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.

maestegmafia, There a numerous people on here whose views I do not agree with but actually make an argument and are happy to offer opinions back and forth, they read and accept others views if not agreeing with them themselves. You however are not one of them but continue to rant and try to find fault in peoples own opinions on here.

maestegmafia wrote: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.

As long as there is bums on seats then there is no problem as the game is growing, once teams settle down and sort out their stadiums etc then they will start to make a profit or break even, don't forget we've signed a very healthy tv deal.

Scrumpy wrote:

maestegmafia wrote: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.

As long as there is bums on seats then there is no problem as the game is growing, once teams settle down and sort out their stadiums etc then they will start to make a profit or break even, don't forget we've signed a very healthy tv deal.

Until your profit margins start changing for the positive you are still losing money and not running the successful league that you were saying you were.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs, I agree it would be better for any competition to be governed/run by the respective RFUs but in this instance there has to be a weighted vote. You cannot have a system where the participants that all come from one league and will obviously support the opinions of that league have double the votes of all other participants combined.

This is always going to be a huge sticking point and one that I can never see being resolved as some will never let go of the power they have and some will crave more. People are right saying the PRL want power, but just as the IRFU or any other of them are just a power hungry and are refusing to let go.

maestegmafia wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:

maestegmafia wrote: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.

As long as there is bums on seats then there is no problem as the game is growing, once teams settle down and sort out their stadiums etc then they will start to make a profit or break even, don't forget we've signed a very healthy tv deal.

Until your profit margins start changing for the positive you are still losing money and not running the successful league that you were saying you were.

But it is a successful and well supported league which is more can be said for the Rabo, that is why the Clubs need the freedom to take care of themselves and not worry about a poorly run club (and Union) playing in the Rabo relying on hand me outs from the ERC, sorry but that’s not their problem!

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

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?

Their raison d'etre is within their own jurisdiction, to part quote Philip Browne in the news article posted earlier. FIR (to pick a union at random) have little interest in the health of the English game, or the French, or the Irish, or the Spanish, except where it suits them. The long term interest of the wider, cross-border game seems to depend on Unions co-operating for mutual benefit, often on a back-scratching basis.

The Union members of ERC may have the long term interest of the game within their jurisdiction at heart, but it appears that they do not necessarily have the long term interests of their ERC partners at heart, nor the interests of the wider European game.

PRL/LNR don't necessarly have those interests at heart either.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

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.

I agree Scarlet it is potentially a defining moment and I must say I will be very unoptimistic about the future of the game if the PRL and LNR get their way.

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 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.

I didnt say they arent allowed to make money I just said their sole reason for existance shouldnt be to make profit because thats a very dangerous precedent to follow in sport and the wrong model to follow.

Sport always has and always will rely on handouts to a certain extent. Grass roots rugby and underage rugby for example will always require financial support and yet they are both critical to the professional club and country game. There should always be symbiotic structures in place to preserve the sport.

Whatever happens its unlikely there will be any Heineken cup this year.

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.

Those 4 unions are representing 4 countries. That includes all the players from schoolboys to professionals and clubs, provinces etc etc. The PRL represent 12 independant clubs.

Scrumpy - As I Scarlets fan I have seen the money talks attitude sneaking into rugby at the cost of my team already. We had a nice little team building, under a coach who had plans. However in order to make the bank books look better we sold on an international number 8, and also sold on the coach who was taking us plces (boom boom), and then the following season we sold on one of the top players in the NH. It made good business sense, however it appears to have ripped out some of the heart of the team and it's followers.

If things are reigned in, and the Jeff/T14 teams are getting proportionally richer, this will be happening to the Welsh, Irish, Scots and Italians more and more. And we will end up with a similar situation to the SH. Look at the amount of PI players in NZ S15 teams, and in the All Black squad. And the amount of non-french players in the french national squad. If the Rabo teams fail to hold onto youngsters what is to stop the player exodus happening with our Under 20s kids? Will these end up running out for England or France internationally?

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Scrumpy - As I Scarlets fan I have seen the money talks attitude sneaking into rugby at the cost of my team already.  We had a nice little team building, under a coach who had plans.  However in order to make the bank books look better we sold on an international number 8, and also sold on the coach who was taking us plces (boom boom), and then the following season we sold on one of the top players in the NH.  It made good business sense, however it appears to have ripped out some of the heart of the team and it's followers

Just run up a huge amount of debt and ask the WRU to pay it off like you have done for the past 20 years is best

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

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?

Their raison d'etre is within their own jurisdiction, to part quote Philip Browne in the news article posted earlier. FIR (to pick a union at random) have little interest in the health of the English game, or the French, or the Irish, or the Spanish, except where it suits them. The long term interest of the wider, cross-border game seems to depend on Unions co-operating for mutual benefit, often on a back-scratching basis.

The Union members of ERC may have the long term interest of the game within their jurisdiction at heart, but it appears that they do not necessarily have the long term interests of their ERC partners at heart, nor the interests of the wider European game.

PRL/LNR don't necessarly have those interests at heart either.

Dub, On the contrary, I think that's a very narrow viewpoint. The unions do have interest in the health of the sport generally for the very reason that goes to the heart of this debate - a weakened Italy (or Scotland or whomever) is to the detrimant of all, competition is reduced. It's why American football has reverse order drafts and salary caps

Steffan wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Scrumpy - As I Scarlets fan I have seen the money talks attitude sneaking into rugby at the cost of my team already.  We had a nice little team building, under a coach who had plans.  However in order to make the bank books look better we sold on an international number 8, and also sold on the coach who was taking us plces (boom boom), and then the following season we sold on one of the top players in the NH.  It made good business sense, however it appears to have ripped out some of the heart of the team and it's followers

Just run up a huge amount of debt and ask the WRU to pay it off like you have done for the past 20 years is best

Don't forget you also built a new stadium which is too big for the club as you have failed to get fans to come to the games, you can't have it all at once it takes time, maybe just maybe there is a better deal out there than what ERC are offering?

No one asks Usan Bolt to slow down in the 100m so others have a chance to keep up, your club will just have to work harder!

Scrumpy wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:

maestegmafia wrote: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.

As long as there is bums on seats then there is no problem as the game is growing, once teams settle down and sort out their stadiums etc then they will start to make a profit or break even, don't forget we've signed a very healthy tv deal.

Until your profit margins start changing for the positive you are still losing money and not running the successful league that you were saying you were.

But it is a successful and well supported league which is more can be said for the Rabo, that is why the Clubs need the freedom to take care of themselves and not worry about a poorly run club (and Union) playing in the Rabo relying on hand me outs from the ERC, sorry but that’s not their problem!

Six of the English clubs you are talking about are getting a larger hand out for not even playing in the Heineken Cup...! Four Clubs in England are run as successful businesses, the rest are surviving on hand outs and TV money.

Newcastle attract half the fans that most RP 12 teams do how on earth do you consider them a successful business...?

maestegmafia wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:

maestegmafia wrote: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.

As long as there is bums on seats then there is no problem as the game is growing, once teams settle down and sort out their stadiums etc then they will start to make a profit or break even, don't forget we've signed a very healthy tv deal.

Until your profit margins start changing for the positive you are still losing money and not running the successful league that you were saying you were.

But it is a successful and well supported league which is more can be said for the Rabo, that is why the Clubs need the freedom to take care of themselves and not worry about a poorly run club (and Union) playing in the Rabo relying on hand me outs from the ERC, sorry but that’s not their problem!

Six of the English clubs you are talking about are getting a larger hand out for not even playing in the Heineken Cup...! Four Clubs in England are run as successful businesses, the rest are surviving on hand outs and TV money.

Newcastle attract half the fans that most RP 12 teams do how on earth do you consider them a successful business...?

I don't, but they lost a lot of fans when they dumped their original name and decided to be a yo yo club, plus Football is king in the North East as it will soon be in South Wales if the Regions aren't careful.

As for the other clubs in the Aviva it's not perfect but the sport is growing, and as I already said once teams settle down and get their stadiums sorted out then more fans will come, it won't happen over night but why should these club have to be held back by other clubs playing under other Unions?

The HC contract is up and there is no law to say that the Eng or French have to sign a new one.

nth wrote:

gelodge wrote:I like many hope we don't see the end of the HC for this Franglo thing and that this is just brinkmanship.  I can't say I'm that keen on the survival of those running the ERC though.  I think very little of McCafferty and his tactics, but how the hell was it that the last meeting for negotiations was back in May, what have these board members been doing all summer, what has been more important than resolving this issue?  Combined with them having seemingly undersold the rights to the competition at a time when a number of the teams are struggling financially and they are increasingly looking like they couldn't organise a p155 up in a brewery, a bunch of old boys more interested in milking their jobs than effectively dealing with what they entail.  We need new blood at the top after this debacle has played out.

For those who don't remember Lux's 2011 election as ERC president was somewhat controversial

Frenchman Jean-Pierre Lux won last week's vote in Dublin – a decision which was expected to go Wheeler's way with the support of the English clubs, the Rugby Union, and the Welsh and French clubs.

But the vote seems to have been decided by a controversial move by the French Rugby Federation (FFR) to deny their clubs their votes. They 'acquired' them for their own purpose, under the belief that it was 'on behalf of the better interests of French rugby'.

The four votes that the FFR took from the French Top 14 clubs swayed a tight decision in Lux's direction, and Wheeler was left high and dry with only six of the 10 he needed for victory.

The result meant Lux, who became chairman in 1999, was re-elected for another three years with the support of just six clubs (Scottish and Irish), while the 30 clubs who supported Wheeler (English, French and Welsh) were left disappointed.

While Wheeler, the RFU and the English clubs' umbrella body, Premier Rugby, have yet to comment, the French clubs have reacted with fury.

In a statement, they criticised their union for commandeering their votes, and called Lux's re-appointment an 'electorial masquerade'.

Here are some interesting quotes from a 2011 Guardian article

Money, as usual, is at the heart of the matter. The Heineken Cup is run by European Rugby Cup Ltd which acts on behalf of the unions involved. Tournament turnover has doubled in five years to just over €50m (£43m) but there are many who believe the competition is capable of generating far more.

The surprise re-election of Jean Pierre Lux as ERC chairman ahead of England's Peter Wheeler has irked the bigger clubs, with McCafferty calling for a third European competition to be introduced to expand the game beyond its traditional heartlands. "We feel there needs to be a stronger form of leadership and governance within ERC. We've got to try and embrace the emerging countries: Russia, Spain, Romania, Georgia etc. The Heineken Cup shouldn't just be limited to six countries."

Leinster's chief executive Mick Dawson cast doubt on the wisdom of English and French clubs attempting to break away. "I'm on ERC's commercial and marketing committee and I know the English clubs well. I'd say the monies generated by the TV contracts are quite big and competitive. Everyone says 'You can get more money' until they actually have to go and get it. Is there a whole pot load of money out there that we're missing? I doubt it."

That is a staggering comment to make, did they even bother to try and find a better deal or did they just sign the renewal letter when it came through the door?

Great, so the options of who is at the reigns of the European game are ruthless businessman like McCafferty or the vote-rigging, complacent incompetents already in charge.

I have to agree with Gelodge, if the ERC haven't been "stonewalling and not engaging", why were the last set of negotiations in May, the summer should have been dedicated to them.

Scrumpy wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Scrumpy - As I Scarlets fan I have seen the money talks attitude sneaking into rugby at the cost of my team already.  We had a nice little team building, under a coach who had plans.  However in order to make the bank books look better we sold on an international number 8, and also sold on the coach who was taking us plces (boom boom), and then the following season we sold on one of the top players in the NH.  It made good business sense, however it appears to have ripped out some of the heart of the team and it's followers

Don't forget you also built a new stadium which is too big for the club as you have failed to get fans to come to the games, you can't have it all at once it takes time, maybe just maybe there is a better deal out there than what ERC are offering?

No one asks Usan Bolt to slow down in the 100m so others have a chance to keep up, your club will just have to work harder!

 
Scrumpy - I was just passing comment on the Business Goals Vrs Rugby Goals comments. The whole 'selling' players etc, will end up a growing concern, and it will end up as a handfull of rich sustainable clubs (Man Unt, Liverpool etc), and then a handful of here today gone tomorrow clubs (Newcastle, Spurs, Leeds, Blackburn etc). The big money backers could end up totally killing off a lot of teams IF this goes ahead, and they don't get the success they want. Anyhow, live by the sword die by the sword and all that.

Its not vote rigging the FFR is quite right to take control of their league and vote on their behalf and set priorities and it is what should be happening in England too. Its the only way to guarentee the preservation of the game in each country at all levels as the national union is responsible for rugby at all levels, at least it should be. Its not in England which is the crux of the problem.

What is the definition of a 'successful' business in sport? If you discount benefactor donations and TV money from the profit & loss then what else is excluded/included? Bar takings? Adverts on kit?

People talk about clubs/unions/reejuns having to be run 'like businesses' but it's nonsense. Sport is always a folly, a hobby, a pastime, entertainment etc. Even if you could work out a satisfactory measure/definition of allowable income and expenditure, very few, if any, rugby clubs would 'turn a profit/surplus'.

Why do we support the teams that we do?

Is it for the success?

I know deep down that if my club were relegated down to the lowest level in English rugby then I'd still follow them and pay to watch them, but I believe it is up to the individual clubs to decide if they want to chase glory or be content to struggle on in the hope that one day they may make the big time, as long as a sensible salary cap is in place then the clubs should be allowed to grow as big as they want to without some amateurish Unions saying that they can't.

The only solution as I see it is to break up the PRL and restructure the Aviva premier league making the RFU the governing body.

GunsGerms wrote:The only solution as I see it is to break up the PRL and restructure the Aviva premier league making the RFU the governing body.

Why?

maestegmafia wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:

maestegmafia wrote: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.

As long as there is bums on seats then there is no problem as the game is growing, once teams settle down and sort out their stadiums etc then they will start to make a profit or break even, don't forget we've signed a very healthy tv deal.

Until your profit margins start changing for the positive you are still losing money and not running the successful league that you were saying you were.

But it is a successful and well supported league which is more can be said for the Rabo, that is why the Clubs need the freedom to take care of themselves and not worry about a poorly run club (and Union) playing in the Rabo relying on hand me outs from the ERC, sorry but that’s not their problem!

Six of the English clubs you are talking about are getting a larger hand out for not even playing in the Heineken Cup...! Four Clubs in England are run as successful businesses, the rest are surviving on hand outs and TV money.

Newcastle attract half the fans that most RP 12 teams do how on earth do you consider them a successful business...?

Have you looked at the week 1 attendance figures for both leagues? Remember that this is also at a time when people have been starved of live action for a while and should be itching to get to games. They make quite interesting reading.

Casartelli wrote:What is the definition of a 'successful' business in sport?  If you discount benefactor donations and TV money from the profit & loss then what else is excluded/included?  Bar takings?  Adverts on kit?

People talk about clubs/unions/reejuns having to be run 'like businesses' but it's nonsense.  Sport is always a folly, a hobby, a pastime, entertainment etc.  Even if you could work out a satisfactory measure/definition of allowable income and expenditure, very few, if any, rugby clubs would 'turn a profit/surplus'.

Its not nonsense when the majority of English and French clubs are run by private backers. You dont have to make a profit to line a private backers pockets you just have to significantly increase turnover which is what they are trying to do.

Casartelli wrote:What is the definition of a 'successful' business in sport?  If you discount benefactor donations and TV money from the profit & loss then what else is excluded/included?  Bar takings?  Adverts on kit?

People talk about clubs/unions/reejuns having to be run 'like businesses' but it's nonsense.  Sport is always a folly, a hobby, a pastime, entertainment etc.  Even if you could work out a satisfactory measure/definition of allowable income and expenditure, very few, if any, rugby clubs would 'turn a profit/surplus'.

But you have to try to move clubs towards at least breaking even. Its great when unions or sugar daddies step in to cover big losses, but sometimes they are not there and clubs close. You cant ignore it.

GunsGerms wrote:

Casartelli wrote:What is the definition of a 'successful' business in sport?  If you discount benefactor donations and TV money from the profit & loss then what else is excluded/included?  Bar takings?  Adverts on kit?

People talk about clubs/unions/reejuns having to be run 'like businesses' but it's nonsense.  Sport is always a folly, a hobby, a pastime, entertainment etc.  Even if you could work out a satisfactory measure/definition of allowable income and expenditure, very few, if any, rugby clubs would 'turn a profit/surplus'.

Its not nonsense when the majority of English and French clubs are run by private backers. You dont have to make a profit to line a private backers pockets you just have to significantly increase turnover which is what they are trying to do.

What the hell are you talking about?

Toadfish wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:The only solution as I see it is to break up the PRL and restructure the Aviva premier league making the RFU the governing body.

Why?

because the RFU is responsible for all levels of rubgy in England and have their best interests at heart. It is also in the RFUs interest to have a healthy 6 nations competition. The PRL doesnt give a sh1t about anyone except their own league.

Philip Browne, chairman of the IRFU in the Irish Times;

Philip Browne wrote:“Generally we, by that I mean the shareholders in ERC, be it Italian, Scottish, Welsh or ourselves, find it a deplorable way of doing business whereby you have these press statements issued the night before a board meeting with threats and ultimatums.
“Having said that, this is who we have to do business with, and it’s about time we all got down and negotiated properly. We have been accused in the media, by Mark McCafferty and others, of simply stonewalling and not engaging with PRL and LNR, which is a downright lie.
“We have made a number of proposals. We have tried to shift thinking in relation to the competition and we’re quite happy to discuss a whole range of issues, financial distribution, meritocracy, competition structures and formats.
“In any negotiation, nobody gets exactly what they want. We know what we would like but we know we’re probably not going to get exactly what we would like, but that’s the nature of negotiation. Unfortunately that’s not the way other parties across the table appear to think.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/celtic-and-italian-clubs-won-t-join-any-new-competition-1.1524095?page=2

This is the key point of difference;

Irish Times wrote:In particular, Browne cited the difference in responsibilities, with the Unions and Federation seeking to protect the well-being of the entire game under their respective jurisdictions, whereas the PRL are solely concerned about acquiring more power and money for the English club game.

You can bash the Unions. But they are seeking a deal that will protect rugby in their countries from grassroots to international. PRL have no interest in the wider game, and thats why English rugby fans are being so frustrating- they love watching the game, but if the people they support get their way that game they love could well be seriously damaged.

The question seems to be - "Why should unions be unions?"

You could reply, "Why should clubs be clubs?"

Because that's how it is.  HEC was never created as a privately run club competition.  It was never a competition exclusively owned by privately owned clubs.  Some people seem to have a difficult time computing that basic fact.

The HEC was created between Unions for the strategic benefits it would bring to Unions - ie, more high quality encounters between clubs that would lend to increased competitiveness between the member Union sides at International level.  It was a competition to create money (of course) but also to unearth International standard players that could then be brought into International contingents.

That is still an essential motivating factor behind the present HEC/Amlin competitions. - It's an International training ground, regardless of how much privately owned clubs would disagree with that interpretation.  Their International hopeful players don't.  Players know what they want and what motivates them.  HEC is considered a stepping stone - a level to get to, to get to International.

But the idea amongst some here is confusion - "How did the Unions get their dirty hands into a 'club' competition and inflict their unreasonable terms on the organisation of it?"

They got in because Unions were there from the beginning.  Incidently, and ironically, one Union that wasn't there in the beginning was the English one.

But it's here now.  And it has been gaining more and more 'natural selection' places for it's English sides ever since the beginning.  France are the same - gaining more and more automatic entries into the HEC based on nothing called meritocracy but moreso on simple pervading influence and an undying greed

English and French sides already have had enough consessions since the beginning of the competition.  If they want to kill off the competition to increase their unequal and unfairly loaded presence in European competition - and if they choose to use a business excuse rather than a 'meritocratic' one - ie, telling us they should have a bigger slice of the pie because they have more TV watching citizens!!! - then so be it.

The Pro12 should stop fretting and frowning.  Just halt all negotiations and let the English and French run off to form their 'quality' competition.  Watch them then as their own Unions fight against the idea that privately owned Clubs in those countries would tell Unions what to do, and when to play and what players they can have if they ask nicely for their inconsequential International games.  

Because that's where this power struggle is heading.  PRL don't just want to dictate terms to an external League (Pro12). They finally want to start dictating terms to International rugby itself.  PRL and it's club owning friends in France and other places thinks of International as a competitor, not as a boss.

GunsGerms wrote:Its not vote rigging the FFR is quite right to take control of their league and vote on their behalf and set priorities and it is what should be happening in England too. Its the only way to guarentee the preservation of the game in each country at all levels as the national union is responsible for rugby at all levels, at least it should be. Its not in England which is the crux of the problem.

Wow!  Great to see democratic and stakeholder principles are alive and well in people's sentiments.  Give people voting rights, but only as long as they use them in the way you want.  Women should only be able to vote as long as they agree with their husbands and workers should defer their national election rights to their unions as they're better placed to know what's in their real interests.

GunsGerms wrote:

Toadfish wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:The only solution as I see it is to break up the PRL and restructure the Aviva premier league making the RFU the governing body.

Why?

because the RFU is responsible for all levels of rubgy in England and have their best interests at heart. It is also in the RFUs interest to have a healthy 6 nations competition. The PRL doesnt give a sh1t about anyone except their own league.

the PRL represent the top level clubs. They obviously felt that the RFU did not sufficiently represent their interests and could see the benefits of talking to each other. Getting rid of the PRL would not remove the need for it or something very similar unless there were massive changes to the RFU itself.

lostinwales wrote: Its great when unions or sugar daddies step in to cover big losses, but sometimes they are not there and clubs close. You cant ignore it.

You can't hence why the salary cap is in place, but why shouldn't a club be allowed to grow if there is a better offer at the table?


Remember the HC contract is up next year, ERC have left it rather late don't you think?

Toadfish wrote:What the hell are you talking about?

Mainly the greed of the PRL and the single most important debate NH rugby has faced in my lifetime.

There must be a massive run on the sale of tin foil hats with all these conspiracy theories. There is an easy solution, let’s go our separate ways and everyone should be happy right?

GunsGerms wrote:

Toadfish wrote:What the hell are you talking about?

Mainly the greed of the PRL and the single most important debate NH rugby has faced in my lifetime.

I was more talking about your ridiculous statement that as long as a company increased turnover, a wealthy backer could still make money even if the club was posting losses? You want to clear that up?

SecretFly wrote:Because that's where this power struggle is heading.  PRL don't just want to dictate terms to an external League (Pro12).  They finally want to start dictating terms to International rugby itself.  PRL and it's club owning friends in France and other places thinks of International as a competitor, not as a boss.

PRECISELY. The reason the Celts can't join any competition run by the PRL/LNR as there's no checks and balances on their power. And the global game desperately needs to start inserting some checks and balances. Reviewing the residency laws so French clubs can't sweep up talented youngsters on 3-year Academy deals and then count them as legally French qualified players to fill the quotas required of them by the FFR would be a start. A global financial fair play ruling would be second...

GunsGerms wrote:

Toadfish wrote:What the hell are you talking about?

Mainly the greed of the PRL and the single most important debate NH rugby has faced in my lifetime.

Greed or the foresight to take care of themselfs as any business should do.

Maybe ERC should have secured a better deal than what their good friends at Sky offered?

Toadfish wrote:There must be a massive run on the sale of tin foil hats with all these conspiracy theories.  There is an easy solution, let’s go our separate ways and everyone should be happy right?

 

Toadfish wrote:There must be a massive run on the sale of tin foil hats with all these conspiracy theories.  There is an easy solution, let’s go our separate ways and everyone should be happy right?

Not if Anglo-French money distorts the player market. It's already a massive problem in global rugby.

monwy wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Its not vote rigging the FFR is quite right to take control of their league and vote on their behalf and set priorities and it is what should be happening in England too. Its the only way to guarentee the preservation of the game in each country at all levels as the national union is responsible for rugby at all levels, at least it should be. Its not in England which is the crux of the problem.

Wow!  Great to see democratic and stakeholder principles are alive and well in people's sentiments.  Give people voting rights, but only as long as they use them in the way you want.  Women should only be able to vote as long as they agree with their husbands and workers should defer their national election rights to their unions as they're better placed to know what's in their real interests.

Democracy is great but sometimes democratic governments do not give their citizens a right to choose on certain matters when they feel it is in the best interest of their citizens to make the choice for them. This happens in every democratic society. Read the book "Nudge" for some insight on this. Chosing a suitable pension scheme is a good example of a choice the Swedish government decided to take away this decision from it citizens to great effect.

The APL does not have the best interest of its stakeholders at heart and has too much power and influence so it makes more sense to give the power to a more impartial body such as the national union.

Toadfish wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Toadfish wrote:What the hell are you talking about?

Mainly the greed of the PRL and the single most important debate NH rugby has faced in my lifetime.

I was more talking about your ridiculous statement that as long as a company increased turnover, a wealthy backer could still make money even if the club was posting losses?  You want to clear that up?

When did say anything about posting losses? Stop making things up.

GunsGerms wrote:

Casartelli wrote:What is the definition of a 'successful' business in sport?  If you discount benefactor donations and TV money from the profit & loss then what else is excluded/included?  Bar takings?  Adverts on kit?

People talk about clubs/unions/reejuns having to be run 'like businesses' but it's nonsense.  Sport is always a folly, a hobby, a pastime, entertainment etc.  Even if you could work out a satisfactory measure/definition of allowable income and expenditure, very few, if any, rugby clubs would 'turn a profit/surplus'.

Its not nonsense when the majority of English and French clubs are run by private backers. You dont have to make a profit to line a private backers pockets you just have to significantly increase turnover which is what they are trying to do.

I am struggling to see how that makes economic or legal sense. You are arguing that a backer can extract a ton of cash without the underlying business making a profit just by increasing turnover? I imagine that there are some legal vehicles that would enable you to do that (and no doubt football has gone that way on occasion), but you still have to have an operating profit to make that work. That is revenue minus wages, rent etc has to be positive before there is anything to strip out.

Only a handful of clubs in England make a profit at the operating level, and I believe only two have done so consistently (Leicester and Exeter, both of whom were blessed with a better start point than other clubs in terms of assets and in Leicester's case fanbase). The others have consistently made a loss. That doesn't mean their business model is broken, it means that they are at an early point in their lifecycle. Making losses is not a sign of a bad business if the business plan is sound. Amazon made enormous losses for over a decade, and still makes tiny margins because it invests massively in expansion.

Quins have a business plan that is based on achieving regular crowds of around 15k per game to break even. They have known this is the target for at least 10 years, but they were starting from a fanbase of around 5k per game. They have had to invest in new facilities and stands, and marketing, and a playing and coaching squad that will draw in and accommodate a 15k crowd. They aren't quite there - but expect to be there in 1-2 years. Getting a fair share of revenue from European competition would help a lot. It's a long term business plan and they are getting there.

Meanwhile, their backers are funding the losses and a big chunk of the infrastructure investment until the club hits profitability and can start paying that back.

[Translation into Irish/Welsh: Obviously, they are awful people, only in it to line their pockets in the short term and are visibly stripping assets from the club at every opportunity. Last time I was there, they sold my seat to Thames Valley Plastics and tried to swap my daughter to a sponsor from Abu Dhabi for a camel. The only way to stop them is by preventing the club from making a profit by any means necessary.]

Some clubs are closer to breakeven, some are further away, some may never get there. All of them are looking to improve revenues and get to profitability.

But there are posters on this board arguing on the one hand that the clubs can't be successful because they aren't profitable, and on the other that they shouldn't be allowed to make a profit because they are all money-grabbing whatnots. You can't have it both ways.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

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?

Their raison d'etre is within their own jurisdiction, to part quote Philip Browne in the news article posted earlier. FIR (to pick a union at random) have little interest in the health of the English game, or the French, or the Irish, or the Spanish, except where it suits them. The long term interest of the wider, cross-border game seems to depend on Unions co-operating for mutual benefit, often on a back-scratching basis.

The Union members of ERC may have the long term interest of the game within their jurisdiction at heart, but it appears that they do not necessarily have the long term interests of their ERC partners at heart, nor the interests of the wider European game.

PRL/LNR don't necessarly have those interests at heart either.

Dub, On the contrary, I think that's a very narrow viewpoint.  The unions do have interest in the health of the sport generally for the very reason that goes to the heart of this debate - a weakened Italy (or Scotland or whomever) is to the detrimant of all, competition is reduced.  It's why American football has reverse order drafts and salary caps

Asbo, the Unions have an interest in the health of the sport within the 6N - that's where they see the mutual benefit, but I can see no strategy involved to grow the game. Nor does there seem to be much concern over the health of the wider game, whether at international or club level.

The Spanish team withdrew from the Amlin this year, saying they couldn't afford to compete - a good lunch for the ERC board would have paid for their away trips (I may be exaggerating slightly). Aironi go t*tsup - their replacements are wafted into HC.

Strengthened Georgian, Romanian or Russian international teams would increase competition in Europe to the benefit of most, but which 6N unions might not be so keen if they threatened their 6N place?

That's just my opinion, though.

Scrumpy wrote:
I don't, but they lost a lot of fans when they dumped their original name and decided to be a yo yo club, plus Football is king in the North East as it will soon be in South Wales if the Regions aren't careful.

As for the other clubs in the Aviva it's not perfect but the sport is growing, and as I already said once teams settle down and get their stadiums sorted out then more fans will come, it won't happen over night but why should these club have to be held back by other clubs playing under other Unions?

What clubs are you talking about? The four clubs in the premiership that make a profit? You have eight clubs not making a profit in the AP that are being subsidised by four clubs successes.

I think you are either very confused or have some type of nihilistic view of the future of Rugby.

GunsGerms wrote:

monwy wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Its not vote rigging the FFR is quite right to take control of their league and vote on their behalf and set priorities and it is what should be happening in England too. Its the only way to guarentee the preservation of the game in each country at all levels as the national union is responsible for rugby at all levels, at least it should be. Its not in England which is the crux of the problem.

Wow!  Great to see democratic and stakeholder principles are alive and well in people's sentiments.  Give people voting rights, but only as long as they use them in the way you want.  Women should only be able to vote as long as they agree with their husbands and workers should defer their national election rights to their unions as they're better placed to know what's in their real interests.

Democracy is great but sometimes democratic governments do not give their citizens a right to choose on certain matters when they feel it is in the best interest of their citizens to make the choice for them. This happens in every democratic society. Read the book "Nudge" for some insight on this. Chosing a suitable pension scheme is a good example of a choice the Swedish government decided to take away this decision from it citizens to great effect.

The APL does not have the best interest of its stakeholders at heart and has too much power and influence so it makes more sense to give the power to a more impartial body such as the national union.

In this situation, democracy is great until some stakeholders decide they don't want to be outvoted and go off and form their own splitters club-

does anyone know if the status of the ERC deal with Sky Sports to 2018 will be affected by the departure of the PRL and LNR?

Toadfish wrote:There must be a massive run on the sale of tin foil hats with all these conspiracy theories.  There is an easy solution, let’s go our separate ways and everyone should be happy right?

Conspiracy theories? What about fantasies? Like the fantasy that a separate competition would be a better option than the HEC as it is? Seems to me that the only ones buying into that are the PRL 'customers'. Not the French, Irish, Welsh, or Scottish fans, from the comments I've read.

From what I understand the participating countries are all shareholders of the ERC.

Is that true, and what percentage?

Biltong wrote:From what I understand the participating countries are all shareholders of the ERC.

Is that true, and what percentage?

Each union gets two votes, and the FFR and RFU have handed one of their votes to LNR & PRL, and I think the WRU have given one of their votes to RRW (But not 100% sure).

Munchkin wrote:

Toadfish wrote:There must be a massive run on the sale of tin foil hats with all these conspiracy theories.  There is an easy solution, let’s go our separate ways and everyone should be happy right?

Conspiracy theories? What about fantasies? Like the fantasy that a separate competition would be a better option than the HEC as it is? Seems to me that the only ones buying into that are the PRL 'customers'. Not the French, Irish, Welsh, or Scottish fans, from the comments I've read.

To be honest there isn't many French posters on 606v2.

All I want as a English fan is a fair deal and a fair qualifying system, which as far as I'm aware isn't being offered by ERC.