Premiership Rugby is to begin discussions next month about an alternative competition to the Heineken Cup that could include an element of southern hemisphere opposition.

Could be interesting. Would be great for the continued development of Argentina.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/9741136/Premiership-Rugby-to-set-up-talks-to-break-deadlock-over-new-Heineken-Cup-competition.html

Premiership Rugby is to begin discussions next month about an alternative competition to the Heineken Cup that could include an element of southern hemisphere opposition.

By Gavin Mairs
11:00PM GMT 12 Dec 2012

The move comes after a fourth round of talks involving European stakeholders, held at a hotel near Heathrow Airport, failed to end the impasse over the future structure of the Heineken Cup from 2014.

Among proposals likely to come under consideration are an Anglo-French competition, while there is thought to be interest from Argentina to establish professional clubs below their national side that could be based in Spain.

While there is still hope that a deal can be done for English clubs to remain in the European tournament, one source said last night it was time for “big thinking”.

The English clubs’ position is strengthened by their new television deal with BT Vision from 2014 which would be lucrative enough to replace the income from both the Premiership and European competitions.

Divisions between the English and French clubs — who are demanding reform of the tournament, including a reduction of clubs from 24 to 20 — and their Rabodirect Pro 12 counterparts are thought to have widened.

While the proposal by the representatives of the Celtic and Italian clubs for an expanded tournament of 32 clubs is now thought to be off the table, their overriding preference is said to be to maintain the status quo.

Premiership Rugby had hoped that a breakthrough would have been possible after presenting details of a possible compromise over their demands that only the top six of the Pro 12 clubs qualify and financial guarantees over funding.

The English clubs’s suggestion was for the top four Pro 12 sides to automatically qualify, with the next two qualifiers based on geographical spread to ensure every country was represented in the tournament.

Sources say there was no give in the Pro 12 position, which currently guarantees two places for Scotland and Italy, during the three-hour meeting.

The English and French clubs however pointed out that as they had served the necessary two years’ notice on the current accord back in June, it was not realistic to expect them now to accept the status quo six months on.

It is understood that Premiership Rugby remains hopeful that an agreement can still be reached and are prepared to re-examine their own proposals over the festive period.

But this will also go hand-in-hand with exploratory talks about filling the nine European weekends with an alternative tournament.

While no date was set for another stakeholder meeting, the ERC board is scheduled to meet on Feb 6 next year, when a further review will take place.

'The English clubs’s (sic) suggestion was for the top four Pro 12 sides to automatically qualify, with the next two qualifiers based on geographical spread to ensure every country was represented in the tournament.'


So let's imagine a scenario where the Irish provinces finish first to fourth in the Pro 12. With two places remaining, one union of three will have no representative in the tournament the following season.

if you chose to be in the same domestic league as other nations i.e. the Rabo then HC qualification should be on merit... not favours.

It would be unfair for lets say Connacht if they came 4th to have to settle for the ECC cup whereas Glasgow who comes 12th lets say gets a HC spot.

If so then whats the point of the league???

This Argie, French tournament sounds about as likely as the SA one PRL were touting last time, the one the SA's said they had no interest in.

France want a HEC, the already said they will not be interested in a Franglo Cup.

fa0019 wrote:if you chose to be in the same domestic league as other nations i.e. the Rabo then HC qualification should be on merit... not favours.

It would be unfair for lets say Connacht if they came 4th to have to settle for the ECC cup whereas Glasgow who comes 12th lets say gets a HC spot.

If so then whats the point of the league???

If Glasgow came 12th then Edinburgh would have come somewhere in between 11th and 1st so Glasgow would not qualify.

maestegmafia wrote:

fa0019 wrote:if you chose to be in the same domestic league as other nations i.e. the Rabo then HC qualification should be on merit... not favours.

It would be unfair for lets say Connacht if they came 4th to have to settle for the ECC cup whereas Glasgow who comes 12th lets say gets a HC spot.

If so then whats the point of the league???

If Glasgow came 12th then Edinburgh would have come somewhere in between 11th and 1st so Glasgow would not qualify.

What if Glasgow won the HC?


Honestly if it gets to a position where Connacht are finsihing 4th in the Rabo then the irish seriously need to consider leaving that league anyway.

maestegmafia wrote:This Argie, French tournament sounds about as likely as the SA one PRL were touting last time, the one the SA's said they had no interest in.

France want a HEC, the already said they will not be interested in a Franglo Cup.

1st point, no the French didn't and you were schooled in why this was the case yesterday. 2nd the article doesn't talk about a franglo cup anyway. And 3rd fa0019 makes some quite compelling arguments as to why the South African's might be interested in this. It's far from rare for a body to say something publicy but actually have different plans. Given the below I would imagine they would be crazy to not even consider this if the option was being discussed.

fa0019 wrote:Wait until 2016 and set up a program with SA and FRA.

SR contracts last until 2015. SA wants 6 SR teams.... AUS & NZ say no way.

It benefits all 3 nations. SA would reduce the massive toll it takes on both their finances and player fatigue due to the travelling they undertake.

They would still face similar level competitions if ENG and FRA ageed to Franchise and the market for all 3 would be endless.
SA companies would love to sponsor their clubs into European markets..... marketing to NZ & AUS gives them a market of 35MM... marketing to ENG and FRA gives them 130MM people.

The time zones are within 2hrs of each other.... meaning prime time viewing in all 3 countries whenever a game is played.... unlike SR where SA will view away games at 10am (not exactly ideal for a marketer of the sport) and vice versa.

SA players would also benefit as they could move to FRA & ENG without fear of losing their bok place... and the boks could easily retain the services of guys offered big money to move abroad. The player drain would be lessened also as SA clubs would get significantly richer and be able to retain the services of their top players... putting them on an even keel with the big cheeses of world rugby.

Let NZ & AUS venture into the Asian Pacific market, themselves marketing to SA is probably not worth much.... they will want to open up the lucrative Japanese market.

Even if this fantastical bargaining ploy did develop into a reality it would basically ruin rugby throughout the world.

Argentina move to Spain where they have few fans, South Africa leave the best tournament in the World to join England and France ruining both the HEC and Super XV.

I cant see the IRB sanctioning that.

McCafferty is up for a very big fall, the longer this drags out the more he looks like a complete idiot.

maestegmafia wrote:Even if this fantastical bargaining ploy did develop into a reality it would basically ruin rugby throughout the world.

Argentina move to Spain where they have few fans, South Africa leave the best tournament in the World to join England and France ruining both the HEC and Super XV.

I cant see the IRB sanctioning that.

McCafferty is up for a very big fall, the longer this drags out the more he looks like a complete idiot.

Is there any realy need for that sort of comment? This is a negotiation and everyone is trying to look after their best interests. You can't call someone an idiot just because they aren't rolling over and doing exactly what you want them too. Can you also explain why he is due for a fall? As far as I can see he is still in an incredibly strong bargaining position and I haven't seen anything to counter this.

As for ruining world rugby this is just ridiculous. If anything it might result in a greater spread of competitions throughout the world with more incentive to get other nations involved. Did you ever complain that the top three nations in world rugby were 'ruining world rugby' by holding a tournament that excluded all others? No you didn't because it didn't support your agenda.

I too think this is a highly unlikely scenario but the more I think about it the more I think that if rugby is serious about expanding throughout the world this sort of shakeup could be just what is needed.

The IRB cannot live without the 3 major cash cows in world rugby.... i.e. ENG, FRA and SA.

Without them... the game as a professional body is dead. They probably don't have rights anyhow to say that SA must be in a competition only with NZ & AUS and ENG must stay within Europe etc etc.

There are no ties to say X has to stay here and Y has to stay there.... IF NZ and Wales wanted to set up a competition I doubt anyone could stop them even if it made zero sense.

From an SA point of view I think they are getting a rough deal from being in competition with AUS and NZ. The worst out of the 3 anyhow.

SA contributes more but gets the least. They literally fund the ARU and stop NZ rugby from being a professional backwater.

In return they get players who are forced to travel near double the amount as AUS and NZ players do increasing player fatigue and 2/3 of the competition games are at offpeak times... which means they are of little value commercially.
AUS & NZ get 2/3 of games at peak times on the other hand.

In terms of the best tournament...perhaps, perhaps not. It certainly doesn't do SA any favours. 30 years ago the CC had 14 teams who all packed in stadiums and the relative strength was very high.

Now they have to push all the best into 5 teams and leave the rest of the best to be forced to move abroad where they lose massive numbers of potentials. SA has someting like 100 players plying their trade in the top tier leagues in Europe. All lost because 5 teams aren't enough.

SA has responsibility to themselves only.... and at the moment their are a number of unions who are drinking from their well.

Same with ENG & FRA to an extent. Unions should not expect handouts from the endeavours of others.

Do I think its the way forward.... not sure but the balance for both SA in SR and ENG & FRA in the HC needs to be shifted back to a level playing field.... if not then neither should have to sign a new contract with unfair terms.

If smaller "mighty mouse" unions want to dictate then watch and see how important those unions are to their own survival.

fa0019 wrote:if you chose to be in the same domestic league as other nations i.e. the Rabo then HC qualification should be on merit... not favours.

It would be unfair for lets say Connacht if they came 4th to have to settle for the ECC cup whereas Glasgow who comes 12th lets say gets a HC spot.

If so then whats the point of the league???

That's your opinion,just because you believe that it doesn't mean everyone else has to.

The point of the league is to give our teams a decent number of games against decent opposition.It has nothing to do with the HC a completely different competition that was set up before the Rabo league.

I accept your point of view but do you think that you can have 1 rule for you and one rule for everyone else... if you do you'll quickly find the commerical value of the HC without ENG & FRA is the Rabo?

Think you can survive on that money alone?

Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Just to clarify something, there weren't any direct quotes in the original post. It's just based on 'sources'. Give the fact they twist things when they DO have direct quotes I'd take it all with a pitch of salt.

The only thing we probably know is the PRL will start looking around and ask if other people want to play. They were doing this before so boring. the next big step is if the French, South Africans and/or Argentinians actually come out and say they're considering it (French especially).

I don't see SA joining Europe, I just can't see it happening.

The Super Rugby tournament is entrenched, the HC is entrenched, every time there is a renewal up for one of the hemispheres people throw their toys out and see what sticks.

Yet, after some minor alterations the same old competitions run.

The only person in SA that MIGHT se the money as the drawcard is Jurie Roux.

Whether that is enough I don't think so.

Besides that, if SA, FRance and England went into a Cup competition together, how will the other Unions survive? We are already subsidising OZ and NZ, what then? Japan?

Maest werent you one of the one postulating that the Rabonians could replace the Franglos with Safrica?

Wouldnt it be a big boost to Spanish rugby to have an Argentinian side there, spreading the love rather than reducing it? Wouldnt it to be a bosst to Argentina and give them more ocntrol over more of their players?


It does all smack a bit of SCW c. 2003 though " at this rate we'll have to leave the 6 nations" or whatever it was.


The simple fact is though that the HC is failing its stakeholders. Theres nothing binding anyone to it anymore than there was anything binding the WRU to stick by its clubs and not shaft them with regionalisation.

The landscape has changed, the existing comeptitions need to ctach up to this. Frankly its been long overdue, and the PRL has doggedly stood in the way of the Premiership being reformed (the RFUs been after two tiers of 8 for ages) ...in that case of course its been the small clubs standing in the way of progress.

I have no idea how relaistic this is , but SARU raised the possibility of withdrawing from Super rugby quite some time ago. This isnt purely driven by one lunatics imagination.

But with a comprimise deal on the table to the HC cup of fudge (three leagues, one cup?) appears to be the more realistic. What this does show though is that the obsseion with Sky and the soup kitchen approach to encouraging the lame ducks of Europe to avoid reforming is not the only feasable option out there. Its just one very few peopel want to face, partly because it means some senior RFU figures will no longer get invited to some longstanding free lunches.


A true Euro elite competition would require franchises given on the ability to rpovide long term viability and strong rugby, not sentiment. It would be a closed shop existing seperately to the current domestic leagues.
Noone is even offering this option up though

BB

Push people too far and anything is possible.

I agree I don't see it as likely and yes, the threat is what it is... but they need to be addressed to re-balance both competitions as at the moment the big fish are being unfairly treated.

FA, from what I have seen from the IRB and most Unions, common sense rarely prevails.

Common sense would tell you that SA from a financial position will be likely 4 times better off, they will likely be able to finance all 14 their provinces to become truly professional franchises.

Yet, common sense have yet to bring about a global season, have to to reign supreme in SARU etc.

Toadfish wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:Even if this fantastical bargaining ploy did develop into a reality it would basically ruin rugby throughout the world.

Argentina move to Spain where they have few fans, South Africa leave the best tournament in the World to join England and France ruining both the HEC and Super XV.

I cant see the IRB sanctioning that.

McCafferty is up for a very big fall, the longer this drags out the more he looks like a complete idiot.

This is a negotiation and everyone is trying to look after their best interests.

This is the key difference, I think on one side you have the PRL a professional organisation set up to look after the financials of English rugby clubs and nothing else. The other side you have the Unions who are looking out for the good of the game and its longstanding future of competitions within a group of nations. France, Wales, Ireland, Scotland and Italy have all said they want the ERC and HEC to work. France want a few changes but they are willing to compromise to make sure the competition exists. They have all also said they want England to be part of it, as have the RFU.

McCafferty's bargaining power is his deal with BT vision and, on a European level at least, that has been decried illegal by the RFU.

The likely alternatives if England don't want to play ball and stay in the competition is England leaving again. That cant be financially sensible, it also cant be much good for English rugby players to not be playing the top teams in a regular competition.

WOW

A lot of people enjoying playing the pantomime villains today, with phrases like...

'Don't bite the hand that feeds you'

'Push people too far and anything is possible'

'Ruining rugby throughout the world'

Jeez guys!!!!

fa0019 wrote:I accept your point of view but do you think that you can have 1 rule for you and one rule for everyone else... if you do you'll quickly find the commerical value of the HC without ENG & FRA is the Rabo?

Think you can survive on that money alone?

Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

What rule is this?We aren't forcing the English or French to abide by any rules,they can set up how their clubs qualify any way they like.It's the PRL that are trying to impose their will on the Unions that make up the Rabo,not the other way round.

Your last point is not only ill informed but also incredibly condescending.

I can't speak for the Welsh,Scots or Italians but for the IRFU the 6 Nations is by far the most important money maker,we'd miss the HC if it went but I'd be confident we would adapt and survive.A lot of our fringe players would be let go but I'm sure we'd keep the top talent at home.

Also as a final question,this comp that seems to be mooted with S.A. what restrictions would you try to impose on them when they constantly win the thing?

asoreleftshoulder wrote:What rule is this?We aren't forcing the English or French to abide by any rules,they can set up how their clubs qualify any way they like.It's the PRL that are trying to impose their will on the Unions that make up the Rabo,not the other way round.

Nobody is 'forcing' anyone to do anything. The English and French clubs can't be forced to remain in a competition they aren't satisfied with (for whatever reason). This seems to be what some people think they should do.

thebluesmancometh wrote:WOW

A lot of people enjoying playing the pantomime villains today, with phrases like...

'Don't bite the hand that feeds you'

'Push people too far and anything is possible'

'Ruining rugby throughout the world'

Jeez guys!!!!

Well thats no different to what "your lot" have been saying about Roger Lewis recently

Maest
You truely believe that the Unions are looking out for the best interests of the game as a whole?
Also you think that the English are the problem & that the French are willing to compromise? IIRC been tried & failed

At least some are keeping their sense of humour!!

HammerofThunor wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:What rule is this?We aren't forcing the English or French to abide by any rules,they can set up how their clubs qualify any way they like.It's the PRL that are trying to impose their will on the Unions that make up the Rabo,not the other way round.

Nobody is 'forcing' anyone to do anything. The English and French clubs can't be forced to remain in a competition they aren't satisfied with (for whatever reason). This seems to be what some people think they should do.

That's true the English and French can do what they want but I suppose they are getting the brunt of the criticism since they made the first move in demanding that the Unions in the Rabo change their rules to suit the English and French teams agenda.

IIRC the ERC told the French/English clubs our way or the highway with them choosing the highway then the ERC deciding to have talks only after the French/English clubs had given notice to not renew the present agreement as is their right.

maestegmafia wrote:Even if this fantastical bargaining ploy did develop into a reality it would basically ruin rugby throughout the world.

Argentina move to Spain where they have few fans, South Africa leave the best tournament in the World to join England and France ruining both the HEC and Super XV.

I cant see the IRB sanctioning that.

McCafferty is up for a very big fall, the longer this drags out the more he looks like a complete idiot.

I think that you are overcome with emotional posturing maes.

You seem to imagine press statements and reports are factual, that moral obligations (if any) are unalienable duties, and that certain groups both within and outside the current systems are not playing financial hardball games.

Personally I feel that there is nothing in the current or any proposed variant which involves any multiple of eight teams in the competition will produce imbalanced groups and therefore lucky winners by automatic entry rights and second-placed 'best' pool winners.

"I think that you are overcome with emotional posturing maes."

Sums up everything fa0019 has said in this post. I havent commented so far on this thread because I'd rather just sit back and laugh.

Ok well first of all being SA based I wouldn't mind if SA clubs cleared up all the time... although I think it would be doubtful. I think at the moment the relative strength of those clubs in Europe are quite high.

Condescending or not, its probably true.. although in all honesty its not meant to cause offence.... rather for smaller unions to realise that they shouldn't get too big for their boots.

Where do clubs like Munster for instance get their money? I assume part from themselves, part from the IRFU right? How did they get so rich? Good marketing?
Take Munster for instance... how could they afford to offer CJ Stander more than the Bulls could for instance?

The bulls are probably the best supported club in the world and one of the most successful in recent years. They get 45K people in their stadium every game and travel well where ever they go in SA. So thats probably 4.5MM rand per home game (which is what 400K eur). Thats still a handy gate receipt whereever in the world you go.

You couldn't sell more merchandise in SA from the bulls. They maximise their revenue capabilities.

Yet they couldn't even get close to CJ Standers contract offer and he left.

How is that the worlds biggest club who are masters of commerical enterprise still are unable to match clubs like Munster who are in all respect far smaller.
Same with the cheetahs losing Ebersohn to the force and the Sharks losing Ratebone and Vickerman to the Brumbies years back.

Could it be that TV money in IRE is bigger than the TV money in SA? Really.... or is it that the TV money in Europe collective bumps up the smaller nations.. and the TV money bolstered from SA is filtered away to AUS and NZ as they get literally 1/3 of all contracts no matter how much they contribute. At the moment I can't see it coming from anywhere else but I would be very interested to know.

The problem I have with this argument is comments like...

'Where do clubs like Munster for instance get their money?'

When your claiming to know who is correct, who owes what to who and who is the dominant force in rugby at least know the basics about what your arguing about!

It may have some merit,

Argentina entered a Pampas XV into the Vodacom Cup in SA (below Currie cup) and won it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pampas_XV

got Attendance: 8,000 Attendance: 500 and 200 in group games, not sure how these compare to others for Vodacom Cup, and it would be a case of setting South Africa's with to link to the team to attend

Would attences be better in Spain? would they be about the Scottish teams Level? could they grow?

Would they be intrested being in an expanded Pro 14 if H-cup falls though?

thebluesmancometh wrote:The problem I have with this argument is comments like...

'Where do clubs like Munster for instance get their money?'

When your claiming to know who is correct, who owes what to who and who is the dominant force in rugby at least know the basics about what your arguing about!

There is no argument there, only questions.

Kingshu wrote:It may have some merit,

Argentina entered a Pampas XV into the Vodacom Cup in SA (below Currie cup) and won it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pampas_XV

got Attendance: 8,000 Attendance: 500 and 200 in group games, not sure how these compare to others for Vodacom Cup, and it would be a case of setting South Africa's with to link to the team to attend

Would attences be better in Spain? would they be about the Scottish teams Level? could they grow?

Would they be intrested being in an expanded Pro 14 if H-cup falls though?

I don't know where to find the spectator numbers, but here are the television viewership in SA for rugby events.

http://www.frontrowgrunt.co.za/2012/07/currie-cup-still-top-tv-dog/

Actually biltong he's argued above that teams like Munster are 'biting the hand that feeds them' (presumably referring to England and France)....then later has to ask where it is Munster get their money from.

By the way, the overwhelming majority of the money at the Irish provinces comes from the IRFU and themselves. If I recall the figures correctly the IRFU gets about 75% of its income from the 6N. So the HC isn't actually worth that much to us financially and no HC certainly wouldn't cause a financial collapse of our teams, as some here would like to suggest. Ulster, Munster and Leinster are also, all very good at bringing in their own revenue outside of IRFU funding as mentioned above.

I went to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Vodacom_Cup

and clicked on the show for more details of each round

Semi final they only got 300 other semi final (2 SA teams) Attendance: 1000

looks like in Vodaphone Cup some teams get big crowds, most small.

I'm sure you'll know better Biltong.

Overall though the proposial of Pampas XV moving from SA to Europe isn't that silly an Idea, even if H-cup goes ahead, I wouldn't mind seeing them in it.

FA, this report is a little old, but you might find it interesting.

http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/1831/03chapter2.pdf

Kingshu wrote:I went to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Vodacom_Cup

and clicked on the show for more details of each round

Semi final they only got 300 other semi final (2 SA teams) Attendance: 1000

looks like in Vodaphone Cup some teams get big crowds, most small.

I'm sure you'll know better Biltong.

Overall though the proposial of Pampas XV moving from SA to Europe isn't that silly an Idea, even if H-cup goes ahead, I wouldn't mind seeing them in it.

Not sure how accurate those figures are mate, I watched a number of Vodacom Matches and I doubt it is less than a couple of thousand. Argentina will defintiely benefit from Europe, the Vodacom Cup is semi Pro, so you will find it isn't near strong enough to compare with HC, the Vodacom Cup is really just there for Provinces to expose young talent in order to contract them for currie cup and more.

thebluesmancometh

What I'm saying is that I know the bulls get close to 45000 in every home game at SR and 30000 ave. for the CC.

I know that ave. tickets cost about r100 so thats r4.5MM per game in gate receipts alone. I also know that the bulls market everything, literally everything from kids bikes to portable weber's. Even in the cape they sell very well as their are so many bulls fans in Cape Town (expats).

I can only make a couple of conclusions but I doubt many if any clubs in Europe exist as well as the Bulls and the Stormers do from non TV commerical endeavours.

Munster was used because they have just taken CJ Stander from under the bulls noses.

Which brought me to my question, what is clubs in Europe esp. IRE, WAL and SCO (my own native home) main source of income and where does it come from?
I know the main source of income of AUS teams is TV money from SR money and RC money filtered through from the ARU.... which is equally split between the 3 regions.... even though the places where the money is generated is not evenly split.

This is why so many in SA are angry at the split.... because we pay for AUS & NZ professional rugby to exist and then they go on to bite us again by stealing our players as well as our wallets.

Is it so wrong to assume the same applies from TV money generated from the HC and the 6N?

Biltong,Is there any support for a 14 team pro league based on your Provinces?
If so this would dovetail very nicely with the French/English leagues

I say if Premiership rugby really, really, really wants out of the currently structured European competition (for it's own personal business reasons/obligations etc) then it's time for them to take the risk - walk the walk - and my blessings go with them.

I actually find that news about the lack of movement at the ERC chat uplifting - for a while there I thought the Pro12 contributors were beginning to think of collapsing to demands as the better part of 'compromise'; but nope, it seems they are sticking in there. My trust in the IRFU and the others is restored... for the time being! - it seems all talk of them getting ready to dilute their presence in Europe was overstated by some in the last few days.

The English Premiership now seems to have another prospective partnership in readiness - which kinda weakens the idea that there was ever a strong Anglo/French one in waiting. If one was the likely alternative, given alleged French compliance with PRLs issues, then why the need for yet another possible avenue?

Anyway, whichever way they want to now proceed - down the French route or the Argentine one - they should begin to put some flesh on the bones of their ideas and begin planning the transformation in practical terms - and whilst doing so, walk away from the ERC discussions.
The PRL has its obligations to the welfare of its clubs, they have every right to push for the best deal they can get - but the rest of us certainly have no obligation to starve ourselves so that more of the PRL sides can live.

If the English Premiership sides really mean business - then it's time they began to prove it to themselves and to the rest of us that those alternative aspirations are genuine.

You didn't mention the 6N until I said that the IRFU gets 75% of its money from it. You insinuated above that without the HC we would be relying on Rabo funding with the comment...

"if you do you'll quickly find the commerical value of the HC without ENG & FRA is the Rabo?

Think you can survive on that money alone?

Don't bite the hand that feeds you."

The money the IRFU makes from the HC is really only a fraction of what Irish rugby takes in from the 6N and Rabo as well as its own initiatives such as merchandise and ticket sales. So in answer to your above question could we survive without the money from the HC - the answer is a definite yes. Our main interest in the HC is not financial its the fact that its a great competition and we like winning it. But your suggestion that we somehow rely on the English and French in the HC for our very existence in professional rugby is pretty laughable and was aptly described above as very emotional posturing.

broadlandboy

Problem is that SANZAR control the SR who control the RC too.... if I'm correct.

Any move outside of the SR would impact the RC.... although without SA it would just be the Bleisdoe Cup, time and time again....yawn.

Secret
They already have by giving notice not to renew the present agreement along with the French clubs
You keep on about the English forgetting about the French Clubs
fa
Just asking.
Could NZ/AUS survive without SA money?

Artful_Dodger

I never mentioned money generated from the 6N but it sounds standard given that if the clubs get part funding from the IRFU and the IRFU gets money from the 6N then that would be a major source of income... just like clubs like the bulls get funding from SARU who get money from the RC.

It doesn't defeat the question though..... do you know how the 6N money is generated... is it all self generation i.e. what money is generated in Ireland stays in Ireland and vice-versa from TV contracts? If so the split would be massively cut towards England and France purely due to the population size of those nations. It would be a near 1:10 split... could that really be the split?

Could it be so different from the RC where money is equally split between the teams regardless if SA generates 80% or 10% of the TV revenue. I would surprised.

broadlandboy wrote:Biltong,Is there any support for a 14 team pro league based on your Provinces?
If so this would dovetail very nicely with the French/English leagues

No money mate.

That is why you have 5 super rugby franchises that gets most of it. The other nine provinces don't have the money to retain players, hence their stars are fed through to the 5 super rugby franchises.

Even with the new reduced version of the Currie Cup Premier division the Griquas have a shoe string budget.

The 1st division that makes up the other 8 provinces don't have much.

Hence the frustration that our broadcasting money is funding NZ and OZ.

The financial deal for us suck.

That's why every now and then I propose we must go it on our own, at least all the revenue will be ours.

fa0019 wrote:Artful_Dodger

I never mentioned money generated from the 6N but it sounds standard given that if the clubs get part funding from the IRFU and the IRFU gets money from the 6N then that would be a major source of income... just like clubs like the bulls get funding from SARU who get money from the RC.

It doesn't defeat the question though..... do you know how the 6N money is generated... is it all self generation i.e. what money is generated in Ireland stays in Ireland and vice-versa from TV contracts? If so the split would be massively cut towards England and France purely due to the population size of those nations. It would be a near 1:10 split... could that really be the split?

Could it be so different from the RC where money is equally split between the teams regardless if SA generates 80% or 10% of the TV revenue. I would surprised.

What are you suggesting at this stage - that England and France will leave the 6N as well as the HC and create a new international tournament as well as club one? It doesn't matter if England and France bring in most of the money for the 6N due to the size of their populations as without the other 4 countries England and France would stand to lose a hell of a lot of revenue themselves as England vs France simply wouldn't generate anything close to the amount of money that the 6N does.

broadlandboy

Its not like I am championing a split... I'm not in full support of a split, but I do think its something that should be raised to better fund our game.. what we raise we should keep etc.

However I doubt the game in SANZAR would be able to maintain its current status... AUS rugby is quite weak without assistance, they get a lot of players from NZ and SA and struggle to compete with other more popular sports.
NZ is still a very small country and even with the money they struggle financially as in the clubs. I think there is genuine opportunity in the Asia-Pacific and it would make a lot more sense from a TV point of view (pk hours etc) and their is a massive market out there.

But as BB said... what looks to be the most sensible doesn't always happen... in fact it very rarely does.

FA I am often in two minds about a split.

The biggest reason I am considering it is for thr benefit of our own development.

I am interested to see what Jurie Roux's plans are for SA rugby. I get the feeling he is planning to make some changes.

Just asking if there was any interest
Hypotheticaly SA do not renew SR next time,do you think there would be interest in a Pro 14 team league with inter league comp with French/English clubs with each country keeping the money generated by them selves

broadlandboy wrote:Secret
They already have by giving notice not to renew the present agreement along with the French clubs
You keep on about the English forgetting about the French Clubs
fa
Just asking.
Could NZ/AUS survive without SA money?

I say Specsavers might be an option, broadband I specifically mentioned French rugby. When you specifically mention something it means you haven't forgotten about them.

I know only too well the notice giving that took place. That's a date - it has absolutely nothing to do with the level of public disclosure and planning that would be needed to have an alternative competition up and running by the end of the current contract. The date of the notice giving is not close to being an agreement of terms between France and England.

I'm saying, maybe they could begin to clarify just how close they are on the pre-planning of this alternative by giving us some public knowledge of what it will all mean in practical terms - who plays who and when etc. I'd suggest a bad way of pretending the French are on side is coming out suggesting there is also a possibility that the new partners might be Argentinians and not French at all. It doesn't exude much practical confidence in the any of the projected theories