HEC dead

First topic message reminder :

http://www.premiershiprugby.com/mobile/news/28786.php

At least until ERC and the IRB tell them they're ultra vires.

Interesting times.

Toadfish wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

profitius wrote:It looks like this will all blow up in the PRL's face. Among the lastest lies, threats and ultimatums there was this little gem in the last paragraph..  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/10303492/Welsh-plea-to-English-and-French-to-save-Heineken-Cup.html

"If the RFU and the FFR decide not to support us then there will be no European club rugby. Some of the best rugby played is in the European Cup competition. There is no way back.”

Sounds like they're threatening on the one hand and pleading with the RFU on the other hand. They're not in such a strong position after all.


What I take from that is there'll be no HEC cup and there'll be no Anglo French cup. Therefore the PRL lose out on their BT contract or a large part of that contract. In other words it looks like a massive gamble on their part and they're not sure of it succeeding. It all depends on the RFU and FFR and we all know what they think of the clubs already.

Or if there is an Anglo-French cup, it'll be outside the auspices of the IRB and could land the RFU and FFR in deep trouble. The English and French clubs' money will still tempt players from other countries, but that lure would be weakened if they knew that, by signing, they ran the risk of making themselves ineligible to play Test rugby.

Someone here's already mentioned Kerry Packer, haven't they?

Why would it be outside the auspices of the IRB?  The French and English have no contractual obligation to play in a competition from the end of next season.  Why would they stop a new competition?  I suppose the other option for them would be to force both countries into a competition they didn't want to be part but last I checked the IRB weren't some kind of fascist dictatorship?

Also if you are trying to use the Packer reference as a stick to beat the PRL with you don't really know your history.

You need to clarify what you mean by that. The PRL aren't English rugby.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Rugby Fan, fair point, but it's a fact that PRL care only for its small number of clubs. Each union, on the other hand, looks after hundreds of clubs.

...the majority of which are not, and will never be, professional. The RFU does some great stuff at the borderline between amateur and professional (Quins, for instance, would not have Joe Marler or Kyle Sinckler without the RFU's development officers). It also does a reasonable job of administering some of the game-wide stuff and looking after the international game, though not without room for improvement.

That doesn't make it the only fit organisation to control a professional competition. Not saying it shouldn't have a say, but its role in the broader game doesn't mean that it (and the IRFU, WRU, SRU, FIR and FFR) should collectively have more say than the clubs who compete in it.

maestegmafia wrote:Dont the RFU still think that what the PRL are doing is illegal, they said so before. They have certainly distanced themselves from the PRL decisions.

My recollection is that a former RFU employee stated that he thinks it's illegal. However, Martyn Thomas may just want to make some friends abroad as he certainly doesn't have many left either in the RFU or PRL.

Anyway, my honest suspicion is that it is a shambles on all sides of the debate. I suspect a lot of it comes down to how you interpret specific lines in various contracts. E.g. and speaking hypothetically as like everyone else here I have no idea of the exact details... if the EPS agreement between the RFU and PRL says that PRL have to honour the ERC agreements up to 2015/16 you will probably get lawyers arguing over whether that means they should remain active in the competition, or whether what they've done is okay as they used an agreed process to exit by giving 2 years notice. But even if the RFU won that battle it would only be a stay of execution as there is nothing tying the clubs in beyond 2015/16. Whatever the outcome it wouldn't surprise me if lawyers are the only real winners.

In terms of PRL selling rights to European competition - I always thought the main point of that move was to provide evidence that the tournament could be sold for a lot more than ERC were getting from Sky. ERC could have said, 'Wow, that's a great offer, what are BT prepared to offer for the rest of the games and if it's significantly better than the offer from Sky we'll go with it'. They didn't though. They just signed up with what seem to be their mates at Sky regardless.

If I'm honest I have grievances with the ERC, the RFU and PRL - and not just on the current debate. We will just have to wait and see how things play out but I don't see the HEC lasting much longer, and long term I think that everyone may benefit from it coming to a close.

The IRB/unions could stop a cross border comp but with the money involved I could see a Restraint of Trade case in the European Court. My money would be on the clubs

Poorfour wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Rugby Fan, fair point, but it's a fact that PRL care only for its small number of clubs. Each union, on the other hand, looks after hundreds of clubs.

...the majority of which are not, and will never be, professional. The RFU does some great stuff at the borderline between amateur and professional (Quins, for instance, would not have Joe Marler or Kyle Sinckler without the RFU's development officers). It also does a reasonable job of administering some of the game-wide stuff and looking after the international game, though not without room for improvement.

That doesn't make it the only fit organisation to control a professional competition. Not saying it shouldn't have a say, but its role in the broader game doesn't mean that it (and the IRFU, WRU, SRU, FIR and FFR) should collectively have more say than the clubs who compete in it.

Agree with that. There is a careful balance that need to be struck, but at least in England I think that has more to do with the EPS agreement than anything on the European Cup side.

Poorfour wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Rugby Fan, fair point, but it's a fact that PRL care only for its small number of clubs. Each union, on the other hand, looks after hundreds of clubs.

...the majority of which are not, and will never be, professional. The RFU does some great stuff at the borderline between amateur and professional (Quins, for instance, would not have Joe Marler or Kyle Sinckler without the RFU's development officers). It also does a reasonable job of administering some of the game-wide stuff and looking after the international game, though not without room for improvement.

That doesn't make it the only fit organisation to control a professional competition. Not saying it shouldn't have a say, but its role in the broader game doesn't mean that it (and the IRFU, WRU, SRU, FIR and FFR) should collectively have more say than the clubs who compete in it.

The PRL is an organisation representing the interests of the elite club owners, not even all the professional and semi professional clubs in England.

Poorfour wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Rugby Fan, fair point, but it's a fact that PRL care only for its small number of clubs. Each union, on the other hand, looks after hundreds of clubs.

...the majority of which are not, and will never be, professional. The RFU does some great stuff at the borderline between amateur and professional (Quins, for instance, would not have Joe Marler or Kyle Sinckler without the RFU's development officers). It also does a reasonable job of administering some of the game-wide stuff and looking after the international game, though not without room for improvement.

That doesn't make it the only fit organisation to control a professional competition. Not saying it shouldn't have a say, but its role in the broader game doesn't mean that it (and the IRFU, WRU, SRU, FIR and FFR) should collectively have more say than the clubs who compete in it.

Thing is the unions (and I am not a WRU fan at all) are still going to be there in a decades time. Say the next european cup is brokered by the PRL for the clubs, and Leicester, Saints, Quins, Sarries, Exeter and Glaws make it in, there is nothing to say that within a decade that those teams will ever be in the prem still. The same for the French, just look how hteir pecking order has changed over the last decade. So that is why I think letting the clubs reps, arrange a competition is not as good as allowing the unions to do it, especially when you look at some of hte iffy PRL issues with founding member getting more cash for being in the Championship than some other teams get for being in the prem etc.

"So, what you've written there is in effect accusing me of being intellectually dishonest and having no interest in the facts. Please could you point to where I have displayed either of these traits, because in my mind I have consistently tried to argue only from the available facts and be intellectually honest about where I stand and why I feel my views are worth consideration? In response to which, I should add, I have largely received responses that merely restate a position with no serious effort to consider the other side of the argument, and have been distinctly sparing in consideration of facts.

It takes a lot to offend me, but you've done it.

Take your last point, for example. Where are the facts that show the unions have the long term interests of the game at heart? Or that the  club owners are only in it for short term profit? The WRU are accused of lining their pockets and damaging the regions chances by playing extra AIs; the SRU is struggling even to maintain two teams; the RFU were asleep at the wheel when professionalism started and are regularly accused of ripping off fans.

Meanwhile, the much despised money-men behind the PRL have bankrolled the game to the tune of about £6-10m per club over the last 15 years. Most of them are yet to see a profit and most of them have invested heavily in trying to make the game sustainable. Which, by the way, even the RFU doesn't have deep enough pockets to achieve. I am not saying they're spotless - but to accuse them of short term profit taking is in direct contradiction of the facts.

Where's your intellectual honesty now?"




Ok, I will address all your points, but one at a time.

You assert that PRL represent 26 AP clubs when coming to the table. First of all, they don't. They represent those who qualify to take part in the HEC, and of which is a long way off 26. Secondly, who are these 26 AP teams?

*Edit:

26 AP and T14 teams in total. I misread your comment, beshocked, and so apologies for my lack of attention to detail.

broadlandboy wrote:The IRB/unions could stop a cross border comp but with the money involved I could see a Restraint of Trade case in the European Court. My money would be on the clubs

There is no restraint of trade, the clubs can just leave the union.

broadlandboy wrote:The IRB/unions could stop a cross border comp but with the money involved I could see a Restraint of Trade case in the European Court. My money would be on the clubs

The is no restraint of trade argument whatsoever. You can't try to start something new and claim that everyone is restricting your ability to make profit. If the PRL and LNR leave the ERC the ERC are not restricting their right to make profit in any way, it is their own decision.

There is though a case that the IRB could fine the RFU and FFR in some ways if they then created a situation that they deemed had a big effect on professional rugby in the other four nations that had been involved in the ERC.

maestegmafia wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:The IRB/unions could stop a cross border comp but with the money involved I could see a Restraint of Trade case in the European Court. My money would be on the clubs

The is no restraint of trade argument whatsoever. You can't try to start something new and claim that everyone is restricting your ability to make profit. If the PRL and LNR leave the ERC the ERC are not restricting their right to make profit in any way, it is their own decision.

There is though a case that the IRB could fine the RFU and FFR in some ways if they then created a situation that they deemed had a big effect on professional rugby in the other four nations that had been involved in the ERC.

Two questions:

- In hypothetical situation 1 where the French and English tried to form a new competition on what grounds would the IRB not allow this to be formed?
- In hypothetical situation 2 what happens if the notice period expires and the French and English don't form a new comp and don't sign up again with the ERC? Will the IRB still get involved then?

Munchkin - I think you mis-read his comment. IT was something along the lines of

26 Jeff & T14 teams Vrs 12 Rabo Pro 12 Teams.

As in 26 teams on the PRL/LNR side (12 Jeff, 14 T14) and 12 teams on the WRU/SRU/FIR/IRFU side. Or at least that is how I read it after originally thinking "26 Jeff sides thats wrong"

The RFU and FFR should be in talks now with the Pro 12 about setting up regional teams in England and France and even further away like Spain. We could have a proper European league that would be like Super rugby but with more divisions.

Why should only the 4 Rabo Unions be subsidized? Why not all European Unions? I am sure they would love some more money

profitius wrote:The RFU and FFR should be in talks now with the Pro 12 about setting up regional teams in England and France and even further away like Spain. We could have a proper European league that would be like Super rugby but with more divisions.

Who is to say that the RFU and FFR are not doing this whilst the PRL and LNR are off cooking up their plans. Just think we could be living in an era that will go down in history when the NH rugby world split for the second time (like League & Union) we may end up with a third form of Rugby. Legaue- the 13 man game, Club League - The pro clubs of towns and cities, and Union - regions and provinces.

profitius wrote:The RFU and FFR should be in talks now with the Pro 12 about setting up regional teams in England and France and even further away like Spain. We could have a proper European league that would be like Super rugby but with more divisions.

FFR and RFU need to come out and clarify there positions

Posted on May 21, 2013

''FFR president Pierre Camou summoned senior representatives of the six competing nations amid signs that the French clubs, far from quitting, are willing to get back to the negotiating table.

Camou, a retired 68-year-old banker, is understood to have backed up his call for the French clubs to get back in line by warning that they will be replaced in Europe if necessary by makeshift French teams chosen on a regional basis''.

Student-A1 wrote:Standulstermen, this in no way is meant to be read as I am having a go at your comment but the issue you mention about more internationals has been raised a few times. But people have mentioned IRB approval here about and English French cup but it would be needed here, international windows and all. Then you have player release from the English and French clubs. It just seems to be easy to say but would be so difficult to sort out if at all possible. I would also have my doubts over especially with the Welsh RFU over how much money the regions would see from any extra internationals as they make the English RFU seem well run which is something I never thought I would say.
With the Sky deal coming in I have no doubt the Rabo will be more successful as they will push it better than the BBC, so this I believe strengthens the argument for each league getting equal money for the HEC and a different qualifying process. I am sure Sky will want a league where teams in 7th and 8th are fighting for that 6th spot. Anything to pull in viewers.

Student

No worries I do take your points and they are issues but hardly insurmountable if you consider the very future of pro rugby in the Celtic unions to be on the line.
-unions can claim they will not consider players who do not play in the Celtic competitions much as the NZRU do. Let's not forget that even thought the likes of sexton/roberts etc play in France for hefty sums they have negotiated that they are free for international windows. International rugby is still the pinnacle of the game and players get into rugby dreaming of playing for their country. The NZRU have been using the lure of the all black jersey for years.
- the welsh rfu and their relationship with the regions is again a massive issue but should the HEC wind down as looks to be the case the WRU would need to act conciliatory or else the pro game in Wales would fail.
- I disagree regarding the funding. 4 moons getting half of what two unions get isn't right to my mind but of greater concern would be the shareholding I suspect.
- as for IRB approval well the IRB is made up of the unions not the clubs and given some of the language used by the PRL and the LNR I think it follows logically to say the IRB would be much more supportive of one than the other.

As I say I don't think it's an easy deal and a restructured HEC (under union control) is what I would like to see happen. The real issue here is the the clubs want BT cash. Medium to long term they won't have BT cash because they haven't the product. Same can be said for a restructured Rabo and what I suggest. It's whoever makes the best fist of it really.

broadlandboy wrote:Why should only the 4 Rabo Unions be subsidized? Why not all European Unions? I am sure they would love some more money

Eh?

The 4 Rabo Unions are no subsidised, they take the earnings of the regions/provinces and then divy them up (which then people claim is the regions/provinces having union handouts). IF you don't want your union to have control, and you want the money straight to the clubs that is fine, but you can't complain that the rest of us use our unions as middle men. Jeebus, I swear the arguements on here are starting to get beyond cyclic and are getting to the point of just plain bizzare.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Munchkin - I think you mis-read his comment.  IT was something along the lines of

26 Jeff & T14 teams Vrs 12 Rabo Pro 12 Teams.

As in 26 teams on the PRL/LNR side (12 Jeff, 14 T14) and 12 teams on the WRU/SRU/FIR/IRFU side.  Or at least that is how I read it after originally thinking "26 Jeff sides thats wrong"

You're right, I did. My apologies to beshocked. My argument still stands though. Voting rights don't go to those who represent most teams, but to each Union represented. As it should be. beshocked's assertion is wishful thinking, and not based in the present reality, even though it is what PRL are pushing for. Club control over the unions.

The RFU would not want to annoy the clubs this close to a home World Cup. They at last have a working relationship with the clubs giving them extended access to the players outside the international windows

SS
The IRFU admit that they get more out of the ERC than they put in, IIRC about 5 million Euros

Munchkin wrote:"So, what you've written there is in effect accusing me of being intellectually dishonest and having no interest in the facts. Please could you point to where I have displayed either of these traits, because in my mind I have consistently tried to argue only from the available facts and be intellectually honest about where I stand and why I feel my views are worth consideration? In response to which, I should add, I have largely received responses that merely restate a position with no serious effort to consider the other side of the argument, and have been distinctly sparing in consideration of facts.

It takes a lot to offend me, but you've done it.

Take your last point, for example. Where are the facts that show the unions have the long term interests of the game at heart? Or that the  club owners are only in it for short term profit? The WRU are accused of lining their pockets and damaging the regions chances by playing extra AIs; the SRU is struggling even to maintain two teams; the RFU were asleep at the wheel when professionalism started and are regularly accused of ripping off fans.

Meanwhile, the much despised money-men behind the PRL have bankrolled the game to the tune of about £6-10m per club over the last 15 years. Most of them are yet to see a profit and most of them have invested heavily in trying to make the game sustainable. Which, by the way, even the RFU doesn't have deep enough pockets to achieve. I am not saying they're spotless - but to accuse them of short term profit taking is in direct contradiction of the facts.

Where's your intellectual honesty now?"




Ok, I will address all your points, but one at a time.

You assert that PRL represent 26 AP clubs when coming to the table. First of all, they don't. They represent those who qualify to take part in the HEC, and of which is a long way off 26. Secondly, who are these 26 AP teams?

I don't believe I've ever said that the PRL directly represent 26 teams. The PRL represent 12 teams and the LNR represent 14. But they are arguing that the interests of those 26 teams are not fairly considered when the majority of the votes lie with unions that represent neither the 12 AP teams nor the 14 LNR teams.

Secondly, the PRL is a body set up to represent the interests of all the teams currently in the English Premiership [1]. The fact that only 6 of them are in the HEC at any one point in time is not very relevant, since all 12 are involved in ERC-organised competitions each year, and different teams qualify for different competitions in different years. The PRL also actually takes quite a "socialist" view of things among its members and smooths some income across its members. It may be hard to appreciate if you don't live with qualification each year, but the PRL needs to take a long-term view and try to ensure that the interests of all 12 clubs are looked after - for instance trying to ensure that missing out on qualification doesn't result in a disastrous drop in income (one reason for wanting to strengthen the 2nd tier competition).

[1] There's a slight complexity around membership for the promoted team which means, IIRC, the newly promoted don't get a full say unless they stay up for a year. Not ideal, but also not sure that could be improved without scrapping promotion and relegation. And not that relevant to the debate.

ScarletSpiderman, OK I will clarify my point. i wasn't completely saying yes to your pretty silly example but the premise of it. If we take Wales for example, if they were capable of running their own league of fully professional teams. If they supplied the same number of teams to the HEC then I believe that the money should be equal between them and anyone else in the same boat. I do not agree with countries who have failed to market the sport to a level where they are able to establish, maintain and grow a successful national league being given anything but proportionate amount of funds via the fact they are in a joint league.
I know people are saying the Unions are signed up but they are using the League as their qualifying criteria. So it is the league that should be deemed as the member of the ERC, I just do not believe it is right that the 4 unions of a joint league all have an equal say. How can one league out of three that compete contain 4 out of 6 votes. It is just plain crazy and in no way appropriate. Yes it is what was signed up to before, that contract is up. Time for a new one.

Munchkin wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Munchkin - I think you mis-read his comment.  IT was something along the lines of

26 Jeff & T14 teams Vrs 12 Rabo Pro 12 Teams.

As in 26 teams on the PRL/LNR side (12 Jeff, 14 T14) and 12 teams on the WRU/SRU/FIR/IRFU side.  Or at least that is how I read it after originally thinking "26 Jeff sides thats wrong"

You're right, I did. My apologies to beshocked. My argument still stands though. Voting rights don't go to those who represent most teams, but to each Union represented. As it should be. beshocked's assertion is wishful thinking, and not based in the present reality, even though it is what PRL are pushing for. Club control over the unions.

Why? Why is it "as it should be"?

"Unions have the long term interest of the game at heart" is an assertion, not an argument. What's the case that they should be entrusted with this?

Student - I see your point, but I am starting to get a real headache from the arguements that are being bounded around on here.  It is like constantly arguing on a bleeding turntable, one minute it is how team qualify is unfair, then it is that unions are involved, then it is that we are too weak to compete, then it is that we get easy qualification......arrrgggghhhh (thats not aimed at you or anyone in particular, but just a general summing up)

broadlandboy wrote:Why should only the 4 Rabo Unions be subsidized? Why not all European Unions? I am sure they would love some more money

So English are just paying to watch English teams?! If thats your logic then the English cup would attract as many fans. See now where your logic is miles off?


In fact the HEC has been so popular in every country because there are numerous teams that can win it. If it was Anglo French teams winning all the time it wouldn't be half as valuable. So thats the value the Pro 12 teams brings to the competition. Thats what people pay to watch, competition between strong teams.


I think its appalling how the PRL and LNR have decided to ignore what Pro 12 teams have done in building up the HEC. The unions built it up and now the clubs see a valuable asset and want to take control of it - cuckoo style! But the silver lining is an Anglo French competition will show them what they've been missing because fans in England and France will get bored of it quickly.

Student-A1 wrote:I do not agree with countries who have failed to market the sport to a level where they are able to establish, maintain and grow a successful national league being given anything but proportionate amount of funds via the fact they are in a joint league.

Your argument is flawed in the fact that you think profit making marketing in England (60m people) and Wales (3m people) is the same thing and as likely to make equivalent margins.

Ireland and Wales can only just sustain four fully professional sides, Scotland and Italy just two.

broadlandboy wrote:The RFU would not want to annoy the clubs this close to a home World Cup. They at last have a working relationship with the clubs giving them extended access to the players outside the international windows

That may be so, but I can imagine the players' union might get a few phonecalls if the clubs acting outside the auspices of the IRB affected the chances of the players playing international rugby.

If the clubs decide to act without the IRB's blessing, there will be consequences. The question is whether the RFU and FFR are prepared to take that hit for a small (albeit powerful) number of their clubs.

Student, you do realise that the population of Wales is around 3.5 million right ? How the hell are we suppsoed to have our own professional league ? The London rugby clubs have more people in their catchment areas than we do in our entire country and aren't spread over a large area with inadequate transport links.

profitius wrote:

I think its appalling how the PRL and LNR have decided to ignore what Pro 12 teams have done in building up the HEC.

I find it appaling that Rabo clubs (and fans) think it's their competition only, and that the English and French clubs (and fans) have no right to question how it's run.

maestegmafia, why is it floored because they have less people?? Lets be honest Ireland should be able to do it and if Wales have lost the fans to football as Swansea and Cardiff have done everything to pull in fans.

But if we put it down to the club numbers, why should Unions that representing 12 clubs have a combined voting number of 4 when a Union representing 12 and one representing 14 has only 1 each?? This is a completely valid argument the PRL are making as be honest now you know all 4 Rabo Unions will vote as one.

munkian wrote:Student, you do realise that the population of Wales is around 3.5 million right ? How the hell are we suppsoed to have our own professional league ?  The London rugby clubs have more people in their catchment areas than we do in our entire country and aren't spread over a large area with inadequate transport links.

Where theirs a will theres a way, it could be done; but it's not the English or French clubs fault.

Scrumpy wrote:

profitius wrote:

I think its appalling how the PRL and LNR have decided to ignore what Pro 12 teams have done in building up the HEC.

I find it appaling that Rabo clubs (and fans) think it's their competition only, and that the English and French clubs (and fans) have no right to question how it's run.

It works both ways, which neither side want to admit.

The HEC was started without the English at all. They were invited into the competition, and now are the ones that are making the biggest noises about trying to rip it appart (BT deal etc).

However, the celtic unions and the FIR, can not stop the RFU or FFR from pulling out if they wish. However we do not need to deal with the PRL or LNR, they are not our problem, but the problem of the RFU/FFR.

As I see it the PRL is the real driving force behind all this with the LNR sniffing around to see what deal they may be able to piggy back.

This is the single biggest cross roads NH rugby has ever reached and the PRL and LNR must be stopped at all costs. They are motivated by greed and profit only.

They do not give a sh1t about the future of NH international rugby, grass roots rugby, the six nations, the Italian, Welsh, Scottish, English, French or Irish international teams and their proposals if granted will inevitably badly and possibly irrovocably damage most if not all of the above.

I expect the ERC to hold strong and refute all their proposals and never sanction their own tournament for the preservation of the game.

So a Franglo comp would be worthless without the Rabo teams but a European comp with third level teams from Fra/Eng would????????

broadlandboy wrote:So a Franglo comp would be worthless without the Rabo teams but a European comp with third level teams from Fra/Eng would????????

Thats how I read it!!!!!

Many people accuse the PRL/LNR of doing this for profit. Only a few break even at most most years. They see the chance to break even but are held back by the ERC

Student-A1 wrote:maestegmafia, why is it floored because they have less people?? Lets be honest Ireland should be able to do it and if Wales have lost the fans to football as Swansea and Cardiff have done everything to pull in fans.

But if we put it down to the club numbers, why should Unions that representing 12 clubs have a combined voting number of 4 when a Union representing 12 and one representing 14 has only 1 each?? This is a completely valid argument the PRL are making as be honest now you know all 4 Rabo Unions will vote as one.

To have a fully professional league you mean? You don't really know much about sport in Ireland do you?

I don't believe I've ever said that the PRL directly represent 26 teams. The PRL represent 12 teams and the LNR represent 14. But they are arguing that the interests of those 26 teams are not fairly considered when the majority of the votes lie with unions that represent neither the 12 AP teams nor the 14 LNR teams.

Secondly, the PRL is a body set up to represent the interests of all the teams currently in the English Premiership [1]. The fact that only 6 of them are in the HEC at any one point in time is not very relevant, since all 12 are involved in ERC-organised competitions each year, and different teams qualify for different competitions in different years. The PRL also actually takes quite a "socialist" view of things among its members and smooths some income across its members. It may be hard to appreciate if you don't live with qualification each year, but the PRL needs to take a long-term view and try to ensure that the interests of all 12 clubs are looked after - for instance trying to ensure that missing out on qualification doesn't result in a disastrous drop in income (one reason for wanting to strengthen the 2nd tier competition).

[1] There's a slight complexity around membership for the promoted team which means, IIRC, the newly promoted don't get a full say unless they stay up for a year. Not ideal, but also not sure that could be improved without scrapping promotion and relegation. And not that relevant to the debate.[/quote]

No you didn't. A lazy error on my part, and one which I've addressed on the previous post.
You're arguing a numbers game, beshocked, as are the PRL, and you're also lumping in the LNR with PRL to help support your contention. I'm not convinced the LNR actually wholeheartedly support the views of PRL. They are 2 separate entities, and my feeling from reading the various articles thus far, is that rather than join some new competition consisting of the PRL, and LNR, the LNR may well decide to opt out of any European competition altogether if no resolution is to be found in the current ERC crises. They may not, but I believe it to be a genuine risk.
Let's say that the LNR do in fact decide to join with PRL in forming a new competition. Then what? Unless the other Unions agree to also join in with this new competition I don't envisage a huge success, I'm thinking a glorified LV, and I don't ever see the IRFU sanctioning such a move.

broadlandboy wrote:Many people accuse the PRL/LNR of doing this for profit. Only a few break even at most most years. They see the chance to break even but are held back by the ERC

The think is the other side or the arguement is this. If you have £10 but your neighbour has £5, then your are rich, but if you have £10m, and your neighbour has £25m then your poor. It is all relative. And if the new deal comes around it will leave the Rabo sides even poorer than they are now, even though they will technically be richer.

The player drain on the Celtic/Italian players will be far far greater, and the competition will turn into a real farce, with the top NH players playing in the top 6 Jeff/T14 sides and the rest of the NH teams being just dross, which would make your own league far more like the football prem, no real change at the top of the table, same teams different order, every season. Whilst I can understand why the top 6 of the T14/Jeff would really like this idea, it is very obvious why the rest wouldn't.

broadlandboy wrote:Many people accuse the PRL/LNR of doing this for profit. Only a few break even at most most years. They see the chance to break even but are held back by the ERC

Most PRL and LNR clubs are now owned by very wealthy private backers. It is inevitable that private backers will want to make profits at all costs as any business in a free market economy would. Rugby shouldnt about be making profits it should be about being self sustaining and self preserving at all levels from grass roots to club rugby up to the pinnical international rugby. The proposals are completly at odds with the self preservation of the NH international game.

Mickado, I can't say I have much interest in the country as a whole if I am being totally honest. If I am wrong and the IRFU lack the ability or poor old them they don't have enough people wanting to play the sport then I just don't see why it should be to the detriment of Leicester, Northampton or Bath. Whether they have other routes of gaining more income is irrelevant.

Do all teams in the Rabo get an equal share for participating in it?? And then extra for finishing position?? Seeing as Scotland and Italy are the smaller participants then they should get over 2 thirds of the money with the rest between Wales and Ireland. That seems very fair.

GunsGerms wrote:As I see it the PRL is the real driving force behind all this with the LNR sniffing around to see what deal they may be able to piggy back.

This is the single biggest cross roads NH rugby has ever reached and the PRL and LNR must be stopped at all costs. They are motivated by greed and profit only.

They do not give a sh1t about the future of NH international rugby, grass roots rugby, the six nations, the Italian, Welsh, Scottish, English, French or Irish international teams and their proposals if granted will inevitably badly and possibly irrovocably damage most if not all of the above.

I expect the ERC to hold strong and refute all their proposals and never sanction their own tournament for the preservation of the game.

I've been reading L'Equipe this week and thy are not making as big a deal of this. Catchy "European Cup is at the Point of Death" title to the sole article published after the PRL announced their little media spin yesterday ahead of the actual meeting involving all parties next Wednesday.

L'Equipe certainly sounds very sympathetic towards the HEC and to the Italian and the Celtic Unions participation.

Reading the English press you would think that the French are very much onside with the English. But it doesn't seem the same in the French press at all. And chatting to french rugby fan friends they certainly don't want to be involved in some Anglo French league at the expense of the magnificent European cup we currently have. They don't see the competition as unfair either.

Student-A1 wrote:Mickado, I can't say I have much interest in the country as a whole if I am being totally honest. If I am wrong and the IRFU lack the ability or poor old them they don't have enough people wanting to play the sport then I just don't see why it should be to the detriment of Leicester, Northampton or Bath. Whether they have other routes of gaining more income is irrelevant.

Do all teams in the Rabo get an equal share for participating in it?? And then extra for finishing position?? Seeing as Scotland and Italy are the smaller participants then they should get over 2 thirds of the money with the rest between Wales and Ireland. That seems very fair.

Havent you already stated that you do not want any European competition...?

Why are you debating the ins and outs when you have no interest in the outcome other than to see the competition die...?

GunsGerms wrote: Rugby shouldnt about be making profits it should be about being self sustaining and self preserving at all levels from grass roots to club rugby up to the pinnical international rugby. The proposals are completly at odds with the self preservation of the NH international game.

In your opinion!

Why aren't rugby clubs allowed to make money?

In England (and I guess France) fans are willing to pay their money to watch their clubs play the game, again it's not our fault that some Rabo teams can't get people to follow them, maybe those teams should accept that they have no future without fans and not rely on hand outs from the ERC.

GunsGerms wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Many people accuse the PRL/LNR of doing this for profit. Only a few break even at most most years. They see the chance to break even but are held back by the ERC

Most PRL and LNR clubs are now owned by very wealthy private backers. It is inevitable that private backers will want to make profits at all costs as any business in a free market economy would. Rugby shouldnt about be making profits it should be about being self sustaining and self preserving at all levels from grass roots to club rugby up to the pinnical international rugby. The proposals are completly at odds with the self preservation of the NH international game.

I was joking earlier, but there are similarities between the League and Union slit and the cross roads we are at now. Back then there was the purity of the game (Union) and the money (League) and it is looking very similar now with the purity of the game (unions, self funding) and the money (Clubs, profits, investment). Unless something is done soon then the two will go separate ways.

maestegmafia, not really exactly what I said I said I hoped for a split now. Not saying I don't want a European cup I just don't want it like it is now, governed like it is. And to say I have no interest in the debate is pathetic but from reading your comments I am not entirely surprised.

My true wish would be for the issues I have with the HEC to be resolved and then continue but this will not happen.

It seems that because I am not toeing the same line your opinions wish then you have spit your dummy out, similar to what the IRFU chairman/cheif exec did.

Scrumpy wrote:

GunsGerms wrote: Rugby shouldnt about be making profits it should be about being self sustaining and self preserving at all levels from grass roots to club rugby up to the pinnical international rugby. The proposals are completly at odds with the self preservation of the NH international game.

In you opinion!

Why aren't rugby clubs allowed to make money?

In England (and I guess France) fans are willing to pay their money to watch their clubs play the game, again it's not our fault that some Rabo teams can't get people to follow them, maybe those teams should accept that they have no future without fans and not rely on hand outs from the ERC.

In England apparently only four clubs made a profit last financial year, however, the English Premiership as a whole still posted a combined operating loss of £16.2m for the year ending June 2011 and of the 10 clubs filed their accounts with Companies House, half reported a deficit in excess of £1.5m.

Hardly a healthy model.

Student-A1 wrote:maestegmafia, not really exactly what I said I said I hoped for a split now. Not saying I don't want a European cup I just don't want it like it is now, governed like it is. And to say I have no interest in the debate is pathetic but from reading your comments I am not entirely surprised.

My true wish would be for the issues I have with the HEC to be resolved and then continue but this will not happen.

It seems that because I am not toeing the same line your opinions wish then you have spit your dummy out, similar to what the IRFU chairman/cheif exec did.

Apologies it must be someone else posting in the same writing style under a different ID with exactly the same views as you...!

Poorfour wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Munchkin - I think you mis-read his comment.  IT was something along the lines of

26 Jeff & T14 teams Vrs 12 Rabo Pro 12 Teams.

As in 26 teams on the PRL/LNR side (12 Jeff, 14 T14) and 12 teams on the WRU/SRU/FIR/IRFU side.  Or at least that is how I read it after originally thinking "26 Jeff sides thats wrong"

You're right, I did. My apologies to beshocked. My argument still stands though. Voting rights don't go to those who represent most teams, but to each Union represented. As it should be. beshocked's assertion is wishful thinking, and not based in the present reality, even though it is what PRL are pushing for. Club control over the unions.

Why? Why is it "as it should be"?

"Unions have the long term interest of the game at heart" is an assertion, not an argument. What's the case that they should be entrusted with this?

It's more than an assertion, Poorfour, arguably its their raison d'etre? Else why do they exist?