Future European Comp

First topic message reminder :

Progress made when ERC not involved.http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/may/20/heineken-cup-tv-deal

You see yet more partisan mud-slinging.

LondonTiger wrote:

Kingshu wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Well it was designed as a Club competition.

Why should the Unions decide how it is run and who gets the money. Why should WRU deprive the Regions of any say and hold back money from them?

It was designed for the top teams from each country to play each other, not nessaraly clubs.
The Heineken Cup was launched in the summer of 1995 on the initiative of the then Five Nations Committee to provide a new level of professional cross border competition

Though at that time only Ireland did not enter clubs I thought.

Anyway what it was meant to be, or is, is irrelevant. Sadly it is down to power and money. Very, very few people involved in the whole mess want what is best for the game. ERC are the most corrupt and incompetent part of the whole thing, which is shocking when you look at everyone else.

Everyone talks the talk, but sadly they always look as if they would sell their children into slavery if it made them more powerful. I exclude no-one from this condemnation, every damned organisation in every country involved is corrupt, power-mad and cash obsessed.

We all come on here fighting our own countries cause, and disparaging anyone with opposing views - yet really not one of us has a leg to stand on.

Get rid of ERC, get rid of Murdoch and start again.

How could you ever have a leg to stand on when looking for a European competition that you'd feel part of? How can any side in the debate ever have a leg to stand on? We want participation in the event.... all of us. A fair chance of winning the event...all of us. Now only some of the 'countries' - and you word it that way; only some of the 'countries' are being told they should give up that guranteed participation.

So, not one of us has a leg to stand on? I'd say it's not so equitable a scenario as all that.

LondonTiger wrote:You see yet more partisan mud-slinging.

Partisan mud slinging is proposals put forward to drop some 'countries' out of the HEC. And that partisan mud slinging commenced on your shores.

Actually it commenced in France. they were the ones that started this all off and the English clubs jumped on board to get some of what they wanted.

Semantic arguments are very boring most of the time. It was originally set up for cross-border domestic sides. English people think of these as clubs as used the term as a catch all. I've also heard Welsh people do the same. I've also heard some welsh people refer to the provinces as regions. In this case the distinction is not relevent. It is a competition between domestic sides that is largely run by international bodies. The RFU have given some power to the PRL. The FFR gave most of their votes to the LNR (4 out of 5) for most events (although they can still pull them back for some issues). The WRU gave the RRW a seat on the ERC board. It seems most of the participants are/have been moving to a system where they give their control to the group participating. The PRL (and LNR) wanted an extension of this.

Ireland have the reasonably unique system in Europe where the union controls the domestic sides to a much greater degree.

Am I the only one who thinks McCafferty is running a dangerous game?

The BT deal for a start is a risky move. I don't think anyone can deny that Sky's participation widened the audience the HC and Premiership was viewed by people. Given they have chosen to go with BT, and Sky have now decided to back the Rabbo I can't see anyway back if the BT deal fails. Knowing Murdoch he will probably hold that against them.

Secondly his gamble requires the muscle of the French. Given the Union still has substantial power of their clubs when it comes to the HC and likely hood they will not pass up a chance to play in a European Tournament thus potentially leaving the English out in the cold.

I understand the pressure McCafferty is coming under from his clubs though. Given the constraints of the Salary cap its getting harder and harder for Premiership to showcase the best talent in Europe. France clearly are ahead of squad spends and unless England can bridge the gap in could become a training league. We are already seeing the French pick out some of the biggest names they have. Granted the French are doing the same to the Rabbo sides too but there is far more international quality on their books so its far less noticeable. So without increasing money for all his PRL clubs there is no chance the wage cap can be increased and lessening the pull of players towards the French League.

The real problem I can see though is I don't believe the English can do without HC rugby. 30% is still generated through this competition. I don't believe McCafferty does have a viable alternative if the French remain in the competition.

From a Rabbo position I actually hope that the HC falls through. Only because I want to see us unifying the rugby calendar with our SH counterparts which could potentially see a door open for a global club tournament. I also think it will help us internationally if the season was sectioned more. Plus summer rugby would be preferable to better rugby and no clashes with football calenders.

The real question becomes what will the French do?

What amazes me about BSB losing rugby to BT is how cool they are about it. They haven't dropped prices to be competitive or even entered the metaphorical ring.

While BT are giving away this expensive sport deal for free to all new customers???

HammerofThunor wrote:

Ireland have the reasonably unique system in Europe where the union controls the domestic sides to a much greater degree.

Thus, my initial point to London Tiger, Hammer, that he chose to see as mud-slinging.

Clubs can never rule a European competition unless Irish teams are excluded from European competition. As you say, Irish team are and will remain the property of the Union. If Irish Provinces are involved in any future 'club' competition, then the IRFU will have a central part to play...along with all the privately owned clubs.

And it isn't semantics when you talk about 'cross-border' domestic sides/teams/clubs/regions/Provinces - whatever you want to call them. The name isn't important, you're right about that - but the idea of 'cross border' is.

Domestic clubs in Europe don't inhabit some kind of EU all encompassing border - they fall inside borders. French clubs are 'French' - and most International players are taken from French clubs. Same for English clubs, same for Welsh ones...same for Scottish and Italian ones. The 'cross-border' aspect of European 'domestic club' competition is the bit that isn't being respected in the new proposals.

Some seem to think that Italian rugby benefits from having Leinster or Ospreys or Munster participating in the HEC simply because they participate in the same Pro12 league. It doesn't. But English rugby does benefit from having their 6 AP sides participate.

maestegmafia wrote:What amazes me about BSB losing rugby to BT is how cool they are about it. They haven't dropped prices to be competitive or even entered the metaphorical ring.

While BT are giving away this expensive sport deal for free to all new customers???

I suspect that the Rabo coverage buy was their response Maes - if the HC goes belly-up they'll judge that the Rabo will become a stronger comp, as the top players turn out more often. And ultimately they're keeping their powder dry to protect the bigger (unfortunately) prize - their massive share of English soccer coverage.

Sky currently have the dominant position in PayTV, and they've takjen a lot of phone/internet off BT over the past couple of years (my flatmate managed to wangle free calls to NZ and Ireland landlines when we switched to Sky for phone/web/TV, a useful freebee in reverse), they can afford to wait and see how BT go for a while.

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Ireland have the reasonably unique system in Europe where the union controls the domestic sides to a much greater degree.

Thus, my initial point to London Tiger, Hammer, that he chose to see as mud-slinging.

Clubs can never rule a European competition unless Irish teams are excluded from European competition. As you say, Irish team are and will remain the property of the Union. If Irish Provinces are involved in any future 'club' competition, then the IRFU will have a central part to play...along with all the privately owned clubs.

And it isn't semantics when you talk about 'cross-border' domestic sides/teams/clubs/regions/Provinces - whatever you want to call them. The name isn't important, you're right about that - but the idea of 'cross border' is.

Domestic clubs in Europe don't inhabit some kind of EU all encompassing border - they fall inside borders. French clubs are 'French' - and most International players are taken from French clubs. Same for English clubs, same for Welsh ones...same for Scottish and Italian ones. The 'cross-border' aspect of European 'domestic club' competition is the bit that isn't being respected in the new proposals.

Some seem to think that Italian rugby benefits from having Leinster or Ospreys or Munster participating in the HEC simply because they participate in the same Pro12 league. It doesn't. But English rugby does benefit from having their 6 AP sides participate.

Absolutely. This has always been about changing the competition from a 6 union compeititon to a 3 league competition. This is the aim (because of money and power I'm sure). The LNR have been peed ever since the FFR took their votes back to vote for Lux over Wheeler for the ERC. If that hadn't happened this probably wouldn't have either.

You do seem to be confusing it should be "club controlled" with "not union controlled". Since the Provinces are part of the IRFU than Provincial control for the Irish stake would be the same as the IRFU control. Possible the same for Scotland (not sure how the system is). Similar with Italy with Zebre.

HammerofThunor wrote:Actually it commenced in France. they were the ones that started this all off and the English clubs jumped on board to get some of what they wanted.

Semantic arguments are very boring most of the time. It was originally set up for cross-border domestic sides. English people think of these as clubs as used the term as a catch all. I've also heard Welsh people do the same. I've also heard some welsh people refer to the provinces as regions. In this case the distinction is not relevent. It is a competition between domestic sides that is largely run by international bodies. The RFU have given some power to the PRL. The FFR gave most of their votes to the LNR (4 out of 5) for most events (although they can still pull them back for some issues). The WRU gave the RRW a seat on the ERC board. It seems most of the participants are/have been moving to a system where they give their control to the group participating. The PRL (and LNR) wanted an extension of this.

Ireland have the reasonably unique system in Europe where the union controls the domestic sides to a much greater degree.

No matter 'who started it' it's going on way above our heads or pay grades as mere punters, bystanders and mortal opinionated cretins.

I find our semantics and opinions eternally amusing.

But equally I fully understand that right or wrong, we'll be served up with a pile of poo to swallow as per normal.

I've long held the view that none of the really influential contributors to this debate have a reasonable, reasoned solution.

HammerofThunor wrote:

You do seem to be confusing it should be "club controlled" with "not union controlled". Since the Provinces are part of the IRFU than Provincial control for the Irish stake would be the same as the IRFU control. Possible the same for Scotland (not sure how the system is). Similar with Italy with Zebre.

?

I'm not confusing any of that? How could you read that into what I said. I'm saying it's a 'club/regional/provincial competition that is currently run by Unions (some giving voting rights to club organisations within their borders). If negotiations bring forth a new Competition it might (might!) be partially run by clubs - but if Irish sides are involved, then not exclusively so. Plus...the 'rights' given to club organisations by their Unions can be taken away again. So just how much real control will be exerted by clubs and for how long will always be debatable.

greytiger wrote:

I've long held the view that none of the really influential contributors to this debate have a reasonable, reasoned solution.

Us? Or the cretins in the suits having the meetings?

Reasonable solution is 20 clubs.

An amount of the money's to be allocated to clubs is divided equally 20 ways between those clubs participating, plus a fixed amount for winning and drawing games at each level, pool, 1/4s, semis and final. That win amount increases each round towards the final. The cumulative amount can be predicted before each season so this would be simple and fair.

Five teams from Top14, five from English Prem, five from Pro 12. Four places are to be contested by a playoff between those teams not to make top five qualification placed Sixth and Seventh in each of the three leagues.

Final place to previous winner.

SecretFly wrote:

greytiger wrote:

I've long held the view that none of the really influential contributors to this debate have a reasonable, reasoned solution.

Us? Or the cretins in the suits having the meetings?

The latter Fly.

Que sera sera as the Italians presented to the Eurovision Song Contest fiftyish years ago (that didn't win either). But the eternal truth is that almost nobody will be content with the new solution any more than they were with the last one.

Either way the World will still spin and eventually we'll all die.

greytiger wrote:



Either way the World will still spin and eventually we'll all die.

Don't quote me, but I have a funny feeling you're right somehow.

LondonTiger wrote:

Kingshu wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Well it was designed as a Club competition.

Why should the Unions decide how it is run and who gets the money. Why should WRU deprive the Regions of any say and hold back money from them?

It was designed for the top teams from each country to play each other, not nessaraly clubs.
The Heineken Cup was launched in the summer of 1995 on the initiative of the then Five Nations Committee to provide a new level of professional cross border competition

Though at that time only Ireland did not enter clubs I thought.

Anyway what it was meant to be, or is, is irrelevant. Sadly it is down to power and money. Very, very few people involved in the whole mess want what is best for the game. ERC are the most corrupt and incompetent part of the whole thing, which is shocking when you look at everyone else.

Everyone talks the talk, but sadly they always look as if they would sell their children into slavery if it made them more powerful. I exclude no-one from this condemnation, every damned organisation in every country involved is corrupt, power-mad and cash obsessed.

We all come on here fighting our own countries cause, and disparaging anyone with opposing views - yet really not one of us has a leg to stand on.

Get rid of ERC, get rid of Murdoch and start again.

Reckon PRL could give them a decent run for their money as far as that particular accolade is concerned, LT!

greytiger wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Actually it commenced in France. they were the ones that started this all off and the English clubs jumped on board to get some of what they wanted.

Semantic arguments are very boring most of the time. It was originally set up for cross-border domestic sides. English people think of these as clubs as used the term as a catch all. I've also heard Welsh people do the same. I've also heard some welsh people refer to the provinces as regions. In this case the distinction is not relevent. It is a competition between domestic sides that is largely run by international bodies. The RFU have given some power to the PRL. The FFR gave most of their votes to the LNR (4 out of 5) for most events (although they can still pull them back for some issues). The WRU gave the RRW a seat on the ERC board. It seems most of the participants are/have been moving to a system where they give their control to the group participating. The PRL (and LNR) wanted an extension of this.

Ireland have the reasonably unique system in Europe where the union controls the domestic sides to a much greater degree.

No matter 'who started it' it's going on way above our heads or pay grades as mere punters, bystanders and mortal opinionated cretins.

I find our semantics and opinions eternally amusing.

But equally I fully understand that right or wrong, we'll be served up with a pile of poo to swallow as per normal.

I've long held the view that none of the really influential contributors to this debate have a reasonable, reasoned solution.

I wish to enter myself firmly into the last camp

HammerofThunor wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Ireland have the reasonably unique system in Europe where the union controls the domestic sides to a much greater degree.

Thus, my initial point to London Tiger, Hammer, that he chose to see as mud-slinging.

Clubs can never rule a European competition unless Irish teams are excluded from European competition. As you say, Irish team are and will remain the property of the Union. If Irish Provinces are involved in any future 'club' competition, then the IRFU will have a central part to play...along with all the privately owned clubs.

And it isn't semantics when you talk about 'cross-border' domestic sides/teams/clubs/regions/Provinces - whatever you want to call them. The name isn't important, you're right about that - but the idea of 'cross border' is.

Domestic clubs in Europe don't inhabit some kind of EU all encompassing border - they fall inside borders. French clubs are 'French' - and most International players are taken from French clubs. Same for English clubs, same for Welsh ones...same for Scottish and Italian ones. The 'cross-border' aspect of European 'domestic club' competition is the bit that isn't being respected in the new proposals.

Some seem to think that Italian rugby benefits from having Leinster or Ospreys or Munster participating in the HEC simply because they participate in the same Pro12 league. It doesn't. But English rugby does benefit from having their 6 AP sides participate.

Absolutely. This has always been about changing the competition from a 6 union compeititon to a 3 league competition. This is the aim (because of money and power I'm sure). The LNR have been peed ever since the FFR took their votes back to vote for Lux over Wheeler for the ERC. If that hadn't happened this probably wouldn't have either.

You do seem to be confusing it should be "club controlled" with "not union controlled". Since the Provinces are part of the IRFU than Provincial control for the Irish stake would be the same as the IRFU control. Possibly the same for Scotland (not sure how the system is). Similar with Italy with Zebre.

In effect, yes, Thunor - the districts are to all intents and purposes and extension of the SRU - an early attempt at one instance of privitisation ended in an ignominious stand-off and doomed the effort to failure

LondonTiger wrote:Why should the Unions decide how it is run and who gets the money.

Why should the PRL, FNL decide how it is run and who gets the money?

At least the Unions have the Test arena in mind when making decisions whereas the Club bodies only have their own vested interests to look after (often at odds with National ones).

Reckon PRL could give them a decent run for their money as far as that particular accolade is concerned, LT

Who'd have guessed that there'd be the minutest of consensus forming out of this debate?

What did that bloke say? "All power corrupts...".

Plus that other bloke "The love of money...".

The Great Aukster wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Why should the Unions decide how it is run and who gets the money.

Why should the PRL, FNL decide how it is run and who gets the money?

At least the Unions have the Test arena in mind when making decisions whereas the Club bodies only have their own vested interests to look after (often at odds with National ones).

That line of thinking works for the IRFU, SRU and FIR, but less so for WRU/RRW and not at all for RFU/PRL and FFR/LNR. The PRL and LNR clubs assemble the squads, pay the players and their owners incur the losses. Aside from 64 EPS players and stewarding the leagues to some degree (though almost entirely devolved to PRL for the AP), the RFU doesn't really have a role in this.

A huge part of their issue is that the original tournament structure was organised at union level and doesn't reflect the interests of the clubs. That's unlikely to change unless they get more control of a competition that they play in.

It's in everyone's interests to have a successful cross-Europe competition at a level below international level. But that needs vibrant teams/regions/provinces/clubs in all the participating countries, which means the competition needs to work for all of them. At the moment, the structure doesn't work for two thirds of the teams covered by the structure (and over half of the HEC participants - and that difference in itself is an issue).

It's easy but lazy to characterize this as a cash-generating money and power grab by the fat cat club owners. The reality is more complex. At a team level the money and power grab happened over a decade ago and the money and power are in the hands of the provinces/regions and their unions. The clubs are trying to redress that balance. If they go beyond that rebalancing, there's some justification for calling it a money/power grab. But - invective from disgruntled vested interests aside - there's been no hard evidence that that's the case.

Let us not forget that part of the

the fat cat club owners

are not exclusively Franglo (neither is it exclusively true). Fat cats sometimes prowl in the guise of Unions which control and dominate their latter-day serfdoms.

SecretFly wrote:Clubs can never rule a European competition unless Irish teams are excluded from European competition. As you say, Irish team are and will remain the property of the Union. If Irish Provinces are involved in any future 'club' competition, then the IRFU will have a central part to play...along with all the privately owned clubs.

Well this suggests you think that people are saying the IRFU cannot be involved in the discussion. Most people in favour of clubs being in control mean the teams involved. That includes the Provinces, which is in effect the IRFU. I don't think anyone thinks the IRFU cannot have any involvement. The SRU the same. The FIR would have partial involvement with Treviso also. The WRU, FFR and RFU would be involved at the request of the regions and clubs.

That seems to be a sensible way of doing it.

The Great Aukster wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Why should the Unions decide how it is run and who gets the money.

Why should the PRL, FNL decide how it is run and who gets the money?

At least the Unions have the Test arena in mind when making decisions whereas the Club bodies only have their own vested interests to look after (often at odds with National ones).

Well it depends on your priority. I'd say a national union only thinking of the test game can damage domestic rugby just as much as a dosmestic group can damage test chance. I think a strong domestic structure is good for the internation game. It's the union's responsibility to encourage the domestic system to work with them to strengthen their international team. We have a reasonably good system at the moment. The numbers of foerign players have been dropping since the RFU introduced financial incentives. The numbers of acadamy players getting game time has gone up since they introduced room in the salary cap for them. It's working well because the union and clubs got together and reached an agreement that benefited both.

The FFR do nothing for the French clubs so the French clubs do nothing for the unions. They're not working together and it's both parties fault.

EDIT: Ireland have another system that works extremely well for them. They have strong domestic game and it produces players of high international quality (coaching issues aside). It's different and it works but it doesn't mean it's for everyone.

If the Heineken Cup is finished and replaced with a "new" European tournament, can Leinster still swan around with 3 stars on their jersey?

Feckless Rogue wrote:If the Heineken Cup is finished and replaced with a "new" European tournament, can Leinster still swan around with 3 stars on their jersey?

Yeah but you have to give 3 of your star players away to the English clubs.

It don't matter how fat-cattish a Union is, the fact is a Union operates on a different fat-cat principle to the fat-cat private owners.

Firstly, a fat-cat private owner is only concerned with his club. His club. He couldn't care less what other club is relegated or goes to the wall and is never seen or heard of again. A fat-cat private owner is only concerned with fat-cat profits for his own club.

He doesn't even give a toss about International. Indeed, many of them would wish International a quick and painful death so that they don't have to worry about International windows, players going off playing for 'other' teams; and it would also be an opporuntiy to turn Club rugby into the new International rugby event with more and more competitions between clubs stretching into the SH. Lotsa money potential in that one.

Union fat-cat operators care about the bottom dollar too. They use Provinces or pseudo clubs to promote their fat-cat ideals of having Provinces/clubs rake in funds yes - all of them - not just one. And then the bonus fat-cat ideal is that the Provinces lend their experienced players to International duty...more money again, ana perpetual motion machine of one aiding the other - in theory anyway

So of course Unions want money - but their vested interest in the promotion of rugby extends much wider through a country than one private fat-cat boss counting his own private money in his own home town private office.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Feckless Rogue wrote:If the Heineken Cup is finished and replaced with a "new" European tournament, can Leinster still swan around with 3 stars on their jersey?

Yeah but you have to give 3 of your star players away to the English clubs.

Ain't we lucky they're either close to retiring (Bod - one more year) retiring (Nacewa) or already gone to a French club (Sexton). Sorry, Hammer, request just came in too late. We're back to square one.

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Feckless Rogue wrote:If the Heineken Cup is finished and replaced with a "new" European tournament, can Leinster still swan around with 3 stars on their jersey?

Yeah but you have to give 3 of your star players away to the English clubs.

Ain't we lucky they're either close to retiring (Bod - one more year) retiring (Nacewa) or already gone to a French club (Sexton). Sorry, Hammer, request just came in too late. We're back to square one.

We get to pick them. Kearney to Gloucester. Healey to Leicester. And...Madigan (sp?) to Saints

SecretFly wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:You see yet more partisan mud-slinging.

Partisan mud slinging is proposals put forward to drop some 'countries' out of the HEC. And that partisan mud slinging commenced on your shores.

Did I ever say that Franglos were innocent parties? No I did not, we are guilty of being power-mad, cash greedy parasites. I just believe we are not the only ones.

BTW this was your comment I objected to, hard to have a reasoned debate when you say :

Maybe that would actually be an ideal solution for many of the bigger clubs in England and France.

when suggesting that we would want to stop Ireland participating.


Sadly these threads descend into name calling and even normally reasonable people participate. I tried to redress my own shoddy actions by putting up my own proposal on a sensible and fair competition, that grows the game and rewards excellence. People can debate that and their ideas, or we can all (again me included as my behaviour has not been great) behave like spoilt brats in the playground ever so scared that someone else has a bigger slice of birthday cake.

Sorry lads...I forgot the with my "maybe the ideal solution for many of the bigger clubs in France and England" line.

Forgive me, because although it was a satiric swipe and meant to be in jest.... it's also strangely quite pertinent and perhaps quite true, given all that has been said in the not so distant past, both by English clubs and French ones about how easy Irish provinces have it in Pro12, how much they can cotton-wool their best players, how easy it is for them to send out 'weakened' sides in Pro12 and still win, how unfair it is that they keep showing up in HEC looking so fresh and ready when we're all knackered after our travails in bigger and better leagues.

Yeah, so take that line as either a jokey side-swipe at some badly disguised envious swipes at Irish Provinces in recent years...or...take it seriously. The conclusions are the same I guess They don't want to kick us out of Europe but they certainly want to put us back in our box in Europe.

Never forget we're all old enough to remember when it was English and French sides mostly dominating in Europe, and the smirking asides that only English and French sides had the physical savvy to compete at the highest levels in Europe. Suddenly when Irish sides started winning, winning itself became something to be publically suspicious about.

SecretFly wrote:It don't matter how fat-cattish a Union is, the fact is a Union operates on a different fat-cat principle to the fat-cat private owners.

Firstly, a fat-cat private owner is only concerned with his club. His club. He couldn't care less what other club is relegated or goes to the wall and is never seen or heard of again. A fat-cat private owner is only concerned with fat-cat profits for his own club.

He doesn't even give a toss about International. Indeed, many of them would wish International a quick and painful death so that they don't have to worry about International windows, players going off playing for 'other' teams; and it would also be an opporuntiy to turn Club rugby into the new International rugby event with more and more competitions between clubs stretching into the SH. Lotsa money potential in that one.

Union fat-cat operators care about the bottom dollar too. They use Provinces or pseudo clubs to promote their fat-cat ideals of having Provinces/clubs rake in funds yes - all of them - not just one. And then the bonus fat-cat ideal is that the Provinces lend their experienced players to International duty...more money again, ana perpetual motion machine of one aiding the other - in theory anyway

So of course Unions want money - but their vested interest in the promotion of rugby extends much wider through a country than one private fat-cat boss counting his own private money in his own home town private office.

If there were an infinite supply of other well-financed clubs to compete with, and no interest from players in playing internationally, then that might be true. But it's not.

If you look at what the PRL actually do, the club owners regularly put the success of the league as a whole ahead of the interests of individual clubs. Payments are smoothed across clubs, the salary cap makes the playing field more level. It's not perfect (new promotees are at a disadvantage until they can buy into the PRL), but it's much more socialised than you might expect (until you look at the economics of a nascent professional sport).

Likewise, whether the owners like international rugby or not, they recognise that their players want to play for their countries and that if they want the best players they need to accommodate international rugby - as long as it is balanced with the demands of a club season.

There is such a thing as enlightened self-interest.

There's such a thing as a Union that likes to be in profit rather than in debt.

We can run this car around the roundabout as long as there is petrol in it but you'll still think what you think Poorfour, and I'll still obviously think what I think.

LondonTiger wrote:




Sadly these threads descend into name calling and even normally reasonable people participate.

I don't see any name calling, Tiger. I see a fair modicum of courtesy shown by all. People willing to hear other arguments but more than willing to put across their own - and yeah, often acerbic ones. But the sharpness comes from all of us knowing where we sit, knowing when our sensitivity is offended by what we all perceive as sometimes blatant ignorance of our ideals, postions, and aspirations. And yeah, I'd obviously include me in that soup, both as a guy who can get frustrated that people so readily misinterpret/be willfully ignorant of how a person from Pro12 might look on this whole debate; but also realising that I too frustrate other people when they try to make their points coming from their side of the hill - AP.

We stand at different ends of a pretty deep argument but I don't see name calling as part of it.

Meritocracy rules and if that is too hard then 50% of each 'participant' teams into the HC and the other half into the Amblin. Equal pay for all participants.

If the ERC do get canned from their cosy Dublin tax breaks, we might get some sensible discussion, both by the participants and folk on here too for that matter.

Domestic and grassroots need to be supported before all this cherry on the cake stuff.

Yep, Recwatcher.... that's your side of the hill and you're consistent too with your percentages point.

But I agree on equal pay for all participants up until pay-outs for final positioning in the competitions themselves. That is to say, winners will deserve extra slices of course.

Oh for a proper official announcement. Then we'll know what to expect.

In the meantime at least this thread has been reasonably civilised.

Unlike the unholy one that will follow the official announcement,

Recwatcher wrote:Meritocracy rules and if that is too hard then 50% of each 'participant' teams into the HC and the other half into the Amblin. Equal pay for all participants.

If the ERC do get canned from their cosy Dublin tax breaks, we might get some sensible discussion, both by the participants and folk on here too for that matter.

Domestic and grassroots need to be supported before all this cherry on the cake stuff.

How can it be meritocratic? The three leagues only have 38 teams between them so how is that split between two competitions? Some additonal teams outside those leagues have to be invited from different Unions that won't have qualified on merit at all. Of course 50% of the T14 is seven so apart from the fixture problem, presumably they should also get more money since they provide more teams?

Additionally how meritocratic is it that say Leicester qualify every year, yet receive the same money as say Worcester - or indeed that Worcester receive more participation money than say Bucuresti?

The Great Aukster wrote:

Recwatcher wrote:Meritocracy rules and if that is too hard then 50% of each 'participant' teams into the HC and the other half into the Amblin. Equal pay for all participants.

If the ERC do get canned from their cosy Dublin tax breaks, we might get some sensible discussion, both by the participants and folk on here too for that matter.

Domestic and grassroots need to be supported before all this cherry on the cake stuff.

How can it be meritocratic? The three leagues only have 38 teams between them so how is that split between two competitions? Some additonal teams outside those leagues have to be invited from different Unions that won't have qualified on merit at all. Of course 50% of the T14 is seven so apart from the fixture problem, presumably they should also get more money since they provide more teams?

Additionally how meritocratic is it that say Leicester qualify every year, yet receive the same money as say Worcester - or indeed that Worcester receive more participation money than say Bucuresti?

That's my sentiment entirely Auk.
As is the 6Ns v divisional 4Ns, it all follows the same logic except that lucre speaks louder than faith.

Kingshu wrote:

greytiger wrote:I hate to say this but - I told you so.

Since the Rabo refused to negotiate in the first place, they have been losing bargaining chips throughout the winter as the pool tables show.

Unsurprisingly (again as I predicted) the last chance saloon was bound to be busy last weekend and the only gunslingers in town were almost all from England and France.

The Rabo should have negotiated eight months ago. But it appears that they are left with a tear in the eye, a bleeding hole in the foot and a smoking gun in their hand.

One semi-finalist, 2 quater finalists in H-cup and win the Almin cup.
Not bad
England
One Semi–final, 3 Quarter–finals didn't even reach semi's in Almin

so England one more Q finalist but IRFU win almin, (ERC rank Q-final as 5 points, and Almin win as 6 points) so Pro 12 performed better than the Jeff.

But one years results don't mean much, as a Union could just have a bad draw and its teams all go out early, and the next year it could have 3 teams in the semi's and wins it. So for the Pro 12 Unions 8 months ago wasn't a position of strength compared to now.

Look the ERC ranking (uses the last 4 years) French have 5 teams in top 10 Pro 12 have 3 teams in top 10 , Jeff have 2 (9th and 10th).

When it comes to reducing the number of teams in the Heineken and getting them to compete in the Amlin, the more critical issue is what is happening at the bottom of the pool tables. Which are the more regularly least competitive sides that would find a more similar level in the Amlin, elevating their chance of success and the competitiveness of the cups.

For the 3 HC seasons that the Pro12 has been in existence, with France & England providing 13 sides to the 6 pools and the Pro12 nations providing 11 sides, the bottom placed teams have disproportionately come from the Pro12; bottom in 5 pools this year, 3 the year before and 4 the year before that. French & English sides have never constituted more than half of the bottom placed sides for the history of the competition and only made up half of the sides on two occasions.

If the Guardian outline is to be believed then the Pro12 would see its number of HC entrants reduced from between 3-5, and the French & English sides stay the same or reduced/increased by 1.

I feel that only the extreme of that system with the French & English sides reduced by at least 1 comes close to reflecting the less competitive sides to date and would prefer to see the proposed 7th & 8th play-off on the back of other teams' performances dropped and those spots simply allotted to the Pro12. I'd also happily see the competition reduced by a further 2 with those sides coming from the French & English allocation, or those spots up for grabs in a cross league play-off when the leagues' play-off finals are taking place.

The question has to be asked;

Is this system going to make it more or less likely that the three-way dominance of Irish, French and English sides is broken and we see a Welsh, Scottish or Italian trophy winner? Because it seems like the TV money split is just going to reinforce the pecking order and keep the nations that are down, down. It's just going to make a situation where the rich get richer and stronger and the weak get weaker and poorer.

If you watch the Premiership in football, it's incredibly dull to see one team assembled with millions and millions toying with a side assembled on maybe 10% of the budget. It's just boring from a competitive point of view. We're volunteering to create a two-speed Europe where things like Edinburghs run to the semi-finals last year or Ulsters mix of pros and part-timers shocking Europe in 1999 just don't happen. Guess thats good for the big teams who were sitting at home watching an unforeseen Ulster vs Edinburgh semi-final last year... not good for rugby in Europe as a whole.

Another thing- what happens if Italy, Scotland or Wales leaves the Pro12? They have no way of entering sides into European competition? The Pro12 is not a domestic league. It is an international competition the same as the Heineken Cup. Having the Pro12 enter teams is a somewhat ridiculous precedent to set when the future membership of the Pro12 isn't fixed!!

markb wrote:

Kingshu wrote:

greytiger wrote:I hate to say this but - I told you so.

Since the Rabo refused to negotiate in the first place, they have been losing bargaining chips throughout the winter as the pool tables show.

Unsurprisingly (again as I predicted) the last chance saloon was bound to be busy last weekend and the only gunslingers in town were almost all from England and France.

The Rabo should have negotiated eight months ago. But it appears that they are left with a tear in the eye, a bleeding hole in the foot and a smoking gun in their hand.

One semi-finalist, 2 quater finalists in H-cup and win the Almin cup.
Not bad
England
One Semi–final, 3 Quarter–finals didn't even reach semi's in Almin

so England one more Q finalist but IRFU win almin, (ERC rank Q-final as 5 points, and Almin win as 6 points) so Pro 12 performed better than the Jeff.

But one years results don't mean much, as a Union could just have a bad draw and its teams all go out early, and the next year it could have 3 teams in the semi's and wins it. So for the Pro 12 Unions 8 months ago wasn't a position of strength compared to now.

Look the ERC ranking (uses the last 4 years) French have 5 teams in top 10 Pro 12 have 3 teams in top 10 , Jeff have 2 (9th and 10th).

When it comes to reducing the number of teams in the Heineken and getting them to compete in the Amlin, the more critical issue is what is happening at the bottom of the pool tables. Which are the more regularly least competitive sides that would find a more similar level in the Amlin, elevating their chance of success and the competitiveness of the cups.

For the 3 HC seasons that the Pro12 has been in existence, with France & England providing 13 sides to the 6 pools and the Pro12 nations providing 11 sides, the bottom placed teams have disproportionately come from the Pro12; bottom in 5 pools this year, 3 the year before and 4 the year before that. French & English sides have never constituted more than half of the bottom placed sides for the history of the competition and only made up half of the sides on two occasions.

If the Guardian outline is to be believed then the Pro12 would see its number of HC entrants reduced from between 3-5, and the French & English sides stay the same or reduced/increased by 1.

I feel that only the extreme of that system with the French & English sides reduced by at least 1 comes close to reflecting the less competitive sides to date and would prefer to see the proposed 7th & 8th play-off on the back of other teams' performances dropped and those spots simply allotted to the Pro12. I'd also happily see the competition reduced by a further 2 with those sides coming from the French & English allocation, or those spots up for grabs in a cross league play-off when the leagues' play-off finals are taking place.

Is not the current official ERC system not bizarre? It ranks results from four years ago in Euro competition as equal as if they were yesterday. The logical consequence is that Leinster are pooled with ASM or similar outrageous anomalies.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:What amazes me about BSB losing rugby to BT is how cool they are about it. They haven't dropped prices to be competitive or even entered the metaphorical ring.

While BT are giving away this expensive sport deal for free to all new customers???

I suspect that the Rabo coverage buy was their response Maes - if the HC goes belly-up they'll judge that the Rabo will become a stronger comp, as the top players turn out more often. And ultimately they're keeping their powder dry to protect the bigger (unfortunately) prize - their massive share of English soccer coverage.

Sky currently have the dominant position in PayTV, and they've takjen a lot of phone/internet off BT over the past couple of years (my flatmate managed to wangle free calls to NZ and Ireland landlines when we switched to Sky for phone/web/TV, a useful freebee in reverse), they can afford to wait and see how BT go for a while.

Also if the HEC goes boobs up then technically the Rabo becomes the top european wide competition.

So what though, Grey. The number of times I've heard that one this season. Leinster and Clermont in the same pool - tragedy!!!! Gloom!!!!

Leinster is my team and I didn't give a damn. You have to play good enough to be in HEC all the time. You have to meet some pretty hot sides eventually. It doesn't matter to me when. I hate these attempts (artificial ones) trying to perfect the 'prefect' conclusion to a season with the 'top' sides coming together in a final, like all 'purists' want.

I think that's a jaded idea. HC is a successful product. I mean its successful on a marketing level. It's a bigger deal than more skilled competitions elsewhere. It has captured people's imaginations. I don't care where the excitement comes - the pools should be challenging and entertaining too - and that's something like Leinster and Clermont meeting. That's dramatic. We lost out. So be it. Stronger side went on. Here's to next season.

Notch wrote:The question has to be asked;

Is this system going to make it more or less likely that the three-way dominance of Irish, French and English sides is broken and we see a Welsh, Scottish or Italian trophy winner? Because it seems like the TV money split is just going to reinforce the pecking order and keep the nations that are down, down. It's just going to make a situation where the rich get richer and stronger and the weak get weaker and poorer.

If you watch the Premiership in football, it's incredibly dull to see one team assembled with millions and millions toying with a side assembled on maybe 10% of the budget. It's just boring from a competitive point of view. We're volunteering to create a two-speed Europe where things like Edinburghs run to the semi-finals last year or Ulsters mix of pros and part-timers shocking Europe in 1999 just don't happen. Guess thats good for the big teams who were sitting at home watching an unforeseen Ulster vs Edinburgh semi-final last year... not good for rugby in Europe as a whole.

Another thing- what happens if Italy, Scotland or Wales leaves the Pro12? They have no way of entering sides into European competition? The Pro12 is not a domestic league. It is an international competition the same as the Heineken Cup. Having the Pro12 enter teams is a somewhat ridiculous precedent to set when the future membership of the Pro12 isn't fixed!!

The proposal is to equalise the funding for all teams in either 1st or 2nd tier (no idea what happens with 3rd tier). All teams that take part in either competition would get an equal share. So Tigers would get just as much for qualifying for the 1st tier as Zebre get if they're in the Amlin and lose every game in the Pro12. I'd assume that some sort of prize is also kept for getting to the group stages.

Obviously there are sponsorship issues which have an impact on finances.

However this is still all based on suggestions in a single newspaper that didn't have any official quotes to back it up.

Secret re your post at 5.24 that is what the PRL want and would get with each league getting a 1/3, apart from the French who have 2 more clubs in their league.
IIRC at the moment the PRL share the money between all its members so a club that hasn't been in the HC gets the same amount as Leicester who are the only English club to have qualified for every HC that the English entered.

broadlandboy wrote:Secret re your post at 5.24 that is what the PRL want and would get with each league getting a 1/3, apart from the French who have 2 more clubs in their league.
IIRC at the moment the PRL share the money between all its members so a club that hasn't been in the HC gets the same amount as Leicester who are the only English club to have qualified for every HC that the English entered.

Broadland, I've said over and over again here and on other threads that whilst I acknowledge money is a big part of these discussions (ie, more of it for some sides and less of it in percentage terms for others) I personally am not concerned with that aspect of the negotiations. Never have been. I laugh at all the constant talk of money actually because it's not my interest.

My interest is the allotment of places for the competition and my annoyance that other leagues want to influence how another league does things in that regard.

If all the English and French sides wanted was a bigger slice of the pie in money terms, I genuinely wouldn't have much to say in this debate. I'd say debate the money by all means and leave the process of entry into the competition alone. Other leagues assuming to dictate who gets in and who should be left out of HC - that's my main issue.

Secret, sorry for the misunderstanding. I have read most of this & previous threads about the future of the HC & this was the first time I can remember someone from the Rabo side agreeing that the Rabo teams get more money than the Aviva/Top14 teams.

broadlandboy wrote:Secret, sorry for the misunderstanding. I have read most of this & previous threads about the future of the HC & this was the first time I can remember someone from the Rabo side agreeing that the Rabo teams get more money than the Aviva/Top14 teams.

I'm sure the Scottish and Italian teams get more than the Irish teams from the HEC. I don't hear any Irish complaining about that. The English and French get most of the money as it is and how they divide it is no concern of anyone else but they (English esp) still complain about other teams making more money.

The English clubs and French clubs in Europe would get much more money than the Celtic nations if they didn't share it out with the other teams in their league. So maybe they should be looking closer to home. Why should the bottom team in the English league be making as much or more than Leinster for example. It makes feck all sense from any angle including viewing figures etc.

profitius wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Secret, sorry for the misunderstanding. I have read most of this & previous threads about the future of the HC & this was the first time I can remember someone from the Rabo side agreeing that the Rabo teams get more money than the Aviva/Top14 teams.

I'm sure the Scottish and Italian teams get more than the Irish teams from the HEC. I don't hear any Irish complaining about that. The English and French get most of the money as it is and how they divide it is no concern of anyone else but they (English esp) still complain about other teams making more money.

The English clubs and French clubs in Europe would get much more money than the Celtic nations if they didn't share it out with the other teams in their league. So maybe they should be looking closer to home. Why should the bottom team in the English league be making as much or more than Leinster for example. It makes feck all sense from any angle including viewing figures etc.

For the PRL this is a matter of survival. Having 12 viable teams in the Premiership is more important than any one club's success. The PRL chooses to implement a salary cap and smooth revenues across the member clubs in order to ensure a level playing field and a competitive league. In a nascent professional sport where teams are not yet self-sustaining, you have to think that way. Allocating money strictly on the basis of success is a certain way to ensure that in the long run everyone fails.

The top 6 in the PRL could choose to break away, hoard the RFU's HEC revenue and focus solely on Europe, but they'd quickly find that they had no-one to play against in the domestic competition, at which point they would not be sustainable.

There's been a lot of "for the good of rugby" talk on this discussion, but very little of it has considered that successful English and French leagues are also important for the good of rugby.

At the moment, English and French teams are playing in a competition where the teams they play against have a structural advantage in terms of revenue from the tournament and qualification. The fact that the Rabo teams don't have to worry (much about qualification) distorts the competition and masks the financial disparities. Imagine if Leinster did have to qualify and had wild swings in income depending on whether it did or not.