Latest European rumblings

First topic message reminder :

Rather desperate PR effort from the Torygraph on the part of PRL and McCafferty:

Heineken Cup under threat as top English clubs consider alternatives

England’s leading clubs are set to consider a number of radical alternatives to the Heineken Cup at a board meeting next month that could shape the future of the European game, Telegraph Sport can disclose.

Up for discussion are a world club championship, a fourth England Test match every autumn and an expanded Premiership.

An enhanced and expanded Anglo-Welsh competition, including a new sevens tournament, is also expected to come under consideration as an alternative to the nine European weekends in the current season.

It is understood Premiership Rugby is to put the proposals to club owners and shareholders amid increasing frustration at the lack of progress on negotiations with its fellow European Rugby Cup stakeholders over the future structure of the current European competitions.

The English and French clubs served the necessary two years’ notice to leave the current accord that governs the Heineken and Amlin Challenge Cup more than nine months ago.

The English clubs, along with their French counterparts, are demanding reform of the Heineken Cup, including a reduction of the number of clubs from 24 to 20, a strengthening of the Amlin Challenge Cup and the introduction of a third tier competition.

While it would still prefer to strike a deal with its ERC stakeholders and make new European competitions work, Premiership Rugby is not prepared to accept the status quo, which guarantees all four Italian and Scottish Pro12 clubs places in the Heineken Cup.

After four stakeholder meetings, there is still no sign of any agreement being reached. With no further meetings planned – and it is understood the issue was not raised at the regular ERC board meeting last week ahead of this weekend’s quarter-finals – there is a growing sense of urgency in the English game to consider real alternatives for the 2014-15 season when, in the absence of agreement, the Heineken Cup will cease to exist.

Premiership Rugby has already presented a compromise over its original demand that only the top six of the Pro12 clubs should qualify for the Heineken Cup, suggesting that the top four Pro12 sides would qualify, with the final two qualifiers based on geography to ensure every country was represented in the tournament. That has not been accepted by the other ERC stakeholders.

Parallel to its search for a European solution, Premiership Rugby is understood to have held exploratory talks with the Super Rugby clubs in the southern hemisphere as well as the Welsh regions.

It is understood the possibility of a world club championship, staged every two years and involving the champions of the leagues in the northern and southern hemisphere including Super Rugby, is one concept expected to be put forward for further consideration by the English club owners.

A Premiership expanded from 12 to 14 sides would also give clubs an extra two home games and four extra rounds, and their financial position is strengthened by the controversial new television deal with BT Vision, which for Premiership games alone will almost cover current income from both the Premiership and European competitions.

That deal caused widespread anger in the Celtic unions and led to ERC also announcing on the same day last September an extension of the current agreement with Sky Sports.

Premiership Rugby is also likely to present a proposal for consideration to extend its current deal of releasing its players to the Rugby Football Union once every two years for a fourth Test match outside the International Rugby Board autumn window.

A fourth Test every year would be worth at least £3 million in extra revenue to the Premiership clubs, who currently receive around £8.5 million for their participation in the Heineken Cup and Amlin Challenge Cup.

Reform of the distribution of central ERC revenue is also one of the main demands of the English and French clubs. Currently the Pro12 clubs receive 52 per cent of funding with the English and French receiving 24 per cent each.

That format has meant the Pro12 clubs have benefited to the tune of €30  million (£25.5 million) over the last five years, according to Premiership Rugby’s calculations. The English and French clubs both want an equal three-way split in funding between the three leagues.

Exploratory talks with the four regions in Wales last month are unlikely to lead to Welsh clubs joining the Premiership despite the fallout between the Cardiff Blues, Scarlets, Ospreys and Newport Gwent Dragons over funding and player contracts. However, Premiership Rugby believes the commercial value of the LV Cup has not been maximised.

The potential for increased revenues as part of the Premiership’s BT Vision deal for European games could also tempt the Welsh regions to consider a new European competition if the dispute over the Heineken Cup is not resolved.

How clubs could fill their vacant European weekends

Plan A
A world club championship, held every two years, could run over two or three weekends, bringing together the champions of leagues from both hemispheres including Super Rugby clubs. Talks have already been held with SANZAR clubs, and the likes of Natal Sharks would be a huge draw in England.

Plan B
A Premiership expanded from 12 to 14 clubs would give each club two more guaranteed home games – they presently host three in the European competition – and four extra rounds. An enhanced Anglo-Welsh tournament would also help fill the nine European weekends.

Plan C
Allowing the release of their players for a fourth England Test match outside of the International Rugby Board window every autumn – currently they are released only once every two years – could net the Premiership clubs an extra £3million per game. Their present annual share of ERC revenue is £8.5million.

Until McCafferty puts his own house in order, see thread regarding Prem finances, then it's not clear why any of the other nations involved (NOT leagues FFS!) should take him seriously - you sir are a contemptible hypocrite

The carrot for the Rabo league is the money Aukster. The Rabo nations currently take out twice what they put in. The AP clubs make more from the AP .

The Great Aukster wrote:The English clubs seem to need more money, so they are trying to get a bigger slice of the European pie by increasing their percentage take from 25% to 30%. At the same time they can maybe up the Amlin value by having better quality and more diversified opponents. The PRL don't seem to care that their gain is entirely at the expense of the Pro12, and offers no opportunity for the Rabo Unions to negotiate (only a threat) - therein lies the rub.

A global club competition is pie in the sky and the other Telegraph options advocate fleecing English fans a bit more. Will the corporates really spend as much to see Newcastle or Bristol in an extended AP as Ospreys or Leinster in the HEC? When the English and French clubs were unable to improve their position before the Rabo existed how do they think they can now it's getting stronger every year?

The Pro12 Unions have no carrot to accept any change, so why would they succumb to a rather thin and limp looking stick?

There are problems on both sides really. The English clubs do want a bigger slice of the pie, which you can argue is greedy. However, they also think that the pie is rather smaller than it should be, suggesting that ERC and Sky are a bit too chummy and the event is being undersold. Something they've backed up by getting a significantly better offer from BT. Which is why I think resolution is going to be nigh on impossible, too many people looking after their own interest and I think this might really be it over.

I absolutely agree that a global club competition is pie in the sky. However, I fail to see how an expanded premiership is fleecing English fans though. Personally I've always put the domestic league before the European Cup, and yes I would happily spend as much to watch Tigers against Newcastle or Bristol as I would a match against Ospreys or Leinster. I think from PRLs perspective if the rights for showing the games and advertising aren't undersold, then they will get a better return in that respect as well - it's not just about cranking up ticket prices to cover any shortfall. And of course there is still the possibility that I will get to see games against the Ospreys in an expanded league, though it is more likely that 2 championship sides will be drafted in.

You don't want to lose the broad European appeal of the tournament.

Not picking on the poster who wrote this by the way, however this is another example of the hypocrisy of a lot of the supporters of the current status quo.

It is cannot be called a European competition while it’s only available to a minority of the Unions in Europe and it cannot be called the top European competition when a good proportion of it’s participants don’t have to do anything to be included.

And yes the French and English clubs are putting their interests above those of the other Unions, but the irony is that those other Unions that are screaming ‘greed’ cannot or will not accept the notion that there are more unions out there than the 6N unions and they are as equally deserving of development and finance as any of the big boys.

The Rabo loves to pat itself on the back and say how well the Italians are improving since their inclusion into the league, yet the anguished squeals emanating from the same organisation when some of their members are asked to take part in a ‘second rate’ competition are becoming deafening.

I think the collapse of the HC and Amlin will be a good thing – the whole set up just reeked of an old boys club.
Time to freshen things up and include ALL of Europe in a meritocratic competition. Until this happens it cannot be classed as either European or 'the best'.

Could people clarify a couple of things. They seemed to have started out as guesses and possibilities and now are being stated as facts. Just wondering whether there's beem some sort of confirmation.

1) PRO12 unions are happy with 6,6,8, FFR and LNR are happy with 6,6,8, PRL are against it.

2) PRL are proposing they get a larger slice. Fund allocation is just as up for review as participation and I've seen nothing on this this.

"it cannot be called the top European competition when a good proportion of it’s participants don’t have to do anything to be included."

SRU enters its two top teams, there is no level higher than Glasgow and Edinburgh, same as FIR with Zebre and Terviso.

I don't know how it cannot be called top, when everyone enters teams from their top tier of rugby?


Don't know who all is against 8,6,6 PRL still come out with wanting 6,6,6

The talks were supposed to deal with qualification and format, then money divide and TV, same for TV deals.

For me there are just to many places this can get deadlocked, we're still stuck on stage one (maybe the easier of the two to sort), and no progress is being made.

TrailApe wrote:

You don't want to lose the broad European appeal of the tournament.

Not picking on the poster who wrote this by the way, however this is another example of the hypocrisy of a lot of the supporters of the current status quo.

It was my quote, and happy to be picked up on it.

I'm talking about the premier European competition, currently the HC, and nothing else. Whatever the new structure looks like, the top competition should have participants from each of the "professional" rugby unions that participate in the 6 Nations. That is my point. Take that ingredient away and the competition is demeaned.

Imagine if the football World Cup simply included the best teams in the world? You wouldn't have the same gloabl appeal to the tournament

Now, I can see the argument for not allowing more than one Scottish, Italian, Irish or Welsh side "automatic" entry into the premier tournament, and having the rest fight for the right in the Rabo, but I do think you need one representative to go into the premier tournament, with the other (in the case of Scotland and Italy) going into the second tier tournament (assuming they don't finish in the top 4 of the Rabo - taking out those sides that automatically qualify).

Of course none of this has anything to do with blocking up and coming unions in Europe entry into the new league system, or an old boys club. The English and French can dress this up as progressive all they like, but their proposals have absolutely nothing to do with expanding participating in European rugby, and everything to do with the French and English clubs getting their hands on more money and being more successful, concentrating the wealth at what they perceive to be the "top table".

Funding is allocated on a team by team basis hence the participation arguments. I think the PRL would concede a great deal if their BT contract was allowed.

Kingshu wrote:"it cannot be called the top European competition when a good proportion of it’s participants don’t have to do anything to be included."

SRU enters its two top teams, there is no level higher than Glasgow and Edinburgh, same as FIR with Zebre and Terviso.

I don't know how it cannot be called top, when everyone enters teams from their top tier of rugby?


Don't know who all is against 8,6,6 PRL still come out with wanting 6,6,6

Since when. I know that was the French intial proposal (PRL one was 8,8,8 originally wasn't it?) but that was before the negotiations even started. Have they said again that they want 6,6,6?

The talks were supposed to deal with qualification and format, then money divide and TV, same for TV deals.

For me there are just to many places this can get deadlocked, we're still stuck on stage one (maybe the easier of the two to sort), and no progress is being made.

So there's nothing suggesting that the PRL would get a larger proportion other than extrapolating a propostion for future participation with old fund allocation?

Just have all the teams from the three leagues in the HC and pay every participating team an equal amount.

Done and dusted in one sentence.

Feckless Rogue wrote:Just have all the teams from the three leagues in the HC and pay every participating team an equal amount.

Done and dusted in one sentence.

Or rather than paying every participating team an equal amount, you pay each team based on its performances in the tournament - so the team that wins is paid the most etc. Complete meritocracy.

I actually think that be making the Rabo teams across the unions compete for 3/4 HC qualifying places (taking out the highest finishing team from each union), it'll improve the league. I like the idea of Edinburgh and Glasgow both qualifying at the expense of a Welsh team...

My understanding is that the English are insisting on the same number of teams from each league and that is what is blocking 6,6,8

HammerofThunor wrote:

Kingshu wrote:"it cannot be called the top European competition when a good proportion of it’s participants don’t have to do anything to be included."

SRU enters its two top teams, there is no level higher than Glasgow and Edinburgh, same as FIR with Zebre and Terviso.

I don't know how it cannot be called top, when everyone enters teams from their top tier of rugby?


Don't know who all is against 8,6,6 PRL still come out with wanting 6,6,6

Since when. I know that was the French intial proposal (PRL one was 8,8,8 originally wasn't it?) but that was before the negotiations even started. Have they said again that they want 6,6,6?

The talks were supposed to deal with qualification and format, then money divide and TV, same for TV deals.

For me there are just to many places this can get deadlocked, we're still stuck on stage one (maybe the easier of the two to sort), and no progress is being made.

So there's nothing suggesting that the PRL would get a larger proportion other than extrapolating a propostion for future participation with old fund allocation?

From the orginal article
"Premiership Rugby has already presented a compromise over its original demand that only the top six of the Pro12 clubs should qualify for the Heineken Cup, suggesting that the top four Pro12 sides would qualify, with the final two qualifiers based on geography to ensure every country was represented in the tournament. That has not been accepted by the other ERC stakeholders."

As I pointed out earler 4+2 would not ensure every country was represented, (if Provinces finish 1-4 it would leave the +2 to be divided between 3 unions)

Don't know why PRL are still spouting this flawed 'compromise'.

on the money PRL have stated they want a bigger share of the money,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/sep/17/european-rugby-heineken-cup-tv-deal

"the four RaboDirect Pro12 countries will be asked to agree to the English and French clubs receiving a greater share of the money generated by sponsorship and television deals.

"That is only fair given that we are the two countries with by far the greatest number of chimney pots and therefore the draw cards for television," "

However this part and the TV deal as well, has not even been discussed,

Format not agreed no body budgling or making headway
Money split to be discussed after
TV deals to be discussed after

So from my point of view, there is just to much dividing them, and no common ground to reach, and they haven't even reached the more difficult ones, therefore I see next year as the last year of the H-cup (for a year at least).

FES, I think he means everyone gets an equal set split to start with and then further payments based on performance in the competition.
There would be a lot to be said for an "all in" system (including the best of the non 6n's sides) playing in an initial (seeded) 6-8 round robin groups, with places then being allocated in the HEC/Amlin/Eurobowl based on position in the group.
A typical group could be:
Jeff/Rabo/Top14 group top seed
Jeff/Rabo/Top14 group second seed
Jeff/Rabo/Top14 unseeded side
Team from Europe outside the top three leagues.
Top two in the HEC, third in the Amilin, bottom in the Eurobowl. Draw could be adjusted to to ensure that no two or three teams from the same country did not play in the same group.

I'm talking about the premier European competition, currently the HC, and nothing else. Whatever the new structure looks like, the top competition should have participants from each of the "professional" rugby unions that participate in the 6 Nations. That is my point. Take that ingredient away and the competition is demeaned.

Glad you took quoting you in the spirit it was intended.

Why just the 6Nations unions though?

We have seen how the Rabo has helped the Italians, why not allow more unions compete.

I say again, it cannot be the best if participants are there because of historic connections. It's stagnating and needs a revamp.

Of course I can see that a supporter of those sides who are guarenteed a place will think it's ok - nothing broken so why fix it?

Short sighted - we need to grow the European game and by keeping the riches lomited to a small select few is not the way to do it.

TrailApe wrote:

Short sighted - we need to grow the European game and by keeping the riches lomited to a small select few is not the way to do it.

Who exactly is 'We' though? The 'we' bit is the controller bit, the bit that decides which way things pan out.
The external 6N Unions who as yet don't have a say, are the 'them' for now.

So already the 'we' who want to grow rugby in Europe are the ones having the cheek to say 'we' will be the ones formulating the all inclusive them'n'us plan.

And that breaks down again as the battles between the three big Leagues, and the Nations within the leagues, is also about just who it is who controls that word 'we'.

Is 'we' the 6N unions?
Is 'we' the PRL?
Is 'we' BT Vision?
Is 'we' an English vision? A French one? An Irish one? A Welsh one? A Scottish on? An Italian one?

I don't see any collective 'we' amongst the Big 'WE' Nations. We all want something different. And the real stinger is that some of this lovely cuddly 'we' talk is all about turning some of the current 'we' generation into 'them'.

Simple solution is offer the French the increase the English want to keep them on board, have a qualifying tournament for the tier 2 and 3 nations letting the best teams from there get into the Heineken (they'll get hammered but they'll be learning and earning from it) this covers the lost places of the English teams who'll come around asking to be part of it again

marty
IIRC the French have said that they want the English involved & it shows your mind set that you would give the French what the English want but not the English

broadlandboy wrote:marty
IIRC the French have said that they want the English involved & it shows your mind set that you would give the French what the English want but not the English

Its called divide and conquer, the French are itching to win the HC so don't want to leave it if they don't have to so the money sweetens the deal for them pls the English teams are being the more stubborn of the 2

And the Rabo unions are not being stubborn at all

lostinwales wrote:And the Rabo unions are not being stubborn at all

All sides are being stubborn but the English sides want to take away from the Rabo teams and give them nothing in return for it, hardly a fair deal

lostinwales wrote:And the Rabo unions are not being stubborn at all

Stubborn in what sense? Not wanting to smile with a noose around their necks and a last cigarette dangling from their lips?

The Rabo nations have no interest in compromising anything, hence the whole issue in the first place. The Rabo nations only decided to come to the negotiating table once the AP and French handed the notice in.

If 6,6,8 was offered in tandem with the go ahead for the BT deal I think they'd be a compromise all round. BT are willing to put a lot into the pot for a fraction of the Sky rights, it should benefit all financially.

formerly known as Sam wrote:The Rabo nations have no interest in compromising anything, hence the whole issue in the first place. The Rabo nations only decided to come to the negotiating table once the AP and French handed the notice in.

If 6,6,8 was offered in tandem with the go ahead for the BT deal I think they'd be a compromise all round. BT are willing to put a lot into the pot for a fraction of the Sky rights, it should benefit all financially.

Agree with this.

formerly known as Sam wrote:The Rabo nations have no interest in compromising anything, hence the whole issue in the first place. The Rabo nations only decided to come to the negotiating table once the AP and French handed the notice in.
If 6,6,8 was offered in tandem with the go ahead for the BT deal I think they'd be a compromise all round. BT are willing to put a lot into the pot for a fraction of the Sky rights, it should benefit all financially.

The negotiating table only appeared when the English and French did the publicity on wanting out They Pro12 weren't late to the table, it's just that when they did arrive, they found a few dwarf stools waiting for them..thrones for the other two....

6,6,8 in tandem with BT deal agreed on.... what would be left to compromise on? The pen used to sign the deed?

Compromise doesn't mean that one side gets asked to do one thing and then a few weeks later gets asked to think about something else. That's not compromise.

Compromise is when one side makes a move and the other side reciprocates. Yet I always see 6 and 6 for England and France in any offer that crops up.

'We (French and English) won't be changing at all', we're being told, 'but you guys don't even want to compromise on that fair offer. Stubborn asses!'.....

Tut tut Secret...the resignations were because of a refusal to discuss the future of the competition.
The numbers appear to show the Unions get more per team in the HC than the clubs who make the competition viable through the number of entries. I remember at the time the feeling was that the new league needed support and were given a favourable deal, which over the years has resulted in a number of millions going to the Unions over and above a normal even split per team.

Ultimately this is a dispute as to whether clubs or Unions should control a competition below Test level competitions. In other words they won't agree.

formerly known as Sam wrote:The Rabo nations have no interest in compromising anything, hence the whole issue in the first place. The Rabo nations only decided to come to the negotiating table once the AP and French handed the notice in.

If 6,6,8 was offered in tandem with the go ahead for the BT deal I think they'd be a compromise all round. BT are willing to put a lot into the pot for a fraction of the Sky rights, it should benefit all financially.

Agreed so whats the problem - from I am hearing it is the English stopping 6/6/8 not the Pro12 countries

The English are still pushing 6/6/6 plus 2 cup winners

The thing is the English want a bigger share of the TV money, because as they've stated, there are more chimney pots in England and more people watching telly.

So in the financial sense they don't want a meritocracy. They want every English team to get more than every Rabo team, no matter how anyone performs on the field, or actually no matter how many people tune in to watch games. Simply because they're English, and there are more chimney pots in England, they always get paid more.

So say if across the continent 10,000 people watch Exeter vs Biarritz and 50,000 people watch Leinster vs Munster. Exeter get more money than the Irish sides despite less people watching them. Why? Because regardless of how they play or how many people watch them, they happen to be located in a country with more chimney pots. Which has nothing to do with rugby.

They try and sell this BT money as a great gift for the Rabo teams. But they in fact want to widen the financial gap between them and their competitors.

Last year the Irish made the most money from the HC because they produced the finalists and the Champion. In 2010 the French took the most money because they produced the finalists and Champion. In 2007 the English took the most money because they produces the finalists and Champion. And this year and next whoever wins will get the most money. That's meritocracy. Leave chimney pots out of it.


The only thing I'd change about the money is to give each team an equal amount for participating rather than each union. That would result in more for the English and French and a bit less for the Irish. But its only fair to give the same per team.

Feckless,
The English & French want to even the money up,at the moment the rabo teams get a larger % than the ENG/FRE

Recwatcher wrote:Tut tut Secret...the resignations were because of a refusal to discuss the future of the competition.
The numbers appear to show the Unions get more per team in the HC than the clubs who make the competition viable through the number of entries. I remember at the time the feeling was that the new league needed support and were given a favourable deal, which over the years has resulted in a number of millions going to the Unions over and above a normal even split per team.

Ultimately this is a dispute as to whether clubs or Unions should control a competition below Test level competitions. In other words they won't agree.

The BT money is for two things - the English bit (AP Premiership) - and the European bit (currently HC).

BT can spend their money on the AP bit - as much as they like and as much as the PRL want to take from them. The rest of us won't care.

Incidently, maybe the AP sides were a little weak in negotiating that bit with BT??? Had they been smarter and held out for more, they might have subsidised the losses they think they sustain in HC )

Anyway, the European bit - as we keep saying over and over - is not controlled by either PRL or BT. But BT are offering money to televise it.

BT are the money men - and unless some pretty underhand corporate dealings are going on behind closed doors - they are not linked to PRL. PRL bring no money to the European party. BT do. And yet, it's PRL mouthing the gospel about what they want and what they don't want as if they have the cigar and the chequebook. Meanwhile BT too have only fantasy power unless their money is accepted for European competition.

But we've all done this over and over and over again...and I'm sure we're all sick of repeating ourselves as we wait for whatever deal is made.
There is, however, no compromise in the magic 6 being used all the time for France and England as the Pro12 goes from 4 to 8 to 6, back to 4, up to 8.....etc, etc. It's just nonsense. PRL have no money to bargain with and BT Vision have no power to demand their money gets used.

If they want to split participation money evenly per team that's fair enough. The rabo sides would suffer a bit financially, but an even per team split is not an unreasonable demand. But is that what they are demanding?

What's this talk about chimney pots and "putting in" more than they're getting out (as if the fact that there are more telly's in England means Exeter are "putting in" more than Leinster).

ps I have nothing against Exeter, just using them as an example to make a point.

SecretFly wrote:
Incidently, maybe the AP sides were a little weak in negotiating that bit with BT??? Had they been smarter and held out for more, they might have subsidised the losses they think they sustain in HC.

How much is the split then?

It has long seemed to be the case that the English clubs wanting more money has been interpreted by plenty of folk on here that that means more money than the Unions.

I don't believe the PRL ever intended or thought they would achieve more than an equitable split, but currently half of the teams in the competition get less than the other half. That difference had equated to millions over the term of the last agreement. It was hoped the BT deal would smooth the waters in that it would cushion the redistribution but has been seen/publicised by the Unions as part of an agenda and both sides are now backed into their corners.

If any of these clowns worked in a commercial organisation, rather than as jobs for their mates in the Unions, they would have been sacked a long time ago....

geoff999rugby wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:The Rabo nations have no interest in compromising anything, hence the whole issue in the first place. The Rabo nations only decided to come to the negotiating table once the AP and French handed the notice in.

If 6,6,8 was offered in tandem with the go ahead for the BT deal I think they'd be a compromise all round. BT are willing to put a lot into the pot for a fraction of the Sky rights, it should benefit all financially.

Agreed so whats the problem - from I am hearing it is the English stopping 6/6/8 not the Pro12 countries

The English are still pushing 6/6/6 plus 2 cup winners

Are they? Are the PRO12 union for 6,6,8? Are the French? The quoted article was from September last year. I haven't seen anything that suggests the anyone would be happy with 6,6,8 other than some supporters.

As far as I can tell the initial suggests were 6,6,6 and 8,8,8 from the French and English respectively. The others said no and suggested one comp with 32 12,10,10? The French said no. A slight modification on the 6,6,6 was suggested and the answer was no. Since September have there been any other suggestions? (Ones on fan forums don't count)

I think what sums up the roadblock is people referring to Pro12 sides as one party.

If thats the perception then no wonder there hasn't been progress. When people raise the Pro12 I wonder what on earth thats got to do with anything, because when Ireland negotiate their side of things with the ERC the other stake holders have little or nothing to do with it. If we're being lumped in together, then no wonder they aren't getting anywhere.

That said, I think 6/6/8 would be a good deal and would really make for a better tournament. It's a deal we get the rough end of given it involves us compromising and no English/French compromise at all but they have a stronger negotiating position and I actually think that could help the Pro12 considerably. I think the IRFU would be happy with that but the SRU and FIR will not... Hopefully after all the brinksmanship thats what comes out of it. No doubt any deal will only be struck at 11.59pm on the last day before it absolutely has to happen.

HammerofThunor wrote:

SecretFly wrote:
Incidently, maybe the AP sides were a little weak in negotiating that bit with BT??? Had they been smarter and held out for more, they might have subsidised the losses they think they sustain in HC.

How much is the split then?

You tell me Hammer... if they were taking in a mint for the domestic bit they mightn't be doing all the saber rattling now about the Euro bit.

Or they might hold out for exactly what they want because they know if it falls through they're sorted. If they were desperately reliant on the Europe money they would be more likely to compromise more wouldn't they?

Notch wrote:I think what sums up the roadblock is people referring to Pro12 sides as one party.

If thats the perception then no wonder there hasn't been progress. When people raise the Pro12 I wonder what on earth thats got to do with anything, because when Ireland negotiate their side of things with the ERC the other stake holders have little or nothing to do with it. If we're being lumped in together, then no wonder they aren't getting anywhere.

That said, I think 6/6/8 would be a good deal and would really make for a better tournament. It's a deal we get the rough end of given it involves us compromising and no English/French compromise at all but they have a stronger negotiating position and I actually think that could help the Pro12 considerably. I think the IRFU would be happy with that but the SRU and FIR will not... Hopefully after all the brinksmanship thats what comes out of it. No doubt any deal will only be struck at 11.59pm on the last day before it absolutely has to happen.

Like it usually is. In 2007 it went to the wire due to French clubs. Why make an agreement early when you can wait and see who sweats the most.

The bit about the PRO12 being seen as one is pretty much the core of the debates. The French and English want it to be (at the top level) a competition between three leagues. The others want it to be a competition between six unions. Neither one is 'right' (although the 6 unions was the original set up of course).

I'm quite happy for the Heinaken Cup to split up.

It's not really rocket science what happens if the Europe finishes.

All the Rabo teams will do is play an extra 1 game, against each of the Rabo teams each season, while alternating each season whether it's home or away.

This season we'd of had extra league games, on Heinaken Cup weekends.
1 extra game against each team means 11 extra weekends of rugby, using the 9 weekends for Heinaken Cup rugby, we only need 2 extra weekends of rugby.

Heinaken Cup Dates:
Saturday 13th October 2012
Saturday 20th October 2012
Saturday 8th December 2012
Saturday 15th December 2012
Saturday 12th January 2013
Saturday 19th of January 2013
Saturday 6th April 2013
Saturday 27th April 2013
Saturday 18th May

Achiveing the final 2 weeks required weeks could be done by, either not having the Rabo play offs. Semi finals = 1 weekend, final = 1 weekends.

Or have the Welsh teams pull out of the LV Cup, this would free up a further 6 weekends.

Though the Irish, Scottish and Italian teams would already have these 6 dates free anyway. So possibly the Welsh teams, could field teams in both the Rabo and LV Cup by using players from Premiership sides in the LV Cup.

Thought it might interest some Simon Cohen(Tigers CEO) stated on The Rugby Hour(Radio Leicester) that they lose money if they get past the Quater final stage

SecretFly wrote:

Recwatcher wrote:Tut tut Secret...the resignations were because of a refusal to discuss the future of the competition.
The numbers appear to show the Unions get more per team in the HC than the clubs who make the competition viable through the number of entries. I remember at the time the feeling was that the new league needed support and were given a favourable deal, which over the years has resulted in a number of millions going to the Unions over and above a normal even split per team.

Ultimately this is a dispute as to whether clubs or Unions should control a competition below Test level competitions. In other words they won't agree.

The BT money is for two things - the English bit (AP Premiership) - and the European bit (currently HC).

BT can spend their money on the AP bit - as much as they like and as much as the PRL want to take from them. The rest of us won't care.

Incidently, maybe the AP sides were a little weak in negotiating that bit with BT??? Had they been smarter and held out for more, they might have subsidised the losses they think they sustain in HC )

Anyway, the European bit - as we keep saying over and over - is not controlled by either PRL or BT. But BT are offering money to televise it.

BT are the money men - and unless some pretty underhand corporate dealings are going on behind closed doors - they are not linked to PRL. PRL bring no money to the European party. BT do. And yet, it's PRL mouthing the gospel about what they want and what they don't want as if they have the cigar and the chequebook. Meanwhile BT too have only fantasy power unless their money is accepted for European competition.

But we've all done this over and over and over again...and I'm sure we're all sick of repeating ourselves as we wait for whatever deal is made.
There is, however, no compromise in the magic 6 being used all the time for France and England as the Pro12 goes from 4 to 8 to 6, back to 4, up to 8.....etc, etc. It's just nonsense. PRL have no money to bargain with and BT Vision have no power to demand their money gets used.

Doesn't the OP quote give a fairly serious indication that England's magic number is now 0, albeit possibly for propaganda purposes?

HammerofThunor wrote:Or they might hold out for exactly what they want because they know if it falls through they're sorted. If they were desperately reliant on the Europe money they would be more likely to compromise more wouldn't they?

Not at all...I'd say there are very precise stipulations in the whole deal about whether or not BT get European games. I'd say domestic amount would be higher with Europe competition than without - as that's a bigger chimney pot venture...Plus, that incentive would incentivise PRL to push BTs case in Europe - as it's already doing.

I'd say it needs a Europe involvment to fully implement the domestic deal. In other words, I'd assume the European deal would add a bonus to the domestic one.

So yeah, you could argue, well why don't PRL just play ball with the rest and not call for so many changes. BT would be in.

Well, first up, they're also fighting for BTs interests. And BT are obviously quite bullish about their ideas of 'taking over' all aspects of club rugby in Europe, going on their bullish comments in the press at the very beginning.

So BT want a big stir up of European rugby so that the outlays they're prepared to make can turn into more meaningful profits...can't very well be meek with that kind of ambition, can you? BT is working for PRL, PRL is working for BT... they both want the cat, the saucer and the milk.

broadlandboy wrote:Thought it might interest some Simon Cohen(Tigers CEO) stated on The Rugby Hour(Radio Leicester) that they lose money if they get past the Quater final stage

Of course they do their playing in France.
But if they were playing Toulon at home, I can assure you they'd be quids in!

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Doesn't the OP quote give a fairly serious indication that England's magic number is now 0, albeit possibly for propaganda purposes?

Zero is their business. Six is ours.

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Or they might hold out for exactly what they want because they know if it falls through they're sorted. If they were desperately reliant on the Europe money they would be more likely to compromise more wouldn't they?

Not at all...I'd say there are very precise stipulations in the whole deal about whether or not BT get European games. I'd say domestic amount would be higher with Europe competition than without - as that's a bigger chimney pot venture...Plus, that incentive would incentivise PRL to push BTs case in Europe - as it's already doing.

I'd say it needs a Europe involvment to fully implement the domestic deal. In other words, I'd assume the European deal would add a bonus to the domestic one.

So yeah, you could argue, well why don't PRL just play ball with the rest and not call for so many changes. BT would be in.

Well, first up, they're also fighting for BTs interests. And BT are obviously quite bullish about their ideas of 'taking over' all aspects of club rugby in Europe, going on their bullish comments in the press at the very beginning.

So BT want a big stir up of European rugby so that the outlays they're prepared to make can turn into more meaningful profits...can't very well be meek with that kind of ambition, can you? BT is working for PRL, PRL is working for BT... they both want the cat, the saucer and the milk.

Cor, it's good that you're in the know because most of what is on here is speculation and guesswork.

Shifty wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Thought it might interest some Simon Cohen(Tigers CEO) stated on The Rugby Hour(Radio Leicester) that they lose money if they get past the Quater final stage

Of course they do their playing in France.
But if they were playing Toulon at home, I can assure you they'd be quids in!

That doesnt make sense to me. Leicester will take 50% of the gate revenue of stade mayol. How can they lose on that?

HammerofThunor wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Or they might hold out for exactly what they want because they know if it falls through they're sorted. If they were desperately reliant on the Europe money they would be more likely to compromise more wouldn't they?

Not at all...I'd say there are very precise stipulations in the whole deal about whether or not BT get European games. I'd say domestic amount would be higher with Europe competition than without - as that's a bigger chimney pot venture...Plus, that incentive would incentivise PRL to push BTs case in Europe - as it's already doing.

I'd say it needs a Europe involvment to fully implement the domestic deal. In other words, I'd assume the European deal would add a bonus to the domestic one.

So yeah, you could argue, well why don't PRL just play ball with the rest and not call for so many changes. BT would be in.

Well, first up, they're also fighting for BTs interests. And BT are obviously quite bullish about their ideas of 'taking over' all aspects of club rugby in Europe, going on their bullish comments in the press at the very beginning.

So BT want a big stir up of European rugby so that the outlays they're prepared to make can turn into more meaningful profits...can't very well be meek with that kind of ambition, can you? BT is working for PRL, PRL is working for BT... they both want the cat, the saucer and the milk.

Cor, it's good that you're in the know because most of what is on here is speculation and guesswork.

You asked a question I gave you my guesswork. Simples, as that meerkat says. Do I talk like I'm the Lord God? I must tone down my guesswork tone

whocares wrote:

Shifty wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Thought it might interest some Simon Cohen(Tigers CEO) stated on The Rugby Hour(Radio Leicester) that they lose money if they get past the Quater final stage

Of course they do their playing in France.
But if they were playing Toulon at home, I can assure you they'd be quids in!

That doesnt make sense to me. Leicester will take 50% of the gate revenue of stade mayol. How can they lose on that?

Ask broadlandboy how Leicester lose money.
Though obviously the home team make money from their club shop and catering etc.

The Stade Mayol is a 15,000 seater stadium. That's not much gate money when you consider they'll need to fly out about 30 people, put them up in a hotel, hire training facilities for a day or two. All that in the expensive south of France.

AP clubs make far more money from the AP than the HEC. From an AP point of view It's not much of an economical advantage hence the current stand point. The AP clubs want the ability to sell the tv rights in England which is what the BT thing is all about, the AP clubs are sick of the ERC under selling the HEC to Sky.

Read my post He said after the Quarters

Feckless Rogue wrote:The thing is the English want a bigger share of the TV money, because as they've stated, there are more chimney pots in England and more people watching telly.

So in the financial sense they don't want a meritocracy. They want every English team to get more than every Rabo team, no matter how anyone performs on the field, or actually no matter how many people tune in to watch games. Simply because they're English, and there are more chimney pots in England, they always get paid more.

So say if across the continent 10,000 people watch Exeter vs Biarritz and 50,000 people watch Leinster vs Munster. Exeter get more money than the Irish sides despite less people watching them. Why? Because regardless of how they play or how many people watch them, they happen to be located in a country with more chimney pots. Which has nothing to do with rugby.

They try and sell this BT money as a great gift for the Rabo teams. But they in fact want to widen the financial gap between them and their competitors.

Last year the Irish made the most money from the HC because they produced the finalists and the Champion. In 2010 the French took the most money because they produced the finalists and Champion. In 2007 the English took the most money because they produces the finalists and Champion. And this year and next whoever wins will get the most money. That's meritocracy. Leave chimney pots out of it.


The only thing I'd change about the money is to give each team an equal amount for participating rather than each union. That would result in more for the English and French and a bit less for the Irish. But its only fair to give the same per team.

How many people from England watch Leinster Vs Munster in the Heineken Cup? Or Clermont Vs Toulouse? Tens of thousands, which drives up the value of any tv deal with Sky, BT or whoever.

How many people from England would watch the same games in the Pro12 or the Top 14? Not nearly as many, because there is no English involvement and therefore very limited English interest in those competitions.

It's the same as football, just 1 European match has penetrated the English market (El Clasico between Real Madrid and Barcelona), but other than that very little European league or cup football is watched in England - however, everyone watches the Champions League, even now all the English teams have been knocked out.

You take the English out of the competition and interest in the Heineken Cup would plummet in this country. Viewing figures - even for the games with no English clubs - would drop dramatically.

That's why the chimney pots come into it.

Personally, I'm leaning the way of TrailApe. Smash the whole thing up and start again. We have 9 European weekends we can use in a season and a blank canvas. Let's go.