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."

Kingshu wrote:While a 2.5% share per team as Dubbelyew L Overate and Pete C (Kiwireddevil) suggest is flawed.

SRU and FIR share would fall from 12% to 5%
IRFU and WRU would fall from 13% to 7.5%
RFU increase from 25% to 30%
FRU increase from 25% to 35%

None of the Pro 12 Unions would agree with this, and then whats to stop say the WRU creating teams to enter just to get a bigger share!

Dividing it per team, won't work especially as Unions decreased teams (WRU, FIR and SRU) to concentrate their share into fewer teams, by then changing it to per team, it undoes this work. (why would Italy then concentrate on two teams and not revert back to entering Super 10 teams, after all this year Italy has 6 teams in Europe) so would get a bigger share than Ireland!

I think that the shares won't change, but that the overall participation pot will be a smaller percentage, and the knockout prize money percent of the total ERC pot will increase, and go between the 3 tiers.

haven't the posters mainly said on here that the HC shouldn't change to suit the Aviva more and that it's tough luck if that's how we want to run the Avia. Now we're being told that the HC cant change (money per team) because it wouldn't suit the Rabo. Is that not a little unfair?

beshocked wrote:Thanks greytiger.

On the other hand maybe 5 is a good number.

The thing I have noticed about the English sides that qualify in 5th and 6th generally aren't as strong as the top 4 which is unsurprising. They don't do particularly well in the HC.

I wouldn't expect Sale to make much of an impact in the HC. They came 6th in the AP.

Last season's 5th,6th and 7th sides - Irish,Bath and Gloucester went out with a whimper.

Just having the top 5 could well boost the quality.

Or maybe 32 teams in an all-out contest for HEC/Amlin qualification in eight pools of four. Top two of each pool float and bottom two sink.

I hope that whatever transpires the French clubs will take the competition more seriously. Castres are sending a weakened team to Ravenhill tomorrow; English clubs complain about Irish sides being able to rest players in the run-up to the HC as skewing the competition- I think that French teams resting players in the HC skews it a lot more!

Northampton might have cause to complain should Castres give up in Round 6 against Ulster if they are already out.

Notch I agree. Castres resting players and giving up isn't new.

Will be interesting to see how seriously Sale take the HC.

I think Notch that better neogatiated TV and sponsorship deals will make it more attractive to French clubs.

Add in that France get a 25% share and there then a bit added for knock outs that is divided among clubs.

Basically Castres will be given X for taking part, and X plus Y if reach knock outs but Y isnt really an inticeing amount.

So for French clubs the main thing is to qualify and get X, once there it doesn't matter if they top the group or finish last as long as they are back next year to pick up X again.

currently 12% (Y) of the ERC profit goes toward the Knock out stages prize money. 88% is split between the unions for taking part.

Personally I like a greater share should be given in Prize money and reduce the share divided for taking part.

say 60%(X) (instead of 88%) the share divided for taking part.

40% (instead of 12%) then divided out for each team reaching knock out stages in 3 cups, plus extra in h-cup for 1st and 2nd in group as well.

This way the Unions are guarented less, but performance is rewarded,

To go to back to Castres X would be less, but Y would be worth trying for (Y can also be gained by finishing 1st or 2nd in group and increases with each round)

To my thinking that would make teams take the H-cup seriously, even fighting to the last day for 2nd spot instead of 3rd, and would also add better Prize money to Almin and 3rd tier cup.

There hasn't been much written about the French attitude. There's been a lot of speculation about whether they can be easily accomodated in order to isolate the English clubs. It's worth going back to 2006 to see what France was saying then. In particular, Serge Blanco when he was president of the LNR.

For starters, this from the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2006/mar/30/rugbyunion.gdnsport3

...Blanco claims that France are effectively subsidising the Celtic countries and deserve a larger portion of the proceeds...Blanco wants the French and the English, who, he argues, generate most of the money, to gain a controlling influence. He also wants Celtic representation cut. "The omnipotence of an ERC board which chokes everything is finished," he said. "It refuses to be accountable and we do not want to submit to its will. We have been very well-behaved children up to now, but that is finished. There will be a revolution if they do not listen to us. I am sounding the alarm before it is too late"...

..."In 10 years of the Heineken Cup, only once has an English or French team not won it," said Blanco. "The Celts are profiting from us and that is unacceptable. We could boycott the Heineken Cup and our clubs would not lose money. We could do without it"...

In subsequent years, of course, the Irish went on to win five of the next seven Cups. You would think that undermines Blanco's last point but I suspect it has just made him more annoyed. Here's how he sees rugby's priorities:

http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/extra/33448-blanco-blames-rfu-for-cup-boycott

"A good organisation should make as its priority its league rugby, their championships. But at the moment, the pyramid is inversed."

Back in 2006, then, Blanco thought the Celtic nations were relying too heavily on the Heineken Cup and not developing the financial base of their league.He's not much of a fan of regional teams, having this to say in 2009 about Super Rugby:

http://www.miningmx.com/pls/cms/iac.page?p_t1=3085&p_t2=7961&p_t3=0&p_t4=0&p_dynamic=YP&p_content_id=584638&p_site_id=83

...That essence of the club shaping a player as a child, of identity for a player with his home-town and of loyalty to old-fashioned values, is something that pervades nearly every corner of Blanco's conversation. It is perhaps appropriate that he talks of this during the Super 14, for the regionalisation of rugby, and especially the franchising thereof, is his prime example.

"The Super 14 is not interesting to watch," he said. "It removes the identity of the provinces here and it has no emotion at all. "It's nice to play and nice to watch, but there's no ambience. Nobody seems scared, nobody seems too happy for a win...It is a pre-fabricated laboratory for test players. The basis of all sport is that each club and province has its own culture...I am from Biarritz... the only time I leave that is if I play for France. It is a sense of belonging, and this is so important in a game like rugby"...

I don't agree with Blanco there. It's clear, though, that he likes the bottom-up road for rugby. If you read more of the interview above, he was scathing about the international calendar as well. The problem of the inverted pyramid for Blanco starts with too much Test rugby. His preferred solution is to move to a global calendar, which obviously isn't to everyone's taste. He wants Tests to have more rarity value, and the time freed up to be used for more lucrative club competitions.

Blanco's views probably aren't universally shared across French rugby. After all, even though the majority of clubs voted for the Heineken boycott in 2006, three were opposed. Nevertheless, he was serving as president, so there are bound to be more who agree with him.

Nominally, then, it may seem as if the French just care about fixture congestion but the deeper philosphical difference remains. If the Heineken Cup and more Tests are needed as cash cows to fund teams in the Rabo, then people like Blanco think that's bad for rugby. Notch talks above about making sure French clubs have the right incentives to take all their Heineken Cup fixtures seriously. Blanco thinks member unions need greater incentives to treat all Rabo fixtures more seriously.

profitius wrote:

niwatts wrote:It proves nothing but what happened in one instance. Something that is predominantly true will by definition have some exceptions.

Did the PRL say that every game played by an English club gets higher viewing figures than those featuring PRO12 sides? If so, please provide a link to this comment and I'll happily concede the point.

In terms of the general claim that was made, that it's the French & English teams that draw the most viewers and therefore money to the competition, the only relevant figures that would prove or disprove it are those for all the matches over the course of the tournament, not individual games.

OK but the PRL said that they get way more viewers. We've seen no evidence of that.

Actually, that wasn't a claim that has been made by the PRL, it's something that has been attributed to them by posters. I believe the quote in question is that made by Nigel Wray, "we (France & England) provide most of the revenue".

In terms of "we've seen no evidence" of English & French clubs getting more viewers, I think you mean you haven't looked for that evidence. As I've stated above, the only real evidence of worth is a breakdown of the viewers over the course of the tournament. Short of that I could point you to similar one off instances to that above which drew my initial comment for being inconclusive to the real claim being made. Another poster on this forum provided these viewing figures for the HC finals over the last 5 years:

2012 - 309,000 - Leinster v Ulster
2011 - 400,000 - Leinster v Northampton
2010 - 161,000 - Toulouse v Biarritz
2009 - 339,000 - Leinster v Leicester
2008 - 137,000 - Munster v Toulouse

Bigger audiences for games involving English clubs, particularly when you take into account (as you said above) that the competition is growing each year and therefore you would expect a larger audience each year as a result. But like I said, due to it's limitations not the sort of evidence I would hold up as proving or disproving the point in question.

Personally in regards to TV revenue, I don't think that viewing figures answer any questions really.

OK you may get more viewers in England and France, but how many of them are tuning in because in the biggest most prestigious tourament featuring the elite teams from across Europe.

How many are tuning in just because its an English club, and they would watch an English club play anyone, and how many tune in to watch an English club play in the premier tournament in Europe (typically the biggest games of thier clubs season).
Eg How many tune in to watch say Leicester V Ospreys in LV cup, and how many more would it be for a H-cup game?

The increase in viewers is due to the Prestige of the tournament and the other Unions that created it and take part have to be credited for boosting that prestige and hence TV veiwing figures.

Kingshu wrote:The increase in viewers is due to the Prestige of the tournament and the other Unions that created it and take part have to be credited for boosting that prestige and hence TV veiwing figures.

Very true, hoever it does not take away from the fact that a population of 50 million vs a population of 5 million is vastly different. If only 10% of the bigger population watches rugby it is equivalent to the whole population of the smaller nation.

In fact any competition dubbed the "prestigious" European competition in Europe that their teams partake in would be viewed because of it's suggested content.

The reality is when you look at the economics of it, the broadcaster makes his offer based on the revenue he can potentially earn from proadcasting any product, and you can't hide from the fact that the numbers will ultimately favour the bigger populated nation.

niwatts wrote:

profitius wrote:

niwatts wrote:It proves nothing but what happened in one instance. Something that is predominantly true will by definition have some exceptions.

Did the PRL say that every game played by an English club gets higher viewing figures than those featuring PRO12 sides? If so, please provide a link to this comment and I'll happily concede the point.

In terms of the general claim that was made, that it's the French & English teams that draw the most viewers and therefore money to the competition, the only relevant figures that would prove or disprove it are those for all the matches over the course of the tournament, not individual games.

OK but the PRL said that they get way more viewers. We've seen no evidence of that.

Actually, that wasn't a claim that has been made by the PRL, it's something that has been attributed to them by posters. I believe the quote in question is that made by Nigel Wray, "we (France & England) provide most of the revenue".

In terms of "we've seen no evidence" of English & French clubs getting more viewers, I think you mean you haven't looked for that evidence. As I've stated above, the only real evidence of worth is a breakdown of the viewers over the course of the tournament. Short of that I could point you to similar one off instances to that above which drew my initial comment for being inconclusive to the real claim being made. Another poster on this forum provided these viewing figures for the HC finals over the last 5 years:

2012 - 309,000 - Leinster v Ulster
2011 - 400,000 - Leinster v Northampton
2010 - 161,000 - Toulouse v Biarritz
2009 - 339,000 - Leinster v Leicester
2008 - 137,000 - Munster v Toulouse

Bigger audiences for games involving English clubs, particularly when you take into account (as you said above) that the competition is growing each year and therefore you would expect a larger audience each year as a result. But like I said, due to it's limitations not the sort of evidence I would hold up as proving or disproving the point in question.

Interesting enoughly according to those stats it seems the English bring the most viewers, then the Irish then the French.

An all Irish final was far popular than the all French one. I went to both - 2012 and 2010. I can tell you I preferred the Irish one!

Was impressed by the amount of Irish in London that day.

While I agree with that Bitong, say 5% of the populaton would watch a LV-cup game and 10% of the population would watch a H-cup game, surley the Parties that create what is the H-cup are in some way responsible for that 5% increase. I'm not saying it should all be split down the middle, but also the Unions with the bigger market can't claim all the credit for the increased viewing figures.

If you look at it, only as, each Union brings with it only its viewing population, would only be part of the picture.

Ie The Provinces bring much more to the compatation in viewer terms than just the (relatively small) viewing figures in Ireland.

I think it would be unfair to say Irish Provinces only bring in the Irish Viewing figures and not give them credit for the increased figures in the UK or France, when they play a French or English team. They are helping create the product that is being sold there.

Kingshu, do you consider HEC/Amlin club or union competitions?

Consider HEC/Almin as competitions for the leading club, regional and provincial teams from the six International Rugby Board (IRB) countries in Europe, run by the ERC the organising body, ERC made up of the Unions.


ERC Board of Directors

France

Jean-Pierre Lux (ERC Chairman)


France

Michel Palmié (FFR)

René Bouscatel (LNR)

England

Rob Andrew (RFU)

Peter Wheeler (Premiership Rugby)

Ireland

Peter Boyle (IRFU)

Philip Browne (IRFU)

Italy

Orazio Arancio (FIR)

Fabrizio Gaetaniello (FIR)

Scotland

Mark Dodson (Scottish Rugby)

Ian McLauchlan (Scottish Rugby)

Wales

Roger Lewis (WRU)

Stuart Gallacher (RRW)


So answer is both, Club/Provincial/Regional Comp run mostly by the Unions involved.

Beshocked, are they the UK figures? Worldwide? European? If UK you would expect more UK viewers for an all Irish than an all French final. You would really need to add up all of the viewers would wide. And then you would have to do it for all games, taking some sort of average. And then take into account various other things. As a rough guide it suggests more people in the UK (assuming it's UK) watch a HEC final if English sides are involved. Of course more people generally watch finals and you don't know who's going to be playing Leinster in it so the sponsors/advertisers just pay their money. Also if you've already paid for Sky to watch your team you more likely to watch other teams in the finals.

The biggest indicators would be the pool games. Of which there is loads and loads of data and no-ones going to do a complete analysis (other than TV companies).

Kingshu wrote:While I agree with that Bitong, say 5% of the populaton would watch a LV-cup game and 10% of the population would watch a H-cup game, surley the Parties that create what is the H-cup are in some way responsible for that 5% increase. I'm not saying it should all be split down the middle, but also the Unions with the bigger market can't claim all the credit for the increased viewing figures.

Yes, I understand and agree with you, it isn't just down to population size, it is a blend of the diversity the competition brongs as well.

Kingshu,I cant see how it could be both either it is a club competition, where players can come from anywhere, or it is a Union competition where the players qualify for the Union.

broadlandboy wrote:Kingshu,I cant see how it could be both either it is a club competition, where players can come from anywhere, or it is a Union competition where the players qualify for the Union.

The clubs/Provinces/regions all belong to a Union, and the Unions run the comp, so both.

If you think its a Club comp, then why does each Union have a member on the ERC Board?

The Unions have members on the ERC board because they set it up. Doesnt mean that it has to be a Union competition,when set up the clubs were finding their feet in a professional sport, and IIRC IRB rules are that only Unions can run rugby competitions.
How can it be a Union comp when they have non eligable players?
Therein lies the major problem in that FRA/ENG see it as a Club comp while the Celt/Ita see it as a Union comp & trying to square that circle is not easy