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?

Poorfour

When you look at the negotiations as they stand what leverage do the Rabo nations hold?

I think their negotiating position is actually quite weak.

I am ignoring any questions of "fairness" since we've proven unable to agree anything on what constitutes fair in this situation, and in any case it will all come down to self-interest and commerciality in the end.

Pros (for them):
- They have the majority of the votes
- They're presenting a united front across teams and unions
- The ERC is on their side
- They like the current format (weak, because there's nothing in the agreement to say it has to stay that way)
- They can threaten to take their ball away on the HEC (weak, because what would they do then? Invite Spain and Russia to play? Have an additional Rabo Cup?)
- They can threaten to take their ball away on the 6N (dubious, because I think there's no guarantee that wouldn't harm them more than Eng & Fr)
- The PRL, Top 14, RFU and FFR are not a united front (probably the Rabo unions' strongest pro - if these 4 could agree, I think it would be hard to oppose them)

Cons
- They have much weaker commercial leverage. (The PRL can give them more money from the BT deal than they've shown any sign of being able to negotiate for themselves - and still keep more for its own members)
- The clock is ticking - the PRL and Top 14 are following due process, have called time on the current arrangement and if they are willing to stick it out can let it expire
- There is a good chance that the PRL/RFU and Top 14/FFR could survive a nuclear option (whether on the HEC or 6N) than the Rabo unions and teams
- The RFU and FFR have limited leverage over their clubs. Any threat or compromise has to be effective at both levels (which makes it harder to negotiate)

Before I wrote that down, I was wondering why the Rabo unions have dug their heels in as their overall position is relatively weak. But reflecting on it, the big thing they have going for them is that the RFU/PRL/FFR and Top 14 all have different positions and aren't agreed on what they want. I suspect they are hoping that if they just tough it out one or other party will eventually cave in. Still not sure how good that is as an option.

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.

That would all but kill the union fronted Rabo and would hand rugby union in France and England to the clubs. That's not an option.

No the Rabo unions are looking at a far stronger group of enemies and looking for chinks in the armour. There is no united front against the just dissatisfied parties that they will need to pick off before they are forced into submission. The clock is ticking and when it stops the Rabo unions will be forced to bow down unless they can do deals and halve the threat against them.

"forced to bow down"

You think the Rabo will be required to worship the other unions?

Some very good points here from both sides, but also some comments that are based on little else than imagination, and wishful thinking.

As to the actual question in the OP. Yes, I believe a settlement will be reached for no other reason than it's in the best interests of all unions to come to an agreement despite the posturing and implied empty threats.

If the 6Ns nuclear option is deployed we all kiss our arses goodbye. It could even end pro rugby globally - which in a way has its attractions.

Poorfour wrote:I think their negotiating position is actually quite weak.

I am ignoring any questions of "fairness" since we've proven unable to agree anything on what constitutes fair in this situation, and in any case it will all come down to self-interest and commerciality in the end.

Pros (for them):
- They have the majority of the votes
- They're presenting a united front across teams and unions
- The ERC is on their side
- They like the current format (weak, because there's nothing in the agreement to say it has to stay that way)
- They can threaten to take their ball away on the HEC (weak, because what would they do then? Invite Spain and Russia to play? Have an additional Rabo Cup?)
- They can threaten to take their ball away on the 6N (dubious, because I think there's no guarantee that wouldn't harm them more than Eng & Fr)
- The PRL, Top 14, RFU and FFR are not a united front (probably the Rabo unions' strongest pro - if these 4 could agree, I think it would be hard to oppose them)

Cons
- They have much weaker commercial leverage. (The PRL can give them more money from the BT deal than they've shown any sign of being able to negotiate for themselves - and still keep more for its own members)
- The clock is ticking - the PRL and Top 14 are following due process, have called time on the current arrangement and if they are willing to stick it out can let it expire
- There is a good chance that the PRL/RFU and Top 14/FFR could survive a nuclear option (whether on the HEC or 6N) than the Rabo unions and teams
- The RFU and FFR have limited leverage over their clubs. Any threat or compromise has to be effective at both levels (which makes it harder to negotiate)

Before I wrote that down, I was wondering why the Rabo unions have dug their heels in as their overall position is relatively weak. But reflecting on it, the big thing they have going for them is that the RFU/PRL/FFR and Top 14 all have different positions and aren't agreed on what they want. I suspect they are hoping that if they just tough it out one or other party will eventually cave in. Still not sure how good that is as an option.

Finally we actually agree on something...

The ERC as a governing body of the HC does not agree with the PRL, the Rabo nations own a larger share than the PRL, and thus get to vote in force.

IMHo the Rabo nations just HAVE to keep their heels stuck in and force the PRL to put up or shut up. The FFR and RFU both have been critical of the PRL's actions, and the Top 14 want different things. If there were any support for the PRL's plans this would be over already!!!

Everyone wants to be involved, everyone wants everyone else involved, it's just how much people take from it. If the PRL whinge that theyre subsidising the tournament they are welcome to set up their own tournament, of course they don't want to because they won't get the funding options.

It's odd that we are all this annoyed by each others opinions, and that we are so divided on this issue, yet in reality we know very little of whats being said, negotiated or used as leverage.

We know little facts, except the PRL have gone about this the wrong way stated by the RFU, and that the Rabo nations are clearly as in control as anyone because of their solidarity and the fact that we are still negotiating. The worry becomes if it does get to a point where we hear the words 6N, PRL put into effect leaving HC, FFR agree with PRL, or a celt nation switching allegiances.

I think the most likely outcome is a european cup without the English. Next most likely is a climbdown by the PRL. The french will compromise I am sure - the PRL have backed themselves into a corner and are completely isolated even from the RFU

I was wondering why the Rabo unions have dug their heels in as their overall position is relatively weak. But reflecting on it, the big thing they have going for them is that the RFU/PRL/FFR and Top 14 all have different positions and aren't agreed on what they want. I suspect they are hoping that if they just tough it out one or other party will eventually cave in. Still not sure how good that is as an option.

Because the PRL proposal is completely unacceptable in any way to them.

I can't disagree there TJ, the PRL have asked for way too much, and gone about it the wrong way, they have forced the Rabo nations to dig in together!

Cons
- They have much weaker commercial leverage. (The PRL can give them more money from the BT deal than they've shown any sign of being able to negotiate for themselves - and still keep more for its own members)

this is wrong - its a smaller share of a possibly larger pot so actually unlikely to be any more cash and in relation to th english and french they would become relatively impoverised - the huge extra funds to the English and french would allow them to price the rabo teams out of the market for players

I think it's absolutely paramount that the English don't get their way, it will be the thin end of the wedge,
They are not content with just telling the ERC how to run things they want to tell the Pro12 how to run.

If they do get their own way it will only inflate their sense of worth beyond bearable,within 8 years they will only have the top two from the Rabo allowed in the HC.

We know little facts, except the PRL have gone about this the wrong way stated by the RFU,

1. The RFU and the PRL get on about as well as the Palastinians and the Israelis. Hardly unusual for the RFU to have a pop, if it was the other way round the PRL would do the same.

2. How should the PRL have gone about it? The RABO unions flat out refused to negociate initially in a gigantic "we're good, sod you move". This soon changed when the PRL and the French called their bluff.

3. The BT deal was done because that's when the PRL were scheduled to sell their tv rights. The fact it would increase the collective pot for all nations seems to have been ignored.

I think the most likely outcome is a european cup without the English.

Doubt it. Either everyone is in or the French will sack it off and go to a T18 and make all their clubs richer in the short term whilst the RABO nations and the AP clubs thrash out a deal and invite the French back. The lack of financial backing will force the Rabo's hand whilst the risk of seeing the BT offer reduced will get the PRL talking. A season of no HC will see the Rabo come back to the negotiating table minus the attitude and will see the PRL come back with a little less greed.

[quote] If they do get their own way it will only inflate their sense of worth beyond bearable,within 8 years they will only have the top two from the Rabo allowed in the HC.[/quote

I'm going to say not.

thebluesmancometh wrote:
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.

Well, they are certainly the ones that were reported in the world's press. If you google "Patrick Wolff" & "celts" you'll find it's a word he has used on more than a few occasions. He's one of the few French representatives that gets quoted because he speaks pretty good English and obliges the English speaking press (who generally can't be bothered to translate what they say in French) with sound bites.

The French issues are what they are and some* clearly highlighted by Wolff in his quote in my previous post. People can convince themselves of whatever they want the similarities/dissimilarities to the English position are to be.


*
1. Teams from all stakeholders playing in the Amlin to improve it as a competition
2. Rescheduling so that the European competitions finish by the end of April
3. RaboDirect teams having to qualify for the Heineken Cup like the English & French do

Well formerly know as sam lets hope the PRL don't come across as condescending and arrogant as you,with your you need us more than we need you attitude because we have more financial clout

3. The BT deal was done because that's when the PRL were scheduled to sell their tv rights. The fact it would increase the collective pot for all nations seems to have been ignored.

This argument is clearly flawed though SAM...

If the Rabo nations all get an extra 1 coin each, and the PRL get an extra 2 coins, not to mention the 2 coins they are getting for their own league they will price the extra coin out of the market. The small extra to the Rabo nations comes at a cost of a huge boost to the PRL, it's non sensical to even consider this!!!!

The PRL will reverse or leave, and as the French clubs never last time knowing a return would be iminent I think they'd stay too.

You are not correct there Sam.

The French have said that they will play HEC rugby

Patrick Wolff, the vice-president of the French National Rugby League (LNR), said that his body wanted to continue playing the European Cup with both the English and the Celtic clubs and had resisted serious pressure Premiership Rugby to split from the present competitions.

Wolff said that there was no way the French would do anything as dramatic as walking away hand in hand with their English counterparts.

“The English put a lot of pressure on us in the past few months to accept the idea of an alternative Franco/Anglo club competition almost like it was a condition before discussing anything else,” Wolff said.

“That we did not want to do. Save a catastrophic failure at the negotiations, which I don’t think will happen, we want to play with the Celts and with the English.”


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/9549503/Premiership-Rugby-promise-increased-wealth-for-all-countries-if-restructured-Heineken-Cup-demands-are-met.html

you need us more than we need you attitude because we have more financial clout

Except that the Rabo nations do need the financial clout of England and France. Just as England and France need the Rabo teams to be strong so as to sustain meaningful European competition.

Improving the second tier into a reasonable competition to allow it to become financially viable will be a major benefit all round. To do that we need more Rabo interest in it. Simples.

The small extra to the Rabo nations comes at a cost of a huge boost to the PRL, it's non sensical to even consider this!!!!

As opposed to the current situation where the Rabo put one coin in then take three out and everybody still has their best player nicked by the French? English clubs will still be restricted by the salary cap (increases are fought over for years at a time by the way) so they won't be marching over to steal players left right and centre will they. Even last summer JD2 turned down more money from Saints to stay in Wales.

No one wants an end to the HC Blue. The telling remark there is “That we did not want to do. Save a catastrophic failure at the negotiations". A catastrophic failure like the Rabo refusing to come to the table and negotiate again. The French have given their notice. Everyone wants to continue but everyone is after something.

A catastrophic failure like the PRL making totally unreasonable demands and refusing to negotiate at all?

Rabo do not put i coin in and take 3 out - the big rabo teams are a huge draw for the paying public. Leicester / leinster is a hugely attentive product to sell. yes it sells for more in england but its not an english product

Blues,
So its fair for the Rabo teams to get 2/3 times as much money than the FRE/ENG teams(as happens now) but not for all teams to get the same.

Broadband boy - actually its the unions that get the money and distribute as they think fit. Nothing to do with any other unions waht any one union does with its share of the money and the English and French already get the biggest shares

The last two times the 'English' made an alliance with the French we ended up with The Somme and Dunkirk.

All points that are pro PRL are all fundamentally flawed.

As someone says a huge audience for the Leinster v ASM game in France is not a French product, it is an ERC product!!!

And lets be fair of the last 6/7 seasons the final has been contested by a Rabo side on 5 occasions, not to mention numerous Rabo teams in the semi's constantly, is last seasons Semi's and Final and English product also even though it was Rabo dominated?

TJ wrote:Broadband boy - actually its the unions that get the money and distribute as they think fit. Nothing to do with any other unions waht any one union does with its share of the money and the English and French already get the biggest shares

The biggest shares relative to one thing and one thing only - the number of unions represented in the competition. Relative to any other meaningful factor - the number of teams that share has to be shared among [1], the amount of revenue they bring in, the costs of competing - the Rabo nations take a completely disproportionate share.

The French are famous for not really taking the HEC seriously. A big part of that is that is that the money is distributed over 14 teams, so it's worth less to them to compete.

The PRL proposal - counter to what TJ claimed above - was that the BT deal would allow for everyone to have more money. But the proviso attached to that is that the money taken out by each union is more closely aligned to what it puts in (thereby reversing the Rabo nation's manipulation of the system by consolidating their participation around a smaller number of teams).

I once worked for a management consultancy firm where, for historical reasons, we had to pay a big chunk of our revenue to our sister accounting firm every year. We generated more fees and made more profit, but they took a big slice of it because when the arrangement was set up we were more reliant on them. They then used that money to set up rival services and compete with us. We would have been happy to stay with them if we could have negotiated a fairer share of inputs and outputs. They wouldn't negotiate. We separated [2]. The situation we have with the ERC is not so very different. Circumstances have changed and one side is making itself more competitive by taking advantage of the (legal, negotiated) disproportionate share of the benefits. Why should the other side persist with that?

[1] And the "but the union can choose how many teams to give it to" argument is completely spurious. League rugby is the bread and butter for everyone and you need a minimum of about 12 teams for a club to sustain itself without large handouts from its union. The PRL couldn't go down to 10 teams and remain viable, and neither could the Top 14. Or the Rabo, for that matter, which is why it amalgamated. Cut the teams and you ultimately destroy professional rugby in that territory. I suppose it might theoretically be possible to create a kind of Anglo-French superleague, but the ownership structures would make it impossible and in any case how can it be good for rugby to halve the top flight playing base of the two nations with the biggest support?

[2] They subsequently collapsed - though I won't claim there's a lesson in that!

Pourfoor - that is just nonsense as you have been told

1) we do not know how much money the BT deal is. However even if the pot is larger for the english and french teams to take a larger slice while the scots and italians get a much smaller slice means they get very little if any extra money while the english and french get a lot of extra money which will allow them to price the smaller teams out of the market for players

2) you are confusing the audience with the clubs. the english audience pays most of the money - yes - but what they are watching is not the english clubs but the HC the product is the HC

Not many english clubs get to the later stages. However the later stages get good tv audiences even in England. How many watched the final? Because most of the audience is in England it does not mean that the money belongs to the english - it belongs to the HC

3) it is completely relevant that the unions decide how many clubs share the proceeds. You do realise that the SRU use 6N and HC money to fund all sorts o things on top of the two pro clubs? If the scots went to a pro league of 12 clubs would yo then think it justified they got the same share as the english

utter utter nonsense refuted many times.

TJ wrote:Pourfoor - that is just nonsense as you have been told

1) we do not know how much money the BT deal is. However even if the pot is larger for the english and french teams to take a larger slice while the scots and italians get a much smaller slice means they get very little if any extra money while the english and french get a lot of extra money which will allow them to price the smaller teams out of the market for players

2) you are confusing the audience with the clubs. the english audience pays most of the money - yes - but what they are watching is not the english clubs but the HC the product is the HC

Not many english clubs get to the later stages. However the later stages get good tv audiences even in England. How many watched the final? Because most of the audience is in England it does not mean that the money belongs to the english - it belongs to the HC

3) it is completely relevant that the unions decide how many clubs share the proceeds. You do realise that the SRU use 6N and HC money to fund all sorts o things on top of the two pro clubs? If the scots went to a pro league of 12 clubs would yo then think it justified they got the same share as the english

utter utter nonsense refuted many times.

Tell me how if a new deal was structured in such a way that every team that had a chance of playing in the HC received an equal share of the revenues, would that be unfair and would lead to "english and french get a lot of extra money which will allow them to price the smaller teams out of the market for players"?

It wouldn't - however that is not what is on offer. what is on offer is that the English and French teams take the lions share of the money thus would be able to price the others out of the market. twice as much money per team competing in the HC

I don't understand any talk of positions being refuted. As far as I know, there is currently a business negotiation taking place, not a debate or a court case.

If you are in a negotiation, you don't spend your time arguing about whether the other parties have any grounds for wanting to be in a negotiation unless you have an existing, legally-binding contract.

There is a legally-binding contract for the European Cup competition. French and English clubs attempted, off and on, to engineer a renogotiation while still bound by that contract. The other parties refused to do so. That was their legal right.

As part of that contract, however, all stakeholders were also given the ability to give notice to leave the competition after five years. The French and English clubs both elected to exercise their options at the earliest opportunity. That is their legal right.

I'd say that there will be a compromise agreement so long as all parties respect the fact that the other sides have so far followed their legal obligations.

They should also recognize that they are there to negotiate the terms of an agreement where one does not currently exist. There is no contract binding all stakeholders to a European cup competition beyond 2013.

There is no chance of an agreement if any party acts as if all current agreements are still legally binding.

TJ wrote:It wouldn't - however that is not what is on offer. what is on offer is that the English and French teams take the lions share of the money thus would be able to price the others out of the market. twice as much money per team competing in the HC

That is exactly what is on offer. As you and many others keep reminding us it's not just about the teams playing each year it's about the group they represent. The RFU/PRL represent 12 teams and thus any revenues generated go to supporting all those teams. If the money was allocated on a 'representational' basis by only giving money to the 6 teams qualifying you would be condemning the bottom 6 teams in the PRL to exactly what you imagine would happen to the rabo nations.

I'll ask again then. 36 teams one way or another form part of the ERC agreement. A new deal structure put in place would mean that each team would get an equal share of the revenue. How would this be unfair? It is the definition of fair. Please also remember that this is a new deal, the old deal is dead. Any reference to 'it's how it used to be done' does not constitute refuting an argument.

Ah - so if we accept less representation and thus less share of the money this is fair?

Its not - its utter nonsense

Going from 12% of the cake to 5% of the cake is fair for the scots becuase now we only have one team in the competition not two?

So if the scots create 2 more teams to play in the amlin we would automatically double our share?

The RFU btw represent all english rugby not just the PRL teams. same as the SRU represent all Scottish rugby not just glasgow and edinburgh

The logical leaps and distortions that the supporters of the PRL are making in attempts to justify this would be amusing apart from I think you guys actually believe this

TJ wrote:Ah - so if we accept less representation and thus less share of the money this is fair?

Its not - its utter nonsense

Going from 12% of the cake to 5% of the cake is fair for the scots becuase now we only have one team in the competition not two?

So if the scots create 2 more teams to play in the amlin we would automatically double our share?

The RFU btw represent all english rugby not just the PRL teams. same as the SRU represent all Scottish rugby not just glasgow and edinburgh

The logical leaps and distortions that the supporters of the PRL are making in attempts to justify this would be amusing apart from I think you guys actually believe this

Your blatant inability to comprehend basic points amuses me. You can't answer the question can you? How is a deal that means the Edinburgh & Glasgow get exactly the same funding as Saracens, Leinster and Cardiff be unfair? If you want anything more than that you are asking for a disproportionate share of the revenue at the expense I presume of the French and English clubs? It can be the only logical conclusion?

Its you that does not understand. Simple basic failue to compreehend

This is the HC we are talking about. the amlin is a separate issue and generates very little money

Edinburgh and Glasgow get no funding from the HC. The SRU do

Your logic is that as the unions that make up the rabo are going to have less places in some new competition then they can have less funding. Circular argument. Basic logic fail.

the fact that the RFU use the money generated by their 6 teams in the HC to subsidise the other 6 teams in their leagues is nothing to do with scotland. Scotland decided not to do this.

TJ wrote:Its you that does not understand. Simple basic failue to compreehend

This is the HC we are talking about. the amlin is a separate issue and generates very little money

Edinburgh and Glasgow get no funding from the HC. The SRU do

Your logic is that as the unions that make up the rabo are going to have less places in some new competition then they can have less funding. Circular argument. Basic logic fail.

the fact that the RFU use the money generated by their 6 teams in the HC to subsidise the other 6 teams in their leagues is nothing to do with scotland. Scotland decided not to do this.

So that's a no then, you have no answer to why this method would be unfair? You should just say so rather than spitting out the same tired old illogical arguments you have been for months on here.

I think my point has been well made but if you fail to comprehend I can't help you. Here is another way of looking at it however purely from a commercial perspective. The French and English currently receive 48% of the revenue from the HC. Would you be confident that without either of them you could get a broadcasting rights deal at a level of 52% of the current deal?

Notwithstanding the rights and wrongs of the split of money and representation, IMHO one of the main issues is the TV rights and how the deal was done with BT.
Good luck and well done to the Premiership clubs for selling the TV rights to domestic games for a huge increase from what Sky were offering.
However tying in the rights to their European games without any apparent involvement or consultation with the rest of the ERC nations was always going to be seen as provocative and presenting it as a fait accompli was guaranteed to start things off on the wrong foot - I'm surprised that BT actually went along with this as it may well see them dragged into all sorts of litigation and adverse publicity over the next 18 months.
Also the historical precedent for sports transferring from SKY has been pretty much the same, (ITV Digital, Setanta, ESPN), intial promises of big money and wider coverage followed by an eventual crawl back to the Murdoch empire.
I'd like to see BT's projection of viewers based on their monopoly of English and possibly European rugby, also what platform they are going to use given that Sky and to some extent Virgin are already established providers and ESPN have pretty much failed to attract paying domestic viewers to join them except where they are a free adjunct to an existing service from the big two.
The Jeff clubs may find themselves with lots of money but a diminishing viewer base and that may have an impact on attendance, longer term there may also be point where BT realise they have grossly overvauled the prodiuct and try and cut thier losses. If Sky get the rump Rabo on board, plus the SH rugby and the free to air games on Irish, Welsh and Scots TV, I actually wonder how many people will put their cash into yet another supplier, given that despite coverage of both Premiership and Top 14 they don't appear to have done so for ESPN?

Toadfish wrote:

So that's a no then, you have no answer to why this method would be unfair? You should just say so rather than spitting out the same tired old illogical arguments you have been for months on here.

I think my point has been well made but if you fail to comprehend I can't help you.

Its you that does not understand at all Nor have you answered any points made. You continually confuse the HC and the ERC , The RFU and the PRL

You continue to trot out the same old illogical platitudes - this time you seem to try to make the argument that as the RABO unions will have less teams in the new HC then its only right they have a smaller % of the money. Its a circular argument.

Why would this method you outlined be unfair - because yo are reducing the representation that 4 unions have in the HC and are using this to then justify a cut in the % of the money. Its an illogical nonsense.

Irish Londoner wrote:Notwithstanding the rights and wrongs of the split of money and representation, IMHO one of the main issues is the TV rights and how the deal was done with BT.
Good luck and well done to the Premiership clubs for selling the TV rights to domestic games for a huge increase from what Sky were offering.
However tying in the rights to their European games without any apparent involvement or consultation with the rest of the ERC nations was always going to be seen as provocative and presenting it as a fait accompli was guaranteed to start things off on the wrong foot - I'm surprised that BT actually went along with this as it may well see them dragged into all sorts of litigation and adverse publicity over the next 18 months.
Also the historical precedent for sports transferring from SKY has been pretty much the same, (ITV Digital, Setanta, ESPN), intial promises of big money and wider coverage followed by an eventual crawl back to the Murdoch empire.
I'd like to see BT's projection of viewers based on their monopoly of English and possibly European rugby, also what platform they are going to use given that Sky and to some extent Virgin are already established providers and ESPN have pretty much failed to attract paying domestic viewers to join them except where they are a free adjunct to an existing service from the big two.
The Jeff clubs may find themselves with lots of money but a diminishing viewer base and that may have an impact on attendance, longer term there may also be point where BT realise they have grossly overvauled the prodiuct and try and cut thier losses. If Sky get the rump Rabo on board, plus the SH rugby and the free to air games on Irish, Welsh and Scots TV, I actually wonder how many people will put their cash into yet another supplier, given that despite coverage of both Premiership and Top 14 they don't appear to have done so for ESPN?

Some very well made points and I too have some concerns about jumping from SKY and how long it might last. To counter some of your points though consider:

- It's been well publicised that the PRL believe they will get a substantial number of games shown on free to air TV so that should counter some of the coverage issues

- BT dwarf all the other companies mentioned in terms of financial muscle and so I would have more confidence in them making a foray into the market than some of the others mentioned

- As someone mentioned above nothing illegal has taken place. The PRL have negotiated a deal for a period in which they are not under contract. For one side this is provocative, for another it's very smart business sense and provides a very strong negotiation position

- Regardless of whether the BT deal were in place the English and French would still want to renegotiate the allocation of revenue as they perceive the current deal as unfair

Toadfish
Maybe that would be ok if we went back to the orginal format and England entered 4 teams and Scotland 3 teams?

But since then English and French have pushed for increased represention, to now you want the finace based on represention, (that England and France have pushed to increase for themselves at others expensive).

Think that SRU get one team FIR one team, WRU 3 teams that would be fair
England get 6 teams, France get 6 teams, and if they get 6 teams IRFU get 6 teams as well.
4 Provinces and we give one to SRU and FIR and we actually have more RABO teams in Europe

Or if you want to include the 6 teams that are in the english top league but not in the HC - how about scotland put their top league clubs - ten of tehm - into the amilin? then scotland have 12 teams in the ERC comps, England have 12 teams in the ERC comps - thus both unions should have an equal share of the money?

Kingshu - the original format had no English teams in it

Kingshu wrote:Toadfish
Maybe that would be ok if we went back to the orginal format and England entered 4 teams and Scotland 3 teams?

But since then English and French have pushed for increased represention, to now you want the finace based on represention, (that England and France have pushed to increase for themselves at others expensive).

Think that SRU get one team FIR one team, WRU 3 teams that would be fair
England get 6 teams, France get 6 teams, and if they get 6 teams IRFU get 6 teams as well.
4 Provinces and we give one to SRU and FIR and we actually have more RABO teams in Europe

I haven't once talked on this thread about qualification. I'll make my point once more and then I'll give up as the spurious arguments coming out on this thread are tiresome.

1) History is just that, history. It has absolutely no bearing on the negotiations for a new deal.

2) Whether represented by your union or another body currently the following teams are represented:
England 12
France 14
Ireland 4
Wales 4
Scotland 2
Italy 2

Regardless of whether these teams play in the Amlin or the HC there is an opportunity to give them all equal funding and thus a fairer distribution of the revenue. It means that whatever the qualification criteria for the future competitions levels of funding can’t be cited as a factor.

3) If your Unions want to create more teams to try and get a greater share of the revenue then be my guest. It would seem a strange thing to do for me since I've heard that there are issues supporting the current level of teams but that’s not my business. The fact is that this is not the current situation so can't form part of these negotiations. Maybe do it and strengthen your position for the next round of negotiations.

4) From a commercial point of view an equal distribution of funds as in 2) can be more than justified by the revenue brought in by the French and English participation.

So back to the OP these are the reasons why I believe a deal will be met and it will largely be in line with what the French and the English want.

Merry Christmas!

Toadfish

As far as i know this is the number of teams per country in the ERc comptitions

France 14 31.8%
England 12 27.3%
Italy 6 13.6%
Ireland 4 9.1%
Wales 4 9.1%
Scotland 2 4.5%
Rominia 1 2.3%
Spain 1 2.3%
Total 44

Now why is no one from the PRL (as far as i'm aware) saying lets give Spain and Rominia their share and also that the Rabo unions give 16 teams and not 12.

Also as state earlier I don't see why the Irish, Welsh and Scots can't stick in the extra teams like the Italians do. I am sure it would help the Welsh to keep the Premership happy. Ireland could do the top two proviences get their A teams in the amlin (the other two would have to settle for the B&I)

Toadfish doesn't seem to understand how the Rabo nations work, all HC funding toes to the governing bodies, and is then distributed to the clubs as the governing body see's fit. He beleives it's the Rabo nations problem that the PRL has decided to fund all 12 of it's clubs!!!

Alwo as he keeps reiterating the HC funds 36 clubs, it does not, it Funds 4 governing bodies for the sport and 2 club representitic=ve bodies!

But again he ignores any point made to him and keeps babbling on about his own flawed argument!

Not very good with the quote facility so apologies:

It's been well publicised that the PRL believe they will get a substantial number of games shown on free to air TV so that should counter some of the coverage issues - good point, if they mean that they are giving it to a terrestial broadcaster for a nominal sum or show on a Freeview channel, however if they mean that they are going to unscramble certain broadcasts on their own channel (like Sky do from time to time) then it might not be that much of a benefit - also if they show a lower level game e.g Sale V London Welsh would it generate interest, while on the other hand showing say Tigers V Quins might make subscribers ask what they are paying for ? Also if we get to the worst case scenario and there is no HEC or whatever equivalent will the deal currently on the table stay the same?

BT dwarf all the other companies mentioned in terms of financial muscle and so I would have more confidence in them making a foray into the market than some of the others mentioned - Again true but ESPN are part of the Disney empire and have made no real inroads. Agree that BT may be better able to take any financial hit better than most though.

As someone mentioned above nothing illegal has taken place. The PRL have negotiated a deal for a period in which they are not under contract. For one side this is provocative, for another it's very smart business sense and provides a very strong negotiation position - again I agree with regard to the domestic (Jeff) games, it's an excellent deal financially for the English clubs. However it takes two sides to make a game and (as has been proven in soccer TV rights deals) without the minnows the big fish can't play, much as they'd like to not even Manchester United have been able to set up a seperate deal as they realise that they need the Stokes and Fulhams on board as well -hence the Premier League Contract is split equally among all the teams. Even the Champions League money is split equally, in the first instance with extra money available based on performance rather than club size,

Regardless of whether the BT deal were in place the English and French would still want to renegotiate the allocation of revenue as they perceive the current deal as unfair - again correct although other than a common perception of "it's unfair as it stands", I don't think the English and French have a lot of common ground, for example the French appeared to be as much in the dark as anyone else regarding the sell off of TV rights to BT and seem to be less agressive in their stance, either through choice or to let "the English" look like the villains in this.

Ultimately it's in everyones interest for some sort of accomodation to be found however both sides are equally good at cutting off their nose to spite their face over some point of principle. As a rugby fan I am worried about the long term damage that may be done to the NH game overall from all this, for example if there's any fall out that affects the 6 Nations and the national teams of all our countries, the Celts will undoubtedly be weaker and I'm not sure what benefits the England side will get if the extra money means more imports from the SH and less chances for home grown players as has happened in soccer.

Its difficult to say how much revenue the French and English really bring in.
Said before the Irish provinces contribute much more than just the Viewer population in Ireland. (PLC would have you belive thats all they bring).

The Munster V Ulster Q-final last year attracted more viewers in England than the Saracens V Clermont Auvergne game, but you have it that IRFU don't deserve any of this revenue as the TV revenue in England should go to RFU.


I'm pretty sure the Sarcens v Munster, game had higher figures than say Sarcens v Tigers in Aviva. Do Munster (by extension IRFU) not deservce something for boosting the viewing figures in England?

To say the Provinces only bring in the revenue from Viewing figures in Ireland is completly wrong. While the Provinces do not have the biggest TV audances themselves, they do vastly increase the number of viewers watching in England and France.

We are selling a Product to viewers across Europe, and the 6 Unions created this product, and TV rights should be for the product not parts of it.

Thats why I hold that the TV rights have to be sold collectivly.

Kingshu wrote:Its difficult to say how much revenue the French and English really bring in.
Said before the Irish provinces contribute much more than just the Viewer population in Ireland. (PLC would have you belive thats all they bring).

The Munster V Ulster Q-final last year attracted more viewers in England than the Saracens V Clermont Auvergne game, but you have it that IRFU don't deserve any of this revenue as the TV revenue in England should go to RFU.


I'm pretty sure the Sarcens v Munster, game had higher figures than say Sarcens v Tigers in Aviva. Do Munster (by extension IRFU) not deservce something for boosting the viewing figures in England?

To say the Provinces only bring in the revenue from Viewing figures in Ireland is completly wrong. While the Provinces do not have the biggest TV audances themselves, they do vastly increase the number of viewers watching in England and France.

We are selling a Product to viewers across Europe, and the 6 Unions created this product, and TV rights should be for the product not parts of it.

Thats why I hold that the TV rights have to be sold collectivly.

This is one of the points the PRL supporters ignore. the claim that the english have the most viewers thus should have most of the money when what the viewers are watching is not just the english teams is nonsense

Going on from that IL I think one of the promblems is that Tigers and Welsh get the same even tough Tigers are a much bigger draw.

If the teams got more for their results in europe it might be different but that is the choice of the PRL and RFU

The same thing happened with the S15. SA (England/France) NZ(Ireland/Wales) Oz(wales/Scotland/italy)

Same will happen here. the unions will deceide that two third give more and the third need the help to grow the game

I would be happy with more of the money beng on results rather than particiapation. Would be to Irelands advantage tho and not the PRL teams

Kingshu wrote:Its difficult to say how much revenue the French and English really bring in.
Said before the Irish provinces contribute much more than just the Viewer population in Ireland. (PLC would have you belive thats all they bring).

The Munster V Ulster Q-final last year attracted more viewers in England than the Saracens V Clermont Auvergne game, but you have it that IRFU don't deserve any of this revenue as the TV revenue in England should go to RFU.


I'm pretty sure the Sarcens v Munster, game had higher figures than say Sarcens v Tigers in Aviva. Do Munster (by extension IRFU) not deservce something for boosting the viewing figures in England?

To say the Provinces only bring in the revenue from Viewing figures in Ireland is completly wrong. While the Provinces do not have the biggest TV audances themselves, they do vastly increase the number of viewers watching in England and France.

We are selling a Product to viewers across Europe, and the 6 Unions created this product, and TV rights should be for the product not parts of it.

Thats why I hold that the TV rights have to be sold collectivly.

I don't know the answer to these questions but if you do I think it would provide persuasive evidence either way:

1) How much are the current Aviva, Rabo and T14 broadcasting deals worth?

2) Do you consider the BT deal to be persuasive evidence of the commercial power of the PRL?

3) How much would the broadcasting revenue drop by (if it would at all) if the French and the English were not involved in the HC

When it comes to the crunch in these negotiations - and we're not at that point yet - the myth that the French and English are simply negotiating with the Pro12 unions as a collective will disappear.

Strength in unity may be the current position of the Pro 12 unions, but when it comes to the crunch, you can bet your bottom dollar, that each union will seek to gain its own advantage by whatever means necessary.

Of the four, the IRFU stands to lose the most, in the context of what they have now. All four teams playing in the top level competition and winning - all of which translates to money in the bank.

If the negotiations hit the rocks, The IRFU will be the first in the lifeboats with just enough space left for their friends in the FFR and RFU.

And I watched Usain Bolt run the 100m in the Olympics, despite not being Jamaican. It doesn't mean that a portion of my TV licence fee should be sent to Barbados (at least, not unless I can go with it).

I happily watch the HEC knock-out rounds even when there is no English interest. After all, I've paid my Sky subscription and I want to get my money's worth (and it rankles that much of that subscription is goes to support roundball. Which I have near zero interest in at club level).

But I've paid my Sky subscription because I want to see English club rugby. The HEC knockout rounds are an added bonus. When I'm planning my viewing for those games, by the way, I prioritise the ones that are likely to be good viewing. Saracens are not high on that priority list. Not surprised that they didn't pull great viewing figures.

The acid test is: do I watch Rabo games on TV? Occasionally, if it's a particularly good match-up. I am sure that most English rugby fans are the same. And occasionally I pick a duff one and wonder why I bothered.

So arguing that the quality of the Rabo "product" deserves a bigger share of the money is pretty spurious. Anyway, clubs that do well are rewarded, with prize money, home QFs, seeding points and places in the tournament - all of which add up to money. Allocating a bigger share based on historical performance is double counting. And If Ireland gets more because its teams play better, then the logical end point is that Scotland and Italy should get much less, and so should Wales. But no-one wants that.