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.

markb wrote:Are people that surprised that the French & English clubs consider the current money sharing system unfair?  The clubs feel they are making a similar effort to compete as those from the other unions yet are getting paid less each for their endeavours.  If there was someone at my work doing the same job as me but getting paid more I wouldn't be too pleased either.

If the unions and fanbases in the other countries could support a similar number of teams at a high enough level it would be different, but they can'tchoose not to.

 

Intotouch wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Intotouch
The players coming from where as this would be outside the International Windows with players contracted to their clubs ? So basically semi pros

They have choices. There are two levels of professional leagues in France below the top 14. There are academy players around France and there are French top 14 players reaching the end of contracts. It would cost the FFR a lot of money but to recruit enough players for say two regional sides in France is absolutely possible, even if it's made initially of younger, less experienced or less talented players.

The problem that I think they would be faced with is finding stadiums they could use.

The reality is that if the FFR wanted to play hardball they could choose their international teams from these suggested regional sides as opposed to the clubs. Its not as if the current model is doing them any favours in terms of international competition anyway.

For the record I don't think this will happen and the big issue for supposed regional teams would be switching the fanbase or gaining a new fanbase.

nathan wrote:http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16024_8917259,00.html

Wonder if some folks on here will now believe that the french are in this as much as the english are. You'll have to stop painting the english as pantomime villains now!

Are you shocked that pre negotiations the LNR are using the PRL's stance to enforce a position of strength for themselves?

The LNR won't go into a Franglo comp, they want a restructured HC or will be happy enough to just expand the T14. In this regard the PRL have to be carefull, rely on the LNR at your peril, because the T14 will survive without the HC, and I think the Celtic and Italians will restructure a financially viable league, not to mention maybe putting a bit more focus on the club game in each others countries, whereas we might end up all looking at each other thinking what went wrong!

butterfingers wrote:

nathan wrote:http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16024_8917259,00.html

Wonder if some folks on here will now believe that the french are in this as much as the english are. You'll have to stop painting the english as pantomime villains now!

Are you shocked that pre negotiations the LNR are using the PRL's stance to enforce a position of strength for themselves?

The LNR won't go into a Franglo comp, they want a restructured HC or will be happy enough to just expand the T14. In this regard the PRL have to be carefull, rely on the LNR at your peril, because the T14 will survive without the HC, and I think the Celtic and Italians will restructure a financially viable league, not to mention maybe putting a bit more focus on the club game in each others countries, whereas we might end up all looking at each other thinking what went wrong!

There is no way you can claim that, they even say; ""We're not threatening not to participate in the European Cup - we're saying we will not participate,"

which would imply there pretty damn serious. I really do think some people on here are just wishing they leave the english on their own.

broadlandboy wrote:LNR view http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16024_8917259,00.html

Think most of us were already aware of his bluster, blb   Are his comments a surprise to you?

So the LNR are threatening to pull out of the HEC in a year that the French will be preparing for the upcoming RWC, along with the rest of us. Amazing. Maybe do us all some good to rest from the HEC next year

nathan wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

nathan wrote:http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16024_8917259,00.html

Wonder if some folks on here will now believe that the french are in this as much as the english are. You'll have to stop painting the english as pantomime villains now!

Are you shocked that pre negotiations the LNR are using the PRL's stance to enforce a position of strength for themselves?

The LNR won't go into a Franglo comp, they want a restructured HC or will be happy enough to just expand the T14. In this regard the PRL have to be carefull, rely on the LNR at your peril, because the T14 will survive without the HC, and I think the Celtic and Italians will restructure a financially viable league, not to mention maybe putting a bit more focus on the club game in each others countries, whereas we might end up all looking at each other thinking what went wrong!

There is no way you can claim that, they even say; ""We're not threatening not to participate in the European Cup - we're saying we will not participate,"

which would imply there pretty damn serious. I really do think some people on here are just wishing they leave the english on their own.

Why would I want my own clubs to not be involved? I want a competitive HC not just from the 6N but fro other EU nations, this will not happen if we let the rampant monster that is the PRL to dictate terms. They will not stop at the HC, they will then target England internationals as a threat to the club scene!

Oh and by the way, the LNR have stated previously they have no interest in a Franglo tournament! They are merely playing the gae pre negotiations.

butterfingers wrote:

markb wrote:Are people that surprised that the French & English clubs consider the current money sharing system unfair?  The clubs feel they are making a similar effort to compete as those from the other unions yet are getting paid less each for their endeavours.  If there was someone at my work doing the same job as me but getting paid more I wouldn't be too pleased either.

If the unions and fanbases in the other countries could support a similar number of teams at a high enough level it would be different, but they can'tchoose not to.

 

Nope, can't. If they could make it work they would.

markb wrote:Are people that surprised that the French & English clubs consider the current money sharing system unfair?

Not surprised at all as the PRL are the ones who implement the grossly unfair system where those successful teams in the AP who qualify for the HEC get exactly the same as the failures who don't.

The Great Aukster wrote:

markb wrote:Are people that surprised that the French & English clubs consider the current money sharing system unfair?

Not surprised at all as the PRL are the ones who implement the grossly unfair system where those successful teams in the AP who qualify for the HEC get exactly the same as the failures who don't.

If they didn't do it that way they wouldn't be able to plead poverty for their best!

The Great Aukster wrote:

markb wrote:Are people that surprised that the French & English clubs consider the current money sharing system unfair?

Not surprised at all as the PRL are the ones who implement the grossly unfair system where those successful teams in the AP who qualify for the HEC get exactly the same as the failures who don't.

They are only providing their members with some security of income. Ireland do the same by having 3 sides automatically qualify and starving the other one. Same difference.

Poorfour wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

markb wrote:Are people that surprised that the French & English clubs consider the current money sharing system unfair?

Not surprised at all as the PRL are the ones who implement the grossly unfair system where those successful teams in the AP who qualify for the HEC get exactly the same as the failures who don't.

They are only providing their members with some security of income. Ireland do the same by having 3 sides automatically qualify and starving the other one. Same difference.

Except that all the European money goes into the IRFU pot to support all rugby in Ireland. Different difference.
Don't the PRL have six sides who automatically qualify?

The Great Aukster, do you mean giving each club in the competition an equal share so to promote a more competitive league when you say about the Aviva?? Thus meaning that all teams have it within their means to get to the qualification process if managed/coached correctly.

I love the arguments on here saying the clubs are greedy. It is a product (the Euro Cup) where the commodities that create the money are the clubs. It is each of these clubs that should be equally rewarded. If one league/Union is providing a third of the clubs then they should get a third of the royalties produced from the overall product.

It is the job of each Union to look after their own nation primarily, it is not the job of other Unions to help other non-emerging nations Unions. I am all in favour of helping out nations like Georgia and so forth but Wales and Ireland are in no way an emerging nation.

To say the international game will suffer because of any of this is stupid. Having a meaningless Amlin cup doesn't help but one which had better teams in would. A third tier competition for emerging nations would help. These are all proposals made by the big bad horrible PRL.

Student-A1 wrote:The Great Aukster, do you mean giving each club in the competition an equal share so to promote a more competitive league when you say about the Aviva?? Thus meaning that all teams have it within their means to get to the qualification process if managed/coached correctly.

I love the arguments on here saying the clubs are greedy. It is a product (the Euro Cup) where the commodities that create the money are the clubs. It is each of these clubs that should be equally rewarded. If one league/Union is providing a third of the clubs then they should get a third of the royalties produced from the overall product.

It is the job of each Union to look after their own nation primarily, it is not the job of other Unions to help other non-emerging nations Unions. I am all in favour of helping out nations like Georgia and so forth but Wales and Ireland are in no way an emerging nation.

To say the international game will suffer because of any of this is stupid. Having a meaningless Amlin cup doesn't help but one which had better teams in would. A third tier competition for emerging nations would help. These are all proposals made by the big bad horrible PRL.

But neither the PRL or the LNR supply a third of the clubs. Or are you talking about the proposed league? If there was compromise I suspect you still wouldn't see the PRL and LNR supplying a third of teams as the Rabo would insist on 8 spaces. Just my two cents. No one knows how any negotiations would pan out

Standulstermen wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:The Great Aukster, do you mean giving each club in the competition an equal share so to promote a more competitive league when you say about the Aviva?? Thus meaning that all teams have it within their means to get to the qualification process if managed/coached correctly.

I love the arguments on here saying the clubs are greedy. It is a product (the Euro Cup) where the commodities that create the money are the clubs. It is each of these clubs that should be equally rewarded. If one league/Union is providing a third of the clubs then they should get a third of the royalties produced from the overall product.

It is the job of each Union to look after their own nation primarily, it is not the job of other Unions to help other non-emerging nations Unions. I am all in favour of helping out nations like Georgia and so forth but Wales and Ireland are in no way an emerging nation.

To say the international game will suffer because of any of this is stupid. Having a meaningless Amlin cup doesn't help but one which had better teams in would. A third tier competition for emerging nations would help. These are all proposals made by the big bad horrible PRL.

But neither the PRL or the LNR supply a third of the clubs. Or are you talking about the proposed league? If there was compromise I suspect you still wouldn't see the PRL and LNR supplying a third of teams as the Rabo would insist on 8 spaces. Just my two cents. No one knows how any negotiations would pan out

Are you forgetting the Amlin?

Isn't it funny. They've made so much of qualifying from the Rabo but then turns around and says anyone is welcome to join their new Anglo French tournament!

Standulstermen wrote:

Intotouch wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Intotouch
The players coming from where as this would be outside the International Windows with players contracted to their clubs ? So basically semi pros

They have choices. There are two levels of professional leagues in France below the top 14. There are academy players around France and there are French top 14 players reaching the end of contracts. It would cost the FFR a lot of money but to recruit enough players for say two regional sides in France is absolutely possible, even if it's made initially of younger, less experienced or less talented players.

The problem that I think they would be faced with is finding stadiums they could use.

The reality is that if the FFR wanted to play hardball they could choose their international teams from these suggested regional sides as opposed to the clubs. Its not as if the current model is doing them any favours in terms of international competition anyway.

For the record I don't think this will happen and the big issue for supposed regional teams would be switching the fanbase or gaining a new fanbase.

I don't think that getting fans to come to matches would really be a problem. If the dates are clashing with important top 14 matches then sure for some parts of the country, but they'd be drawing fans from a wider area than the currant clubs. Many rugby fans don't have a team to follow in the top 14. France has a large population in each region, many of which are rugby fans, and fiercely proud of their region with no opportunity to express this in a sporting sense.

I can very well see the FFR trying this. It may not work very well but as an experiment they may think it's absolutely worth trying.

Student-A1 wrote:It is the job of each Union to look after their own nation primarily, it is not the job of other Unions to help other non-emerging nations Unions. I am all in favour of helping out nations like Georgia and so forth but Wales and Ireland are in no way an emerging nation.

No, but Italy are. And we all know when we talk about 'mismatches' etc. that's who we are obliquely referring to. They are the only nation not to recently have provided at least one team to the knockout stages.

If the stakeholders were to benefit from what their 'brands' added to the value of the competition Ireland would be taking a bigger share, not a reduced share for what our big three provinces offer in terms of the product and the market appeal. But that's not what this is about. It's about control.

Btw its looking increasingly unlikey they'll be able to form a new tournament. There'll be legal action but they've all signed up to IRB terms and conditions and some of those state that the unions run the show in each country.

Standulstermen, I agree that there might be more from rabo than 6. But it seems that rather than negotiate from the current format it is just 'no the current format is great so it stays', why not come up with a different proposal?? It just seems that the Rabo representative unions are trying to make out this big horrible person is bullying them when in fact a proposal was made, but no counter proposal apart from one that had already been ruled out in the existing contract.

I was reading through the comments on Equipe and SudOuest today again. Most fans who commented see this ending of the h cup as a bad thing and an example of greed ruining a sport. A few don't care. Some debate if the top 16 is worth thinking about. None seemed interested in a franglo comp, although that's only comments on two articles.

The Great Aukster wrote:

markb wrote:Are people that surprised that the French & English clubs consider the current money sharing system unfair?

Not surprised at all as the PRL are the ones who implement the grossly unfair system where those successful teams in the AP who qualify for the HEC get exactly the same as the failures who don't.

The money generated by the ERC is from both the Heineken and the Amlin.  What the seperate primary sponsorship is for each competition would be clear cut (though I don't know if it's on record), but secondary sponsors across both and the televison rights would be combined deals where it's impossible to determine the exact contribution.

If the English cubs didn't want to evenly distribute the money the ERC pass on to them it would be interesting how they would go about devising the ratio.

Standulstermen wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:The Great Aukster, do you mean giving each club in the competition an equal share so to promote a more competitive league when you say about the Aviva?? Thus meaning that all teams have it within their means to get to the qualification process if managed/coached correctly.

I love the arguments on here saying the clubs are greedy. It is a product (the Euro Cup) where the commodities that create the money are the clubs. It is each of these clubs that should be equally rewarded. If one league/Union is providing a third of the clubs then they should get a third of the royalties produced from the overall product.

It is the job of each Union to look after their own nation primarily, it is not the job of other Unions to help other non-emerging nations Unions. I am all in favour of helping out nations like Georgia and so forth but Wales and Ireland are in no way an emerging nation.

To say the international game will suffer because of any of this is stupid. Having a meaningless Amlin cup doesn't help but one which had better teams in would. A third tier competition for emerging nations would help. These are all proposals made by the big bad horrible PRL.

But neither the PRL or the LNR supply a third of the clubs. Or are you talking about the proposed league? If there was compromise I suspect you still wouldn't see the PRL and LNR supplying a third of teams as the Rabo would insist on 8 spaces. Just my two cents. No one knows how any negotiations would pan out

Your still not recognising the 2 key points though...

The ERC is owned by the unions, and therefore any money earnt by the ERC is distributed to the unions!

Also if you want to give the clubs the power, then the PRL, LNR + Irish version, Scottish version, Italian version and Welsh versions of such would all have to split the pie surely. which will still see a pot split unevenly because England and France WANT more teams than anyone else.

Notch, I was taling about the mismatches in the Amlin where my team Bath seem to of made their home now. They played Bucharest and beat them by loads. I fail to see what anyone gets out of a game like that. Surely Bucharest are better served playing a closely fought game in the third level euro cup with less teams in HEC and better quality of teams in Amlin.

The truth is that if the HEC had only 8 or 12 teams it would still command all the interest and money from sponsors. No one cares about second tier competitions never mind third tier ones. The rugby might be marginally better in division two but it won't make one iota of difference to its financial attractiveness. People want to see the best teams European countries can produce, not also-rans.

Meritocracy works on the principle that if there are 24 teams in a competition then the pot should be divided by 24 and each given their share. What those teams do with their money thereafter is up to them. They could give it to their union, share with other teams, give it to the referees' retirement home or whatever - that's outside the competition and up to them.

I don't disagree with you. Thats been something fans on all sides have wanted from the start.

It's very difficult to get that with the English negotiating tactics. It's not even so what they want- its the way they're trying to bully everyone else into 'breaking' instead of meeting us half-way.

Student-A1 wrote:Standulstermen, I agree that there might be more from rabo than 6. But it seems that rather than negotiate from the current format it is just 'no the current format is great so it stays', why not come up with a different proposal?? It just seems that the Rabo representative unions are trying to make out this big horrible person is bullying them when in fact a proposal was made, but no counter proposal apart from one that had already been ruled out in the existing contract.

In fairness student the IRFU have stated they are willing to talk on qualification, format etc. to my mind that's the easy business. The harder business comes in when talking money and control. That is where the impasse will come I think

butterfingers wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:The Great Aukster, do you mean giving each club in the competition an equal share so to promote a more competitive league when you say about the Aviva?? Thus meaning that all teams have it within their means to get to the qualification process if managed/coached correctly.

I love the arguments on here saying the clubs are greedy. It is a product (the Euro Cup) where the commodities that create the money are the clubs. It is each of these clubs that should be equally rewarded. If one league/Union is providing a third of the clubs then they should get a third of the royalties produced from the overall product.

It is the job of each Union to look after their own nation primarily, it is not the job of other Unions to help other non-emerging nations Unions. I am all in favour of helping out nations like Georgia and so forth but Wales and Ireland are in no way an emerging nation.

To say the international game will suffer because of any of this is stupid. Having a meaningless Amlin cup doesn't help but one which had better teams in would. A third tier competition for emerging nations would help. These are all proposals made by the big bad horrible PRL.

But neither the PRL or the LNR supply a third of the clubs. Or are you talking about the proposed league? If there was compromise I suspect you still wouldn't see the PRL and LNR supplying a third of teams as the Rabo would insist on 8 spaces. Just my two cents. No one knows how any negotiations would pan out

Your still not recognising the 2 key points though...

The ERC is owned by the unions, and therefore any money earnt by the ERC is distributed to the unions!

Also if you want to give the clubs the power, then the PRL, LNR + Irish version, Scottish version, Italian version and Welsh versions of such would all have to split the pie surely. which will still see a pot split unevenly because England and France WANT more teams than anyone else.

I do get that point and this is something that is what the failed negotiations are about. I believe that both the PRL and LNR have said that they are happy for people to join the competition they want to organize and funds would be distributed accordingly, something that they would NEGOTIATE. Just because the clubs are owned by the Unions in one country does not mean that in another they have to be. So therefore there will be a conflict of interest and to condemn a body that is looking after the interests of the people it represents is plain ridiculous.

Into touch

For argument sake then (and again I can't see it) a Rabo/european league with

4 provinces
4 welsh region
3 French regions
2 Italian franchises
2 Scottish franchises

Could be decent combined with an extra international. All this is pure conjecture and not ideal but it would be an interesting thought, perhaps along the lines of a super 15 tournament.

The Great Aukster wrote:The truth is that if the HEC had only 8 or 12 teams it would still command all the interest and money from sponsors. No one cares about second tier competitions never mind third tier ones. The rugby might be marginally better in division two but it won't make one iota of difference to its financial attractiveness. People want to see the best teams European countries can produce, not also-rans.

Meritocracy works on the principle that if there are 24 teams in a competition then the pot should be divided by 24 and each given their share. What those teams do with their money thereafter is up to them. They could give it to their union, share with other teams, give it to the referees' retirement home or whatever - that's outside the competition and up to them.

TBH that isn't the worst solution I have heard, but then we go into a whole new argument, as in the PRL will want 12 of the 24 teams being English.

There is also the argument of quality, Ireland have produced 3 teams who have made the final and won in recent years, and arguably 2 are there or there abouts in terms of euro heavy weights. Why should an average 6th place English team oust a top european team?

Then there is the question of non inclusion, why should any nation face not having at least 2 representitives, when England and France are guarentee'd 6 each?

How anyone can think that Scotland and Italy would not start to use their international muscle to aid their club weaknesses is beyond me, if the Celtic and Italian nation start holding the 6N to ransom who wins? and what do they have to lose if they do not have the players performaing in the HC, and their international teams weaken?

Intotouch wrote:I was reading through the comments on Equipe and SudOuest today again. Most fans who commented see this ending of the h cup as a bad thing and an example of greed ruining a sport. A few don't care. Some debate if the top 16 is worth thinking about. None seemed interested in a franglo comp, although that's only comments on two articles.

That's not the impression I got from public comments on L'equipe earlier ( via translation!) - they seemed a bit disillusioned that the whole setup was weighted against the French...

Standulstermen wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:Standulstermen, I agree that there might be more from rabo than 6. But it seems that rather than negotiate from the current format it is just 'no the current format is great so it stays', why not come up with a different proposal?? It just seems that the Rabo representative unions are trying to make out this big horrible person is bullying them when in fact a proposal was made, but no counter proposal apart from one that had already been ruled out in the existing contract.

In fairness student the IRFU have stated they are willing to talk on qualification, format etc. to my mind that's the easy business. The harder business comes in when talking money and control. That is where the impasse will come I think

Exactly. Situation has been made exceptionally complicated by the PRLs deal with BT Sport which makes me wonder if this weeks proposed split wasn't their plan all along.

Student-A1 wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:The Great Aukster, do you mean giving each club in the competition an equal share so to promote a more competitive league when you say about the Aviva?? Thus meaning that all teams have it within their means to get to the qualification process if managed/coached correctly.

I love the arguments on here saying the clubs are greedy. It is a product (the Euro Cup) where the commodities that create the money are the clubs. It is each of these clubs that should be equally rewarded. If one league/Union is providing a third of the clubs then they should get a third of the royalties produced from the overall product.

It is the job of each Union to look after their own nation primarily, it is not the job of other Unions to help other non-emerging nations Unions. I am all in favour of helping out nations like Georgia and so forth but Wales and Ireland are in no way an emerging nation.

To say the international game will suffer because of any of this is stupid. Having a meaningless Amlin cup doesn't help but one which had better teams in would. A third tier competition for emerging nations would help. These are all proposals made by the big bad horrible PRL.

But neither the PRL or the LNR supply a third of the clubs. Or are you talking about the proposed league? If there was compromise I suspect you still wouldn't see the PRL and LNR supplying a third of teams as the Rabo would insist on 8 spaces. Just my two cents. No one knows how any negotiations would pan out

Your still not recognising the 2 key points though...

The ERC is owned by the unions, and therefore any money earnt by the ERC is distributed to the unions!

Also if you want to give the clubs the power, then the PRL, LNR + Irish version, Scottish version, Italian version and Welsh versions of such would all have to split the pie surely. which will still see a pot split unevenly because England and France WANT more teams than anyone else.

I do get that point and this is something that is what the failed negotiations are about. I believe that both the PRL and LNR have said that they are happy for people to join the competition they want to organize and funds would be distributed accordingly, something that they would NEGOTIATE. Just because the clubs are owned by the Unions in one country does not mean that in another they have to be. So therefore there will be a conflict of interest and to condemn a body that is looking after the interests of the people it represents is plain ridiculous.

Reread what you just wrote? Why would everyone skip out on the tournament they hold more than 50% of the shares in as a unit, to a tournament owned outright by the PRL/LNR? It isn't a level playing field now, imagine how bad that would get if the aggressors owned the tournament?!

Notch wrote:I don't disagree with you. Thats been something fans on all sides have wanted from the start.

It's very difficult to get that with the English negotiating tactics. It's not even so what they want- its the way they're trying to bully everyone else into 'breaking' instead of meeting us half-way.

I really don't see how anyone is bullying anyone else. The negotiations have been pathetic by all side, the contract was up and there was zero Urgency so I do ask the question whether the current ERC is competent enough to run such a complex tournament of nations.

With negotiations seemingly going nowhere notice was given by the French and English. In what was that bullying?? Why didn't the other nations offer alternative proposals??
Then with time seemingly run out and no deal reached the two sides who have the issue have come together asking what should they do. And they have come to the idea of a new competition.

I have always loved the Heineken and also the Amlin but if two parties are that against the format for multiple reasons and the others are unwilling to budge or offer any alternative then I can't see what alternative they had. To just say ok lets sign up to the same deal would be wrong as they have genuine concerns.

The Great Aukster wrote:The truth is that if the HEC had only 8 or 12 teams it would still command all the interest and money from sponsors. No one cares about second tier competitions never mind third tier ones. The rugby might be marginally better in division two but it won't make one iota of difference to its financial attractiveness. People want to see the best teams European countries can produce, not also-rans.

Meritocracy works on the principle that if there are 24 teams in a competition then the pot should be divided by 24 and each given their share. What those teams do with their money thereafter is up to them. They could give it to their union, share with other teams, give it to the referees' retirement home or whatever - that's outside the competition and up to them.

That's sheer blwdi arrogance for you. Anyone who follows a team in the second tier cares about that tier. There's thousands upon thousands of English and French rugby fans following Championship, ProD2 and lower level teams who would give their eye teeth to see their team in the Amlin.

I don't have the words to condemn that attitude enough.

The most important thing in all this is if any new tournament is sanctioned by the IRB, if it is then the English clubs hold the Aces, if not they don't actually have a hand, unless they are prepared to break away from the games governing body, not to sure where the player contracts would be after any move like that as I don't believe the clubs could force the players to play in an unsanctioned tournament.

2ndtimeround wrote:The most important thing in all this is if any new tournament is sanctioned by the IRB, if it is then the English clubs hold the Aces, if not they don't actually have a hand, unless they are prepared to break away from the games governing body, not to sure where the player contracts would be after any move like that as I don't believe the clubs could force the players to play in an unsanctioned tournament.

Well therein lies he rub and in reality if the IRB don't sanction there is no new league. The clubs could secede all they want but he IRB control the game internationally and what players are going to play for teams that could make them ineligible for international games

butterfingers wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:The Great Aukster, do you mean giving each club in the competition an equal share so to promote a more competitive league when you say about the Aviva?? Thus meaning that all teams have it within their means to get to the qualification process if managed/coached correctly.

I love the arguments on here saying the clubs are greedy. It is a product (the Euro Cup) where the commodities that create the money are the clubs. It is each of these clubs that should be equally rewarded. If one league/Union is providing a third of the clubs then they should get a third of the royalties produced from the overall product.

It is the job of each Union to look after their own nation primarily, it is not the job of other Unions to help other non-emerging nations Unions. I am all in favour of helping out nations like Georgia and so forth but Wales and Ireland are in no way an emerging nation.

To say the international game will suffer because of any of this is stupid. Having a meaningless Amlin cup doesn't help but one which had better teams in would. A third tier competition for emerging nations would help. These are all proposals made by the big bad horrible PRL.

But neither the PRL or the LNR supply a third of the clubs. Or are you talking about the proposed league? If there was compromise I suspect you still wouldn't see the PRL and LNR supplying a third of teams as the Rabo would insist on 8 spaces. Just my two cents. No one knows how any negotiations would pan out

Your still not recognising the 2 key points though...

The ERC is owned by the unions, and therefore any money earnt by the ERC is distributed to the unions!

Also if you want to give the clubs the power, then the PRL, LNR + Irish version, Scottish version, Italian version and Welsh versions of such would all have to split the pie surely. which will still see a pot split unevenly because England and France WANT more teams than anyone else.

I do get that point and this is something that is what the failed negotiations are about. I believe that both the PRL and LNR have said that they are happy for people to join the competition they want to organize and funds would be distributed accordingly, something that they would NEGOTIATE. Just because the clubs are owned by the Unions in one country does not mean that in another they have to be. So therefore there will be a conflict of interest and to condemn a body that is looking after the interests of the people it represents is plain ridiculous.

Reread what you just wrote? Why would everyone skip out on the tournament they hold more than 50% of the shares in as a unit, to a tournament owned outright by the PRL/LNR? It isn't a level playing field now, imagine how bad that would get if the aggressors owned the tournament?!

Why would the PRL and LNR sign up to a competition where they have a minority stake in the way the voting system works?? Thus meaning that any issue with how the qualification process, money distribution and any other disagreement gets ignored due to 4 Unions always voting as one due to their own vested interests, not as some would say for the good of the game. This is what signing the same contract again means.

Student-A1 wrote:

Notch wrote:I don't disagree with you. Thats been something fans on all sides have wanted from the start.

It's very difficult to get that with the English negotiating tactics. It's not even so what they want- its the way they're trying to bully everyone else into 'breaking' instead of meeting us half-way.

I really don't see how anyone is bullying anyone else. The negotiations have been pathetic by all side, the contract was up and there was zero Urgency so I do ask the question whether the current ERC is competent enough to run such a complex tournament of nations.

With negotiations seemingly going nowhere notice was given by the French and English. In what was that bullying?? Why didn't the other nations offer alternative proposals??
Then with time seemingly run out and no deal reached the two sides who have the issue have come together asking what should they do. And they have come to the idea of a new competition.

I have always loved the Heineken and also the Amlin but if two parties are that against the format for multiple reasons and the others are unwilling to budge or offer any alternative then I can't see what alternative they had. To just say ok lets sign up to the same deal would be wrong as they have genuine concerns.

Student

You need to read up a touch, the PRL and LNR are in no way together. The PRL have sold the rights to a tournament they do not own in an attempt to bully everyone else, the PRL are the hugely silly aggressors, in a particularly uncomplicated scenario. They have hired a corporate psycho to fight for every inch and the only way he knows how is to bully, intimidate, and focus on nothing more than rugbys equivilant of a coup on the ERC!

Notch wrote:I don't disagree with you. Thats been something fans on all sides have wanted from the start.

It's very difficult to get that with the English negotiating tactics. It's not even so what they want- its the way they're trying to bully everyone else into 'breaking' instead of meeting us half-way.

PRL Notch - not England or English as a whole. It's not necessarily an English thing. 

Student-A1 wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:The Great Aukster, do you mean giving each club in the competition an equal share so to promote a more competitive league when you say about the Aviva?? Thus meaning that all teams have it within their means to get to the qualification process if managed/coached correctly.

I love the arguments on here saying the clubs are greedy. It is a product (the Euro Cup) where the commodities that create the money are the clubs. It is each of these clubs that should be equally rewarded. If one league/Union is providing a third of the clubs then they should get a third of the royalties produced from the overall product.

It is the job of each Union to look after their own nation primarily, it is not the job of other Unions to help other non-emerging nations Unions. I am all in favour of helping out nations like Georgia and so forth but Wales and Ireland are in no way an emerging nation.

To say the international game will suffer because of any of this is stupid. Having a meaningless Amlin cup doesn't help but one which had better teams in would. A third tier competition for emerging nations would help. These are all proposals made by the big bad horrible PRL.

But neither the PRL or the LNR supply a third of the clubs. Or are you talking about the proposed league? If there was compromise I suspect you still wouldn't see the PRL and LNR supplying a third of teams as the Rabo would insist on 8 spaces. Just my two cents. No one knows how any negotiations would pan out

Your still not recognising the 2 key points though...

The ERC is owned by the unions, and therefore any money earnt by the ERC is distributed to the unions!

Also if you want to give the clubs the power, then the PRL, LNR + Irish version, Scottish version, Italian version and Welsh versions of such would all have to split the pie surely. which will still see a pot split unevenly because England and France WANT more teams than anyone else.

I do get that point and this is something that is what the failed negotiations are about. I believe that both the PRL and LNR have said that they are happy for people to join the competition they want to organize and funds would be distributed accordingly, something that they would NEGOTIATE. Just because the clubs are owned by the Unions in one country does not mean that in another they have to be. So therefore there will be a conflict of interest and to condemn a body that is looking after the interests of the people it represents is plain ridiculous.

Reread what you just wrote? Why would everyone skip out on the tournament they hold more than 50% of the shares in as a unit, to a tournament owned outright by the PRL/LNR? It isn't a level playing field now, imagine how bad that would get if the aggressors owned the tournament?!

Why would the PRL and LNR sign up to a competition where they have a minority stake in the way the voting system works?? Thus meaning that any issue with how the qualification process, money distribution and any other disagreement gets ignored due to 4 Unions always voting as one due to their own vested interests, not as some would say for the good of the game. This is what signing the same contract again means.

THEY HAVE A MINORITY STAKE BECAUSE THEY ARE 2 UNIONS IN A 6 UNION SHAREHOLD!!!! They hold however far more share than the 33.3% of the shareholders they are. Would you be happy if Wales and Ireland did similar and said as recent strongest 6N teams they deserve more on the club stage, and if the PRL were interested they could join a Wales and Ireland club tourny? Would you be happy if Wales and IReland held a 48% share of the 6N?

butterfingers wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:

Notch wrote:I don't disagree with you. Thats been something fans on all sides have wanted from the start.

It's very difficult to get that with the English negotiating tactics. It's not even so what they want- its the way they're trying to bully everyone else into 'breaking' instead of meeting us half-way.

I really don't see how anyone is bullying anyone else. The negotiations have been pathetic by all side, the contract was up and there was zero Urgency so I do ask the question whether the current ERC is competent enough to run such a complex tournament of nations.

With negotiations seemingly going nowhere notice was given by the French and English. In what was that bullying?? Why didn't the other nations offer alternative proposals??
Then with time seemingly run out and no deal reached the two sides who have the issue have come together asking what should they do. And they have come to the idea of a new competition.

I have always loved the Heineken and also the Amlin but if two parties are that against the format for multiple reasons and the others are unwilling to budge or offer any alternative then I can't see what alternative they had. To just say ok lets sign up to the same deal would be wrong as they have genuine concerns.

Student

You need to read up a touch, the PRL and LNR are in no way together. The PRL have sold the rights to a tournament they do not own in an attempt to bully everyone else, the PRL are the hugely silly aggressors, in a particularly uncomplicated scenario. They have hired a corporate psycho to fight for every inch and the only way he knows how is to bully, intimidate, and focus on nothing more than rugbys equivilant of a coup on the ERC!

Prob best not questioning my knowledge on this could go badly for you.
Lets recap, the PRL as have stated were signed up to a contract where the ERC sorted out the TV rights. News flash for you, the contract is up before the TV deal they have signed begins, hence why all the hysteria now about no cup competition. They are signed up to no contracts with anyone that says ERC continues to sort out TV contracts after this current campaign. Also should be noted that a superior package was negotiated, it helps when you aren't cosying up to SKY and actually sell your product to a competitive market.

Seems to be that there are several people who think that there is only one European competition

"Lets recap, the PRL as have stated were signed up to a contract where the ERC sorted out the TV rights. News flash for you, the contract is up before the TV deal they have signed begins, hence why all the hysteria now about no cup competition. They are signed up to no contracts with anyone that says ERC continues to sort out TV contracts after this current campaign. Also should be noted that a superior package was negotiated, it helps when you aren't cosying up to SKY and actually sell your product to a competitive market"

What are the terms of that contract?

2ndtimeround wrote:The most important thing in all this is if any new tournament is sanctioned by the IRB, if it is then the English clubs hold the Aces, if not they don't actually have a hand, unless they are prepared to break away from the games governing body, not to sure where the player contracts would be after any move like that as I don't believe the clubs could force the players to play in an unsanctioned tournament.

It would be a blow, but not a killer. While not ideal I think they would still have 3 avenues to go down:

1) While I don't know how valid it is I have heard that the amount BT are offering just for the premiership means that they wouldn't be losing any money by leaving the HEC - even if there is no replacement. So do nothing is an option. Same money but fewer games would not be a disaster by any stretch.
2) They also have the option of making the current anglo-welsh a first team rather than development tournament - as was originally intended. That is already approved by the IRB, it would just mean rescheduling it outside the international windows. It was actually a better money spinner per game than the HEC when it was first set up, obviously the HEC has gone up in value and the anglo welsh down since then but if they took it seriously it could be a decent money spinner again. Cash strapped Welsh regions would probably be happy as well.
3) Expand the premiership to 14 teams, or have another domestic cup. If it's not crossing national boundaries it only needs support from the RFU not the IRB.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:The truth is that if the HEC had only 8 or 12 teams it would still command all the interest and money from sponsors. No one cares about second tier competitions never mind third tier ones. The rugby might be marginally better in division two but it won't make one iota of difference to its financial attractiveness. People want to see the best teams European countries can produce, not also-rans.

Meritocracy works on the principle that if there are 24 teams in a competition then the pot should be divided by 24 and each given their share. What those teams do with their money thereafter is up to them. They could give it to their union, share with other teams, give it to the referees' retirement home or whatever - that's outside the competition and up to them.

That's sheer blwdi arrogance for you. Anyone who follows a team in the second tier cares about that tier. There's thousands upon thousands of English and French rugby fans following Championship, ProD2 and lower level teams who would give their eye teeth to see their team in the Amlin.

I don't have the words to condemn that attitude enough.

Apparently not WL/8, the English and French need to have better teams in it. Anyway... the context was sponsorship money, not individual fan's passion for their team.

butterfingers wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:The Great Aukster, do you mean giving each club in the competition an equal share so to promote a more competitive league when you say about the Aviva?? Thus meaning that all teams have it within their means to get to the qualification process if managed/coached correctly.

I love the arguments on here saying the clubs are greedy. It is a product (the Euro Cup) where the commodities that create the money are the clubs. It is each of these clubs that should be equally rewarded. If one league/Union is providing a third of the clubs then they should get a third of the royalties produced from the overall product.

It is the job of each Union to look after their own nation primarily, it is not the job of other Unions to help other non-emerging nations Unions. I am all in favour of helping out nations like Georgia and so forth but Wales and Ireland are in no way an emerging nation.

To say the international game will suffer because of any of this is stupid. Having a meaningless Amlin cup doesn't help but one which had better teams in would. A third tier competition for emerging nations would help. These are all proposals made by the big bad horrible PRL.

But neither the PRL or the LNR supply a third of the clubs. Or are you talking about the proposed league? If there was compromise I suspect you still wouldn't see the PRL and LNR supplying a third of teams as the Rabo would insist on 8 spaces. Just my two cents. No one knows how any negotiations would pan out

Your still not recognising the 2 key points though...

The ERC is owned by the unions, and therefore any money earnt by the ERC is distributed to the unions!

Also if you want to give the clubs the power, then the PRL, LNR + Irish version, Scottish version, Italian version and Welsh versions of such would all have to split the pie surely. which will still see a pot split unevenly because England and France WANT more teams than anyone else.

I do get that point and this is something that is what the failed negotiations are about. I believe that both the PRL and LNR have said that they are happy for people to join the competition they want to organize and funds would be distributed accordingly, something that they would NEGOTIATE. Just because the clubs are owned by the Unions in one country does not mean that in another they have to be. So therefore there will be a conflict of interest and to condemn a body that is looking after the interests of the people it represents is plain ridiculous.

Reread what you just wrote? Why would everyone skip out on the tournament they hold more than 50% of the shares in as a unit, to a tournament owned outright by the PRL/LNR? It isn't a level playing field now, imagine how bad that would get if the aggressors owned the tournament?!

Why would the PRL and LNR sign up to a competition where they have a minority stake in the way the voting system works?? Thus meaning that any issue with how the qualification process, money distribution and any other disagreement gets ignored due to 4 Unions always voting as one due to their own vested interests, not as some would say for the good of the game. This is what signing the same contract again means.

THEY HAVE A MINORITY STAKE BECAUSE THEY ARE 2 UNIONS IN A 6 UNION SHAREHOLD!!!! They hold however far more share than the 33.3% of the shareholders they are. Would you be happy if Wales and Ireland did similar and said as recent strongest 6N teams they deserve more on the club stage, and if the PRL were interested they could join a Wales and Ireland club tourny? Would you be happy if Wales and IReland held a 48% share of the 6N?

Couple of points:
The current contract has the sharehold as you say, contract is coming to an end and they do not have to sign a new one the same with the SHAREHOLD the same as it was.
Secondly, you cannot compare a CLUB competition with an international one, whether it be run by Unions or not it is a club competition.

Student-A1 wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:

Notch wrote:I don't disagree with you. Thats been something fans on all sides have wanted from the start.

It's very difficult to get that with the English negotiating tactics. It's not even so what they want- its the way they're trying to bully everyone else into 'breaking' instead of meeting us half-way.

I really don't see how anyone is bullying anyone else. The negotiations have been pathetic by all side, the contract was up and there was zero Urgency so I do ask the question whether the current ERC is competent enough to run such a complex tournament of nations.

With negotiations seemingly going nowhere notice was given by the French and English. In what was that bullying?? Why didn't the other nations offer alternative proposals??
Then with time seemingly run out and no deal reached the two sides who have the issue have come together asking what should they do. And they have come to the idea of a new competition.

I have always loved the Heineken and also the Amlin but if two parties are that against the format for multiple reasons and the others are unwilling to budge or offer any alternative then I can't see what alternative they had. To just say ok lets sign up to the same deal would be wrong as they have genuine concerns.

Student

You need to read up a touch, the PRL and LNR are in no way together. The PRL have sold the rights to a tournament they do not own in an attempt to bully everyone else, the PRL are the hugely silly aggressors, in a particularly uncomplicated scenario. They have hired a corporate psycho to fight for every inch and the only way he knows how is to bully, intimidate, and focus on nothing more than rugbys equivilant of a coup on the ERC!

Prob best not questioning my knowledge on this could go badly for you.
Lets recap, the PRL as have stated were signed up to a contract where the ERC sorted out the TV rights. News flash for you, the contract is up before the TV deal they have signed begins, hence why all the hysteria now about no cup competition. They are signed up to no contracts with anyone that says ERC continues to sort out TV contracts after this current campaign. Also should be noted that a superior package was negotiated, it helps when you aren't cosying up to SKY and actually sell your product to a competitive market.

Who sanctions this non existant tournament that the PRL have sold? Who participates in this fictional tournament? It's quite simple you can't sell what you don't own, and if you sell imaginary rights to a tournament you have pulled out of your going to come unstuck when the owners laugh at you!

So you'd be happy if Wales sell the rights for the same non existant tournament to lets say ESPN for similar money to the BT deal but Wales benefit massively over the other nations, but England barely benefits?

Munchkin wrote:"Lets recap, the PRL as have stated were signed up to a contract where the ERC sorted out the TV rights. News flash for you, the contract is up before the TV deal they have signed begins, hence why all the hysteria now about no cup competition. They are signed up to no contracts with anyone that says ERC continues to sort out TV contracts after this current campaign. Also should be noted that a superior package was negotiated, it helps when you aren't cosying up to SKY and actually sell your product to a competitive market"

What are the terms of that contract?

Not really the main point there is it?? Regardless of what it is I don't care, it could be one penny and a banana but the fact is they are not bound by any contract that says they couldn't sign such a deal.

Student-A1 wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:The Great Aukster, do you mean giving each club in the competition an equal share so to promote a more competitive league when you say about the Aviva?? Thus meaning that all teams have it within their means to get to the qualification process if managed/coached correctly.

I love the arguments on here saying the clubs are greedy. It is a product (the Euro Cup) where the commodities that create the money are the clubs. It is each of these clubs that should be equally rewarded. If one league/Union is providing a third of the clubs then they should get a third of the royalties produced from the overall product.

It is the job of each Union to look after their own nation primarily, it is not the job of other Unions to help other non-emerging nations Unions. I am all in favour of helping out nations like Georgia and so forth but Wales and Ireland are in no way an emerging nation.

To say the international game will suffer because of any of this is stupid. Having a meaningless Amlin cup doesn't help but one which had better teams in would. A third tier competition for emerging nations would help. These are all proposals made by the big bad horrible PRL.

But neither the PRL or the LNR supply a third of the clubs. Or are you talking about the proposed league? If there was compromise I suspect you still wouldn't see the PRL and LNR supplying a third of teams as the Rabo would insist on 8 spaces. Just my two cents. No one knows how any negotiations would pan out

Your still not recognising the 2 key points though...

The ERC is owned by the unions, and therefore any money earnt by the ERC is distributed to the unions!

Also if you want to give the clubs the power, then the PRL, LNR + Irish version, Scottish version, Italian version and Welsh versions of such would all have to split the pie surely. which will still see a pot split unevenly because England and France WANT more teams than anyone else.

I do get that point and this is something that is what the failed negotiations are about. I believe that both the PRL and LNR have said that they are happy for people to join the competition they want to organize and funds would be distributed accordingly, something that they would NEGOTIATE. Just because the clubs are owned by the Unions in one country does not mean that in another they have to be. So therefore there will be a conflict of interest and to condemn a body that is looking after the interests of the people it represents is plain ridiculous.

Reread what you just wrote? Why would everyone skip out on the tournament they hold more than 50% of the shares in as a unit, to a tournament owned outright by the PRL/LNR? It isn't a level playing field now, imagine how bad that would get if the aggressors owned the tournament?!

Why would the PRL and LNR sign up to a competition where they have a minority stake in the way the voting system works?? Thus meaning that any issue with how the qualification process, money distribution and any other disagreement gets ignored due to 4 Unions always voting as one due to their own vested interests, not as some would say for the good of the game. This is what signing the same contract again means.

THEY HAVE A MINORITY STAKE BECAUSE THEY ARE 2 UNIONS IN A 6 UNION SHAREHOLD!!!! They hold however far more share than the 33.3% of the shareholders they are. Would you be happy if Wales and Ireland did similar and said as recent strongest 6N teams they deserve more on the club stage, and if the PRL were interested they could join a Wales and Ireland club tourny? Would you be happy if Wales and IReland held a 48% share of the 6N?

Couple of points:
The current contract has the sharehold as you say, contract is coming to an end and they do not have to sign a new one the same with the SHAREHOLD the same as it was.
Secondly, you cannot compare a CLUB competition with an international one, whether it be run by Unions or not it is a club competition.

Which unions created the HC, and ERC and for what reasons? I'll give you 15 mins to google it.