H-cup will settlement be reached?

Please keep this board free of your Ideas what the H-cup should be, whos in the wrong, etc etc.

This is just for answering the one Question;

Will a settlement be reached by all 6 nation Unions and representives, for a European Competation?

Back when this orginally started I thought there would be a few changes, and it would continue, but now after looking into it more I'm not so sure, actually I'm now thinking that the Unions are apart, and a common middle ground will not be reached.

Ok in discussions to start demanding high and they come down to a middle ground, but this time I think that the demands are to high so that the middle ground would be unacceptable.

Qualification
English/French want it reduced to 20 teams top 6 from each league (at least one from each Union Pro 12)
This is asking that the number of representives in Pro 12 drops by 4 teams, Meaning each Union will either lose one of 2 teams each season.

Maybe they will reach compromise on this?

Format, once qualifiers and method this should be straight forward.

% of profit.
English/French want that split 33% to each league. meaning thier share increases by 8% (from 25% up to 33%) each, and IRFU/WRU/SRU/FIR share reduces by around 5% each (13% down to 8%)

which I cannot see as being acceptable to any Union, esp the IRFU, I don't believe the 4 unions will accept anything less than the current arrangement, they may agree a greater part goes toward prize money for Q-finalist etc etc. But if the French/English are to push this point its where it could all collaspe.

TV rights
English want each nation to sell their own and pool the european share, I cannot see the IRFU/WRU/SRU agreeing to this. Even the RFU are waiting to see what happens. I won't go into details as its been done to death but if PLC insist on this method, I can see deadlock being reached.

Over all then I see that Deadlock can be reached at about 3 different stages, I think its a lot to overcome and progress is painfully slow. Personally I don't see an agreement being reached and we will have a year without any European rugby while the discussoins continue. (Yes I'm away there is another year to go, but I think each will be slow in conceding any ground, and will take the hit of a year without Europe to show they are serious).

Thoughts

Will a settlement be reached by all 6 nation Unions and representives, for a European Competation?

Just my opinion but I think the rabo unions will end up agreeing to the French and English changes, potentially with a small face saving concession, and an agreement will be reached.

Good summary Kingshu.
Whenever the next meeting takes place, expect the stakes to be raised.

The French want 20 teams to free up T14 weekends, they do feel there is too much empahsis on Euro campaigns at the expense of League success and would probably point to Edinburgh last season. The English clubs want a different carve up of the finances, which is both equitable and commercially realistic and views on here depend on your allegiance.

Thus far default competitions have not been highlighted as the perhaps naive view was an agreement could be reached. The English and French clubs have had ongoing discussions about a potential different competition for at least 12 months but have kept their powder dry, as to publicly state it would give the other Unions very little negotiating room under a public spotlight.

Personally I would like to see a FA cup competition in England, which we may get at the expense of the LV Cup which currently pays the English clubs more than the HC current cut.

Of the three options I actually think the TV deal has the most legs to be non negotiable from an English viewpoint as Sky have had a bargain for too long and BT has serious financial muscle and intentions to up the money year on year in real terms for the club rights regardless of the euro segment.

It will be fascinating to watch this play out.

By forcing the talks to go on for yet another round. after last Wednesday, the Rabo may find themselves in a significantly worse bargaining position.
Out of the HEC before Christmas are two of each of the Scottish, Welsh and Italian sides. Plus Sale.

In aggregate (on current placings, but still subject to future results) only three Franglo sides are headed in pool tables by Rabo ones.

Many might suspect that the Franglos will garner seven of the eight quarters places.

By delaying the inevitable, the Rabo may find themselves collectively with a tear in their eye, a gaping hole in their foot and a smoking gun in their hand.

Kingshu - I agree that agreement won't be reached! The Rabo nations can't make concessions and get nothing in return.

BTW can you explain to me how having 20 teams will mean fewer games for the French?

In reality the way I see it is the FFR wanting a reshuffle of semi/final and less teams so they can focus on their own league, this is quite easily afforded by the Rabo and PRL unions who can agree to the format and / or dates so as long as no union loses out on monetary gains, or have to give up their allocated spots. Maybe ditching the Amlin and HC winners spots and splitting the spots 3,3,2,2,6,6 as is.

However the PRL have managed to push the Rabo unions into a corner by asking for way too much, then adding some sort of BT deal that advantages them hugely while hardly helping anyone else.

From bargaining point of you 66% of the shareholders should be able to keep control of the tourny, however they need to stick firm and force the PRL to go elsewhere. All this Franglo talk is nonsense the FFR do not auto agree with the PRL, they will not leave the tournament if the PRL's demands are not met.

Everyone wants a tourny as it is, involving everyone, however I think this will end one of 2 ways, with the PRL getting a high % of what they want, or for them to walk! It should though end in one of 2 ways, with a PRL backpedal, or with the PRL walking.

I personally don't see how everyone can get to a point where they are happy, so can't see beyond the PRL walking and approaching the FFR, SARU or anyone else who will listen.

Recwatcher wrote:Good summary Kingshu.
Whenever the next meeting takes place, expect the stakes to be raised.

The French want 20 teams to free up T14 weekends, they do feel there is too much empahsis on Euro campaigns at the expense of League success and would probably point to Edinburgh last season. The English clubs want a different carve up of the finances, which is both equitable and commercially realistic and views on here depend on your allegiance.

Thus far default competitions have not been highlighted as the perhaps naive view was an agreement could be reached. The English and French clubs have had ongoing discussions about a potential different competition for at least 12 months but have kept their powder dry, as to publicly state it would give the other Unions very little negotiating room under a public spotlight.

Personally I would like to see a FA cup competition in England, which we may get at the expense of the LV Cup which currently pays the English clubs more than the HC current cut.

Of the three options I actually think the TV deal has the most legs to be non negotiable from an English viewpoint as Sky have had a bargain for too long and BT has serious financial muscle and intentions to up the money year on year in real terms for the club rights regardless of the euro segment.

It will be fascinating to watch this play out.

My fear (and this might be at the root of the PRL/RFU lack of concord on the BTVision deal) is that the RFU may want to retain the 6Ns on BBC. It's England's only presence on terrestrial TV outside the quadrennial RWC. In it's brief liaison with Sky, viewing figures for the 6Ns fell from an average of 5m to 0.5m. So the RFU might want to keep its shop window presence on the High Street.

22 spots not 20 sorry, comprimise

greytiger - are you suggesting that if England and France withdraw from the HEC that the "6"N will be played without them as well?

The Great Aukster wrote:greytiger - are you suggesting that if England and France withdraw from the HEC that the "6"N will be played without them as well?

Not at all Auk. The main threat to the HEC lies in the French decision if no compromise is reached. If they side with the Rabo, then the integrity of the competition is salved. If they go with the English, the competition is pretty much blighted.

If toys get thrown out of prams, the 6Ns may be part of the collateral damage though.

One thing is for sure. Whatever, the English will resume their typecast rôle as pantomime villain. So nothing new there.

Like most things, there will be sabre rattling and posturing and then, at the last minute, a compromise solution will be found. All nations have too much to lose - playing "new" teams in Europe helps break up the potential monotony of playing then same teams in ther Rabo, AP and T14 (and keeps the mods on their toes on these baords as fans of the English and Welsh sides go to war).
As I see it, the one potential jobby in the swimming pool of life is the BT-v-Sky nonsense. I think BT might want to see an end to the HC in its current form so that they can jump in and cover the replacement tourney (whatever that may be). I don't know how much sway BT will have with the main protagonists

thebluesmancometh wrote:In reality the way I see it is the FFR wanting a reshuffle of semi/final and less teams so they can focus on their own league, this is quite easily afforded by the Rabo and PRL unions who can agree to the format and / or dates so as long as no union loses out on monetary gains, or have to give up their allocated spots. Maybe ditching the Amlin and HC winners spots and splitting the spots 3,3,2,2,6,6 as is.

However the PRL have managed to push the Rabo unions into a corner by asking for way too much, then adding some sort of BT deal that advantages them hugely while hardly helping anyone else.

From bargaining point of you 66% of the shareholders should be able to keep control of the tourny, however they need to stick firm and force the PRL to go elsewhere. All this Franglo talk is nonsense the FFR do not auto agree with the PRL, they will not leave the tournament if the PRL's demands are not met.

Everyone wants a tourny as it is, involving everyone, however I think this will end one of 2 ways, with the PRL getting a high % of what they want, or for them to walk! It should though end in one of 2 ways, with a PRL backpedal, or with the PRL walking.

I personally don't see how everyone can get to a point where they are happy, so can't see beyond the PRL walking and approaching the FFR, SARU or anyone else who will listen.

I just don't understand where all this supposed bargaining power is coming from for the rabo unions? To me the only straw that seems to be being clutched too is this one that the French don't really want anything and they'll just fall in line. I have seen nothing to make me believe this is true and in fact all the evidence is to the contrary.

Let's assume for arguments sake that the French are completely aligned with the English on this. At the next meeting they sit down and say, 'This is it, last chance. Either we sign a new agreement today on our terms or we walk away'. What do you think the rabo unions would do? Would they realise that 33% of something is worth a lot more than 100% of very little?

On another point if you were the French and thought about the power you had in the above bargaining position what would possibly make you sacrifice that to side with the Rabo unions?

As I see it, the one potential jobby in the swimming pool of life is the BT-v-Sky nonsense. I think BT might want to see an end to the HC in its current form so that they can jump in and cover the replacement tourney (whatever that may be). I don't know how much sway BT will have with the main protagonists

The BT/Sky option is important in the negotiations Injured.

As the broacasting rights are in the gift of the national host union it could be that should the RFU ratify any BTVision agreement with the PRL, it could do so.

Under IRB regulations, this is apparent under sections

16.2 Matches, tours and tournaments below National Representative level
http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/regulations/04/23/20/100518gfirbhandbook2010freg16english.pdf

REGULATION 13. BROADCASTING RIGHTS
http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/regulations/04/23/23/42323_pdf.pdf

I can find nothing to enable the ERC (in IRB or ERC regulations) to make a ruling over tv rights. Wales, Scotland and Ireland may on the face of it collectively or separately cut a deal with any other broadcaster should they wish so far as I can see.

The RFU do have to ratify it, but if 66% of the ERC want rights sold collectivly they are in a majority to pass this. Hench I see a standoff.

Toadfish you say they have no bargaining power, 33% of something or 100% or noting, but really its only 8% of something,

8% while RFU and FRU get 33% each, will widen the money gap, and over time the best Irish/Welsh/etc players will move to these leagues weaking them over time to not being any to operate at the top level.

So really its not 8% of something or 100% of nothing, its die a slow death or look for alternatives while still in a position of strenght?

Thats why if English and French are to hold out on division of profit and method TV rights are sold, there will be no middle ground reached, and Rabo Unions will start looking at alternatives.

Kingshu wrote:The RFU do have to ratify it, but if 66% of the ERC want rights sold collectivly they are in a majority to pass this. Hench I see a standoff.

Toadfish you say they have no bargaining power, 33% of something or 100% or noting, but really its only 8% of something,

8% while RFU and FRU get 33% each, will widen the money gap, and over time the best Irish/Welsh/etc players will move to these leagues weaking them over time to not being any to operate at the top level.

So really its not 8% of something or 100% of nothing, its die a slow death or look for alternatives while still in a position of strenght?

Thats why if English and French are to hold out on division of profit and method TV rights are sold, there will be no middle ground reached, and Rabo Unions will start looking at alternatives.

But the ERC does not have the authority to ratify broadcasting rights of a tournament Kingshu. Hence the French and Italians having different territorial hosts.

Just because they thought that they were in a cosy relationship with Sky, apparently the PRL thought differently. As for the June 1 vote, I guess that they'd quote Sam Goldwyn (of MGM fame) "A verbal contract isn't worth the paper its written on".

Toad

Your key fainling is looking at the Rabo as 33% of europe, it's not, it's 66% of europes unions. The Raboi isn't an entity itself, it is a league 4 nations of the 6 play in, the Rabo nations are majority shareholders!!

As Kingshu has stated, 33% split 4 ways is handing rugby union in the NH to England and France, there will become 2 powerhouses in the NH that suck the best talent out of everywhere else!

That is why for the good of the game the Rabo nations HAVE to hold firm and tell the PRL where to go, or they are all soon out of business. Better to lose the PRL clubs and look to replace them than hand them europe on a plate!

thebluesmancometh wrote:Toad

Your key fainling is looking at the Rabo as 33% of europe, it's not, it's 66% of europes unions. The Raboi isn't an entity itself, it is a league 4 nations of the 6 play in, the Rabo nations are majority shareholders!!

As Kingshu has stated, 33% split 4 ways is handing rugby union in the NH to England and France, there will become 2 powerhouses in the NH that suck the best talent out of everywhere else!

That is why for the good of the game the Rabo nations HAVE to hold firm and tell the PRL where to go, or they are all soon out of business. Better to lose the PRL clubs and look to replace them than hand them europe on a plate!

I'm well aware that the Rabo represents 66% of the six nations unions (not Europe’s) but what you fail to consider is that you only have 12 teams to support. England has 12, and France has 14. At a time when England and France are bringing over 80% of the commercial revenue to the competition and have a similar number of teams to support why would they possibly demand anything less than an equal share?

I think too much emotion is being brought into all these discussions and I appreciate why that would be the case. From a purely business and negotiation perspective however I still haven't seen any strength that the rabo nations have. I would be absolutely flabbergasted if your representatives at the negotiations behaved in the same way and chose the 'well this isn't fair so to spite them we'll just sacrifice x million a year' approach. It just doesn’t represent good business.

Oh yes bluesman, the PRL chopped the financial balls off of its best clubs' efforts to maintain a consistent European presence by the introduction of wage caps ten years ago.

Wage caps which the poorer clubs can't aspire to and which stultify aspirations of those that can afford to exceed without endangering financial stability.

One of a string of half-baked diktats emanating from the University of Tomfoolery.

This is turning into and Rabo unions V English/French, whereas its supposed to be a look at the relastic outcome,

Personally to me, currently rather than accept the English/(possibley French) proposials and there being no acceptable middle ground to be reached, and Rabo Unions will start looking at alternatives, rather than Slowly being killed off.

greytiger
I know the ERC don't ratify them the Unions do, but the Unions in the past have agreed for the ERC to sell them, (ERC sell them in France and Italy) and sell it as all in one for UK and Ireland as one broadcaster covers that area, the ERC sell them and Unions ratify the deals.

RFU haven't ratified PLC deal yet, if 4 (maybe 5) of the Unions that make up the European comp, want them sold by ERC, (which apears to have been agreed before the BTdeal) and ratified by Unions they are in a majority to push that.

Again though if one or two Unions are not prepared to concede ground on that, we reach another deadlock.

If all like I say, there are to many deadlocks on polar issue where there is no middle ground, I see European competation dying.

Toad

Your still considering the Rabo as an entity in itself, that is on par with the AP and T14, it is not, the 4 unions of the Rabo own a larger share than the PRL, and alsmot as much as the PRL and FFR shares put together! The ERC is made up of 6 unions, 4 of those cannot bend to the will of the other 2, especially when 1 of the other 2 are demanding the 4 take less and give more!

We do onot have 12 teams to support, we have 4 governing bodies doing that for their own clubs, and as the HC spots are allocated to the unions on an individual basis the Rabo is inconcequential. The WRU/IRFU/SRU and IRU decide how they allocate the spots they recieve.

As I said on a previous thread if all the Rabo nations returned to fully pro prems each they would have the right to demand the same spots as the PRL and FFR get. The fact they decided to reduce their number of teams to fit their club and international aspirations has nothing to do with neither the PRL or FFR, if they dislike the way they perform in europe maybe it's time they decided to reduce their number of teams to eliminate the competition for places?

If say the PRL went regional to 6 teams they are laughing, are they not?

Kingshu

I tend to agree, the demands from certain parties have become too extreme for anyone to agree, and there cannot be a conclusion that doesn't seriously hurt the game in the NH from either party!

thebluesmancometh wrote:Toad

Your still considering the Rabo as an entity in itself, that is on par with the AP and T14, it is not, the 4 unions of the Rabo own a larger share than the PRL, and alsmot as much as the PRL and FFR shares put together! The ERC is made up of 6 unions, 4 of those cannot bend to the will of the other 2, especially when 1 of the other 2 are demanding the 4 take less and give more!

We do onot have 12 teams to support, we have 4 governing bodies doing that for their own clubs, and as the HC spots are allocated to the unions on an individual basis the Rabo is inconcequential. The WRU/IRFU/SRU and IRU decide how they allocate the spots they recieve.

As I said on a previous thread if all the Rabo nations returned to fully pro prems each they would have the right to demand the same spots as the PRL and FFR get. The fact they decided to reduce their number of teams to fit their club and international aspirations has nothing to do with neither the PRL or FFR, if they dislike the way they perform in europe maybe it's time they decided to reduce their number of teams to eliminate the competition for places?

If say the PRL went regional to 6 teams they are laughing, are they not?

I'm afraid the mistake you are making is thinking the old agreement means anything when it does not. This is about negotiating a new deal.

I don't care if the rabo wants to negotiate as a whole or as individual unions but the principle is still the same. Ireland has 4 teams to support, England has 12. When people talk about how this new deal could be the end of rugby in Scotland and Italy it makes me laugh as it is so preposterous. The new deal proposes to split the revenue equally per team (admittedly with France suffering slightly as they have 14 teams) if that was how the various unions/governing bodies decided to distribute the funds. How can that be unfair? It is pretty much the definition of fair? Every team would get the same benefit from being involved in the HC.

As for us reducing our numbers of teams why would we possibly do that? We (as the PRL) have a very commercial product (as evidenced by the BT deal) and want to expand on that not contract. I've heard mentioned that under the current HC deal the PRL barely breaks even so why would they change the part of their business that is actually making them money?

Again all I hear is 'this isn't fair' or 'this is how we've always done it' but no hard reasons why the French or the English would possibly want to continue with the status quo?

However, as I said earlier, the Rabo's bargaining position worsened significantly over the week-end. If the French do decide to ally themselves with the English and walk arm-in-arm into the sunset, would not the HEC be a dead duck as a competition?

Italy and Scotland have between them one QF and one SF between them in the past ten years and none this year. Wales have one slim QF chance which depends on results oustide of Ospreys' control. Similarly Connacht.

Of the Franglos only Sale are currently pushing up HEC daisies.

It is not about any agreement, it's about ownership. The PRL have decided they want to get a new sponsor that hugely benefits them and dictate terms to the rest of the 6N unions. That is simply unacceptable.

I am more than happy for the monetary gains to be paid 'by the club' but in that respect Wales should return to a welsh prem and demand the same amount of spots as the PRL receive then.

As is stated, the PRL wants the Rabo nations to receive 33% of the new deal, and the PRL and FFR recive the same.

Now in what universe does 4 out of the 6 unions get a third share of all monetary gains from the ERC (who they own a majority share of) and stay competitive against the other 2 unions???

It's quite obvious that anyone trying to defend the PRL here is clearly playing ignorant to 2 factors...

1, that each negoatiation is done on the unions terms, not Rabo v PRL

2, The FFR is not on board with the PRL, you cannot use the FFR as a bargaining chip.

The negotiations have taken this long already because the PRL havn't managed to get the FFR on board, if they had it'd be game over and the Rabo nations wouldve had to conced way more than they want to. Also the fact that the RFU have come out and condemned the PRL's moves says a lot.

Right now the FFR are staying quite neutral, they do not want anyone to leave, but also see the PRL's demands as a threat to the sport in the NH (well from what I can see anyway)

If the Rabo nations had little power or no negotiating power we would not have theis present stalemate, and IMHO as long as they stay together and keep telling the PRL no way there is nowhere for the PRL to go but to leave the comp or do a U turn tail between legs.

grey

Again your considering the Rabo as an entity, it is not!

The IRFU had 2 finalists last season, have won 5 of the last 7 tournaments, and theyre development side has started beating English champions and French top 4 teams... They are the strongest union in the tourny over the last decade are they not? All this without the playing budget of the FFR clubs or some of the PRL clubs, now how exactly do performances in the tournament dictate power???

As I said, the FFR isn't walking hand in hand into the sunset with the PRL, if they wanted to they wouldve by now and it would've been over with the Rabo teams caving or the Franglo teams leaving.

And this term Franglo, created to strengthen the PRL defenders argument, there is no such thing as Franglo, the FFR are clearly looking after their own affairs, and are not sat behind the PRL.

greytiger wrote:If toys get thrown out of prams, the 6Ns may be part of the collateral damage though.

It would be really disappointing if the most historic Test competition fell victim to an argument over club money. Maybe the Rabo nations could play a 4N competition with home and away fixtures?

To pre-judge the French mentality in any negotiation on anything is analogous to believing in fairies.

thebluesmancometh wrote:...The PRL have decided they want to get a new sponsor...

BT is the broadcaster, not the sponsor. The sponsor remains Aviva.

Oh that old chestnut, the French are mercurial lunatics who cannot think for themselves, throw temper tantrums, and struggle with a mental strength.... Don't forget their cowards too grey

Auk

When it comes to negotiations nothing is sacred, if the Rabo nations feel the need to threaten the 6N to aid their clubs then you can't blame them for doing so. After all if their clubs are strangled to death it's only a matter of time before the NT suffers. The PRL and FFR on the other hands will have to suffer the issues of their governing bodies if that were to arise, the 6N is a huge money maker for all concerned, far outweighing the HC profits (for the Rabo unions anyway)

The FFR are clearly closer to the PRL than you believe. They have both given notice to leave & at a meeting without the PRL present(not invited by the ERC) still no agreement was reached.
To answer the question posed. Without major changres from either/both parties no accord will be reached.

thebluesmancometh wrote:It is not about any agreement, it's about ownership. The PRL have decided they want to get a new sponsor that hugely benefits them and dictate terms to the rest of the 6N unions. That is simply unacceptable.

I am more than happy for the monetary gains to be paid 'by the club' but in that respect Wales should return to a welsh prem and demand the same amount of spots as the PRL receive then.

As is stated, the PRL wants the Rabo nations to receive 33% of the new deal, and the PRL and FFR recive the same.

Now in what universe does 4 out of the 6 unions get a third share of all monetary gains from the ERC (who they own a majority share of) and stay competitive against the other 2 unions???

It's quite obvious that anyone trying to defend the PRL here is clearly playing ignorant to 2 factors...

1, that each negoatiation is done on the unions terms, not Rabo v PRL

2, The FFR is not on board with the PRL, you cannot use the FFR as a bargaining chip.

The negotiations have taken this long already because the PRL havn't managed to get the FFR on board, if they had it'd be game over and the Rabo nations wouldve had to conced way more than they want to. Also the fact that the RFU have come out and condemned the PRL's moves says a lot.

Right now the FFR are staying quite neutral, they do not want anyone to leave, but also see the PRL's demands as a threat to the sport in the NH (well from what I can see anyway)

If the Rabo nations had little power or no negotiating power we would not have theis present stalemate, and IMHO as long as they stay together and keep telling the PRL no way there is nowhere for the PRL to go but to leave the comp or do a U turn tail between legs.

Ok so that was a really long way of saying all our hopes are pinned on the misguided dream that the French will stick with us.

There are currently 38 teams that have the potential to play HC rugby. Of you can honestly tell me that a deal that means that each and everyone of them potentially receives an equal share of the spoils is unfair the there is no reasoning with you. If you can also honestly tell me that you don't believe that the English teams participation doesn't bring in at least a third of the commercial revenues then again you are a lost cause.

If your country feels that it can support 12 top flights teams then I applaud your ambition but that is not the current position and so will not form part of the negotiations.

Toadfish wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:It is not about any agreement, it's about ownership. The PRL have decided they want to get a new sponsor that hugely benefits them and dictate terms to the rest of the 6N unions. That is simply unacceptable.

I am more than happy for the monetary gains to be paid 'by the club' but in that respect Wales should return to a welsh prem and demand the same amount of spots as the PRL receive then.

As is stated, the PRL wants the Rabo nations to receive 33% of the new deal, and the PRL and FFR recive the same.

Now in what universe does 4 out of the 6 unions get a third share of all monetary gains from the ERC (who they own a majority share of) and stay competitive against the other 2 unions???

It's quite obvious that anyone trying to defend the PRL here is clearly playing ignorant to 2 factors...

1, that each negoatiation is done on the unions terms, not Rabo v PRL

2, The FFR is not on board with the PRL, you cannot use the FFR as a bargaining chip.

The negotiations have taken this long already because the PRL havn't managed to get the FFR on board, if they had it'd be game over and the Rabo nations wouldve had to conced way more than they want to. Also the fact that the RFU have come out and condemned the PRL's moves says a lot.

Right now the FFR are staying quite neutral, they do not want anyone to leave, but also see the PRL's demands as a threat to the sport in the NH (well from what I can see anyway)

If the Rabo nations had little power or no negotiating power we would not have theis present stalemate, and IMHO as long as they stay together and keep telling the PRL no way there is nowhere for the PRL to go but to leave the comp or do a U turn tail between legs.

Ok so that was a really long way of saying all our hopes are pinned on the misguided dream that the French will stick with us.

There are currently 38 teams that have the potential to play HC rugby. Of you can honestly tell me that a deal that means that each and everyone of them potentially receives an equal share of the spoils is unfair the there is no reasoning with you. If you can also honestly tell me that you don't believe that the English teams participation doesn't bring in at least a third of the commercial revenues then again you are a lost cause.

If your country feels that it can support 12 top flights teams then I applaud your ambition but that is not the current position and so will not form part of the negotiations.

After this is wriggled with such ignorance, and disregard for the arguments put forward by a number of posters I think I'll not respond to it, nor you until you acknowledge the points made above.

The fact that you think the PRL supporting 12 club has anything to do With the SRU supporting 2 says it all!!!

The FFR or more the NRL would much rather have the t16/T18 as it is their cash cow.

As we have seen in recent years the Top T14 clubs much rather the HC as they look to win it as shown by Toulon who before would have been happy to top the group where as they are setting out a marker.

The Top T14 teams play in the HC to show they are the best which is not always how it was. Whocares would have to confirm this though.

The one concern that both the FFR and RFU have is that if the do the frananglo cup the other could pull the plug akin to the Lv and then they are left with nothing.

The PRL also have an issue with how much money the RFU gives to HC teams. Right now Tigers and London Welsh get the same Euro money from the RFU.

The problems I see is between the RFU and PRL and the FFR and NRL as they deceide what is best for their UNION.

The Rabo is not going to change to dramatically in what it wants

I do think that the ERC should demand that all countries have at lest six teams in the 2/3 competions.

It isn't like the Irish, Welsh and Scots can't put in teams like the italians do.

It also will force the weaker unions to improve their country.

Lets be honest. The IRFU have in a way been forced to improve connacht as they could not send the orginal team out in the HC and also they saw hwo people liked seeing connacht get to the Amlin Semi.

I am very confident an agreement will be reached but England will not get their demands met.

A smaller competition, shorter length comp too, this will result in less rp12 teams, but the PRLs other demands will not be met. I see the PRL continuing to back down further.

I think the fundamental problem is that one side of the argument bases its thinking primarily around unions and the other primarily around clubs. Not surprising, because for one side the clubs/provinces/regions have been set-up or at least reshaped largely by the unions, on the other, the clubs are largely autonomous commercial entities and the union is only a voice at the table rather than the controlling influence.

Also, on the Rabo side there are 2-4 clubs per union, whereas on the Franglo side there are at least 3 times as many clubs per union.

All the nonsense discussion about fairness and bullying - at least the stuff I've read - seems to ignore this distinction. Any resolution needs to take into account both the needs of the unions and the needs of the individual teams.

To take the money debate. Is it actually fair that 50% of the money is shared among 26 clubs (who effectively generate most of the revenue) and 50% among 12? If you encountered that fact without any of the supporting history and emotion could you honestly say it's reasonable?

maestegmafia wrote:I am very confident an agreement will be reached but England will not get their demands met.

A smaller competition, shorter length comp too, this will result in less rp12 teams, but the PRLs other demands will not be met. I see the PRL continuing to back down further.

How have they backed down so far?

Poor

Unless when you consider those 12 clubs belong to 4 of the 6N teams.

As you said the PRL are clearly just thinking of the club game, whereas the Rabo nations need to consider the national effects, this is where they have the trump card as putting pressure on the RFU by mentioning the 6N would all but scare all sides!!

Well didn't the PRL mention they'd walk if they weren't adhered to at the first round of negotiations, and when told no they stayed at the table?

Or is that something Ive just picked up off these boards?

greytiger wrote: If toys get thrown out of prams, the 6Ns may be part of the collateral damage though.

I doubt that. It would be a massive blow to the unions. The IRFU for instance would die and the RFU would be financially crippled. It is the clubs that are fighting for HC reform not the unions. Well It's the Rabo unions desperately trying to hold onto their good thing.

Currently the English and French clubs get significantly less than they put in. The Rabo nations take something like 3 times more out than they contribute. The French are currently in semi neutral ground but will never rejoin the competition minus the English clubs as they will be left to subsidise the competition alone.

There seems to be some confusion over what the French want. This is what Patrick Wolff, the vice president of the French National Rugby League said a few months back:


"The French clubs will ask for certain changes to the organisation and schedule of the competition.

"We must give negotiation a chance because the competition is more interesting with the Celts involved. We expect to find a common understanding with all the stakeholders.

"If the negotiations fail, we will see what our alternative options are."


"The Amlin Challenge Cup must have teams from all stakeholders because at the moment it is a useless competition just concerning English and French clubs.

"We want a decent schedule to the season whereby European competition will be finished by the end of April.

"We also believe it would be interesting - even for the Celts - if the RaboDirect teams have to qualify like the English and French clubs do.

"We believe that would give more momentum to their competition.

"Our thoughts have already been transmitted to ERC and the stakeholders and will form the basis for negotiations"

The Great Aukster wrote:

greytiger wrote:If toys get thrown out of prams, the 6Ns may be part of the collateral damage though.

It would be really disappointing if the most historic Test competition fell victim to an argument over club money. Maybe the Rabo nations could play a 4N competition with home and away fixtures?

A pan-European multi-divisional 4Ns with H/A games and playoff-based promotion/relegation has long been a dream of mine Auk. The constant fly in the ointment being perennially Scotland and Italy and their blocking votes. Similarly a SH divisional SH equivalent.

Its's strange how dewy-sugared words of fanciful rhetoric suddenly become acrid and poisonous when assistance for lower tier nations threaten to challenge the status quo.

Sam

I have to disagree, the Rabo unions have restructured to aid competitiveness and the NT, if the club game struggles the NT get effected. So it wouldn't be too outrageous to think that the Rabo teams would use the 6N as leverage, especially knowing the RFU would go under in seconds, they would automatically put pressure on the PRL to retract.

markb

I can't imagine those were the NRL words, reffering to the Rabo nations as celts? Also the issues the french have are pretty well covered, and they are certainly not the same as the PRL.

thebluesmancometh wrote:

Toadfish wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:It is not about any agreement, it's about ownership. The PRL have decided they want to get a new sponsor that hugely benefits them and dictate terms to the rest of the 6N unions. That is simply unacceptable.

I am more than happy for the monetary gains to be paid 'by the club' but in that respect Wales should return to a welsh prem and demand the same amount of spots as the PRL receive then.

As is stated, the PRL wants the Rabo nations to receive 33% of the new deal, and the PRL and FFR recive the same.

Now in what universe does 4 out of the 6 unions get a third share of all monetary gains from the ERC (who they own a majority share of) and stay competitive against the other 2 unions???

It's quite obvious that anyone trying to defend the PRL here is clearly playing ignorant to 2 factors...

1, that each negoatiation is done on the unions terms, not Rabo v PRL

2, The FFR is not on board with the PRL, you cannot use the FFR as a bargaining chip.

The negotiations have taken this long already because the PRL havn't managed to get the FFR on board, if they had it'd be game over and the Rabo nations wouldve had to conced way more than they want to. Also the fact that the RFU have come out and condemned the PRL's moves says a lot.

Right now the FFR are staying quite neutral, they do not want anyone to leave, but also see the PRL's demands as a threat to the sport in the NH (well from what I can see anyway)

If the Rabo nations had little power or no negotiating power we would not have theis present stalemate, and IMHO as long as they stay together and keep telling the PRL no way there is nowhere for the PRL to go but to leave the comp or do a U turn tail between legs.

Ok so that was a really long way of saying all our hopes are pinned on the misguided dream that the French will stick with us.

There are currently 38 teams that have the potential to play HC rugby. Of you can honestly tell me that a deal that means that each and everyone of them potentially receives an equal share of the spoils is unfair the there is no reasoning with you. If you can also honestly tell me that you don't believe that the English teams participation doesn't bring in at least a third of the commercial revenues then again you are a lost cause.

If your country feels that it can support 12 top flights teams then I applaud your ambition but that is not the current position and so will not form part of the negotiations.

After this is wriggled with such ignorance, and disregard for the arguments put forward by a number of posters I think I'll not respond to it, nor you until you acknowledge the points made above.

The fact that you think the PRL supporting 12 club has anything to do With the SRU supporting 2 says it all!!!

Ok how about this for a scenario if you want to go down the union route. How about we split evenly so 16.7% of the revenue each? For the PRL/RFU we're only going to enter one team though. Would that work for you?

It certainly would not, but if thats what you had to do to be competitive it's your choice, we would have no say in it, unlike the PRL who want a say in everyone elses business!

What would you call that team... the jeff XV?

thebluesmancometh wrote:It certainly would not, but if thats what you had to do to be competitive it's your choice, we would have no say in it, unlike the PRL who want a say in everyone elses business!

What would you call that team... the jeff XV?

No, we'd just put the sixth place team in each year. The top five would go into a competition with the French (when they do the same) and maybe some other nations. Seem fair? We'd take 33% of the spoils between us despite only putting in 14% of the teams (2 out of 14)?

What are you talking about, I think youve actually gone around in so many circles your dizzy!!

thebluesmancometh wrote:What are you talking about, I think youve actually gone around in so many circles your dizzy!!

If you don't understand just say, there might be a way on here I can draw you a picture?

thebluesmancometh wrote:Sam

I have to disagree, the Rabo unions have restructured to aid competitiveness and the NT, if the club game struggles the NT get effected. So it wouldn't be too outrageous to think that the Rabo teams would use the 6N as leverage, especially knowing the RFU would go under in seconds, they would automatically put pressure on the PRL to retract.

markb

I can't imagine those were the NRL words, reffering to the Rabo nations as celts? Also the issues the french have are pretty well covered, and they are certainly not the same as the PRL.

"Restructured to aid competitiveness" - is pretty disingenuous, if you ask me:
i) Competitiveness was not the only reason - a lot of it was also about financial viability
ii) Given the restructuring took place after the current structures were put in place, isn't that just manipulating the qualification rules? (Which is one of the issues the PRL and FFR have with the current system)
iii) Restructuring is not really an option that the RFU and FFR have. For one thing, they don't control the PRL or Top 14. For another, they have a larger playing and fan base and more teams within sight of financial viability. Why should they force a restructure (even if they could) on independent businesses simply to respond to the manipulation of the system by the other unions?

And I'm afraid I think your 6N threat is just wishful thinking:
a) What evidence is there that the Rabo unions could survive better without the 6N than the RFU and FFR? Would a 4N really replace the gates and TV money? What's to say that England, France and, say, Samoa and Fiji couldn't put together a tournament that would in time be a reasonable replacement?
b) Even if the RFU chose to put pressure on the PRL, why would they give in to it? The RFU has limited leverage over them and the 6N is more of a nuisance to them than anything else. They don't get any real revenue from it, and they lose their players to it. The PRL (and Top 14) are interested in getting to a point of financial viability as rugby clubs. Fewer internationals means bigger home gates, at least in the short term.