The real problem for English clubs

Last week I read a few statements from the English about wanting to make the HEC more meritocratic. You had Connor O'Shea complaining that Zebre were getting more money from the HEC than Quins were and there were complaints that the salary cap is hurting the English teams.

If they want Europe run more meritocatic then how about running the AP in a more meritocratic way too? The top English teams are being dragged down by the weaker English teams. Why didn't Connor O'Shea talk about the Quins HEC money going to other English teams? That seems to be the elephant in the room.

Leicester Tigers were once the top team in Europe but they're a shadow of that team nowadays. They have the resources to be up there again but they're not allowed spend their money because they'll be too good for other AP teams!


Why doesn't the bigger clubs in England demand more TV money? After all if they have more viewers then why shouldn't they get more money as they're saying in the HEC negotiations.

Because of the effect it would have on the smaller teams. Only 4 premiership sides made profits last year.

If the salary cap is increased/removed, smaller clubs face a catch-22 situation of either trying to compete, while racking up huge debts and putting the clubs future in jeopardy, or accepting losing seasons every year, low fan turnouts and putting the club's future in jeopardy.

Yep its London Welshs fault the HC is going to be ruined.

Surely the salary cap does encourage meritocracy - by minimising the effect of a team's wealth, they stand or fall on their merits, not their bank balance?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Yep its London Welshs fault the HC is going to be ruined.

Wouldn't that be Newcastle - they'll be getting more from PRL this season than London Welsh.

Oh joy, just what this section needs, yet another crappy HEC thread.

honestly, couldn't you just tag this onto one of the others.

Surely the salary cap does encourage meritocracy - by minimising the effect of a team's wealth, they stand or fall on their merits, not their bank balance?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Yep its London Welshs fault the HC is going to be ruined.

Wouldn't that be Newcastle - they'll be getting more from PRL this season than London Welsh.

As I tried to explain on a separate thread, professional rugby everywhere is too immature as a sport for very small numbers of clubs to dictate terms and still expect to survive in the long term.

The bigger / better backed / more profitable clubs in the AP know that they need other clubs to play. It's pretty clear that the ideal size for a league is around 12-15 clubs - which is partly why the Rabo unions banded together. Fewer than 12 and you don't have enough home games to earn your bread and butter revenues (TV money is nice, but it's not enough that clubs can survive on TV revenue alone. The need for guaranteed home games is why the LV= Cup has its weird "Pool A teams play Pool B teams" format).

The PRL has consistently taken steps to keep the gap between weaker and stronger clubs manageable, e.g. the salary cap, smoothing of EPS and TV payments across clubs, parachute payments to the relegated club. They know that they need a league with 12 reasonably competitive teams in it if any of them are to survive long term.

There are very few sports that are truly meritocratic, at least at the club level. American sports have the draft system, salary caps and limitations on free agency to try to keep the franchises competitive. The IRFU, WRFU and SRFU support their Rabo teams. International Cricket supports the English county game. Soccer is a possible exception - but it is a uniquely cash-rich sport and the only one to support several truly professional leagues.

There's a reason why this is so. Sport's product is, in essence, the uncertainty of not knowing who will win. A team without meaningful competition is a team who will ultimately lose support and therefore money.

It is difficult for the AP to change its structure because it's difficult to propose another league format that's viable. The Rabo unions did it because they could and they had to - but kept their share and access to the HEC, creating the imbalance that is the cause of the impasse. The AP doesn't really have that option. Who would they amalgamate with? Why should they undermine the playing base in the UK simply because the Rabo unions have adopted a different model? Why should they put up with an imbalance that's been created by a manipulation of the current set of rules?

A naive question simply because a league or competition is only as strong as its weakest link and is a bottom up inclusive structure which is the same as the current debate on the HC compilation as opposed to the top down exclusive structure of the R12....

profitius wrote:Last week I read a few statements from the English about wanting to make the HEC more meritocratic. You had Connor O'Shea complaining that Zebre were getting more money from the HEC than Quins were and there were complaints that the salary cap is hurting the English teams.

How meritocratic is it that Worcester get the same money as Quins and (unlike Zebre) they're not even in the competition? The simple principle that the better you do the more you get paid, apparently doesn't apply to comrade McCafferty.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:Surely the salary cap does encourage meritocracy - by minimising the effect of a team's wealth, they stand or fall on their merits, not their bank balance?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Yep its London Welshs fault the HC is going to be ruined.

Wouldn't that be Newcastle - they'll be getting more from PRL this season than London Welsh.

No Newcastle, as with Leeds, act as a handy recpetacle for Tigers development players

The Great Aukster wrote:

profitius wrote:Last week I read a few statements from the English about wanting to make the HEC more meritocratic. You had Connor O'Shea complaining that Zebre were getting more money from the HEC than Quins were and there were complaints that the salary cap is hurting the English teams.

How meritocratic is it that Worcester get the same money as Quins and (unlike Zebre) they're not even in the competition? The simple principle that the better you do the more you get paid, apparently doesn't apply to comrade McCafferty.

Isn't that capitalism? I just started to look up "meritocracy" on Wiki - it made my head hurt.

Worcester and Quins both compete in ERC competitions, incur similar costs in doing so, and both benefit from a share of a cheque signed by ERC (not HC, nor Amlin). The capitalist add-on to meritocracy (as I choose to define it, but may be wrong) is achieved by Quins getting more bums on seats and better club sponsorship (and not having to play on a Thursday night).

Now, if you were to cite Newcastle.....

Leicester Tigers were once the top team in Europe but they're a shadow of that team nowadays. They have the resources to be up there again but they're not allowed spend their money because they'll be too good for other AP teams!

It's debatable hoe much more Tigers could afford to spend. They are not wildly profitable making at most 100k or so.

How meritocratic is it that Worcester get the same money as Quins and (unlike Zebre) they're not even in the competition?

The money is pooled and disturbed as every other union does. The Dragons get a far bigger payout from the WRU (partly funded by HC money) than Worcester will get from the RFU and PRL combined.

For English teams the money from taking part goes to RFU and it divides it among the 12 clubs

However for say Quins the bonus they have over Worcester is Knock out round prize money which goes directly to the clubs
quarter final last year earned €450,000
then another payment for semi final and or final

+ then also extra games attendance (more for home game) etc

Kingshu wrote:For English teams the money from taking part goes to RFU and it divides it among the 12 clubs

However for say Quins the bonus they have over Worcester is Knock out round prize money which goes directly to the clubs
quarter final last year earned €450,000
then another payment for semi final and or final

+ then also extra games attendance (more for home game) etc

That's about the size of it. The Quins commercial team were disappointed not to have a stronger HEC pool this year, as they didn't think they'd be able to sell out the Stoop for all the home matches (certainly not Zebre). I said "Well, you'll just have to plan on a home QF, then" and was told "We wouldn't normally, but this year..."

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:Surely the salary cap does encourage meritocracy - by minimising the effect of a team's wealth, they stand or fall on their merits, not their bank balance?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Yep its London Welshs fault the HC is going to be ruined.

Wouldn't that be Newcastle - they'll be getting more from PRL this season than London Welsh.

Ok maybe that'll cover a little of the outlay we have had bringing through and providing England with current players like Johnny, Matt Tait, Toby Flood, Parling, Dave Wilson etc etc...not to mention the next batch already coming through....not bad for a little club on the Scottish Borders..eh...

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:Surely the salary cap does encourage meritocracy - by minimising the effect of a team's wealth, they stand or fall on their merits, not their bank balance?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Yep its London Welshs fault the HC is going to be ruined.

Wouldn't that be Newcastle - they'll be getting more from PRL this season than London Welsh.

Ok maybe that'll cover a little of the outlay we have had bringing through and providing England with current players like Johnny, Matt Tait, Toby Flood, Parling, Dave Wilson etc etc...not to mention the next batch already coming through....not bad for a little club on the Scottish Borders..eh...

+1 I can't remember who it was suggesting our academy wasn't up to scratch, but I just don't see it. Maybe the resources aren't as good, maybe the coaching isn't up to scratch...but we're still bringing top players through. There was a little break in the production line but compared with some of the big boys, I think our academy holds up damn well.

Hood83 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:Surely the salary cap does encourage meritocracy - by minimising the effect of a team's wealth, they stand or fall on their merits, not their bank balance?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Yep its London Welshs fault the HC is going to be ruined.

Wouldn't that be Newcastle - they'll be getting more from PRL this season than London Welsh.

Ok maybe that'll cover a little of the outlay we have had bringing through and providing England with current players like Johnny, Matt Tait, Toby Flood, Parling, Dave Wilson etc etc...not to mention the next batch already coming through....not bad for a little club on the Scottish Borders..eh...

+1 I can't remember who it was suggesting our academy wasn't up to scratch, but I just don't see it. Maybe the resources aren't as good, maybe the coaching isn't up to scratch...but we're still bringing top players through. There was a little break in the production line but compared with some of the big boys, I think our academy holds up damn well.

It'll only get better with Deano in charge as well. Just for the record though St. Wilko went up to Falcons because his old PE teacher gave him a call and told him he'd just got a job, so he hopped on the train - so not strictly a Falcons academy product, but not taking anything away.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:Surely the salary cap does encourage meritocracy - by minimising the effect of a team's wealth, they stand or fall on their merits, not their bank balance?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Yep its London Welshs fault the HC is going to be ruined.

Wouldn't that be Newcastle - they'll be getting more from PRL this season than London Welsh.

Ok maybe that'll cover a little of the outlay we have had bringing through and providing England with current players like Johnny, Matt Tait, Toby Flood, Parling, Dave Wilson etc etc...not to mention the next batch already coming through....not bad for a little club on the Scottish Borders..eh...

Apologies for appearing to have a pop at Newcastle - it's the parachute payment and the financial inequity between AP and Champs that was my target, along with the faintly farcical A, B and P share distribution (and the MSC while I'm at it).

Good academy products justify the RFU financial support of the Regional Academy - it doesn't, in my view, justify the PRL parachute payment. Other opinions are available.

From what I see, a salary cap is one of the most important keys to having a successful league. In American sport, the NFL, which is without question one of the most successful sports products in the world, has a salary cap. It kept the league from going down the rat hole of having a handful of successful clubs propped up by mediocre ones on the edge of solvency. The NBA has a salary cap, baseball has a luxury tax on teams with a salaries over a certain threshold, and the NHL has a cap, too (but are currently arguing about how finds get dispersed). In each case, the salary cap has evened out variations between teams and provided more competitive balance. Tied directly to the salary cap, each team in thoes sports splits evenly the national network monies, to further equalize the financial stability. This is considered to be one of the main underpinnings of the success and popularity of those sports.

On the other hand, individual teams in baseball, basketball and hockey also have local tv and radio coverage from which they receive the payments directly. And, of course, teams keep most of the gate money, although there is a percentage split with the visiting team only. The incentive and ability to improve for each team comes from increased profitability from having winners. Also each player receives cash bonuses for reaching their league's playoffs. The more profitable teams can then invest in their infrastructure (improved locker rooms, training facilities, more coaches, better medical facilities, etc.) to entice players to come to their teams.

This is what has gone a long way towards the financial stability and overwhelming financial success of American Sports. As someone once said, the NFL owners are a bunch of die hard capitalists acting like Socialists.
It works.

The difference with the Heineken Cup competition is the cross league structure. The French league and English leagues are roughly similar in structure - independent clubs forming a league. This is like the American model.

The Rabo/Celtic League is a different model with vastly different ownership. And in fact, a somewhat different ultimate purpose. The current frictions between the leagues with the European Cup structure are mostly due to those differences between the business models/purposes. So the many questions about the right way to enter a European competition, how to allocate tv monies, and where profits go will always be just under the surface. Not the fault of either side! Just different stakeholders with different ultimate missions. Not good, not bad. Just is.