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.

First topic message reminder :

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.

Ok, let's spin it this way.

We do more for development of rugby for zimbabwe and namibia than we take, can't say the same the other way round.

No worries - I think its clear that you take the side of the English in this debate and really nothing more needs to be said - as in the entire history of Irish rugby we have capped one South African in Richardt Strauss, yet neither of you feel obliged to label English rugby "pathetic" as fa0019 described Irish rugby, for capping Mouritz Botha, Mike Catt and Brad Barritt - I can see that you are both very balanced.

Only beast and mujati were schooled in Zimbabwe... The rest were schoolled in SA. All joined SA franchises as teenagers and didn't play anything bar school rugby in Zimbabwe.

Do you know how many guys join their academies at that age... Literally hundreds.... And most on nothing more than university tuition and board paid for.

Compared to Standers contract.... Probably more than all those academy players put together.

Yep.... Sounds exactly the same to me

fa0019 wrote:Only beast and mujati were schooled in Zimbabwe... The rest were schoolled in SA. All joined SA franchises as teenagers and didn't play anything bar school rugby in Zimbabwe.

Do you know how many guys join their academies at that age... Literally hundreds.... And most on nothing more than university tuition and board paid for.

Compared to Standers contract.... Probably more than all those academy players put together.

Yep.... Sounds exactly the same to me

So "Its pathetic" for Ireland to cap Richardt Strauss and sign CJ Stander who isn't even close to being capped yet....would you agree then that its equally pathetic of England to cap Mouritz Botha and Brad Barritt?

Ps - dodger I don't think Irish rugby is pathetic... I think they play a great brand of rugby.... Bt their poaching of players like stander is different, it's different from any player since ratebone and vickerman joined AUS near 10 years ago.

It's not like IRE should be desperate... Sure he improves your side but you have good enough players to be competitive... Yet still.

He's no Mouritz Botha who was kicked out of the 3rd tier of SA rugby for being c.rap..... England never learns do they.

But stander was on the verge of a bok call up. He's no schalk burger i'll admit but then again who has... He's been the marquee player of the boks for the last 8 years.
Its not like he was a fringe player for a middle side.... He was a starter for the bulls all season which at that age and given their roster is impressive.

They poached him because they couldn't be bothered to generate their own players.... Keith wood has said the very thing about front five players.

Artful dodger, you are getting bery defensive here.

I didn't bring up CJ Stander, he was merely part of the conversation. i am not on the side of Nelgnad, Ireland or Scotland, incidentally all nations who have quality South Africans playing in their leagues.

I have given up being upset about South Africans running after promises and money, good riddance, they value money higher than the Bok jersey.

After all the fun and games...I do actually agree with Biltong's concerns and the issues of project residencies. I think I've said that to him before. I'd much prefer Ireland relied on its own players...and if that can't be, then at least we should try to find the Irish 'granny' players, which are numerous in rugby playing areas of the world - even Argentina has a recognised links to the Irish diaspora. (We actually don't need many in reality and hopefully less and less so as academies keep pushing through Irish prospectives)

But........... I keep saying this........... we are not the only offenders but every time the subject crops up, we're the ones getting it particularly in the neck. It seems there is a fear of dragging in other Nations into the discussion lest you overly offend another big nation and get bile thrown back at you. Better to highlight the habits of a smaller nation and hope the gist of your complaint spreads to others who might be listening.

But too .......... Irish rugby answers the challenges it faces. And more and more that challenge, even in Europe, is embellished by overseas players adding exotic flavour to National and club sides. We're not going to roll over and die simply to keep to principles others aren't about to follow.

When Clermont faced Leinster at the weekend they (Clermont) had 10 non-French players in the side (from SA to Fiji, to NZ, to Welsh, to Georgian, to AUS); Leinster had 5 - and three of those were Irish qualified, one a longstanding one.

I'd like tightened rules so that we could all become less motivated to 'take' players - together! Only together would a solution of sorts work.

Wrote the reply before I read your comment dodger.

Each player has to be seen for their individual case.

Botha... Was kicked out of SA..... No harm for the boks and probably hindering ENG given he's c.rap. I don't see an issue there myself.

Barrett... Father English... Mother English.... Those Durban Sara's are a little odd.. More patriotic then middle england era etc... Actually true but nevermind. Was ignored by white though who publically said he wasn't good enough in press conferences.. Actually said it in his book too although this may have been reference to the time not for his entire career. Worse than Botha.

Strauss... Same as Botha really. No need for him in SA and by all accounts he wasn't missed. No issue there.

Ratebone.... Was poached by AUS after being SA U21 captain.. Literally offered to migrate his entire family to AUS give them a new life. Probably the worst in record. Certainly would have been a bok. It's the same with vickerman.

Stander... Very similar to ratebone. Although he was a more developed player than ratebone... He played a whole season as starting flanker for the bulls before getting his Munster contract...which he said to the bulls.. Match it and I'll stay... I.e. it's all about the money, nothing else.

I'm not singling out Ireland here. I like what they've done since professional began... Probably the best run union with limited resources.... But it's a below the belt move.

Biltong wrote:Artful dodger, you are getting bery defensive here.

I disagree.

Artful_Dodger wrote:

Biltong wrote:Artful dodger, you are getting bery defensive here.

I disagree.

OK

Guys guys calm down, it's all peeing in the wind, because some guy on the internet told me we are all going to die next week Friday
or we all might gain a new dimension of enlightenment

Either way you must store dried milk and tins of food.

Oh nearly forgot it is essential you have a tin foil hat.

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 my thoughts on this. I cannot see a PRL breakaway being able to get teams from other unions to join them in a cross border competition - are the unions really going to sanction that? Is this a kerry packer type situation?Maybe half a dozen English teams would be prepared to breakaway but who else?

AlastairW wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Alistar because the majority of the APs requests will come at the expense of Italy and Scotland. They will get less representation and this will have a detrimental effect on the devrlopment and stability of European International rugby. Meanwhile the English teams will have the same representation which means more money spread over less teams.

Like I already said the fact that the RFU doesnt support the APLs stance says it all. The best thing thst can possibly happen is for either the APL to be taken over by the RFU or the AP teams to be left out in the cold for a year or so.

But does Edinburgh being whipped every week, and Zebre being cricket scored add to the competition? I'd say no, I'd say it waters it down. I'd also say no to Sale being in there for that matter (based on currant domestic and HC form), it's not all about having to have as many clubs from my RU as possible.

Ireland and France are by far the best Unions at the moment, that can't be in doubt, but free passes for clubs that aren't performing and are drawing really low turn outs are not a boon to the HC at all. There must be representation from all 6N unions for sure, but as it stands there's a lot detracting from it.

Reduce the number of participants (Yes, English as well!) and make it proper top flight. There has been rumblings of ring fencing the money for clubs that would drop down into T2 if it's all about the expense/money issues, and fight their way back up. As for the 'leave out in the cold for a year or so', realistically that's bad for everyone, due to said bean counters, they'll not want to miss out on revenue. That about as realistic as the whole deal with SA crap, it'll never happen.

you seem fixated on the English. The FFR have also served notice, it's not all about the big bad English. Oddly, everyone wants a 6N top flight competition, just the currant format isn't seen as optimal by a few of the unions and I can see why.

Edinburgh got to the Semis last year beating Toulouse along the way. My opinion is that because the APL is not ruled by any International union they will never care a hoot for European International rugby. Their demands, negotiations, threats, ransoms etc. all reflect this.

I see them as a threat that must be stopped. If the APL gains too much control it is not good. I dont think "merit" is the only factor that should be considered when deciding what clubs are involved. I prefer a more socialist model ala the NFL to a capatalist model ala the EPL and football in general.

APL, EPL, could you not just use PRL, it avoids confusion.

The RFU haven't said they don't agree with the PRL. They've said they need to sign off on any TV deals. That's it. They haven't said they won't sign off on the TV.

What makes you think the Irish provinces, Welsh regions, Italian club/region and Scottish teams care about European International rugby more than any clubs?. They only appear to care about themselves as far as I can see.

In England there is a strong feeling that international rugby is not the be all and end all of rugby. Domestic rugby's purpose IS not to provide players for international rugby. There's nothing wrong with that view, that is OUR choice. And I'm not saying people don't want international rugby just that there should be a good balance. Currently International rugby is taking more and more ground and the RPL are fighting against that (note they aren't trying to take more for club rugby).

And the PRL share the spoils between all of them. Are you aware the PRO12 TV money is not pooled and not shared between the participants? So any money generated for the Irish teams goes to the IRFU, Welsh to the WRU, etc. If you're so into socialism perhaps this should be your first port of call. Especially since we still don't know what the suggests are for financial split. Unless you mean everyone should be involved rather than get equal money. But then you really mean your friends don't you otherwise we need to include everyone.

About Ireland and Stander, there is no point picking out one case.

Hate the game not the Player.

IRB's stupid rules, Ireland (or anyone else for that matter) or not going to disadvantage themselves to take some sort of moral high ground. SA wouldn't either.

If you are wishing to pick on someone, it should be Scotland and Visser, that guy could have been the star of the Dutch team and really helped promote them, but he was never intrested in playing for them. Again I don't blame Scotland, I blame the IRB for allowing players to qualify so quickly. Strauss in Ireland can play for the national team but yet isn't an Irish citizen or able to obtain an Irish passport, yet under IRB rules he can play for the national team?

Hate the rules, not they teams using them.

GunsGerms wrote:

AlastairW wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Alistar because the majority of the APs requests will come at the expense of Italy and Scotland. They will get less representation and this will have a detrimental effect on the devrlopment and stability of European International rugby. Meanwhile the English teams will have the same representation which means more money spread over less teams.

Like I already said the fact that the RFU doesnt support the APLs stance says it all. The best thing thst can possibly happen is for either the APL to be taken over by the RFU or the AP teams to be left out in the cold for a year or so.

But does Edinburgh being whipped every week, and Zebre being cricket scored add to the competition? I'd say no, I'd say it waters it down. I'd also say no to Sale being in there for that matter (based on currant domestic and HC form), it's not all about having to have as many clubs from my RU as possible.

Ireland and France are by far the best Unions at the moment, that can't be in doubt, but free passes for clubs that aren't performing and are drawing really low turn outs are not a boon to the HC at all. There must be representation from all 6N unions for sure, but as it stands there's a lot detracting from it.

Reduce the number of participants (Yes, English as well!) and make it proper top flight. There has been rumblings of ring fencing the money for clubs that would drop down into T2 if it's all about the expense/money issues, and fight their way back up. As for the 'leave out in the cold for a year or so', realistically that's bad for everyone, due to said bean counters, they'll not want to miss out on revenue. That about as realistic as the whole deal with SA crap, it'll never happen.

you seem fixated on the English. The FFR have also served notice, it's not all about the big bad English. Oddly, everyone wants a 6N top flight competition, just the currant format isn't seen as optimal by a few of the unions and I can see why.

Edinburgh got to the Semis last year beating Toulouse along the way. My opinion is that because the APL is not ruled by any International union they will never care a hoot for European International rugby. Their demands, negotiations, threats, ransoms etc. all reflect this.

I see them as a threat that must be stopped. If the APL gains too much control it is not good. I dont think "merit" is the only factor that should be considered when deciding what clubs are involved. I prefer a more socialist model ala the NFL to a capatalist model ala the EPL and football in general.

Describing the NFL as socialist is a bit
And you may not have noticed but the PRL exists exactly on that basis. Its an agrement between the premiership clubs to support one another, bargain collectively, and make decisions by majority not on the basis of who has the most clout. Which yes has a certain irony given the current situation.
Its the PRL that is blockuing the RFU attempts to kill off 2-4 Premiership places (supportung the smaller teams) and the PRL that maintains the salary cap and smoothed EPS and TV rights payments. All to protect the smaller clubs and ensure a reasonable lkevel of comeptitiveness is maintained.
Yes again, the irony of the situation is notable.
However they would happily have a wider agreemnt with other European clubs on the same basis, and indeed are chasing opne. But they want to ensure that the set up minimises the amount of leaching and maxinimses the potential revenues of the comeptition, ie that it truely represents the biggest clubs in europe and those most able to sustain a proper elite cup rather than one that is based on the rugby landscape of 20 years ago.
You may love socialism, personaly Im not sure killing 10 million Ukranians is stricly neccasary to make a stronger European cup and improve the overall appeal of rugby (and quality of rugby and revenues) across the participating nations.

That semi-final was a long time ago now in sport terms, they can't keep dining out on that blip indefinatley. This year they have bought nothing, but they'll still be in the top-flight next season as it stands. That's a wrong 'un.

If the AP are these suited, greedy, power hungry pantomime bad guys as you seem to think, then they certainly do care about European rugby as it brings a lot of business opportunities. They're not these fiendish villians though, a lot of club owners are ex-players or sports nuts that are in the lucky position of being f'kin minted. The PRL represents them, and their interests, which isn't world domination, or ransoming others, or picking on other unions - but reforming a structure that is now outdated on a 20 year old model to something more competitive and a re-structure of the Challenge cup and lower tiers.

Again, you have forgotten that the FFR also served notice. Why is your fixation on the English so much? You seem hell bent on believing that this is the bad nasty evil English but don't concede at all that its 2 unions that have issues with how the competition stands at the moment. Out of a 6 union competiton, with equal (omg, did an Englishman just say equal!?! he must be lying!) weighting to all parties, that's still 33% of unhappy participants, and previous terms were there to re-negotiate terms.

It's all above boards. There's no Dr. Evil agenda here from the English. A lot of us think the HC as it stands is unfair and want to talk, its the P12 that are the ones with their head in the sand with their complete intractibility.

Alastair, just for the sake of clarity, what is unfair about the HC as it stands?

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Alastair, just for the sake of clarity, what is unfair about the HC as it stands?

I'm not being snotty here, but read through this thread, it's all there, i'm not typing it again, or re-typing the posts of others i agree with

But surely it should be easy to explain?

Kingshu wrote:About Ireland and Stander, there is no point picking out one case.

Hate the game not the Player.

IRB's stupid rules, Ireland (or anyone else for that matter) or not going to disadvantage themselves to take some sort of moral high ground. SA wouldn't either.

If you are wishing to pick on someone, it should be Scotland and Visser, that guy could have been the star of the Dutch team and really helped promote them, but he was never intrested in playing for them. Again I don't blame Scotland, I blame the IRB for allowing players to qualify so quickly. Strauss in Ireland can play for the national team but yet isn't an Irish citizen or able to obtain an Irish passport, yet under IRB rules he can play for the national team?

Hate the rules, not they teams using them.

I agree with you kinshu, we shouldn't blame anyone who is merely using the system avaiable to them.

No matter who it is, but it does leave a sour taste in the mouth when star players such as Josh Strauss, WP Nel and CJ Stander decide the BOk jersey is not worth it.

ltimately after we peel away the layers of "poaching", "luring", "the big bucks", "project players" etc. it boils down to pride of tradition.

For me those gus have forsaken the pride and tradition of representing a country that has given them the platform to become stars. Ultimately the deicision is theirs, the respect they lose from their coutrymen, may mean little to them, but everything to us.

AS FA said last night, Clyde Rathbone was our junior Bok team captain and was lured away, he was a future Bok captain. It will always leave a sour taste.

I have to be honest I am kinda liking the whinging from the top tier nations about player loss, imagine how the PI teams felt for years!!

I personally think the WRU should have a representitive at every English AP club to monitor potential players to turn, and in Ireland too come to think of it, not to look into the academies but the players being refused, and turned away.

Noone may agree but I could put together a squad of potential international players from rejected juniors if I just had the funding!!!

Biltong wrote:

Kingshu wrote:About Ireland and Stander, there is no point picking out one case.

Hate the game not the Player.

IRB's stupid rules, Ireland (or anyone else for that matter) or not going to disadvantage themselves to take some sort of moral high ground. SA wouldn't either.

If you are wishing to pick on someone, it should be Scotland and Visser, that guy could have been the star of the Dutch team and really helped promote them, but he was never intrested in playing for them. Again I don't blame Scotland, I blame the IRB for allowing players to qualify so quickly. Strauss in Ireland can play for the national team but yet isn't an Irish citizen or able to obtain an Irish passport, yet under IRB rules he can play for the national team?

Hate the rules, not they teams using them.

I agree with you kinshu, we shouldn't blame anyone who is merely using the system avaiable to them.

No matter who it is, but it does leave a sour taste in the mouth when star players such as Josh Strauss, WP Nel and CJ Stander decide the BOk jersey is not worth it.

ltimately after we peel away the layers of "poaching", "luring", "the big bucks", "project players" etc. it boils down to pride of tradition.

For me those gus have forsaken the pride and tradition of representing a country that has given them the platform to become stars. Ultimately the deicision is theirs, the respect they lose from their coutrymen, may mean little to them, but everything to us.

AS FA said last night, Clyde Rathbone was our junior Bok team captain and was lured away, he was a future Bok captain. It will always leave a sour taste.

Lets also remeber this isnt just the Boks, I mean we wouldnt want to stereotype them as greedy unpatriotic thugs would we.
Scotland are more than happy to actively fuund the poaching of English and Welsh age group talent.

It happens.


Anyway at risk of drfiting on topic we already have a South African, Irish and Welsh club in the Jeff. Why dont we just get London French in and play all the games in the capital. It would be be far more environmentaly freindly to cut down on all that air travel.

thebluesmancometh wrote:I have to be honest I am kinda liking the whinging from the top tier nations about player loss, imagine how the PI teams felt for years!!

Yeah years of chuckling about how many NZ age grade player sthey could poach right up till the Aussies started doing it better

Ye how well did that go for their age grade teams?

Another point that seams to be missed is the double standards of the PLC.

Part of the talks, is that every Union recieves a set allocation of number of teams it can enter, and it is down to the Union to decide how to use them. IRFU used to just enter Munster, Leinster and Ulster, but changed it to be 3 highest Irish teams in the League.

This is now possiblly changing from Unions having allocations, and deciding how to use they to the league having allocation and Unions lose say in how to use them.

Can't anyone see how hypocritical the PRL are, in wanting (at start) top 6 of Pro 12, but use thier allocation as top 5 plus LV=Cup winners, (top 6 if winner Welsh or already qualified).
"Do as we say, not as we do"

But the LV=Cup winners would still have qualified by beating other teams

broadlandboy wrote:But the LV=Cup winners would still have qualified by beating other teams

Doesn't matter, the point is RFU/PLC decide how they use their own allocation, but want to dictate to other Unions how they should use theirs

Kingshu wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:But the LV=Cup winners would still have qualified by beating other teams

Doesn't matter, the point is RFU/PLC decide how they use their own allocation, but want to dictate to other Unions how they should use theirs

Well to be fair it was the Wlesh who stood iin the way of them downgrading the LV and insisted it stayed as a senior comeptition ( they needed the money, the crowds for some matches are better than some of their Rabo ones)

If it hadnt been for that then the HC qualification wouldve been withdrawen. I believe its part of the TV deal ( and agreement with the Welsh) that the HC qualification stays to ensure theres at least a coupel of clubs taking it seriously and something riding on the final.


Nor have the PRL ever insisted that the Welsh use up one of their allocation to boost the comeptition.

So you could infact argue the situation is trhe reverse of what the evil English have been accussed of, depending which eye you are looking out of.

Kingshu wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:But the LV=Cup winners would still have qualified by beating other teams

Doesn't matter, the point is RFU/PLC decide how they use their own allocation, but want to dictate to other Unions how they should use theirs

But that's not hypocritical. It would only be hypocritical if they said the winner of the RABO Cup competition (that doesn't exist) can't use a qualification place but the LV cup winner can. It's not hypocritical to negotiate from a theoretically stronger position some your 'demands' are more likely to met than others'

HammerofThunor wrote:APL, EPL, could you not just use PRL, it avoids confusion.

Ok noted.

HammerofThunor wrote:

The RFU haven't said they don't agree with the PRL. They've said they need to sign off on any TV deals. That's it. They haven't said they won't sign off on the TV.

The TV deal is central to the PRLs proposed changes.

HammerofThunor wrote:
What makes you think the Irish provinces, Welsh regions, Italian club/region and Scottish teams care about European International rugby more than any clubs?. They only appear to care about themselves as far as I can see.

The clubs may care only about themselves but they but they dont have the same autonomy as the PRL clubs. The Welsh clubs might but they dont have as much clout as the PRL clubs to change the face of Europena rugby.

HammerofThunor wrote:
In England there is a strong feeling that international rugby is not the be all and end all of rugby. Domestic rugby's purpose IS not to provide players for international rugby. There's nothing wrong with that view, that is OUR choice. And I'm not saying people don't want international rugby just that there should be a good balance. Currently International rugby is taking more and more ground and the RPL are fighting against that (note they aren't trying to take more for club rugby).

This is the crux of the issue. English rugby will more than likely always prosper no matter what at both club and International levels because the British economy is traditionally the strongest of all European rugby nations. I certainly wouldnt like to see a scenario where Irish, Welsh, Scottish etc. players all have to migrate to England to play club rugby.

The PRL are asking for more money for club rugby. Their illigitimate TV deal will see them receive significantly more money as will their plans for restructuring.

HammerofThunor wrote:

And the PRL share the spoils between all of them. Are you aware the PRO12 TV money is not pooled and not shared between the participants? So any money generated for the Irish teams goes to the IRFU, Welsh to the WRU, etc. If you're so into socialism perhaps this should be your first port of call. Especially since we still don't know what the suggests are for financial split. Unless you mean everyone should be involved rather than get equal money. But then you really mean your friends don't you otherwise we need to include everyone.

I am aware of the distribution of Irish money by the IRFU. With the exception of Connacht (who everone will probably argee are badly treated) the money is distributed very evenly. Both Munster and Ulster have had large cash injections to improve stadia and player base. The net result is that Munster, Leinster and Ulster are all very strong.

I am not concerned at all about Irish clubs ability to raise money. There are much more club games in a season and as the sport evolves and grows in popularity the challenge will always be in my opinion to prevent the club game from suffocating the International game as is evident in International football. The main way this threat is mitigated in International rugby is the national union exerts control over the domestic game. It works exceptionally well in NZ, Ireland and France etc.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Describing the NFL as socialist is a bit

Salary caps, draft systems where the weakest team gets first pick, rotations. There are lots of socialist elements in the NFL as compared to other US sports.

The way it is set up almost every team has a chance of winning and if one team are particularly weak one year they are stronger the next.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

And you may not have noticed but the PRL exists exactly on that basis. Its an agrement between the premiership clubs to support one another, bargain collectively, and make decisions by majority not on the basis of who has the most clout. Which yes has a certain irony given the current situation.
Its the PRL that is blockuing the RFU attempts to kill off 2-4 Premiership places (supportung the smaller teams) and the PRL that maintains the salary cap and smoothed EPS and TV rights payments. All to protect the smaller clubs and ensure a reasonable lkevel of comeptitiveness is maintained.
Yes again, the irony of the situation is notable.
However they would happily have a wider agreemnt with other European clubs on the same basis, and indeed are chasing opne. But they want to ensure that the set up minimises the amount of leaching and maxinimses the potential revenues of the comeptition, ie that it truely represents the biggest clubs in europe and those most able to sustain a proper elite cup rather than one that is based on the rugby landscape of 20 years ago.

Point taken however, the real issue I have is that the PRL really isnt structured in a way that is symbiotic with regards to English International rugby and European rugby. The PRL are set up only for their own gains.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

You may love socialism, personaly Im not sure killing 10 million Ukranians is stricly neccasary to make a stronger European cup and improve the overall appeal of rugby (and quality of rugby and revenues) across the participating nations.

I like to idea of having some elements of socialism in sport because sport should be fair and include everyone and not just flourish where there is wealth as unfortunatly would be the case if sport was run strictly along capitalist lines.

I am disapointed with your comments re Ukraine. That was unnesessary. My political persuasions have no relevance to this conversation nor have you any clue what they are because we are discussing rugby.

I think we can all agree the PRL are a bunch of Kumquat!

thebluesmancometh wrote:I think we can all agree the PRL are a bunch of Kumquat!

Poor attempt to label the PRL bluesman, doesn't work.

I was actually just trying to see what the filter would do with a certain C word.

where is the S? Plural?

Biltong wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:I think we can all agree the PRL are a bunch of Kuntz!

Poor attempt to label the PRL bluesman, doesn't work.

Awful language.

Whoa whoa whoa there guns!!! I certainly did not misspell that word

Haha

GunsGerms wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

And the PRL share the spoils between all of them. Are you aware the PRO12 TV money is not pooled and not shared between the participants? So any money generated for the Irish teams goes to the IRFU, Welsh to the WRU, etc. If you're so into socialism perhaps this should be your first port of call. Especially since we still don't know what the suggests are for financial split. Unless you mean everyone should be involved rather than get equal money. But then you really mean your friends don't you otherwise we need to include everyone.

I am aware of the distribution of Irish money by the IRFU. With the exception of Connacht (who everone will probably argee are badly treated) the money is distributed very evenly. Both Munster and Ulster have had large cash injections to improve stadia and player base. The net result is that Munster, Leinster and Ulster are all very strong.

I am not concerned at all about Irish clubs ability to raise money. There are much more club games in a season and as the sport evolves and grows in popularity the challenge will always be in my opinion to prevent the club game from suffocating the International game as is evident in International football. The main way this threat is mitigated in International rugby is the national union exerts control over the domestic game. It works exceptionally well in NZ, Ireland and France etc.

I'm not talking about how the IRFU share out their money among the provinces. I'm saying that each union in the PRO12 sort out their own TV deal and keep all the money they raise for themselves. The argument for this is that BBCW, BBCNI and the Irish channels generate much more money than BBCS and thereofre they keep the money. Bare in mind under the PRL deal all of the European money goes into a pot to be shared out. Perhaps Europe should take a leaf out of the PRO12 book and each sell their own TV rights and keep all their money for themselves? After all the PRO12 is the model for European fairness isn't it?

AlastairW wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Alastair, just for the sake of clarity, what is unfair about the HC as it stands?

I'm not being snotty here, but read through this thread, it's all there, i'm not typing it again, or re-typing the posts of others i agree with

I have never seen anyone make a case for the HC being unfair as it is currently constituted - ior at least one that actually makes any kind of coherent logical sense.

I assume you do not want to try to make one as you would be shot down in flames

for example - the PRL believe the qualification process hinders them. Well change it then to reduce the disadvantage. don't try to disadvantage others to make up for your own shortfalls.

The reduction in numbers. Why does all this have to come from the 4 smallest unions? A real compromise would be to share the pain.

No logical or coherent reason can be given or these two points. Or can you make one?

TJ wrote:

AlastairW wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Alastair, just for the sake of clarity, what is unfair about the HC as it stands?

I'm not being snotty here, but read through this thread, it's all there, i'm not typing it again, or re-typing the posts of others i agree with

I have never seen anyone make a case for the HC being unfair as it is currently constituted - ior at least one that actually makes any kind of coherent logical sense.

I assume you do not want to try to make one as you would be shot down in flames

for example - the PRL believe the qualification process hinders them. Well change it then to reduce the disadvantage. don't try to disadvantage others to make up for your own shortfalls.

The reduction in numbers. Why does all this have to come from the 4 smallest unions? A real compromise would be to share the pain.

No logical or coherent reason can be given or these two points. Or can you make one?

Then you haven't read a lot of the threads. Look harder, they're there.

I'm not re-typing mine & others comments because you're too lazy to look for them

They are there, posted recently by myself and others, go look for them.

There is a search function on the forum, go use it.

TJ wrote: I cannot see a PRL breakaway being able to get teams from other unions to join them in a cross border competition - are the unions really going to sanction that? Is this a kerry packer type situation?Maybe half a dozen English teams would be prepared to breakaway but who else?

anyone with an answer to this point? is a breakaway from the IRB really likely?

Alistair - I stand by that. I have read the threads and have seen "No logical or coherent reason can be given or these two points"

If you have one want to make it? You have not so far nor has anyone else. I do not believe their is one. Your refusal to attempt to do so confirms this


1) the PRL believe the qualification process hinders them. Well change it then to reduce the disadvantage. don't try to disadvantage others to make up for your own shortfalls. Why should the rabo have to change to disadvantage them?

2) The reduction in numbers. Why does all this have to come from the 4 smallest unions?

TJ wrote:

TJ wrote: I cannot see a PRL breakaway being able to get teams from other unions to join them in a cross border competition - are the unions really going to sanction that? Is this a kerry packer type situation?Maybe half a dozen English teams would be prepared to breakaway but who else?

anyone with an answer to this point? is a breakaway from the IRB really likely?

It won't happen. I think the only suggestion that it could happen is on here.

Surely the competition alluded to in this thread could only happen with a breakaway? No way the IRB would sanction it surely?

The funny part of this is that no matter what is agreed to in a few years there will be a renegotiation by the PRL for better terms for them, as long as the PRL keep forcing their agenda they'll slowly but surely get where they want to be!!!

The FFR position is far more understandable, but the PRL have to be told where to go for the good of the game in 4 nations, and the rest of europe.

Why wouldn't they? Have the IRB ever got involved in any domestic competition?

If say the SA teams join with some English in a competition it would need to be sanctioned by both the RFU and the SA authorities. would they give the go ahead? As an international club comp surely the IRB would have to approve?

I don't see why they wouldn't. The RFU would probably love to have their players playing regularly against the South Africans. The SARU would like the extra money to try and retain more of those players at home.