are they?

What I am saying is that it's unfair to single out one English side.

If you are saying Irish you have to include all Irish sides such as Connacht if you are saying English you include the biggest draws like Leicester,Quins and Saints.

It's worth noting that UK TV ratings were considerably better for the 2011 HEC final (with 1 English team) than the 2012 one.

Ad hoc examples like that and the Saracens vs Clermont/Munster vs Ulster one don't really mean a lot on their own. And sadly only Sky will now for sure whereabouts their viewers are watching from - and I doubt they're in a hurry to share the information.

beshocked wrote:

Kingshu wrote:

beshocked wrote:

TJ wrote:

TJ, money goes from English subscribers to the TV company paying to watch English teams, from the Tv company to the ERC, from the ERC to the SRU.

thats not so - they chose to watch the q-final between Munster and Ulster rather than the Saracens Q-final the same day. So actually its the Irish that subsidies the english by your reckoning. the subscribers are payingto atch the HC which has more than English teams in it and without the non english teams it is less valuable.

Also Scots Irish and french subscriber money goes to English clubs.

There is no subsidy to Scotland from England - its offensive nonsense to suggest there is.

It's not really fair to match up Saracens vs Clermont with Munster and Ulster.

1st things first a Irish derby is going to be more popular than this particular Anglo-French match up.

Saracens got poor attendances at VR because they were in the process of getting a new stadium so no effort went into attracting people to this game.

They are the joker in the pack because they don't currently have a home.

I am sure that if Saracens had Quins,Leicester or Saints in a HC quarter final they would be able to get 40k plus for a game at Wembley or Twickenham.

Its TV viewers in the UK not crowds at game thats being talked about.

Still the same thing.Different match ups have different appeals. Obviously an Irish derby would have done well with the Irish viewers. Similarly if it was a Saracens match vs one of sides I mentioned it would get more popularity.


Saracens vs Clermont unfortunately is not a compelling rivalry. I hate to say it but Clermont have beaten the better side every time by some distance.

Plus Saracens are hardly the most attractive side for neutrals to watch are they?

What I am saying is that it's unfair to single out one English side.

If you are saying Irish you have to include all Irish sides such as Connacht if you are saying English you include the biggest draws like Leicester,Quins and Saints.

The point I'm making is while Saracens' chairman, Nigel Wray "That is only fair given that we are the two countries with by far the greatest number of chimney pots and therefore the draw cards for television," meaning that English and French clubs should receive a greater share of the money generated by sponsorship and television deals.

This view nelgects that the Provinces bring more to the competitation than just Irish TV viewers, we have fewer chimmey pots, but we do increase the number of people watching in the countries with lots of chimmey pots.

So should English and French clubs receive a greater share of the money generated by sponsorship and television deals when the other teams helped create the product being sold?

I accually wouldn't mind if each club sold their rights to home games and the erc sold the knock outs on.

But all money would have to go into a central pot.

I would like to see how much they'd get.

I hate watching ManU on the telly so if they are on i wont watch them but would watch AC Milan. I wonder how many people would tune in to see Tigers in England that are tiger's fans or Tolouse. The Celtic people watch their countries teams more I think.

Brendan wrote:I accually wouldn't mind if each club sold their rights to home games and the erc sold the knock outs on.

But all money would have to go into a central pot.

I would like to see how much they'd get.
...

That makes sense to me. The "suits" (as represented by the PRC etc) are probably better at that sales job than the "blazers" at ERC. The suits are better at negotiating with other suits (TV cos) than they are at negotiating with blazers (in fairness, they couldn't be much worse )

I do wonder some times if the ERC have a sales and advertising arm to it.

they always say how it is exceeding expections but it never says ways they are growing it.

I do think i all this talking we forget that rominia were part of the original unions but wer voted out for more money. Italy and Scotland beware of friends.

Yeah..'suits' are good at selling. Just look at how they sold the world in the last number of melt-down years.

So they do the 'suit' trick to lull you into a false sense of security, and then they go ahead and do the 'blazers' trick with the petrol and the box of matches.

SecretFly wrote:Yeah..'suits' are good at selling. Just look at how they sold the world in the last number of melt-down years.

So they do the 'suit' trick to lull you into a false sense of security, and then they go ahead and do the 'blazers' trick with the petrol and the box of matches.

. or

I was extending an analogy from a chat in a (real life) pub with Asbo and Hound of Harrow - we were discussing how different communication styles between the "suit" type administrators and "blazer" types may have contributed to how appallingly badly the negotiation process started.

TJ it's not really fair to say Sarries/Sale. Sale aren't a rival of ours. Plus at the moment Sale aren't competitive enough to be a draw. Of course I don't expect it to be a popular game.

Kingshu that's a difficult one. The thing is if the HC was without the English and French clubs it would just be the Pro12 in another form.

Plus the Pro12 sides add virtually nothing to the Amlin.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Yeah..'suits' are good at selling. Just look at how they sold the world in the last number of melt-down years.

So they do the 'suit' trick to lull you into a false sense of security, and then they go ahead and do the 'blazers' trick with the petrol and the box of matches.

. or

I was extending an analogy from a chat in a (real life) pub with Asbo and Hound of Harrow - we were discussing how different communication styles between the "suit" type administrators and "blazer" types may have contributed to how appallingly badly the negotiation process started.

I know Pete... I mean I know what you were implying.

But the 'suits' know what their bottom line is and will always admit it - profit, money, growth (financial! - not the sport of rugby)
'Blazers' at least try to pretend there are higher ideals than cold hard accounting and profit margins. They talk old school about traditions and history and the sport itself and old players and memories of the field or the terraces.

'Blazers' are the sentimentalists whilst 'suits' are the realists...................... you'd think!

But as I alluded to somewhere above - the 'suits' aren't really all that particular about realism verses sentimentalism - they're out not to champion realism at all but to champion profit, money, growth - as always.

And so - we have the situation whereby the PRL are cruel in the realism about the HEC - "it needs to modify to sustain its profit margins."
And yet, at the same time, the PRL (or clubs linked to the 'suits' in it) do an about-face and go all sentimental when they attack the big bad realists (WC organisers) for dropping many club grounds from their list of venues for 2015.

WC organising 'suits' want Profit before sentimentality. The PRL clubs in this particular debate choose 'sentimentality' so that yet again Profit can go their way instead of the way of football clubs.

So much for the seeming division between the needs of 'suits' and the needs of 'blazers'. 'Suits' can very much mimic 'blazers' when it .....................suits............ them

Do we accually know what the ERC do every year other then run the competition and wait for the next lot of talks

SecretFly wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Yeah..'suits' are good at selling. Just look at how they sold the world in the last number of melt-down years.

So they do the 'suit' trick to lull you into a false sense of security, and then they go ahead and do the 'blazers' trick with the petrol and the box of matches.

. or

I was extending an analogy from a chat in a (real life) pub with Asbo and Hound of Harrow - we were discussing how different communication styles between the "suit" type administrators and "blazer" types may have contributed to how appallingly badly the negotiation process started.

I know Pete... I mean I know what you were implying.

But the 'suits' know what their bottom line is and will always admit it - profit, money, growth (financial! - not the sport of rugby)
'Blazers' at least try to pretend there are higher ideals than cold hard accounting and profit margins. They talk old school about traditions and history and the sport itself and old players and memories of the field or the terraces.

'Blazers' are the sentimentalists whilst 'suits' are the realists...................... you'd think!

But as I alluded to somewhere above - the 'suits' aren't really all that particular about realism verses sentimentalism - they're out not to champion realism at all but to champion profit, money, growth - as always.

And so - we have the situation whereby the PRL are cruel in the realism about the HEC - "it needs to modify to sustain its profit margins."
And yet, at the same time, the PRL (or clubs linked to the 'suits' in it) do an about-face and go all sentimental when they attack the big bad realists (WC organisers) for dropping many club grounds from their list of venues for 2015.

WC organising 'suits' want Profit before sentimentality. The PRL clubs in this particular debate choose 'sentimentality' so that yet again Profit can go their way instead of the way of football clubs.

So much for the seeming division between the needs of 'suits' and the needs of 'blazers'. 'Suits' can very much mimic 'blazers' when it .....................suits............ them

You're right. I was trying to come up with a nice simple characterisation. Suits are quite prepared to pinch tactics off blazers in certain circumstances - and sometimes the reverse can apply too. Any analogy has its stretch-to-breaking point

beshocked wrote:Plus the Pro12 sides add virtually nothing to the Amlin.

... that might be because they're nearly all in the HEC?