H-cup will settlement be reached?

by Kingshu Mon 17 Dec 2012, 12:15 pm

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?

by Guest Tue 18 Dec 2012, 3:06 pm

Just out of curiosity, a thought occurred. Would R12 fans like to see the old RFU four regions entered into the HC??
This would basically be the full and Saxon squads put into four teams and the HC could scrap any semblance of a club competition and the same teams could battle it out year on year - just a thought.

by neilthom7 Tue 18 Dec 2012, 3:17 pm

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)

I agree

by Poorfour Tue 18 Dec 2012, 3:25 pm

PeteC / Kingshu - I could see that being a workable compromise, though I would still prefer an "entries" solution where the potential entries by union overlaps (i.e. under 5/5/8 the minimum-likely-maximum % of teams in the HEC are:
England 42 (42%) 58%
France 35 (35%) 50%
Ireland 25 (75%) 100%
Wales 25 (75%) 100%
Scotland 50 (50%) 100%
Italy 50 (50%) 100%

Under normal circumstances England and France would still be under-represented. But I suppose if the Amlin had more value, that might be acceptable.

by Kingshu Tue 18 Dec 2012, 3:27 pm

I didn't know that there were four RFU regions, it would create really good teams, but it would be disappointing that England with the player numbers and finaces went to 4 teams.

If matching IRFU proportionally it would be 8 teams (IRFU get 3 H-cup 1 Almin, RFU get double in H-cup so 6 H-cup 2 Almin).

8 maybe based on the Standard statistical regions

by Kingshu Tue 18 Dec 2012, 3:30 pm

what about then 6/6/7 and the Union with the Highest European co-efficient gets an extra place?

by Poorfour Tue 18 Dec 2012, 3:54 pm

Kingshu wrote:what about then 6/6/7 and the Union with the Highest European co-efficient gets an extra place?

That could work. Sorted. Let's send it the ERC with our invoice for services rendered.

by Poorfour Tue 18 Dec 2012, 3:55 pm

p.s. Top modding Pete.

by Irish Londoner Tue 18 Dec 2012, 3:58 pm

Toohey wrote:
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.

Apologies - my bad !

However from a previous 606 debate on attendance:

Saracens ............... 2011 - 6,018, 33%........ 2010 - 6,944, 38%

So only a 1,000 out... Doh

by TJ1 Tue 18 Dec 2012, 3:59 pm

5/5/8 plus hc and amlin winners would work for me. gives English and French 5 - 7 teams, Irish and welsh 1-4 , scots / italians 1-2 teams (with 1 at least for each rabo union) and more money based on performance not entrants. Happy to have one guaranteed place per union and 4 on league position

Gives a more meritocratic approach, gives scope for countries with good records to get more teams

However the PRL will not go for any reduction I bet. they expect the rabo unions to give up 40% of their places but will not give up any of theirs

No one has yet been able to provide any logical or coherent reason why the reduction in numbers of teams must all come from the 4 smaller unions

by TJ1 Tue 18 Dec 2012, 4:04 pm

Pete - fair enough but its somewhat galling to be told I hate the English when I am English - and quite honestly the personal attacks from Alistair have become irritating hence I gave him a little of what he gives me back.

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Tue 18 Dec 2012, 4:14 pm

TJ wrote:Pete - fair enough but its somewhat galling to be told I hate the English when I am English - and quite honestly the personal attacks from Alistair have become irritating hence I gave him a little of what he gives me back.

Please don't use the "he started it" defence - as a general observation on moderation I find that defence particularly irritating, it feels like it's straight out of the playground Whistle

Otherwise, the thread seems to be largely back on track Smile

by TJ1 Tue 18 Dec 2012, 4:17 pm

Ok - I'll take my telling

by The Great Aukster Tue 18 Dec 2012, 4:18 pm

Pete C - I prefer the 855+2 model but Kingshu's 866 model may be more realistic. The reason is that the guaranteed proportion of 10/20 for the French and English is the same as the current 12/24, so they won't have gained any more money and that seems to be the root of their complaints.

The French and English Unions choose to distribute their current 6 teams' HEC money over their whole domestic leagues. This is patently unfair for a team like Tigers who consistently qualify, to receive the same as a team like Worcester who consistently don't, (same for Toulouse and Clermont with the likes of Agen and Mont de Marsan). The real problem is that the elite clubs from the six European nations are having to support the ballast at the lower ends of the AP and T14.

The PRL have supposedly a big money deal in their hip pocket, and this is their best chance to shape the European competition to their advantage if they can. I can't see the Rabo nations capitulating to the extent the PRL would need and therefore Kingshu's settlement, however plausible and logical won't be reached.

Maybe it's time for the Rabo nations to start talks with say Bristol, Leeds and Newcastle? They have the potential to be top notch without the yoyo threat of relegation and might pull in additional crowds. The Rabo gets an enhanced profile and more tv money Wink

by Poorfour Tue 18 Dec 2012, 4:23 pm

You said it yourself TJ. Meritocracy. When a maximum of two Rabo teams fail to make the HEC every year, there's not much need to compete for a place. Which is how you end up with a Rabo team at the bottom of each pool, but it also allows the better Rabo teams more flexibility about resting players with niggles in the Rabo to keep them fresh for the HEC, which gives them a structural advantage.

by InjuredYetAgain Tue 18 Dec 2012, 4:24 pm

Aukster - is that with a view to get these team to join the Rabo or to "stay English" but be part of the HC?
If the latter, in an ideal world it would be great to replace the other English clubs with the national sides from Spain, Portugal + AN Other (I would say Georgia but heir French cluns will have first dibs) That way, by playing Leinster, Munster, Ulster etc they get competition at a higher level than the 2nd tier of the 6N
That said, the HC and the TV companies need the English sides in the same way as the English sides need HC and the TV coverage

by InjuredYetAgain Tue 18 Dec 2012, 4:28 pm

Poorfour wrote:You said it yourself TJ. Meritocracy. When a maximum of two Rabo teams fail to make the HEC every year, there's not much need to compete for a place. Which is how you end up with a Rabo team at the bottom of each pool, but it also allows the better Rabo teams more flexibility about resting players with niggles in the Rabo to keep them fresh for the HEC, which gives them a structural advantage.

I agree with you to a point, PF, about Rabo sides resting players but let's not forget that (at least compared to Scottish, Welsh and italian sides) the English sides have much bigger budgets due to Sky money plus higher attendances but chose to sign one or two big-name, big-earners rather than several middle-names on reasonable salaries. If they were to go down the latter route, they would have more players to pick and could elect for squad rotation. To an extent, they have made their own bed and will now have to lie in it

by TJ1 Tue 18 Dec 2012, 4:32 pm

Poorfour wrote:You said it yourself TJ. Meritocracy. When a maximum of two Rabo teams fail to make the HEC every year, there's not much need to compete for a place. Which is how you end up with a Rabo team at the bottom of each pool, but it also allows the better Rabo teams more flexibility about resting players with niggles in the Rabo to keep them fresh for the HEC, which gives them a structural advantage.

Yes - that is because the RABO unions structured their game and season to allow this. the English clubs could do the same. They chose not to but instead what to interfere in how 4 other unions organise their games.

I could suggest that the English premiership be reduced to 8 teams and ringfenced with no relegation. level playing field now.

by The Great Aukster Tue 18 Dec 2012, 4:37 pm

Recwatcher wrote:Just out of curiosity, a thought occurred. Would R12 fans like to see the old RFU four regions entered into the HC??
This would basically be the full and Saxon squads put into four teams and the HC could scrap any semblance of a club competition and the same teams could battle it out year on year - just a thought.

No.

The problem is where do these four teams normally play? If they are just scratch teams brought together for six HEC games they wouldn't be competitive.

It would be better for England to have their top players playing together more often as units, and for this reason they should scrap the salary cap but impose limits on non-English qualified players. The top players would gravitate to the best teams so it would create a problem for the PRL, so can't see them or the poorer clubs liking that too much.

by Poorfour Tue 18 Dec 2012, 4:38 pm

InjuredYetAgain wrote:
Poorfour wrote:You said it yourself TJ. Meritocracy. When a maximum of two Rabo teams fail to make the HEC every year, there's not much need to compete for a place. Which is how you end up with a Rabo team at the bottom of each pool, but it also allows the better Rabo teams more flexibility about resting players with niggles in the Rabo to keep them fresh for the HEC, which gives them a structural advantage.
I agree with you to a point, PF, about Rabo sides resting players but let's not forget that (at least compared to Scottish, Welsh and italian sides) the English sides have much bigger budgets due to Sky money plus higher attendances but chose to sign one or two big-name, big-earners rather than several middle-names on reasonable salaries. If they were to go down the latter route, they would have more players to pick and could elect for squad rotation. To an extent, they have made their own bed and will now have to lie in it

I agree with the point about squad rotation, though the way to make it work seems to be by developing players through the academy route (as Leicester have done for years and Quins are doing now - see the thread on the A team). Not sure what the financial comparison is - AP clubs do have higher revenues, but also higher costs (for all players, not just the marquee ones), and I think they get less support from the union and/or other bodies than most other nations - for instance, French clubs' grounds are generally funded by the municipality, rather than having to be expensively rented from football clubs, and I think less of the RFU's cash flows to the clubs than, say, the IRFU's to the provinces. The EPS payments aren't huge and mainly cover, well, cover (though the headline number was big because it multiplied payments for a 64-man squad over however many years)

by mbernz Tue 18 Dec 2012, 4:44 pm

TJ wrote:
the best treams get the mnost viewers - look at the numbers. the viewers do not fall away as the english clubs get put out.

These are the English, Scottish, Welsh & NI viewing figures for the HC finals over the last 6 years:

2012 - 309,000 - Leinster v Ulster
2011 - 400,000 - Leinster v Northampton
2010 - 161,000 - Toulouse v Biarritz
2009 - 339,000 - Leinster v Leicester
2008 - 137,000 - Munster v Toulouse
2007 - 258,000 - Wasps v Tigers

When there are no English sides involved there are big drops in viewing figures despite there being no other rugby to watch, and as Pourfour maintains if there were no English clubs involved in the competition at all the number of viewers for the final and matches throughout the competition would be much less, particularly if the English sides were getting on with their own league at the same KO time. If viewing figures were based purely on how good the teams are there would be a hell of a lot more British viewers whose country aren't represented tuning in to watch some SuperRugby, Top 14 & PRO12 matches.

by neilthom7 Tue 18 Dec 2012, 4:55 pm

mbernz wrote:
TJ wrote:
the best treams get the mnost viewers - look at the numbers. the viewers do not fall away as the english clubs get put out.

These are the English, Scottish, Welsh & NI viewing figures for the HC finals over the last 6 years:

2012 - 309,000 - Leinster v Ulster
2011 - 400,000 - Leinster v Northampton
2010 - 161,000 - Toulouse v Biarritz
2009 - 339,000 - Leinster v Leicester
2008 - 137,000 - Munster v Toulouse
2007 - 258,000 - Wasps v Tigers

When there are no English sides involved there are big drops in viewing figures despite there being no other rugby to watch, and as Pourfour maintains if there were no English clubs involved in the competition at all the number of viewers for the final and matches throughout the competition would be much less, particularly if the English sides were getting on with their own league at the same KO time. If viewing figures were based purely on how good the teams are there would be a hell of a lot more British viewers whose country aren't represented tuning in to watch some SuperRugby, Top 14 & PRO12 matches.

Well yes the figures show what you are saying is generally correct but look when 2 English sides are playing the number also drops away so you can't just ignore that.
I see what you are saying about Pro12 because you can watch Pro12 games well I think you can but Super rugby is on quite early in the morning not primetime sports viewing and French league is not shown on tv over here is it?

by Kingshu Tue 18 Dec 2012, 5:00 pm

so that stat, say
2012 - 309,000 - Leinster v Ulster
How many of these viewers were in England, I'd say a brave lot of them, but the PLC say these viewers are solely theirs. Its the tourament that sells not clubs.

Anyway this is old ground.

by Poorfour Tue 18 Dec 2012, 5:06 pm

It's all very well to suggest ways to restructure the AP, but even if it were practically possible, it's not necessarily desirable.

European competition is only about 20% of the club season (even for the Rabo teams). League games bring vital revenue, player development, fanbase etc.

There's a minimum size for a financially and competitively viable league, and as the Rabo unions found it seems to be about 12 teams. Below that you don't have enough games to make money [2]. Reduce the league too far and all the teams become unsustainable.

The Rabo teams found a (sort-of) solution by banding together, as the parent nations didn't seem able to support enough professional teams to go it alone. Maybe the English and French clubs could do the same - but you have to answer the questions:

i) How do you choose who gets to survive and who is sacrificed?
ii) How do you get the team owners to agree?
iii) Why should they? Most PRL teams are edging toward profitability - we have 3 consistently profitable teams (Tigers, Saints and Exeter) and several more who are not far off (Quins, I think Bath and Glaws).

[1] It's not - the PRL is majority owned by it's members, the clubs. For all that they bicker and Leicester (mostly) complain about the salary cap, they are smart enough to realise that at this stage of the professional game's development relies on having enough teams and for the most part put collective interest ahead of self-interest. Hence the salary cap, sharing of EPS, TV and european revenue, parachute payments etc - all of which are designed to smooth income out and keep enough teams sustainable and competitive to keep the league going.

[2] And before we get on to "rich men, deep pockets" etc, they aren't philanthropists and they aren't totally doing it for vanity. Most of them have or had business plans for recouping their investment - even if they didn't want much return and not all of the plans turned out to be realistic. They are, fundamentally, playing the role of venture capitalists in a nascent industry and they won't do so forever.

by johnpartle Tue 18 Dec 2012, 5:06 pm

TJ wrote:Pete - fair enough but its somewhat galling to be told I hate the English when I am English - and quite honestly the personal attacks from Alistair have become irritating hence I gave him a little of what he gives me back.

I'm intrigued by that TJ, because correct me if I'm wrong but you support Scotland (who you refer to as we) & Scottish club sides?

by TJ1 Tue 18 Dec 2012, 5:11 pm

Yes - I am what is called by the SNP an assimilated scot. I am English born of english parents withg an english name and accent but have lived more than half my life in Scotland. I am a Scots fan. thats whats in my heart.

by The Great Aukster Tue 18 Dec 2012, 5:15 pm

InjuredYetAgain wrote:Aukster - is that with a view to get these team to join the Rabo or to "stay English" but be part of the HC?

IYA - it was to get the "English" teams to join the Rabo. tomato

Not just any English teams though! The three mentioned would get a business model they can sustain and as they are strategically spread over the country, they might pick up a few extra fans who would come to see the visitors and they are all regional hubs so easy to get to for visiting fans. With more free to air tv coverage they might also extend their brand? It would also allow the PRL to ringfence the AP so that their teams could compete better in the new reconstituted HEC (when they approached the Rabo cap in hand). The RFU would also have three more teams playing at a higher level than they have at the moment, so everyone's a winner.

OTOH if the PRO12 nations weren't getting HEC rugby and had to fill the home slots perhaps Russia or Georgia would be more likely league candidates, with a third from Germany/Spain/Portugal/Romania.

Pete C was complaining about lack of creativity so I thought I'd give him some Wink

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Tue 18 Dec 2012, 5:27 pm

The Great Aukster wrote:
InjuredYetAgain wrote:Aukster - is that with a view to get these team to join the Rabo or to "stay English" but be part of the HC?

IYA - it was to get the "English" teams to join the Rabo.
Not just any English teams though! The three mentioned would get a business model they can sustain and as they are strategically spread over the country, they might pick up a few extra fans who would come to see the visitors and they are all regional hubs so easy to get to for visiting fans. With more free to air tv coverage they might also extend their brand? It would also allow the PRL to ringfence the AP so that their teams could compete better in the new reconstituted HEC (when they approached the Rabo cap in hand). The RFU would also have three more teams playing at a higher level than they have at the moment, so everyone's a winner.

OTOH if the PRO12 nations weren't getting HEC rugby and had to fill the home slots perhaps Russia or Georgia would be more likely league candidates, with a third from Germany/Spain/Portugal/Romania.

Pete C was complaining about lack of creativity so I thought I'd give him some

Not bad

I still like my idea from a couple of months ago - scrap the AP, Pro 12 and Top 14 and set up 2 league competitions, a 22 team UK and Ireland one (everyone plays each other once, with home/away alternating from one season to the next), the English teams can have promotion/relegation amongst themselves like the Saffas did in S12 - the RFU is keen on relegation) and a 18 team French/Italian one (since the French want league expansion).

Come HEC time all 6 nations are guaranteed 1 slot in a 20-team HEC, the HEC/Amlin winners get a slot, and the remaining 12 spots come 6-each from the 2 leagues based on performance.

by Poorfour Tue 18 Dec 2012, 5:32 pm

Kingshu wrote:so that stat, say
2012 - 309,000 - Leinster v Ulster
How many of these viewers were in England, I'd say a brave lot of them, but the PLC say these viewers are solely theirs. Its the tourament that sells not clubs.

Anyway this is old ground.

I don't think anyone's claiming that the English viewers in that lot are "solely theirs". The PRL have negotiated a deal that values those eyeballs much more highly than the existing deal or any proposal the ERC has come up with (subject to all the caveats and arguments about ratification etc - the fact is that the deal is available, on the table, more lucrative than anything else that's been publicly discussed and the reality is that everyone has to choose whether to go for it and if so how to divide it up) . The PRL are prepared to share that value - in a way that is to the net benefit of everyone but also in a way that apportions it more evenly across all the teams involved in European rugby, rather than the current model which concentrates a disproportionate share of the money on a small number of teams.

The first sentence is factual, the second one is my interpretation of what the PRL have said, picking my words carefully.

The disputable point on viewing is whether the majority of those viewers pay to see the tournament (you can't argue about individual games, because you don't pay for individual games) from year to year because English clubs are in it, and would leave if they weren't. This is a reasonable question and nothing to do with "ownership" of viewers. As I said, I hope for everyone's sake that we don't find out, because I don't think any replacement tournament would generate anywhere near as many eyeballs or as much money.

by broadlandboy Tue 18 Dec 2012, 5:39 pm

Can't see the French agreeing to a reduction in league games(26 now, 17 under your proposal).I believe they want more league games as they are more profitable than european games.

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Tue 18 Dec 2012, 5:46 pm

broadlandboy wrote:Can't see the French agreeing to a reduction in league games(26 now, 17 under your proposal).I believe they want more league games as they are more profitable than european games.

I didn't say it was likely to happen, just that I'd like to see it.

by mbernz Tue 18 Dec 2012, 5:52 pm

neilthom7 wrote:
Well yes the figures show what you are saying is generally correct but look when 2 English sides are playing the number also drops away so you can't just ignore that.
I see what you are saying about Pro12 because you can watch Pro12 games well I think you can but Super rugby is on quite early in the morning not primetime sports viewing and French league is not shown on tv over here is it?

The general trend has been for an increase in viewers for comparable matches over the years, the match with two English sides in it was the earlier match in that trend of three, hence why it had less viewers than the later comparable matches. Two English sides won't produce many more viewers than just one because the bulk of the English viewers are tuning in to just watch an English side rather than a particular one.

Some SuperRugby games are on early in the morning, but those are often repeated later or the next day, and a lot are on late morning. The SA games are usually on around lunch time or in the afternoon.

ESPN showed Top 14 rugby for a year or two before dropping it due to lack of interest. Setanta still show some games though.

Kingshu wrote:so that stat, say
2012 - 309,000 - Leinster v Ulster
How many of these viewers were in England, I'd say a brave lot of them, but the PLC say these viewers are solely theirs. Its the tourament that sells not clubs.

Anyway this is old ground.

I agree, it is the tournament that sells, but without any English participation in it interest would be much less than the drop you see when they don't just make the final. If this wasn't the case more English would have been tuning in over the years to watch French & PRO12 sides play their league games.

It's also worth noting that these are figures for the finals and the broadcasters will be looking to recoup most of the investment through the cumulative effect of the many more pool stage games. A lot of these can be pretty average games that only really draw dedicated national or club viewers (plus without the top English sides there will be a higher ratio of average/poorer sides in a pool, meaning more less interesting games). Without that bigger audience share adding to the cumulative effect the value of the competition to a broadcaster will drop significantly.

by johnpartle Tue 18 Dec 2012, 5:55 pm

TJ wrote:Yes - I am what is called by the SNP an assimilated scot. I am English born of english parents withg an english name and accent but have lived more than half my life in Scotland. I am a Scots fan. thats whats in my heart.

Fair enough mate.

by Pot Hale Wed 19 Dec 2012, 2:14 am

Is it always in the interests of any and all of the four Pro 12 unions to negotiate as a group in the context of the new agreement?

They don't have any voting power amongst themselves to make collective decisions as far as I'm aware. Each just jealously guards its voting rights.

If the agreement ends in 2014, then presumably the voting rights ascribed to each union, etc also is finished. There is no ERC.

Thus, the IRFU (the Big Brother of the four), could choose to negotiate its own outcome in return for supporting sufficient elements of whatever the English and French unions/clubs want. Four places to cover each highest placed union team plus next two highest placed teams in league would likely suit them best.

Whilst PRL have stated they want to have a bigger slice of a bigger pie, they haven't indicated what percentage the Pro 12 unions would receive. Is it the same percentage for all four, or could it be based on other criteria? Could the IRFU argue for a proportionately bigger slice?

Or instead, could the WRU develop a similar negotiating position in return for a greater proportion of monies?

by thebluesmancometh Wed 19 Dec 2012, 11:55 am

Pot

You make a decent point, but at this present moment the PRL have unified the Pro nations beyond beleif, sticking together is the only way of forcing the PRL to back down.

While further down the line we can worry about voting rights etc, fight now they are unioned against what has presented itself as a common enemy!

by Kingshu Wed 19 Dec 2012, 12:21 pm

The IRFU have always stuck with the other Unions, and I don't think they will break ranks to look after themselves.

Of the Pro 12 Unions, it would be the WRU that would be the most likley to break ranks.

If h-cup talks really stalled, and the WRU or IRFU were invited to join the Aviva and Anglo-French cup, I fear it would be the WRU that would be more tempted.

by thebluesmancometh Wed 19 Dec 2012, 1:02 pm

Kingshu

You are bang on, I trust the planks at the WRU about as much as I'd trust Saville with my kids!!

They are a bunch of spineless money men, and would lick the sweat off a dead mans ball bag for a shiny pound coin!

by **Rugby Fan** Thu 20 Dec 2012, 11:28 am

"Heineken Cup's future is not the only thing at stake for English game"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/dec/20/the-breakdown-rugby-union

I've got the longer version via email - it includes comments on reform of the ERC and the structure the salary cap. I'm not sure what this board's stance is on pasting text wholesale so I've held back from doing so.

by HammerofThunor Thu 20 Dec 2012, 11:50 am

Rugby Fan wrote:"Heineken Cup's future is not the only thing at stake for English game"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/dec/20/the-breakdown-rugby-union

I've got the longer version via email - it includes comments on reform of the ERC and the structure the salary cap. I'm not sure what this board's stance is on pasting text wholesale so I've held back from doing so.

I think it's ok if it's in the public domain as long as it's referenced. If it's for a fee only then it shouldn't be put up (as far as I understand)

by tecphobe Thu 20 Dec 2012, 12:10 pm

thebluesmancometh wrote:Kingshu

You are bang on, I trust the planks at the WRU about as much as I'd trust Saville with my kids!!

They are a bunch of spineless money men, and would lick the sweat off a dead mans ball bag for a shiny pound coin!

best comment ive read in ages.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Thu 20 Dec 2012, 12:23 pm

If it were a serious problem then Maesteg wouldve been banned years ago

by neilthom7 Thu 20 Dec 2012, 12:32 pm

I like the way the guy writing the article says its too early to write off the Irish challenge yet and says Harlequins and Saracens are well placed. He has basically just written off the Irish challenge even though Ulster are top of their group and have only lost once this season and Munster beat Saracens at home so yeah after that I chose not to read on lol

by tecphobe Thu 20 Dec 2012, 3:29 pm

neilthom7 wrote:I like the way the guy writing the article says its too early to write off the Irish challenge yet and says Harlequins and Saracens are well placed. He has basically just written off the Irish challenge even though Ulster are top of their group and have only lost once this season and Munster beat Saracens at home so yeah after that I chose not to read on lol

Paul Rees
is the guardian version of Stephen jones

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Thu 20 Dec 2012, 3:46 pm

tecphobe wrote:
neilthom7 wrote:I like the way the guy writing the article says its too early to write off the Irish challenge yet and says Harlequins and Saracens are well placed. He has basically just written off the Irish challenge even though Ulster are top of their group and have only lost once this season and Munster beat Saracens at home so yeah after that I chose not to read on lol
Paul Rees
is the guardian version of Stephen jones

He also didnt do that at all

by wayne Thu 20 Dec 2012, 3:50 pm

[quote="tecphobe"]

thebluesmancometh wrote:Kingshu

You are bang on, I trust the planks at the WRU about as much as I'd trust Saville with my kids!!

They are a bunch of spineless money men, and would lick the sweat off a dead mans ball bag for a shiny pound coin!

best comment ive read in ages.[/quote
There are a number of problems within the WRU, we have a money man (Rodger the Dodger) doing a relatively decent job, getting the money in. Dai Pickering the Rugby man (WRU Chairman) doing a terible job, allowing the Dodger to use the money in totally inappropriate ways. Not funding the different sections of the Rugby hierarchy in the correct proportions.
There are many other problems, solving the above would be a good start.

by thebluesmancometh Thu 20 Dec 2012, 4:01 pm

wayne

A good start would be a missile to head office!!

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Thu 20 Dec 2012, 4:05 pm

Yeah what you need is a council of 57 old farts from the pub clubs and Rob Andrew to run the game.

by wayne Thu 20 Dec 2012, 4:47 pm

thebluesmancometh wrote:wayne

A good start would be a missile to head office!!

.
Bluesman, I disagree, what is needed is a Rugby man with some balls, what was spent? upgrading the lighting at the MS was it £750,000 or £7.5 million? that could have been better used elsewhere.
They do plenty that is right, the funding of the Gogledd area is the correct move, coupled with the non funding of the Pontypridd area shows some sense, and as PSW said blowing up HQ would have the small clubs having total control, they have too much already.

by thebluesmancometh Thu 20 Dec 2012, 7:08 pm

Really? The Gog funding was a good idea but in reality it was a WRU mistake, they were just trying to give the Valleys movement a 2 fingered salute and accidentally got it right

by wayne Thu 20 Dec 2012, 8:37 pm

thebluesmancometh wrote:Really? The Gog funding was a good idea but in reality it was a WRU mistake, they were just trying to give the Valleys movement a 2 fingered salute and accidentally got it right

Bluesman, the Gogledd initiative started 3 years ago, the Valleys movement commenced this season. The WRU told Owen Smith to study the Gogledd Business Plan about 2 or 3 months ago, the players playing for the Gogledd started at youth level and are about the 22 or 23 years of age.

by **Rugby Fan** Fri 21 Dec 2012, 4:09 pm

Here's the extra from the Guardian email. The two sections on the website are the first and fourth of the email. These two are the second and third:

Time for a board-level shake-up

One of the weaknesses of the Heineken Cup is its participation agreement. It invariably takes an age to sort out and runs for even longer, seven or eight years.

That means that when its time starts ticking out, two years before it is due to expire, those who are unhappy with it start making noises and threats: last June the French and English clubs, together with the French Rugby Federation, gave 24 months' notice to quit.

The Heineken Cup was created as a means to pay for the professional game. When the game abandoned the principle of amateurism in 1995, the European unions had little to pay the players, with all their commercial deals concluded at a time when the payment of those who took the field was not an issue (it is a wonder what unions blew their money on then, sumptuous dinners and committee excursions apart).

The way the governing body was set up was very much on amateur lines, created by unions and administered by them. The French, English and Welsh unions have since given their professional sides representation on the board of directors, but there is still something outdated about the way the Heineken Cup is administered.

The current battle is essentially between unions and clubs, the Celts and Italy against the sides in the Premiership and Top 14, and there is a consequent lack of trust. The unions tried divide and rule by inviting French sides to a meeting in October but not the English. The ploy backfired.

The French and English clubs may have different grievances, but they are united in their desire for European Rugby Cup Ltd to be radically reformed: the Top 14 teams would like it to be relocated from Ireland to the European mainland for a start.

Given that when a participation agreement, or accord, approaches its time of renewal strife always breaks out, the way the board is constituted should be looked at. The time is overdue for some independent non-executive directors to be appointed to ensure that European club rugby's premier tournament maximises its commercial potential and stops being a vehicle for aggrandisement.

If the cap fits

The salary cap was introduced by the Premiership in 1999 to put a limit on clubs spending money they did not have and to ensure that it was not a tournament where the rich devoured the poor.

The £4m figure was reached in 2008 and the base salary cap this season stands at £4.26m with an academy credit scheme, that allows clubs to get £30,000 for each of the home-grown young players in their squads, up to a maximum of eight, taking it to potentially £4.5m.

Clubs may exclude one player from the cap, the so-called marquee signing, but there are conditions attached: he must have been on the payroll of the club concerned for at least two years, or he must not have been at another Premiership club during the previous salary cap year or he must have played at the 2011 World Cup.

The name of the excluded player must be kept confidential and monitoring all new signings is among the remit of Premiership Rugby's salary cap and regulations manager, Andrew Rogers. Everything received by a player, whether it be money, a car, image rights or help with the mortgage is included in the cap: all that is omitted is income received from playing Test rugby and an allowance for education courses up to £5,000.

Rogers has been in position for some 18 months and has made his presence felt, another reason for growing disquiet about the cap. Clubs face a £3 fine for every £1 they go above the cap limit and serious breaches carry the threat of the loss of league points.

It is understood that three clubs have this year found to be in breach of the salary cap regulations. The fact they have not been named means they have been fined: a points' deduction would have to be formally announced for obvious reasons.

Premiership Rugby's regulation on the salary cap anticipates changes in the seasons to come. "The level of the base salary cap during the 2013-14 and 2014-15 salary cap years will be linked directly to annual central revenue distributions to the clubs from Premiership Rugby," it runs.

"This is designed to promote the sustainable financial position of Aviva Premiership Rugby and its clubs. Growth in salaries will be linked to growth in average revenues. This will provide a natural check on the financial capacity of the clubs to spend on playing talent, and as the collective business of Aviva Premiership Rugby develops further, there will be equal opportunity for all clubs."

Without an increase in income from European rugby, the cap will stay pretty much where it is, in other words.

by Sponsored content