H-cup will settlement be reached?

First topic message reminder :

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?

Pothale

You will actually find that the PRL and RFU are not in agreement - nor are the french in agreement with the PRL whereas the other 4 unions are in a very similar position and I very much doubt they will break ranks - as if they remain together they isolate the PRL, the french and the RFU will comprimise and the PRL will get told to GTF.

The PRL have upset irritated and alienated everyone ese including the RFU

What is important here is a sense of proportion, if you actually look at the attendances across European rugby we are looking at a product that actually gets less bums on seats than say Championship level football, even the biggest clubs rarely get above 20,000 other than for exceptional games such as the Double Header, Leinster V Munster at the Avivia and the Saracens forays into Wembley.
If you want to frame the money distribution arguement in terms of numbers of viewers; I would assume there's a correlation between people prepared to put their hands in their pocket for match tickets and people prepared to put their hands in their pockets for pay TV, can you really say that Saracens (Average gate les than 5,000) bring more viewers to the party than say, Ulster, Scarlets or Leinster do?
Anyone with time on their hands like to do a breakdown of viewing figures for last weekends games ?
Rugby in terms of TV income punches well above its weight, mainly because networks assume that it attracts a better class of viewer and therefore a higher advertising revenue - a split or dispersed product will be bad for all.

The way I think it may be settled is,

Currently we see the money split
about €40 million or thereabouts in given out in basic distributions,
and £8 million bonus split by teams in each knock out stage (certain amount to each team in each round)

basic distributions, (25% each to England and France, 12% each for other 4)

None of the 4 unions will accept an agreement that sees them getting less.

What I see happening is the basic distributions decrease (and shares in it stay the same) and the bonus increases.

Saychange to £30 million basic distributions, and £18 million in bonus payments, for each team in knock out stages, and adding payments for topping group and group runners up and even 3rd in group.

This way the % each nation recieves in basic distributions does not change (keeping Rabo unions happy)
But bonus payment increases, and with England and France entering more teams they should collect most out of these, keeping them happy.

It would also help the French take it more serious and not trying after qualification hope is gone, as a team finishing 3rd will get a bonus a team finish 4th would not.

Comparing Saracens to Ulster, Scarlets or Leinster is arguing from the particular to the general. I could compare Leicester (average attendance last season 20,000+) with Zebre (average attendance last season 0), but it wouldn't be a valid argument, would it?

Tinterweb search say that the average Pro 12 attendance last season was 7,721 and average AP attendance was 11,950. A difference of 4,229, or over 50%. Quins this season are pulling in 12,000+ even for LV= games and Zebre.

I've used league games rather than HEC games as I think you'd need to go down to game by game level to make a fair comparison.

Kingshu wrote:The way I think it may be settled is,

Currently we see the money split
about €40 million or thereabouts in given out in basic distributions,
and £8 million bonus split by teams in each knock out stage (certain amount to each team in each round)

basic distributions, (25% each to England and France, 12% each for other 4)

None of the 4 unions will accept an agreement that sees them getting less.

What I see happening is the basic distributions decrease (and shares in it stay the same) and the bonus increases.

Saychange to £30 million basic distributions, and £18 million in bonus payments, for each team in knock out stages, and adding payments for topping group and group runners up and even 3rd in group.

This way the % each nation recieves in basic distributions does not change (keeping Rabo unions happy)
But bonus payment increases, and with England and France entering more teams they should collect most out of these, keeping them happy.

It would also help the French take it more serious and not trying after qualification hope is gone, as a team finishing 3rd will get a bonus a team finish 4th would not.

Genuine question. What would make the French and the English back down on their demands?

Toohey

The french don't need to back down, they can be negotiated with reasonably enough, despite what people say on here they are not with the PRL!

And the PRL will put up or shut up as long as the Rabo nations stay united.

Kingshu, I don't think that addresses the issue.

The big problem that the PRL and Top 14 have is that they see a disproportionate share of revenue that comes from their fanbase being handed over to teams who barely have to qualify for the HEC and whose number and structure has been manipulated over time to make the most of the current model.

Meanwhile, their own clubs - who are, let's remember, independent companies who are not subsidised or run by their unions to anything like the same degree as Rabo teams, and who are for the most part within sight of breakeven but not consistently profitable - get a smaller per-team share of the cash, and feel disadvantaged by the fact that they have to work hard to qualify for the HEC and so have to fight on two fronts.

How does reducing the basic pot, while maintaining the structural issues and rewarding performance when the playing field isn't level, in any way address those concerns?

Kingshu think this will be one possiblity. The IRFU would vote for it as they would hope to get 2 teams a year into the quarters and one to a semi.

Not sure about the others as they would loose out except for maybe Italy who through treviso who will be pushing for a quarter final place in three years.

The Rabo unions suggested a 32 team comp and the Frananglo was 20. I would like to see less teams but not sure I would like to see the same teams play each year against each other, which is what we don't want.

It is hard to balance teams playing in a competion that won't get disgraced v playing teams you don't really play. I am sure that Leinster and Cleamont can't wait till they don't have to play each other one season, unless its the final.

thebluesmancometh wrote:Toohey

The french don't need to back down, they can be negotiated with reasonably enough, despite what people say on here they are not with the PRL!

And the PRL will put up or shut up as long as the Rabo nations stay united.

That's not a reason. You say the French can be negotiated with so what will they get? What will make the English back down from their demands?

Poorfour wrote:Kingshu, I don't think that addresses the issue.

The big problem that the PRL and Top 14 have is that they see a disproportionate share of revenue that comes from their fanbase being handed over to teams who barely have to qualify for the HEC and whose number and structure has been manipulated over time to make the most of the current model.

Meanwhile, their own clubs - who are, let's remember, independent companies who are not subsidised or run by their unions to anything like the same degree as Rabo teams, and who are for the most part within sight of breakeven but not consistently profitable - get a smaller per-team share of the cash, and feel disadvantaged by the fact that they have to work hard to qualify for the HEC and so have to fight on two fronts.

How does reducing the basic pot, while maintaining the structural issues and rewarding performance when the playing field isn't level, in any way address those concerns?

everyone agrees that the Rabo teams bar Treviso can not be run on a private basis.
The Irish are run as separate businesses which is why connacht is the poor relation and ulster is catching up with the other two. The IRFU does give money to the four teams but you could say that is for the equivelant of the EPS and Prize money just like the Aviva.

Wales are similar to Ireland.

The other hold up point is what is the value of each participant in the HC/Amlin.

Also what is the value of the HC/AMlin of itself, that goes to its stakeholders. No one would pay much for the Scottish Cup coming up, but they would for a Warriors v Edinburgh HC Quarter final.
Same goes for all unions and this a a point missed that the HC/Amlin is the biggest pull in the competion not the french, not the Irish not the English.

Irish Londoner wrote: can you really say that Saracens (Average gate les than 5,000) bring more viewers to the party than say, Ulster, Scarlets or Leinster do?

Quick check finds their avergae gate for this season to be 37,000 in the Jeff , I have no idea where you got that figure from...but it wasnt anywhere sensible

PSW

It is a much more sensible answer than an average of 37k, of which you are including Wembley bumper day double headers (do the other 3 teams get a 0 for that) your also including trips to Belgium, Dubai etc etc..

Saracens do not get a gate of 37k per game... FACT!

It is harde to say who is the biggest draw for telly.

I like to watch Toulouse and Cleamont as I think they are the best the french have to offer.

I like Tigers as I think they are still the best benchmark for the Aviva (even if Quinns may be doing better) and then the 3 Irish (as i'm Irish) and Os as they are best of the rest.

I think most people would be the same. with less interest in ireland and more in their country.

Toohey

It is a clear reason, as long as the Rabo nations stick together the PRL will back down or walk IMHO.

The French clubs have a clear focus on number of games and date of final, and secondary thoughts on Rabo qualification. They will concede certain issues for the focus of their Top 14. They are not in cahoots with the PRL, have come out and condemned the PRL's actions and have told the PRL where to go on numerous occasions!

Toohey wrote:


Genuine question. What would make the French and the English back down on their demands?

The French can be accommodated with compromise. The PRL will be faced with " well off you go then" and no support from the RFU so will either have to back down or make good their threat to walk

I have this great idea for a power generation system for future generations. When, (in a great many years) selected members of 606 pass on they are buried them with a turbine attached to their bodies. All that our children and grandchildren will then have to do to get all the electrical power they need is to whisper above the graves that someone wants to mess with the HC again....

The PRL will be getting huge pressure from both the Clubs below them and the RFU above them, this power move of theres might backfire pretty badly!

thebluesmancometh wrote:PSW

It is a much more sensible answer than an average of 37k, of which you are including Wembley bumper day double headers (do the other 3 teams get a 0 for that) your also including trips to Belgium, Dubai etc etc..

Saracens do not get a gate of 37k per game... FACT!

Well if you take an average of their home gates for the Jeff they have doe so far this seaosn (the figure quoted), but thats only a fact in the sense that it is.
But yes it is a misleading figure, in that it shows their potential draw for big games and the sort of crowds you can draw for televised rugby matches outside the HC as oppossed to some ludicrous made up number. What it shows is that making up a figure of 5000 ( lower than any of their home attendances this season) is a true reflection of how many people would go to see a team with no current permanant base. Obviously Saracens home gets in FACT land are lower than those of Oxford Welsh.
Id buy that for a dollar.

TJ wrote:

Toohey wrote:


Genuine question. What would make the French and the English back down on their demands?

The French can be accommodated with compromise. The PRL will be faced with " well off you go then" and no support from the RFU so will either have to back down or make good their threat to walk

So what your saying is that the Rabo nations will have to negotiate and comprimise on their demands for no change?

So much that is simply wrong in this post.

Poorfour wrote:Kingshu, I don't think that addresses the issue.

The big problem that the PRL and Top 14 have is that they see a disproportionate share of revenue that comes from their fanbase being handed over to teams who barely have to qualify for the HEC and whose number and structure has been manipulated over time to make the most of the current model.

As you have been repeatedly told. Its not the english clubs the english fans are watching - its the HC. Without the others there would be a smaller audience. the best treams get the mnost viewers - look at the numbers. the viewers do not fall away as the english clubs get put out. Its not the Rabo teams fault the PRL refuse top reformtheir competition. Why do the Rabo teams have to be disadvantaged to account for the English who have disadvataged themselves

Meanwhile, their own clubs - who are, let's remember, independent companies who are not subsidised or run by their unions to anything like the same degree as Rabo teams, and who are for the most part within sight of breakeven but not consistently profitable - get a smaller per-team share of the cash, and feel disadvantaged by the fact that they have to work hard to qualify for the HEC and so have to fight on two fronts.

Many of the english and french clubs are run at a deficit paid for by rich men with large egos perhpas they could play within their means?
Ask the RFU why they get a smaller share. Its because the RFU fund 12 teams from the HC. If they funded the 6 who actually play in the HC then they would have more. Blame the RFU not the Rabo teams. so if they feel disadvantaged by their own structure change the structure. thats what the Rabo teams did.

How does reducing the basic pot, while maintaining the structural issues and rewarding performance when the playing field isn't level, in any way address those concerns?

Because it would reward excellence - the supposed aim of the PRL - of course they do not want this knowing most of their teams are mediocre.

So of all the people to go to Wembley to see the 4 teams, fireworks, concert and entertainment with 000's of free tickets to schools/kids were all there to support Saracens, and thus contribute tho the huge Saracens potential?!?!?!

And how does that huge potential translate into the new stadium... 10k capacity

You really need to think before you WUM. mate!

PSW - That figure definately includes attendances at Wembley and possibly the Double Header - they had also had a good crowd at the weekend, per my resident Sarries supporter at work about two thirds of which was supporting Munster, but week in week out at Watford it's never more than 5,000 or so. I'd assume that if theywere getting 37,000 atttendances they would be looking to build something larger than the planned capacity at the back of beyond arena.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

TJ wrote:

Toohey wrote:


Genuine question. What would make the French and the English back down on their demands?

The French can be accommodated with compromise. The PRL will be faced with " well off you go then" and no support from the RFU so will either have to back down or make good their threat to walk

So what your saying is that the Rabo nations will have to negotiate and comprimise on their demands for no change?

They have not got a negotiating position of no change. they have red lines that cannot be crossed. they have offered at least one radically changed idea that answered most of the PRL / French concerns and it was rejected out of hand - because it did not hand most of the money and power to a small group of club owners

Of course there is room for negotiation but loss of 40% of representation while others lose none and loss of 1/3 of the funding is not acceptable.

The only group not prepared to negotiate is the PRL. this is why I think the outcome will be a euro cup without the PRL teams

It's looking that way TJ isn't it, sadly!

TJ wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

TJ wrote:

Toohey wrote:


Genuine question. What would make the French and the English back down on their demands?

The French can be accommodated with compromise. The PRL will be faced with " well off you go then" and no support from the RFU so will either have to back down or make good their threat to walk

So what your saying is that the Rabo nations will have to negotiate and comprimise on their demands for no change?

They have not got a negotiating position of no change. they have red lines that cannot be crossed. they have offered at least one radically changed idea that answered most of the PRL / French concerns and it was rejected out of hand - because it did not hand most of the money and power to a small group of club owners

Of course there is room for negotiation but loss of 40% of representation while others lose none and loss of 1/3 of the funding is not acceptable.

The only group not prepared to negotiate is the PRL. this is why I think the outcome will be a euro cup without the PRL teams

Or the French.

I think in the long term it would be a good thing. It would show that the narrow interests of a small group of club owners cannot override the good of the wider game.

A year or two out of the competition watching from the sidelines would hurt the english teams - both in the pocket and in their egos and they would be a little more humble to get back in again.

Long term it would be good, short term there would be pain but not as much as many folk think and less than if the PRL proposals are accepted

Toohey wrote:

Or the French.

The french are perfectly prepared to compromise and can be accommodated without the Rabo teams having to cross red lines. Indeed without he English this would be easier.

TJ wrote:

Toohey wrote:

Or the French.

The french are perfectly prepared to compromise and can be accommodated without the Rabo teams having to cross red lines. Indeed without he English this would be easier.

I've seen no evidence to support this but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Toohey

The evidence is in the way the French have condemned the PRL's actions

PSW - per the Aviva website on Saracens attendance this season (10 games)
Total attendance = 110630
Highest attendance = 63102
Average attendance = 36877 - at present the best attended club in the league! Above Leicester, Quins, Northampton, etc.
However subtract the Wembley attendance and the total attendance for the season is 47528 - divided by 9 gives an average of 5281 for the Jeff games.

Irish

He's been proved wrong, he won't be back anytime soon

Plenty of evidence - quoted in these threads. a far less antagonistic approach evident and clear irritation with the PRLs approach especially the selling of the tv rights.

Irish Londoner wrote: but week in week out at Watford it's never more than 5,000 or so.

Except theyve only played 2 games in Watford this seaosn with an avergae audience of 12,000


Aside from that youre right.

But yes the lower attendances at Watfdord are why they are moving form tehir to London, where they are well supported and continuing to grow.

Irish Londoner wrote:PSW - per the Aviva website on Saracens attendance this season (10 games)
Total attendance = 110630
Highest attendance = 63102
Average attendance = 36877 - at present the best attended club in the league! Above Leicester, Quins, Northampton, etc.
However subtract the Wembley attendance and the total attendance for the season is 47528 - divided by 9 gives an average of 5281 for the Jeff games.

Given their lowest attendance is over 6000 Im not sure how the avergae can be below 6000 even with the largest one removed....

TJ wrote:As you have been repeatedly told. Its not the english clubs the english fans are watching - its the HC. Without the others there would be a smaller audience. the best treams get the mnost viewers - look at the numbers. the viewers do not fall away as the english clubs get put out. Its not the Rabo teams fault the PRL refuse top reformtheir competition. Why do the Rabo teams have to be disadvantaged to account for the English who have disadvataged themselves

There is a heck of a lot wrong with that, too.

1) It's not pay-per-view (as I explained earlier and you have ignored). Of course I watch knockout matches without English teams in. It's because I've already paid to watch those games, as part of paying to watch a tournament that English clubs play in. Would I pay to watch a competition without any English in it at all? Well, I don't subscribe to watch the Rabo. What evidence do you have that viewers will actively pay to watch a tournament in which they have no domestic team to support?

2) The PRL is the collective body that represents the premiership clubs. Its whole purpose for existing is to represent their interests. Why should it reform its competition because it suits the Rabo teams? Why should they just accept that the Rabo teams restructured to suit themselves? The questions are equally valid.

No point in trying to have a dialogue with TJ. This is the English to him:

Spoiler:

Attempting to explain to him that deals are acomplished by the concerned parties that start in their respective places and reach compromise through negotiation is like talking to a brick wall.

Irish Londoner wrote:PSW - per the Aviva website on Saracens attendance this season (10 games)
Total attendance = 110630
Highest attendance = 63102
Average attendance = 36877 - at present the best attended club in the league! Above Leicester, Quins, Northampton, etc.
However subtract the Wembley attendance and the total attendance for the season is 47528 - divided by 9 gives an average of 5281 for the Jeff games.

You can't divide by 9 or 10, that's the total fixtures not home. They have only have 4 home games, the last of which for some reason isn't in your figures above. Total attendance in 4 fixtures this year has been 116,591. Take away the Twickenham game you get 53,489. Divide that by 3 and you get an average of 17,830.

AlastairW wrote:No point in trying to have a dialogue with TJ. This is the English to him:

Spoiler:

Attempting to explain to him that deals are acomplished by the concerned parties that start in their respective places and reach compromise through negotiation is like talking to a brick wall.

As you have been told already I am English. Your chip on your shoulder does makes you look very stupid

Yes everyone but the PRL are prepared to compromise. this is why I believe a euro cup without the english is possible unless the PRL back down.

Poorfour wrote:

TJ wrote:As you have been repeatedly told. Its not the english clubs the english fans are watching - its the HC. Without the others there would be a smaller audience. the best treams get the mnost viewers - look at the numbers. the viewers do not fall away as the english clubs get put out. Its not the Rabo teams fault the PRL refuse top reformtheir competition. Why do the Rabo teams have to be disadvantaged to account for the English who have disadvataged themselves

There is a heck of a lot wrong with that, too.

1) It's not pay-per-view (as I explained earlier and you have ignored). Of course I watch knockout matches without English teams in. It's because I've already paid to watch those games, as part of paying to watch a tournament that English clubs play in. Would I pay to watch a competition without any English in it at all? Well, I don't subscribe to watch the Rabo. What evidence do you have that viewers will actively pay to watch a tournament in which they have no domestic team to support?

- read what I( wrote - you agree with me that you do not pay to watch the english teams, you pay to watch the HC

2) The PRL is the collective body that represents the premiership clubs. Its whole purpose for existing is to represent their interests. Why should it reform its competition because it suits the Rabo teams? Why should they just accept that the Rabo teams restructured to suit themselves? The questions are equally valid.

Indeed they are. However the rabo unions are not asking the aviva to restructure to suit them, the PRL are asking the rabo to restructure to disadvantage the rabo teams. If its not acceptable for the Aviava to restructure ( less teams, no relegation) then its not acceptable for the aviva to tell the rabo unions how to organise its teams

TJ wrote:

AlastairW wrote:No point in trying to have a dialogue with TJ. This is the English to him:

Spoiler:

Attempting to explain to him that deals are acomplished by the concerned parties that start in their respective places and reach compromise through negotiation is like talking to a brick wall.

As you have been told already I am English. Your chip on your shoulder does makes you look very stupid

Yes everyone but the PRL are prepared to compromise. this is why I believe a euro cup without the english is possible unless the PRL back down.

Yeah, i'm the one with a shoulder chip, thanks for the laugh and go pick youself up a can of Pledge. Crying about how bad the poor beleagured picked on smaller unions are being bullied by the horrible mean nasty English; you're a cliche.

How do you know that everyone but the PRL are prepared to compromise? Pulling crap out of thin air doesn't make it true, it's not even informed discussion. It's just crap. You are talking crap and you're not giving any credence to anyone that doesn't agree with you. Why should they take you as anything else other than the poor hard done by cliche you present yourself as?

Stupidity is digging your heels in, and not discussing issues ... on a discussion board. The hints in the name.

TJ wrote:- read what I( wrote - you agree with me that you do not pay to watch the english teams, you pay to watch the HC

Read what I wrote. I am not disagreeing with you on that I pay to watch a tournament, and that doesn't mean I insist on only watching games with English teams in them. My point is that I pay to watch a tournament that English teams compete in. The fact that it is the HEC is an aside.

I am disagreeing with the inference you are drawing, which is that English viewers would continue to pay to watch the HEC with no English teams in it. I hope we never find out, but I am pretty sure that they wouldn't pay in large numbers just because it's the Heineken Cup. I know I wouldn't. I don't go out of my way to pay for Premiership Football, Rabo or Super 15, none of which feature teams I follow.

What yous are saying is if it is split 33% per league, as English want, and remains to be seen where French stand.

That Aviva Clubs bring in 33% of the Market Value to the European Comp and Irish teams only bring in 8% of the Market value, do any of yous think that thats anywhere near correct?

Think we'll see the 6,6,8 qualifing that seams agreeable to most, and the basic distributions shares remain as is, but more of the money is diverted from basic distributions toward Prize money, (going as far down as 3rd in each group).

SRU and FIR will still receive around 12% of basic distribution, and should keep them happy although this basic distribution will be lower than before.

The prize money side increases, going toward group position and play offs, this should keep English and French happy.
Currently prize money won by English teams goes straight to their clubs (the basic distribution goes to RFU), so more prize money, esp for group stages should keep PLC happy, as it means less goes to RFU and more directed toward the clubs)

last year the prize money was as follows (payments increase per round)
IRFU 3 quarter-finalists, 2 semi-finalists and 2 finalists
FRU 2 quarter-finalists and 1 semi finalist,
SRU 1 quarter-finalist and 1 semi finalist
RFU 1 quarter-finalist
WRU 1 quarter-finalist

But if more Prize money was given out for 3rd in group upwards (payments increase per round)

IRFU 1 second in group, 2 group winners,
3 quarter-finalists, 2 semi-finalists and 2 finalists

FRU 1 third in group, 1 second in group, 2 group winners
2 quarter-finalists and 1 semi finalist,

SRU 1 second in group, 1 group winner
1 quarter-finalist and 1 semi finalist

RFU
4 third in group, 1 second in group, 1 group winner
1 quarter-finalist

WRU
1 third in group, 2 second in group, 1 group winner
1 quarter-finalist

So in old model RFU would have taken the same in prize money as WRU, Under new model, they would have recieved 3 sets of third in group prize money more, but one 2nd in group payment less, than WRU, Overall though in prize money RFU would have taken out is more Prize money than WRU would have received.

Since prize money payments go straight to the Clubs, PLC could be swayed by this, RFU and FRU accepting off it Pro 12 Unions agreeable to it, bascally the only reasonable solution, no ones going to love it, but all may compromise on it.

If the PRL are the problem how come no agreement was reached when the ERC held a meeting but didnt invite them.With them not there surley an agreement could have been reached. IIRC the French clubs came out afterwards angry that the PRL hadnt been invited & said that they would not be involved in an european comp without the English.

Alistair and TJ, stick to the debate and lay off each other will you please.




As a personal observation (mod hat off), no-one's said anything new on any of the HEC threads in weeks, it's getting very tedious hearing the same people parrot the same points at each other, and I'm starting to think no-one's bothering to read the stuff that comes back from the other side(s).

Just for the record, a French delegation of five senior figures including three club presidents decided to hand in their notice and following discussions with the PRL they followed suit.

The French backed down in 2007 - they do not intend to do so now on the qualification as well as the scheduling. They don't have a pressing need for funds as their stadia are paid for but do object to their teams being conflicted with league placings and being competitive in Euro competitions, Blanco has stated it on a number of occasions. Wolff doesn't speak for the French clubs he will be replaced at the next elections.

Some have said that the clubs should change their criteria for Euro qualification but that challenges the actual legitimacy of club existance - both the French and English clubs recognise this. The RFU would love to have their old four regions entered but don't own player contracts, so won't happen.

There is some wishful thinking on here that the French clubs can be split from the English ones. This has been twelve plus months in the making - it won't happen.

I don't know Pete C (Kiwireddevil) I think I 've reached a point agreeable to most,
not to TJ and Alistair, but they're not budging on thier polar positions. most fans I think will agree on the 6,6,8 and moneys basic distributions shares remain same, but more divereted toward prize money.

Now all I have to do is work out the TV deal send by solution to all Unions, and save them a lot of time.

Does anyone thime the above basic distributions and prize moeny would be unaccepable as a compromise?

(but your right I am bored of same old agruments and same old ground covered and recovered)

Kingshu wrote:I don't know Pete C (Kiwireddevil) I think I 've reached a point agreeable to most,
not to TJ and Alistair, but they're not budging on thier polar positions. most fans I think will agree on the 6,6,8 and moneys basic distributions shares remain same, but more divereted toward prize money.

Now all I have to do is work out the TV deal send by solution to all Unions, and save them a lot of time.

Does anyone thime the above basic distributions and prize moeny would be unaccepable as a compromise?

(but your right I am bored of same old agruments and same old ground covered and recovered)

At least do me the favour of reading my posts on the matter before being condescending Kungshu

I've actually argued for the reduction of English & French club numbers, as well as saying you need at least 1 representative from each Union in the P12 as opposed to making it a complete meritocratic system for the P12 nations only. I understand that compromise is needed, it is the cornerstone of negotiation, yet saying that repeatedly does get frustrating.

Not convinced by the prize money angle, Kingshu. But in reality, we don't know anything more about the money situation than has been released by the various parties involved.

I was tempted to set up an "ERC negotiations game" thread. Rules would be:
1) Some baseline "facts" guessed from what we know already that are not up for debate, with moderators to declare new ones if needed
2) Someone writes down each party's interests and issues as objectively as possible
3) Someone else argues their case BUT (and this is key) you have to argue the case of a union or body of a different nationality
4) Everyone negotiates in good faith, with someone to act as facilitator (whose word would be final)

Kingshu,
An interesting sidebar which comes from American sport. In baseball, there is prize money for getting into their knock-outs (playoffs) and for progressing through each level until winning the whole thing. The prize money goes up at each level.

Here is where it is interesting: Some goes to the club, but some is in a pool which goes directly to the players. A bonus share for ultimate performance (winning). Does any of that happen with Heineken Cup winners?

Kingshu wrote:I don't know Pete C (Kiwireddevil) I think I 've reached a point agreeable to most,
not to TJ and Alistair, but they're not budging on thier polar positions. most fans I think will agree on the 6,6,8 and moneys basic distributions shares remain same, but more divereted toward prize money.

Now all I have to do is work out the TV deal send by solution to all Unions, and save them a lot of time.

Does anyone thime the above basic distributions and prize moeny would be unaccepable as a compromise?

(but your right I am bored of same old agruments and same old ground covered and recovered)

Fair point mate.

I personally think 5+5+8 + Prev year's HEC and Amlin winners makes sense. Overall HEC team numbers are reduced by 4/24 - ie 1/6, Eng + Fra numbers similarly reduced, and the Rabo unions' allocation is either 1+1+1+1 per nation +4 league performance (my preference) or 2+2+1+1 (Ire/Wal with 2) + 2 league performance.

The remaining 18 teams from the Top14/AP/Pro12 go into the Amlin, with the 2 best teams from prev year's rest-of-Europe tier 3 comp making up a 20 team competition. If a 5th Welsh region or 3rd Scottish/Italian one is established then there's room in the 20 (at the expense of the rest-of-Europe teams admittedly - but should a team from there become good enough in future then it'll probably be time for a competition organistation review anyway)

And if every team in the smaller HEC and the new Amlin gets paid the same participation fee (with prize money for reaching playoffs etc) the incentive becomes performance.

The Pro 12 has some added spice which it needs, the HEC becoms more elite, the Amlin becomes a much more interesting (and desirable to broadcasters) competition. Historically the Welsh (I don't know about the Scots) like turning out to see their teams play the English, this offers more scope for those cross-border matchups.