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.

SecretFly wrote: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.

An interesting read. I'd say that it was all well and good in the past. But the big problem now is that the little clubs have all grown up now, and now they want a european competition for their own benefit.

I know there is the argument that we should have gone with a regional set up in order to expose more players to the higher level rugby in order to develop international players, but going with what you said we (and France) are only exposing half of our potential players to this level as opposed to the rabo nations.

Scrumpy wrote:

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.

Thats not what you said on another thread where you said you did not want a European Cup.

Scrumpy wrote:I voted - NO - it is a pointless time waster that I have no interest in.

The Euro cup should only be played by Clubs (not regions etc..) that have a professional league in their own Country and the qualifying rules are the same for everyone.

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.

It wasn't a case of them not having been given the right, they already had it, along with the other stakeholder teams from other countries; it's that they had that right denied when it became apparent they were going to agree with the majority of the other stakeholders (English & Welsh) which wasn't the FFR's old boy favoured candidate.  A farce of back-scratching that had nothing to do with best interests.

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.

Perhaps conspiracy was the wrong word but this bile coming out (on both sides) is just ridiculous. The rabo nations don't want to give on their points, the French and English don't want to give on theirs. I can understand both but surely the English & French aren't going to forces the Rabo to do what they don't want to and the Rabo can't force the English & French to do what they don't want to. So lets just go our separate ways? After a 2/3 year break my guess is they would all have cooled off and will come back together to find a solution that works for everyone.

If the H-Cup is dead then I would still want there to be some sort of replacement.
If that happens to be an Anglo-French cup then so be it...........I sincerely hope that all the ERC affiliated bodies can come to some agreement as I think we all would want to see a truly European competition.

I think that there is a lot of posturing at the moment from everyone - this is to try and encourage dialogue between the parties. PRL and LNR are just letting the Rabbo organisation know that they have a Plan-B if things go belly up at the negotiating table!

Should the worst happen though - I think that all parties would see some reduction in revenue. But particularly those clubs/regions that are flying a bit close to the breadline - if they don't get the expected H-cup payments.

Poorfour wrote:

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.

If you were a club owner which would you rather own? A club with a turnover of €2m with a €100k annual loss or a club with a turnover of €1m with the same loss? Everything else been equal the club with the greater turnover is more valuable and therefore will have a greater share value which increaces the owners wealth as majority shareholder will it not?

Basically the point I am making is the deal tips the balance of financial power way too far in favour of the PRL and with have a very negative impact not only on other leagues but more importantly a detrimental effect to international rugby in my opinion. It must be stopped at all costs.

Scrumpy wrote:

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.

No there's not many French fans on 606, but there are those passing comment on the French tabloids.

When it comes to qualifying for the tournament I don't think many would disagree, Scrumpy. I favour a 6,6,8, but only if all nations have at least one team represented in the HEC. That could potentially mean Ulster finishing behind Leinster, and Munster, above Treviso, but still lose out to Treviso for a HEC place. Not delighted at the prospect, but I do believe it is best for Rugby.

Munchkin wrote: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.

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.[/quote]

OK. I am not sure what you mean by "arguing a numbers game". If you mean, I'm including teams that aren't in the HEC so they don't count, then I think they do count. Every professional league I know of has 12 or more teams in it, and the PRL needs to ensure that there are 12 viable teams in England, or before too long they will have none. The Rabo was formed for the same reason and I don't think you can legitimately argue that the IRFU doesn't look after the interests of all 4 of its provinces (albeit with lower priority for Connacht), or that the Rabo unions collectively don't support each other. All the parties are looking at more than just the immediate competitors.

What I am arguing is that it's reasonable for the interests of the 26 potential Eng / Fr competitors to be given more weight than they currently are. I am not alone in this - I am pretty sure that I am factually correct in thinking the PRL and LNR also want this.

If you mean I am counting on the LNR and PRL to stick together, then I'm not. I have no idea how things will turn out. If I had to guess, I would probably say that some kind of compromise solution will be reached whereby everyone still takes part, the ERC will be revamped or replaced by a new body, the teams will have more say, and teams will keep more of their domestic revenue.

If I were to speculate, would an Anglo/French competition be less successful than the HEC. Maybe, especially in the early years. But as long as it was well marketed, there's no reason why it couldn't be viable in the long term. But a "glorified LV"? Nonsense. The LV is what it is because it was invented to generate a bit of home revenue when the AIs and 6N are on. It has a weird structure (to ensure 2 home games per team), the big names don't play (because they're busy elsewhere). It can never be more than a development competition, because that's what it's set up to be. Personally, I quite like it.

But an Anglo-French competition played between full strength teams in the current HEC slots? Totally different matter. Big name teams, big name players. Big television coverage. No competing internationals. It would be better if the other nations joined in, but that's a thing that could achieve its own mythology and special place quite quickly. Stade Francais, Toulouse, Toulon, Clermont, Racing, Biarritz - these are teams people will watch. The Grenobles and such less so, but is that any different from Zebre or Treviso?

Oh, and since you began with criticising me for being sloppy with the facts, I am Poorfour, not Beshocked.

"OK. I am not sure what you mean by "arguing a numbers game". If you mean, I'm including teams that aren't in the HEC so they don't count, then I think they do count. Every professional league I know of has 12 or more teams in it, and the PRL needs to ensure that there are 12 viable teams in England, or before too long they will have none. The Rabo was formed for the same reason and I don't think you can legitimately argue that the IRFU doesn't look after the interests of all 4 of its provinces (albeit with lower priority for Connacht), or that the Rabo unions collectively don't support each other. All the parties are looking at more than just the immediate competitors.

What I am arguing is that it's reasonable for the interests of the 26 potential Eng / Fr competitors to be given more weight than they currently are. I am not alone in this - I am pretty sure that I am factually correct in thinking the PRL and LNR also want this.

If you mean I am counting on the LNR and PRL to stick together, then I'm not. I have no idea how things will turn out. If I had to guess, I would probably say that some kind of compromise solution will be reached whereby everyone still takes part, the ERC will be revamped or replaced by a new body, the teams will have more say, and teams will keep more of their domestic revenue.

If I were to speculate, would an Anglo/French competition be less successful than the HEC. Maybe, especially in the early years. But as long as it was well marketed, there's no reason why it couldn't be viable in the long term. But a "glorified LV"? Nonsense. The LV is what it is because it was invented to generate a bit of home revenue when the AIs and 6N are on. It has a weird structure (to ensure 2 home games per team), the big names don't play (because they're busy elsewhere). It can never be more than a development competition, because that's what it's set up to be. Personally, I quite like it.

But an Anglo-French competition played between full strength teams in the current HEC slots? Totally different matter. Big name teams, big name players. Big television coverage. No competing internationals. It would be better if the other nations joined in, but that's a thing that could achieve its own mythology and special place quite quickly. Stade Francais, Toulouse, Toulon, Clermont, Racing, Biarritz - these are teams people will watch. The Grenobles and such less so, but is that any different from Zebre or Treviso?

Oh, and since you began with criticising me for being sloppy with the facts, I am Poorfour, not Beshocked.[/quote]

erm...the comment was for beshocked, not your good self, Poorfour.

Maybe read through it later when I have a bit more free time.

Munchkin wrote:
When it comes to qualifying for the tournament I don't think many would disagree, Scrumpy. I favour a 6,6,8, but only if all nations have at least one team represented in the HEC. That could potentially mean Ulster finishing behind Leinster, and Munster, above Treviso, but still lose out to Treviso for a HEC place. Not delighted at the prospect, but I do believe it is best for Rugby.

That, plus an expanded (and by its nature unpredictable) Amlin/Tier 2 would make for a better product. At least there is some broad agreement around here amongst all the hate.

The LNR are just coat tailing the PRL to see where it takes them. The top 14 is booming and they will be fine either way and because they to have no affinity to their national union they are just sniffing around for the best deal for themselves safe in the knowledge that they dont have much to lose either way.

lostinwales wrote:

Munchkin wrote:
When it comes to qualifying for the tournament I don't think many would disagree, Scrumpy. I favour a 6,6,8, but only if all nations have at least one team represented in the HEC. That could potentially mean Ulster finishing behind Leinster, and Munster, above Treviso, but still lose out to Treviso for a HEC place. Not delighted at the prospect, but I do believe it is best for Rugby.

That, plus an expanded (and by its nature unpredictable) Amlin/Tier 2 would make for a better product. At least there is some broad agreement around here amongst all the hate.

I would be happy with a 6-6-6 to be honest, with the winners of the Amlins/HEC gaining a spot for their league. Is see that as being as fair as possible, and then rewarding those who merit it, as I see a 6-6-8 leading to moaning about how the Rabo have 66% of its league qualified where as the T14 only has 42% of its teams qualified (even less if it becomes T16). So going 6-6-6 nips that issue straight in the bud from the off.

lostinwales wrote:

I know there is the argument that we should have gone with a regional set up in order to expose more players to the higher level rugby in order to develop international players, but going with what you said we (and France) are only exposing half of our potential players to this level as opposed to the rabo nations.

Em...an International team is 15 players (23 with subs)  

Ireland - 4 Provinces - 3 automatic HEC places.
England - 12 Premiership sides -  6 automatic HEC places.

England have roughly twice as many players getting 'quality' HEC gametime each and every year as Ireland have - even though you're correct that England have less (percentage wise) of their potential Internationals playing in HEC every year.

It might sound contradictory put it's as clear as Spock's ears in the logic that England and France have more International potential players testing themselves in the HEC/Amlin (each and every year) than the other nations - and certainly more than the Nations the PRL most want to see drop out of HEC contention (Scotland and Italy), who only have two teams to extract most of their Internationals from.

The HEC is weighed heavily in England and France's favour when you isolate the aspect of HEC that breeds future International players.

Ireland, Wales, England, Scotland, France and Italy each put out only 15 men in any given 6N game

This is the main danger attached to the PRL proposals.  As less Pro12 sides get guaranteed spots into HEC, more of their players will not only want to leave for English or French sides... but there will be a strategic compulsion even within each Union for that to happen, so that more potential International players would get to test themselves in 'big' French or English European competition sides.

McCafferty ain't dumb.  He's doing the maths.  He knows how the dynamic of Europe will shift if he plays his cards right.  And syphoning off Pro12 players (plus more SH ones) will be something he wouldn't and won't lose any sleep over.

So for me it's a Natural.  He's anti-Irish rugby by virtue of the fact that he'd like the idea of Irish, (Scottish and Welsh) players seeing out their careers in English sides.  To him it's business is business - that's fine.  But it's why I'll never agree with him on principle.

GunsGerms wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

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.

If you were a club owner which would you rather own? A club with a turnover of €2m with a €100k annual loss or a club with a turnover of €1m with the same loss? Everything else been equal the club with the greater turnover is more valuable and therefore will have a greater share value which increaces the owners wealth as majority shareholder will it not?

Basically the point I am making is the deal tips the balance of financial power way too far in favour of the PRL and with have a very negative impact not only on other leagues but more importantly a detrimental effect to international rugby in my opinion. It must be stopped at all costs.

On your shareholder point, it would, on paper, if the shares were easily tradeable on an exchange. They're not. Any investor in a rugby club is going to want a business plan for profitability, because they know that they'll be picking up the losses themselves.

You may be right that the deal tips the financial power too far to the English and French. But a) the current deal is tipped too far the way of the Celtic unions and b) this is only happening because the Celts and ERC wouldn't negotiate.

So, what's your compromise position? If this deal has to be stopped at all costs, you need to have one. It can't be "status quo ante", because PRL and LNR have already moved against that. It can't be "no European comp", because that would be cutting off your nose to spite your face, and the PRL and LNR might go ahead with their own league anyway. It has to be something that you think would be acceptable to all sides.

So what is it?

An alternatively fair qualifying -
The top 10 teams from all 3 leagues qualify each season irrelevant of nationality -
last season that would have been - A 30 team cup competition
Ulster
Leinster
Glasgow
Scarlets
Ospreys
Munster
Benetton Treviso
Connacht
Cardiff Blues
Edinburgh

Saracens
Leicester Tigers
Harlequins
Northampton Saints
Gloucester
Exeter Chiefs
Bath
London Wasps
London Irish
Sale

Clermont
Toulon
Toulouse
Castres
Montpellier
Racing Métro
Perpignan
Bayonne
Biarritz
Stade Français

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

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).

Thanks SS

What I am trying to understand is , I read on Scrum that any european cross border club competition has to be approved by both the IRB and ERC.

Now if each oarticipating nation has a vote, and England and France decide to replace the HC with an anglo-French tournament, does that mean the Celtic nations plus Italy can actually vote against it?


Or is the ERC there for voting on HC issues only?

maestegmafia wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:

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.

Thats not what you said on another thread where you said you did not want a European Cup.

Scrumpy wrote:I voted - NO - it is a pointless time waster that I have no interest in.

The Euro cup should only be played by Clubs (not regions etc..) that have a professional league in their own Country and the qualifying rules are the same for everyone.

Is it really saying a different thing?

You other thread (with the pointless poll) wasn't really a serious discussion.

But as a English fan all I want is a fair deal and a fair qualifying system, which as it is we don't have.
Oh and I would do away with the Rabo as I believe each country should have it's own Pro league, it would make life easier as the HC would be a fair competition.

Scrumpy wrote:But as a English fan all I want is a fair deal and a fair qualifying system, which as it is we don't have.
Oh and I would do away with the Rabo as I believe each country should have it's own Pro league, it would make life easier as the HC would be a fair competition.

I thought the top 6 in the English Premiership qualifying wasn't an issue... Surely that is about as fair as it can get? The Six best are entered for the HEC...!

You cant do away with the RABBO as Ireland, Scotland, Italy and Wales can not afford to run professional leagues they do not have a large enough rugby loving population to do so...! Do away with the RABBO and you do away with any European Competition. The same goes for Australia and New Zealand. Rugby as a game doesn't make enough money to support fully pro leagues in all nations.

Biltong
IMSHO The ERC are on dodgy ground with their claim that only they can organise cross border comp in that IIRC they do not organise The LV Cup(Anglo/Welsh),the BI & Irish Cup(semi pro teams)
To those that say it is a development comp for International Players why have Non Qualified Players in your teams?

maestegmafia wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:But as a English fan all I want is a fair deal and a fair qualifying system, which as it is we don't have.
Oh and I would do away with the Rabo as I believe each country should have it's own Pro league, it would make life easier as the HC would be a fair competition.

I thought the top 6 in the English Premiership qualifying wasn't an issue... Surely that is about as fair as it can get? The Six best are entered for the HEC...!

You cant do away with the RABBO as Ireland, Scotland, Italy and Wales can not afford to run professional leagues they do not have a large enough rugby loving population to do so...! Do away with the RABBO and you do away with any European Competition. The same goes for Australia and New Zealand. Rugby as a game doesn't make enough money to support fully pro leagues in all nations.

That’s not the English or French clubs problem, the problem is they have 2/3 of the teams in the HC yet they don't get a fair financial deal out of it and the qualifying for the Rabo teams is a unfair system that rewards failure.

At the end of the day the English and French have the right to go else where as the ERC HC contract is over as of next season, Our clubs will be able to stand on our own two feet which I fear won’t be the case for half of the Rabo teams without the HC.

maestegmafia wrote:I thought the top 6 in the English Premiership qualifying wasn't an issue... Surely that is about as fair as it can get? The Six best are entered for the HEC...!

Us and the French have a very fair qualifying system, as it doesn't reward failure and teams have to earn the right to be there, unlike the Rabo where four teams only have to turn up to get in the HC.

Poorfour wrote:
On your shareholder point, it would, on paper, if the shares were easily tradeable on an exchange. They're not. Any investor in a rugby club is going to want a business plan for profitability, because they know that they'll be picking up the losses themselves. You may be right that the deal tips the financial power too far to the English and French. But a) the current deal is tipped too far the way of the Celtic unions and b) this is only happening because the Celts and ERC wouldn't negotiate.

Thats completly incorrect. From all reports I have read the Celts, Italy and the ERC are willing to compramise its the PRL that wont budge.

Poorfour wrote:

So, what's your compromise position? If this deal has to be stopped at all costs, you need to have one. It can't be "status quo ante", because PRL and LNR have already moved against that. It can't be "no European comp", because that would be cutting off your nose to spite your face, and the PRL and LNR might go ahead with their own league anyway. It has to be something that you think would be acceptable to all sides.

So what is it?

I actually dont think there should be any compramise at all and thats the position I would take because my ultimate aim is to create in business economics terms 6 perfectly symbiotic and equal rugby markets with the aim of gowing and supporting the international game in the six nations and not club rugby and the only way to do that is to give a even distribution of wealth across each national union. That is the only way to protect the six nations in my opinion.

I like the HC but as they say " He who pays the piper calls the tunes"
The money is in England and France and thats ultimately where the power will go

GunsGerms wrote:
I actually dont think there should be any compramise at all and thats the position I would take because my ultimate aim is to create in business economics terms 6 perfectly symbiotic and equal rugby markets with the aim of gowing and supporting the international game in the six nations and not club rugby and the only way to do that is to give a even distribution of wealth across each national union. That is the only way to protect the six nations in my opinion.

But a huge part of the problem is that each side has a different definition of what is actually 'even'.

I think a truly even competition could only exist if it was, say, 2 teams from each union. But that would please few and it would still leave the rest of the clubs looking at the possibility of their own cross border fun.

rosbif wrote:I like the HC but as they say " He who pays the piper calls the tunes"
The money is in England and France and thats  ultimately where the power will go

and thats where it will all go wrong for the six nations in particular. Rugby is a sport and should not be decided by money.

I think the 6 nations will be just fine.

This is not just about the money, no really!

Scrumpy wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:I thought the top 6 in the English Premiership qualifying wasn't an issue... Surely that is about as fair as it can get? The Six best are entered for the HEC...!

Us and the French have a very fair qualifying system, as it doesn't reward failure and teams have to earn the right to be there, unlike the Rabo where four teams only have to turn up to get in the HC.

It's fair up until the point reached for HEC qualification itself.  That is to say, the AP and Top 14 are fair within their own structures for deciding which are the top 6 sides.  But outside those domestic structures, the 'merit' debate based on evidence of recent years has little to recommend it as proof of innate HEC ability.  

But still the dice is loaded in favour of the English and French - and NOT based on 'meritocracy', as hardly all six of the English and French sides ever 'merit' inclusion in the premium European contest any more than all the Pro12 Nation sides merit their automatic entries.

So there are sub-standard entries coming from all three Leagues, yet any mention of France or England dropping an automatic side or two is deemed silly as they get to the HEC on 'merit'....!  The Merit of achievement in AP and even Top 14 is not the same as the standard of ability needed in the HEC competition itself.  

And with that, we're back to square one.  Some Pro12 sides aren't strong enough to be in HEC and shouldn't be.  Some AP and Top14 sides aren't strong enough to be in HEC and they're more than welcome to stay.  Thus Browne's assertion that some don't see that in order to get a little you must give a little.... or indeed go your own way.  

The Pro12 unions aren't going to shoot themselves in the foot, and some of them have done the homework and have concluded that shooting themselves in the foot is exactly what would be happening if they agreed to PRL's wishes.... despite the loadsa money offered as carrot.  Loadsa money doesn't always buy success, as Clermont have often found out.

lostinwales wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:
I actually dont think there should be any compramise at all and thats the position I would take because my ultimate aim is to create in business economics terms 6 perfectly symbiotic and equal rugby markets with the aim of gowing and supporting the international game in the six nations and not club rugby and the only way to do that is to give a even distribution of wealth across each national union. That is the only way to protect the six nations in my opinion.

But a huge part of the problem is that each side has a different definition of what is actually 'even'.

I think a truly even competition could only exist if it was, say, 2 teams from each union. But that would please few and it would still leave the rest of the clubs looking at the possibility of their own cross border fun.

Yes they do and thats because the PRL and the top 14 governing body are set up to only care about their own needs and not the needs of the national unions whereas the other players care about both.

More money for the APL doesnt even necessarly mean a stronger England team. It might even have the opposite effect as it seems to have had in France.

Sadly it appears to be going one of 2 ways;

The PRL get their way and dominate home nations rugby, which includes the downfall of the international game. The PRL won't stop at the HC negotiations, as soon as they bully their way into a position of power team England can forget being able to compete on a global stage with the PRL having them in their back pocket!

The other way is for the Celtic and Italian nations to pull away and allow the PRL to get on with fighting the RFU straight up. Which in turn will damage team England!

There is no comprimise with the proposals the PRL are claiming, a total restructure of the HC that kills competitive rugby outside of England and France, or no HC at all.

Personally I'd happily wave to my nose as it gets cut from my face, and if the 6 nations becomes a casualty of the PRL's crazy attitude well we all know where to lay the blame!

Scrumpy wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:But as a English fan all I want is a fair deal and a fair qualifying system, which as it is we don't have.
Oh and I would do away with the Rabo as I believe each country should have it's own Pro league, it would make life easier as the HC would be a fair competition.

I thought the top 6 in the English Premiership qualifying wasn't an issue... Surely that is about as fair as it can get? The Six best are entered for the HEC...!

You cant do away with the RABBO as Ireland, Scotland, Italy and Wales can not afford to run professional leagues they do not have a large enough rugby loving population to do so...! Do away with the RABBO and you do away with any European Competition. The same goes for Australia and New Zealand. Rugby as a game doesn't make enough money to support fully pro leagues in all nations.

That’s not the English or French clubs problem, the problem is they have 2/3 of the teams in the HC yet they don't get a fair financial deal out of it and the qualifying for the Rabo teams is a unfair system that rewards failure.

At the end of the day the English and French have the right to go else where as the ERC HC contract is over as of next season, Our clubs will be able to stand on our own two feet which I fear won’t be the case for half of the Rabo teams without the HC.

Well it will be when rugby returns to an amateur sport in Scotland, Italy, Wales and Ireland  

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the PRL/LNR proposals surely after eighteen months this response from the ERC is pathetic "a meeting focused solely on the negotiations will be convened by ERC as soon as practicable."  

Many on these forums complain of PRL/LNR threats but it seems only threats prompt the blazers into action (or should that be panic?).


It seems the unions have been hoping it will just go away but in business you must address problems face on. Uncertainty is in itself damaging.

The negotiations should include Sky and BT who are intimately involved in this. At least they are likely to be fairly businesslike.

" Any investor in a rugby club is going to want a business plan for profitability, because they know that they'll be picking up the losses themselves."

Poorfour, a shareholder is not responsible for the debt of a company. There is no requirement for them to underwrite the debt or put money into the company.

All the arguments are still based around clubs vs unions.

GunsGerms wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:
I actually dont think there should be any compramise at all and thats the position I would take because my ultimate aim is to create in business economics terms 6 perfectly symbiotic and equal rugby markets with the aim of gowing and supporting the international game in the six nations and not club rugby and the only way to do that is to give a even distribution of wealth across each national union. That is the only way to protect the six nations in my opinion.

But a huge part of the problem is that each side has a different definition of what is actually 'even'.

I think a truly even competition could only exist if it was, say, 2 teams from each union. But that would please few and it would still leave the rest of the clubs looking at the possibility of their own cross border fun.

Yes they do and thats because the PRL and the top 14 governing body are set up to only care about their own needs and not the needs of the national unions whereas the other players care about both.

More money for the APL doesnt even necessarly mean a stronger England team. It might even have the opposite effect as it seems to have had in France.

Correct.  But the point continues to be that McCafferty and his French colleague doesn't care about the burdens on International.  

As I said earlier, International Union is a competitor to Club Union.  Club Union wants to grow, wants to become dominant, wants to dictate when International gets played and wants to decide for itself whether or not it will make players available to it.  French club rugby isn't concerned about French national problems...they continue to dance around fantasy caps that don't really exist, the continue to want more and more foreign 'names' playing to improve brand marketing, they continue to fight to gain sponsorship and in a sense steal such deals from International.  They want a global Internationalised club game.  

Some rugby fans here and outside in the real world drool at the thought, others cry into their pillows.  That's life.  I don't think any of us here will ever agree who don't already agree because we simply are talking about three versions of world rugby into the future.... Rugby League, Rugby Union and RugbyMcCaff?

butterfingers wrote:Sadly it appears to be going one of 2 ways;

The PRL get their way and dominate home nations rugby, which includes the downfall of the international game. The PRL won't stop at the HC negotiations, as soon as they bully their way into a position of power team England can forget being able to compete on a global stage with the PRL having them in their back pocket!

The other way is for the Celtic and Italian nations to pull away and allow the PRL to get on with fighting the RFU straight up. Which in turn will damage team England!

There is no comprimise with the proposals the PRL are claiming, a total restructure of the HC that kills competitive rugby outside of England and France, or no HC at all.

Personally I'd happily wave to my nose as it gets cut from my face, and if the 6 nations becomes a casualty of the PRL's crazy attitude well we all know where to lay the blame!

How do the PRL/LNR proposals kill competitive rugby outside England and France. The Pro12 regions/clubs will be in the same position as the PRL/LNR clubs. They will be in a league of similar size to AP and Top14 and have the same chance of qualifying for HC i.e. 50%. If being in the same position as the English and French kill them then perhaps they can see why it is currently killing the English and French.

Exiledinborders wrote:Whatever the rights and wrongs of the PRL/LNR proposals surely after eighteen months this response from the ERC is pathetic "a meeting focused solely on the negotiations will be convened by ERC as soon as practicable."  

Many on these forums complain of PRL/LNR threats but it seems only threats prompt the blazers into action (or should that be panic?).


It seems the unions have been hoping it will just go away but in business you must address problems face on. Uncertainty is in itself damaging.

The negotiations should include Sky and BT who are intimately involved in this. At least they are likely to be fairly businesslike.

Businesslike in the sense eithe BT or Sky will throw the game under the bus for the right financial result for themselves.

Someone mentioned the Rabo, the fact it has to stay because the nations in it can't afford to run their own leagues not being Englands problem, but ultimately what is not your problem is also not your concern. Surely if your worried about another scenario where Edinburgh finish low down the league yet make a HC semi final then recruit better quality players, if your worried that your league fatigues your players who then can't compete with Rabo teams then restructure your league!

The PRL is in danger of becoming this USA style nanny for european rugby, where control and wealth dominance is name of the game, disguised in the cloak of 'fairness'

I actually think it would benefit the Rabo teams individually if they took on the recommendations of the English and French.

Firstly, the non-guaranteed HC rugby would  mean they would actually have to try and build a successful team, sometimes I look at some of the Rabo teams and they seem happy to be there, enjoy their away fixtures in southern France, have a good jolly with full knowledge regardless they'll be back again next year.

Also they may, just may make the Rabo worth tuning in for. Why is it that people will fill the pubs and the stadiums to watch Leinster vs. Ospreys in the HC but come the Rabo its like its a U20 match in terms of interest? Put out full strength sides and they may just start to make the league marketable and be able to sell the TV rights to someone that matters... rather than BBC regional only.

In SA we pretty much get every rugby match around the planet bar the Rabo.... we could pick up the rights for cheap as chips as they're not worth anything anyhow... people will watch any decent rugby here, ITM, HC, Top14, EPL, 6N the lot... bar the Rabo... why is that?

We watch school rugby, amateur rugby, university rugby, 3rd tier SA (Vodacom), 2nd tier SA (Currie Cup) on TV ... why is it that the Rabo does not interest the SA public??? Its the only top league in the world we don't watch.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/browne-compromise-vital-in-euro-standoff-29573382.html
Anyone read this?

IRFU chief executive says "It's extraordinary that they (PRL) have sold rights to something they don't own and in territories they have no jurisdiction in. As I said, we haven't seen the details, but the deal allegedly also covers Ireland!

It'll be even more difficult to work out if English clubs have sold the rights in Ireland!!!!!
Remember this comes from a chief executive not some poster

Exiledinborders wrote:Whatever the rights and wrongs of the PRL/LNR proposals surely after eighteen months this response from the ERC is pathetic "a meeting focused solely on the negotiations will be convened by ERC as soon as practicable."  

Many on these forums complain of PRL/LNR threats but it seems only threats prompt the blazers into action (or should that be panic?).


It seems the unions have been hoping it will just go away but in business you must address problems face on. Uncertainty is in itself damaging.

The negotiations should include Sky and BT who are intimately involved in this. At least they are likely to be fairly businesslike.

I would certainly agree more urgency is needed. The qualification aspect is a red herring though and I suspect would be the easiest thing to agree on. It's how the money and power is distributed. Some argue it is across three leagues and some will say 6 unions. The BT issue is the spanner in the works because if you believe what we are told the erc have agreed to go with sky and the PRL have agreed to go with BT for megabucks. If any tournament is therefore run by the ERC then BT will have to go bye bye surely. But then what has been agreed between the PRL and BT isn't known

GunsGerms wrote:

Poorfour wrote:
On your shareholder point, it would, on paper, if the shares were easily tradeable on an exchange. They're not. Any investor in a rugby club is going to want a business plan for profitability, because they know that they'll be picking up the losses themselves. You may be right that the deal tips the financial power too far to the English and French. But a) the current deal is tipped too far the way of the Celtic unions and b) this is only happening because the Celts and ERC wouldn't negotiate.

Thats completly incorrect. From all reports I have read the Celts, Italy and the ERC are willing to compramise its the PRL that wont budge.

Poorfour wrote:

So, what's your compromise position? If this deal has to be stopped at all costs, you need to have one. It can't be "status quo ante", because PRL and LNR have already moved against that. It can't be "no European comp", because that would be cutting off your nose to spite your face, and the PRL and LNR might go ahead with their own league anyway. It has to be something that you think would be acceptable to all sides.

So what is it?

I actually dont think there should be any compramise at all and thats the position I would take because my ultimate aim is to create in business economics terms 6 perfectly symbiotic and equal rugby markets with the aim of gowing and supporting the international game in the six nations and not club rugby and the only way to do that is to give a even distribution of wealth across each national union. That is the only way to protect the six nations in my opinion.

Then you've been reading very different things from me. The only thing I have seen from the ERC side implying any movement whatsoever was yesterday's press release, but even that didn't have any specifics.

The PRL and LNR have both said repeatedly that the ERC / Rabo unions haven't budged on the two things they actually want to negotiate and they have at least put forward a proposed compromise position. Even if you don't like it, that's one more than I have seen from the ERC.

Well, if you don't think there should be any compromise, then you have to let the cards fall where they may. You claim to want "symbiotic and equal rugby markets", but then say "not club rugby". It's not actually clear what you mean by that, but if you want to protect the 6 Nations (and you say you do) then leaving club rugby out of your thinking is to ignore the most important symbiosis in International rugby.

International players do not spring fully formed from the turf of Twickenham, Murrayfield, the Arms Park or Lansdowne Road [1]. Club rugby is what pays their wages and develops their careers. Without strong club sides, you don't have competition for international places, a pipeline of new talent or even players who can devote their time to training professionally.

And you don't have club rugby without healthy competitions. That means different things in different markets. In small markets, banding together in cross-border leagues makes sense [2]. In larger markets, a domestic league makes sense. Cross border competition of the best teams also makes sense. All of these things are good for International rugby. All of them feed off each other and so any workable system has to be a compromise between what's best for each.

Unless you're saying that what you actually want is to keep English and French club rugby as weak as possible for the good of the other 6 nations countries. Because that's what it starts to sound like, and there I would have to disagree with you.

[1] I know, I know. But the Millennium Stadium and the Aviva are so much less evocative.
[2] By the way, does ERC sanction and govern the rabo? If not, why not? It's a European cross-border competition. And if they do, how can they possibly fairly represent the interests of the other two unions and their clubs?

Exiledinborders wrote:

butterfingers wrote:Sadly it appears to be going one of 2 ways;

The PRL get their way and dominate home nations rugby, which includes the downfall of the international game. The PRL won't stop at the HC negotiations, as soon as they bully their way into a position of power team England can forget being able to compete on a global stage with the PRL having them in their back pocket!

The other way is for the Celtic and Italian nations to pull away and allow the PRL to get on with fighting the RFU straight up. Which in turn will damage team England!

There is no comprimise with the proposals the PRL are claiming, a total restructure of the HC that kills competitive rugby outside of England and France, or no HC at all.

Personally I'd happily wave to my nose as it gets cut from my face, and if the 6 nations becomes a casualty of the PRL's crazy attitude well we all know where to lay the blame!

How do the PRL/LNR proposals kill competitive rugby outside England and France. The Pro12 regions/clubs will be in the same positionas the PRL/LNR clubs. They will be in a league of similar size to AP and Top14 and have the same chance of qualifying for HC i.e. 50%. If being in the same position as the English and French kill them then perhaps they can see why it is currently killing the English and French.

England six guaranteed teams from which they can plot and plan their International squads through hard edged HEC encounters.  
Scotland, maybe no team from which to select suitable players.  
Ireland, possibly no players.  
Wales, possibly no players.  
Italy, quite possibly no players to select from that would have been tested against Europe's best.  
France, guaranteed six teams from which to cobble together something that might compete in 6N.

No - Amlin is not just as good a testing ground.  If it was, the arguments wouldn't be going on so long about HEC.  One is the best quality rugby, the other isn't.

England and France unfairly advantaged in choosing International players and then even moreso in honing the quality of those players in tough HEC battle - automatically - season in, season out.  Anyone who can't see that advantage clearly in PRL's proposals is in need of a trip to Specsavers.

butterfingers wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:Whatever the rights and wrongs of the PRL/LNR proposals surely after eighteen months this response from the ERC is pathetic "a meeting focused solely on the negotiations will be convened by ERC as soon as practicable."  

Many on these forums complain of PRL/LNR threats but it seems only threats prompt the blazers into action (or should that be panic?).


It seems the unions have been hoping it will just go away but in business you must address problems face on. Uncertainty is in itself damaging.

The negotiations should include Sky and BT who are intimately involved in this. At least they are likely to be fairly businesslike.

Businesslike in the sense eithe BT or Sky will throw the game under the bus for the right financial result for themselves.

Someone mentioned the Rabo, the fact it has to stay because the nations in it can't afford to run their own leagues not being Englands problem, but ultimately what is not your problem is also not your concern. Surely if your worried about another scenario where Edinburgh finish low down the league yet make a HC semi final then recruit better quality players, if your worried that your league fatigues your players who then can't compete with Rabo teams then restructure your league!

The PRL is in danger of becoming this USA style nanny for european rugby, where control and wealth dominance is name of the game, disguised in the cloak of 'fairness'

Of course the TV companies are looking after their interests. However they are important players in this. It is up to the clubs to look after their interests and the unions theirs. That is the nature of negotiations.

I see no reason to end the Rabo. I just see no reason why some teams should get automatically into HC and some not. Actually I think qualification would be good for the Pro12. If teams were competing for something it might attract more support. The AP and Top14 attract more support than the Pro12. This is not down to population. After all Leicester get crowds two or three time as big as Cardiff despite being a considerably smaller city.

Exiledinborders wrote:

butterfingers wrote:Sadly it appears to be going one of 2 ways;

The PRL get their way and dominate home nations rugby, which includes the downfall of the international game. The PRL won't stop at the HC negotiations, as soon as they bully their way into a position of power team England can forget being able to compete on a global stage with the PRL having them in their back pocket!

The other way is for the Celtic and Italian nations to pull away and allow the PRL to get on with fighting the RFU straight up. Which in turn will damage team England!

There is no comprimise with the proposals the PRL are claiming, a total restructure of the HC that kills competitive rugby outside of England and France, or no HC at all.

Personally I'd happily wave to my nose as it gets cut from my face, and if the 6 nations becomes a casualty of the PRL's crazy attitude well we all know where to lay the blame!

How do the PRL/LNR proposals kill competitive rugby outside England and France. The Pro12 regions/clubs will be in the same position as the PRL/LNR clubs. They will be in a league of similar size to AP and Top14 and have the same chance of qualifying for HC i.e. 50%. If being in the same position as the English and French kill them then perhaps they can see why it is currently killing the English and French.

I'm not talking specifically LNR, my issue is solely with the PRL who are the spearhead of this.

The deal put on the table enables the celtic clubs to receive more money correct? But to enable this the English clubs must receive obscene amounts, and be allowed to earn far more potentiall.

We are all agreed the money grubbing highlights a dominance in France and England, which is all well and good, but there is only so much the others will put up with before starting to use their trump cards to stay afloat, and sadly for the RFU their trump cards are the exact same thing as their normal hand. The RFU cannot win this, when the 6N is threatened, and lets not kid ourselves, it will have to be for the celts and Italians to get a foothold in negotiations at some point, the international game in the NH is going to be headed football bound. England internationals are quite funny at present, they stand no hope of winning anything, or beating teams with a greater structure who are pulling together, yet they ride the coat tails of a generation who were brought up to see English football as the pinnacle of their careers, English rugby players are on the cusp of exactly the same thing!

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:But as a English fan all I want is a fair deal and a fair qualifying system, which as it is we don't have.
Oh and I would do away with the Rabo as I believe each country should have it's own Pro league, it would make life easier as the HC would be a fair competition.

I thought the top 6 in the English Premiership qualifying wasn't an issue... Surely that is about as fair as it can get? The Six best are entered for the HEC...!

You cant do away with the RABBO as Ireland, Scotland, Italy and Wales can not afford to run professional leagues they do not have a large enough rugby loving population to do so...! Do away with the RABBO and you do away with any European Competition. The same goes for Australia and New Zealand. Rugby as a game doesn't make enough money to support fully pro leagues in all nations.

That’s not the English or French clubs problem, the problem is they have 2/3 of the teams in the HC yet they don't get a fair financial deal out of it and the qualifying for the Rabo teams is a unfair system that rewards failure.

At the end of the day the English and French have the right to go else where as the ERC HC contract is over as of next season, Our clubs will be able to stand on our own two feet which I fear won’t be the case for half of the Rabo teams without the HC.

Well it will be when rugby returns to an amateur sport in Scotland, Italy, Wales and Ireland  

The IRB will intervene before that happens

formerly known as Sam wrote:" Any investor in a rugby club is going to want a business plan for profitability, because they know that they'll be picking up the losses themselves."

Poorfour, a shareholder is not responsible for the debt of a company. There is no requirement for them to underwrite the debt or put money into the company.

All the arguments are still based around clubs vs unions.

Sam, that's true if you're buying shares in a club on the stock exchange, but in practice that's not how it works. Apart from Tigers, just about every other club is owned by an individual or company that controls the equity but is also a provider of debt. In all the recent transactions involving rugby clubs (Bath, Sarries, Wasps) the new investor has done so with a commitment to carry future debts and invest in getting to profitability and usually taken on some or all of the existing debt.

And yes, the debate still hasn't really moved on from union vs club, but at least we are getting into more interesting and in depth arguments rather than just repeating positions. We might get somewhere. I hope the ERC members can do the same.

SecretFly wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

butterfingers wrote:Sadly it appears to be going one of 2 ways;

The PRL get their way and dominate home nations rugby, which includes the downfall of the international game. The PRL won't stop at the HC negotiations, as soon as they bully their way into a position of power team England can forget being able to compete on a global stage with the PRL having them in their back pocket!

The other way is for the Celtic and Italian nations to pull away and allow the PRL to get on with fighting the RFU straight up. Which in turn will damage team England!

There is no comprimise with the proposals the PRL are claiming, a total restructure of the HC that kills competitive rugby outside of England and France, or no HC at all.

Personally I'd happily wave to my nose as it gets cut from my face, and if the 6 nations becomes a casualty of the PRL's crazy attitude well we all know where to lay the blame!

How do the PRL/LNR proposals kill competitive rugby outside England and France. The Pro12 regions/clubs will be in the same positionas the PRL/LNR clubs. They will be in a league of similar size to AP and Top14 and have the same chance of qualifying for HC i.e. 50%. If being in the same position as the English and French kill them then perhaps they can see why it is currently killing the English and French.

England six guaranteed teams from which they can plot and plan their International squads through hard edged HEC encounters.  
Scotland, maybe no team from which to select suitable players.  
Ireland, possibly no players.  
Wales, possibly no players.
Italy, quite possibly no players to select from that would have been tested against Europe's best.  
France, guaranteed six teams from which to cobble together something that might compete in 6N.

No - Amlin is not just as good a testing ground.  If it was, the arguments wouldn't be going on so long about HEC.  One is the best quality rugby, the other isn't.

England and France unfairly advantaged in choosing International players and then even moreso in honing the quality of those players in tough HEC battle - automatically - season in, season out.  Anyone who can't see that advantage clearly in PRL's proposals is in need of a trip to Specsavers.

How can Scotland, Wales, Ireland and Italy all have no teams in the HC? Between them they are guaranteed six teams. In addition the PRL/LNR have indicated that the are happy for each Rabo country to be guaranteed one team in HC.

Exiledinborders wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:Whatever the rights and wrongs of the PRL/LNR proposals surely after eighteen months this response from the ERC is pathetic "a meeting focused solely on the negotiations will be convened by ERC as soon as practicable."  

Many on these forums complain of PRL/LNR threats but it seems only threats prompt the blazers into action (or should that be panic?).


It seems the unions have been hoping it will just go away but in business you must address problems face on. Uncertainty is in itself damaging.

The negotiations should include Sky and BT who are intimately involved in this. At least they are likely to be fairly businesslike.

Businesslike in the sense eithe BT or Sky will throw the game under the bus for the right financial result for themselves.

Someone mentioned the Rabo, the fact it has to stay because the nations in it can't afford to run their own leagues not being Englands problem, but ultimately what is not your problem is also not your concern. Surely if your worried about another scenario where Edinburgh finish low down the league yet make a HC semi final then recruit better quality players, if your worried that your league fatigues your players who then can't compete with Rabo teams then restructure your league!

The PRL is in danger of becoming this USA style nanny for european rugby, where control and wealth dominance is name of the game, disguised in the cloak of 'fairness'

Of course the TV companies are looking after their interests. However they are important players in this. It is up to the clubs to look after their interests and the unions theirs. That is the nature of negotiations.

I see no reason to end the Rabo. I just see no reason why some teams should get automatically into HC and some not.  Actually I think qualification would be good for the Pro12. If teams were competing for something it might attract more support. The AP and Top14 attract more support than the Pro12. This is not down to population. After all Leicester get crowds two or three time as big as Cardiff despite being a considerably smaller city.

Your arguing 3 different arguments to suit your point though, Cardiff isn't that big a city, has a thriving premiership football club, and football scene, and politics of the club are renowned over the last 10 years or so. Coparing apples and oranges!

I agree the clubs should look after themselves, and the unions should look after themselves, of which the PRL are not doing, they are ordering everyone else around. The PRL wanting to compete on an even keel with superior Rabo sides should look to their own league and restructure the best way they feel, not use viewership to dictate how others allocate their agreed upon slots to the tournament!

Sky and BT aren't big players at all, they are the forces driven by the very thing that hinders the game. You wouldn't invite the devil to your christening would you?

butterfingers wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

butterfingers wrote:Sadly it appears to be going one of 2 ways;

The PRL get their way and dominate home nations rugby, which includes the downfall of the international game. The PRL won't stop at the HC negotiations, as soon as they bully their way into a position of power team England can forget being able to compete on a global stage with the PRL having them in their back pocket!

The other way is for the Celtic and Italian nations to pull away and allow the PRL to get on with fighting the RFU straight up. Which in turn will damage team England!

There is no comprimise with the proposals the PRL are claiming, a total restructure of the HC that kills competitive rugby outside of England and France, or no HC at all.

Personally I'd happily wave to my nose as it gets cut from my face, and if the 6 nations becomes a casualty of the PRL's crazy attitude well we all know where to lay the blame!

How do the PRL/LNR proposals kill competitive rugby outside England and France. The Pro12 regions/clubs will be in the same position as the PRL/LNR clubs. They will be in a league of similar size to AP and Top14 and have the same chance of qualifying for HC i.e. 50%. If being in the same position as the English and French kill them then perhaps they can see why it is currently killing the English and French.

I'm not talking specifically LNR, my issue is solely with the PRL who are the spearhead of this.

The deal put on the table enables the celtic clubs to receive more money correct? But to enable this the English clubs must receive obscene amounts, and be allowed to earn far more potentiall.

We are all agreed the money grubbing highlights a dominance in France and England, which is all well and good, but there is only so much the others will put up with before starting to use their trump cards to stay afloat, and sadly for the RFU their trump cards are the exact same thing as their normal hand. The RFU cannot win this, when the 6N is threatened, and lets not kid ourselves, it will have to be for the celts and Italians to get a foothold in negotiations at some point, the international game in the NH is going to be headed football bound. England internationals are quite funny at present, they stand no hope of winning anything, or beating teams with a greater structure who are pulling together, yet they ride the coat tails of a generation who were brought up to see English football as the pinnacle of their careers, English rugby players are on the cusp of exactly the same thing!

What is money grubbing about asking for each team in a competition to have the same share of the money? Why should Rabo teams get twice as much as AP and Top14 teams? The way you talk you would think English teams are all swimming in money whereas in fact only Leicester and Gloucester are solvent.

How are rabo teams gettin twice as much? Where are your figures?

butterfingers wrote:

The deal put on the table enables the celtic clubs to receive more money correct? But to enable this the English clubs must receive obscene amounts, and be allowed to earn far more potentiall.

According to the amounts posted elsewhere in this thread (sorry, I am on a flaky connection and can't go back and find them), the Celtic unions would get a fairly paltry amount extra - I think it was about £60,000 per team per year. The French and English would get around £800,000 per team per year (assuming we include all teams from each union, whether in HEC or Amlin that year). That would be enough to tip several more PRL teams into profit, so it means a lot.

What this really means is that every team gets about £2.5m per year (assuming the unions/leagues distribute the cash evenly among their own teams).

No-one loses out. Cash is shared evenly. None of the amounts being considered is obscene.

Exiledinborders wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

butterfingers wrote:Sadly it appears to be going one of 2 ways;

The PRL get their way and dominate home nations rugby, which includes the downfall of the international game. The PRL won't stop at the HC negotiations, as soon as they bully their way into a position of power team England can forget being able to compete on a global stage with the PRL having them in their back pocket!

The other way is for the Celtic and Italian nations to pull away and allow the PRL to get on with fighting the RFU straight up. Which in turn will damage team England!

There is no comprimise with the proposals the PRL are claiming, a total restructure of the HC that kills competitive rugby outside of England and France, or no HC at all.

Personally I'd happily wave to my nose as it gets cut from my face, and if the 6 nations becomes a casualty of the PRL's crazy attitude well we all know where to lay the blame!

How do the PRL/LNR proposals kill competitive rugby outside England and France. The Pro12 regions/clubs will be in the same position as the PRL/LNR clubs. They will be in a league of similar size to AP and Top14 and have the same chance of qualifying for HC i.e. 50%. If being in the same position as the English and French kill them then perhaps they can see why it is currently killing the English and French.

I'm not talking specifically LNR, my issue is solely with the PRL who are the spearhead of this.

The deal put on the table enables the celtic clubs to receive more money correct? But to enable this the English clubs must receive obscene amounts, and be allowed to earn far more potentiall.

We are all agreed the money grubbing highlights a dominance in France and England, which is all well and good, but there is only so much the others will put up with before starting to use their trump cards to stay afloat, and sadly for the RFU their trump cards are the exact same thing as their normal hand. The RFU cannot win this, when the 6N is threatened, and lets not kid ourselves, it will have to be for the celts and Italians to get a foothold in negotiations at some point, the international game in the NH is going to be headed football bound. England internationals are quite funny at present, they stand no hope of winning anything, or beating teams with a greater structure who are pulling together, yet they ride the coat tails of a generation who were brought up to see English football as the pinnacle of their careers, English rugby players are on the cusp of exactly the same thing!

What is money grubbing about asking for each team in a competition to have the same share of the money? Why should Rabo teams get twice as much as AP and Top14 teams? The way you talk you would think English teams are all swimming in money whereas in fact only Leicester and Gloucester are solvent.

And thats the key issue right there, the Rabo teas get nothing, the unions however, who set up the competition, and have equal shares in the ERC receive an equal and fair amount. How they allocate that has nothing to do with anyone else!

And I know the plight of the AP teams, I am a Glos fan, and English through and through. I fail to understand how my compatriates agree with anything the PRL has to say!