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.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

whocares wrote:GG, there are governance issues according to french clubs at least...number 1) being that ERC is based in Dublin and mainly run by pro celts folks (and dont mention that puppet JP Lux), 2) the discipline commission is biaised and 3) "ERC limited" accounts are not exactly a model of transparency...
their assesment might not be fair but if the ERC disapear they would probably not drop a tear.

What do you mean by 'pro celts folk', and how do you know this is true? Why is there a problem with ERC based in Dublin? What would you suggest? A new competition based in London run mainly by pro PRL/LNR folk?

Come on Munkain, even Welsh fans have often questioned the ERC decisions on banning players etc, and it does seem sometimes that certain nations get and easier ride than others.  I can understand the French wondering why the ERC HQ is in a country that has half the amount of teams in it as the French do.

Munkain? Welsh fans questions everything. It's a national pastime. I don't know, but I would think the reason that ERC is based in Dublin is down to tax reasons. There's quite a few big names based in Ireland for that very reason.

whocares wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

whocares wrote:GG, there are governance issues according to french clubs at least...number 1) being that ERC is based in Dublin and mainly run by pro celts folks (and dont mention that puppet JP Lux), 2) the discipline commission is biaised and 3) "ERC limited" accounts are not exactly a model of transparency...
their assesment might not be fair but if the ERC disapear they would probably not drop a tear.

What do you mean by 'pro celts folk', and how do you know this is true? Why is there a problem with ERC based in Dublin? What would you suggest? A new competition based in London run mainly by pro PRL/LNR folk?

Come on Munkain, even Welsh fans have often questioned the ERC decisions on banning players etc, and it does seem sometimes that certain nations get and easier ride than others.  I can understand the French wondering why the ERC HQ is in a country that has half the amount of teams in it as the French do.

besides this is not my own opinion. however it seems to be the french clubs and often media one! never said all of this is true and am not suggesting that something based in London or Paris would be better. why do you think soccer governing bodies are based in switzerland (appart from tax optimisation obviously).

But is it an opinion based in fact? You agree that you don't know. That's the problem, isn't it? In the absence of factual information conspiracy theories abound, and the media manipulated to shape the thinking of its naive, or willing, recipients, in keeping with whatever worldview they already hold.
As for Switzerland. Are you thinking neutral ground? I think 'tax', and no other reason, although skiing is obviously an added bonus.

The outrageous 70 weeks ban for David Attoub, perhaps?
Generally speaking, it's a common law/roman law problem. The "impressionist" (arbitrary) level of punishment from common law judges is difficult to understand for roman lawyers, who work with a clear punishment ladder. So yes, there is a problem, but not in the sense of a conspiracy, but in the sense of legitimacy and decision-making process.

Munchkin wrote:

whocares wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

whocares wrote:GG, there are governance issues according to french clubs at least...number 1) being that ERC is based in Dublin and mainly run by pro celts folks (and dont mention that puppet JP Lux), 2) the discipline commission is biaised and 3) "ERC limited" accounts are not exactly a model of transparency...
their assesment might not be fair but if the ERC disapear they would probably not drop a tear.

What do you mean by 'pro celts folk', and how do you know this is true? Why is there a problem with ERC based in Dublin? What would you suggest? A new competition based in London run mainly by pro PRL/LNR folk?

Come on Munkain, even Welsh fans have often questioned the ERC decisions on banning players etc, and it does seem sometimes that certain nations get and easier ride than others.  I can understand the French wondering why the ERC HQ is in a country that has half the amount of teams in it as the French do.

besides this is not my own opinion. however it seems to be the french clubs and often media one! never said all of this is true and am not suggesting that something based in London or Paris would be better. why do you think soccer governing bodies are based in switzerland (appart from tax optimisation obviously).

But is it an opinion based in fact? You agree that you don't know. That's the problem, isn't it? In the absence of factual information conspiracy theories abound, and the media manipulated to shape the thinking of its naive, or willing, recipients, in keeping with whatever worldview they already hold.
As for Switzerland. Are you thinking neutral ground? I think 'tax', and no other reason, although skiing is obviously an added bonus.

well am not part of the ERC and neither you are (or are you ?? ) so yes I agree that everything am saying is just a mix of assumptions and hear say at this stage. however I was just relaying french club (and sometimes french fans and medias) complaints and sentiment which is probably biaised anyway. wether or not their opinion is based or facts or some weird anti french conspiracy theory is not really the important thing here. what matters is that they seem to hold some grief towards the ERC as a body and they might act accordingly unless those so called issues gets properly clarified and/or dismissed.
and yeah I was thinking neutral ground but the more I think about it , ski, chocolate and dodgy bank accounts more than help as well.

desi wrote:The outrageous 70 weeks ban for David Attoub, perhaps?
Generally speaking, it's a common law/roman law problem. The "impressionist" (arbitrary) level of punishment from common law judges is difficult to understand for roman lawyers, who work with a clear punishment ladder. So yes, there is a problem, but not in the sense of a conspiracy, but in the sense of legitimacy and decision-making process.

Outrageous ban for trying to blind someone.  

That eye-gouging has to be punished is not the issue, we all agree on that.
The issue here is Attoub received a punishment so harsh that he can't be compared to any other precedent. Many players, guilty of the same offence, received 8 or 12 weeks. How do you explain that??? This huge gap between similar cases is incomprehensible (at best), dubious (at worst).

But of course, Patrick Vieira is a wild dangerous guy and Roy Keane, a manly but straightforward player. No comparison between them.

Look, I don't intend to stir things up on this, just trying to give it a wider perspective.

Munchkin - sorry about getting the name wrong, lord only knows how I managed that one  

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Munchkin - sorry about getting the name wrong, lord only knows how I managed that one  

No worries. It's so easy to do as the names are very similar. I have confused myself with the names in the past  

Munchkin wrote:

Big wrote:Thanks for putting that up Toadfish.  I had read a number of years ago that the HEC was making less per match than the Powergen Cup (as was).  Interesting to see from someone who is presumably relatively well connected that it's still generating stuff all.  The heineken cup should be making more per match than any other NH club/regional competition.  That it isn't suggests very strongly that it is still being undersold - whether that's because certain organisations are too friendly, or because they are just incompetent at marketing the event I don't know.  I can't see why the Rabo fans aren't up in arms about this (especially supporters of cash strapped Welsh and Scottish regions).  I can see both sides of the argument when it comes to qualification and structure, but on this point surely there is no doubt that ERC have failed and need to be brought to task.

From what I understand under the PRL proposal for any new competition the financial gain for the Celts, and Italians wouldn't be much more than they are getting now.

I do take your point on the HEC possibly being undersold though, and think that is something that should be questioned. Personally, if more money was made available I would like to see it go into a pot to help develop rugby union in other European countries such as Spain.

You are right, Munchkin. The English are not currently proposing a big increase for the Celtic clubs. That is because the Celtic clubs currently get far more per team than the English and French, and most of the additional cash is going to redress that gap so that all the teams in the competition get roughly the same amount.

The "per team" bit is important, because it's the teams that compete and cost money to run, and it isn't right that there should be such a huge differential at the team level. Which said, I imagine the Rabo unions or teams could negotiate a bit more of the pot, especially if a) they were able to bring more revenue to the table themselves and b) they negotiated. There's no real evidence of either a) or b) right now.

Are the PRL only interested in money? Actually, I don't think they are. I think they are interested in professional rugby. Sadly, in order for professional rugby to happen, there has to be money (there's a clue in the "professional") bit, preferably enough to make a profit that could be reinvested in the game. The current ERC setup means that the most prestigious and lucrative competition in the NH pays the PRL's (and LNR's) members less than either of their other competitions. That is a ludicrous position and one of the things they want to rectify.

If clubs are profitable but their owners are not investing in them, you can fairly accuse them of profiteering. But while they are trying to make the club profitable - and therefore sustainable - they are by definition investing in rugby.

Munchkin wrote:

whocares wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

whocares wrote:GG, there are governance issues according to french clubs at least...number 1) being that ERC is based in Dublin and mainly run by pro celts folks (and dont mention that puppet JP Lux), 2) the discipline commission is biaised and 3) "ERC limited" accounts are not exactly a model of transparency...
their assesment might not be fair but if the ERC disapear they would probably not drop a tear.

What do you mean by 'pro celts folk', and how do you know this is true? Why is there a problem with ERC based in Dublin? What would you suggest? A new competition based in London run mainly by pro PRL/LNR folk?

Come on Munkain, even Welsh fans have often questioned the ERC decisions on banning players etc, and it does seem sometimes that certain nations get and easier ride than others.  I can understand the French wondering why the ERC HQ is in a country that has half the amount of teams in it as the French do.

besides this is not my own opinion. however it seems to be the french clubs and often media one! never said all of this is true and am not suggesting that something based in London or Paris would be better. why do you think soccer governing bodies are based in switzerland (appart from tax optimisation obviously).

But is it an opinion based in fact? You agree that you don't know. That's the problem, isn't it? In the absence of factual information conspiracy theories abound, and the media manipulated to shape the thinking of its naive, or willing, recipients, in keeping with whatever worldview they already hold.
As for Switzerland. Are you thinking neutral ground? I think 'tax', and no other reason, although skiing is obviously an added bonus.

In relation to the transparency of the accounts point above i had a look and by Irish standards they do give a fair amount of information. One interesting point is the ownership of the company. THe unions in Ireland, England, Wales, Scotland and Italy each own 16.66% of the company. The French RFU own 8.66% and Ligue Nationale de Rugby (whom i presume are the representatives of the T14) own 8%. It is interesting that the PRL do not own any of the company. Maybe this is part of the reason they are looking for a change

"You are right, Munchkin. The English are not currently proposing a big increase for the Celtic clubs. That is because the Celtic clubs currently get far more per team than the English and French, and most of the additional cash is going to redress that gap so that all the teams in the competition get roughly the same amount.

The "per team" bit is important, because it's the teams that compete and cost money to run, and it isn't right that there should be such a huge differential at the team level. Which said, I imagine the Rabo unions or teams could negotiate a bit more of the pot, especially if a) they were able to bring more revenue to the table themselves and b) they negotiated. There's no real evidence of either a) or b) right now.

Are the PRL only interested in money? Actually, I don't think they are. I think they are interested in professional rugby. Sadly, in order for professional rugby to happen, there has to be money (there's a clue in the "professional") bit, preferably enough to make a profit that could be reinvested in the game. The current ERC setup means that the most prestigious and lucrative competition in the NH pays the PRL's (and LNR's) members less than either of their other competitions. That is a ludicrous position and one of the things they want to rectify.

If clubs are profitable but their owners are not investing in them, you can fairly accuse them of profiteering. But while they are trying to make the club profitable - and therefore sustainable - they are by definition investing in rugby."




The counter to that is the PRL, and LNR, get almost twice as much per Union than those in the Rabo. Also, if my understanding is correct, the PRL divide their HEC share equally amongst the 12 PRL teams. That's their choice, but why should their choice on how they allocate funds be to the detriment on the other Unions? So then, if PRL decide to expand their league, say from 12 to 14 clubs, should the Rabo Unions take a cut in HEC gains to help facilitate any PRL expansion? If not, why not?

Munchkin wrote:"You are right, Munchkin. The English are not currently proposing a big increase for the Celtic clubs. That is because the Celtic clubs currently get far more per team than the English and French, and most of the additional cash is going to redress that gap so that all the teams in the competition get roughly the same amount.

The "per team" bit is important, because it's the teams that compete and cost money to run, and it isn't right that there should be such a huge differential at the team level. Which said, I imagine the Rabo unions or teams could negotiate a bit more of the pot, especially if a) they were able to bring more revenue to the table themselves and b) they negotiated. There's no real evidence of either a) or b) right now.

Are the PRL only interested in money? Actually, I don't think they are. I think they are interested in professional rugby. Sadly, in order for professional rugby to happen, there has to be money (there's a clue in the "professional") bit, preferably enough to make a profit that could be reinvested in the game. The current ERC setup means that the most prestigious and lucrative competition in the NH pays the PRL's (and LNR's) members less than either of their other competitions. That is a ludicrous position and one of the things they want to rectify.

If clubs are profitable but their owners are not investing in them, you can fairly accuse them of profiteering. But while they are trying to make the club profitable - and therefore sustainable - they are by definition investing in rugby."




The counter to that is the PRL, and LNR, get almost twice as much per Union than those in the Rabo. Also, if my understanding is correct, the PRL divide their HEC share equally amongst the 12 PRL teams. That's their choice, but why should their choice on how they allocate funds be to the detriment on the other Unions? So then, if PRL decide to expand their league, say from 12 to 14 clubs, should the Rabo Unions take a cut in HEC gains to help facilitate any PRL expansion? If not, why not?

This is the relevant point here. If the PRL were saying lets redistribute the current funds meaning that Rabo teams would end up with less I'd understand. However from my understanding they have been proactive, gone out and sourced additional revenue that means that the funds can be reallocated so that all teams get the same level of funding without anyone having to take a reduction at all. This has to be the epitome of fair where a Treviso gets exactly the same amount of money to try and compete as a Bath or the Dragons. The way you read things on here makes it sounds like the PRL are trying to take money away from the Rabo teams and this isn't the case (if what has been disclosed in the media is correct).

There are 2 competitions run by ERC not just the HEC. Just because the RABO Unions get at least 3/4 of their top tier teams into the HEC doesn't mean that the AMLIN deserve recognition

Word finally comes from the former chairman of the RFU, last we heard they considered that the PRLs actions were illegal and Bill Beaumont was chatting to club owners to try and resolve the situation.
 
Martyn Thomas, former chairman of the RFU
 
"There's a contractual obligation there that the RFU can enforce," he claimed.
"It not only provides that they will play in Europe to the end of the season 2014-2015, it also provides that they will play in no other professional competitions."
 
"The ERC (European Rugby Cup) agreement was signed, and it was signed subsequently to an agreement that the RFU and PRL [Premier Rugby Ltd] and each individual club entered into and that was in 2007.
"One of the terms of the agreement was that the Premiership clubs would remain playing in Europe until the end of that agreement with the RFU.
 
"The RFU have got to stand up and be counted, it's not a popularity competition being at the RFU."
Thomas also expects the French Rugby Federation and International Rugby Board to block any move to form a new tournament.
 
"The clubs in England require the consent of their union, the teams in France require the consent of their union," he said.
"Pierre Camou is probably one of the strongest presidents in world rugby - he is a tough guy.
"Also, because it's a cross border they require the consent of the IRB and they have a French chairman in Bernard Lapasset.
"There is no way that those two Frenchmen are going to give consent for this to occur."

maestegmafia wrote:Word finally comes from the RFU, last we heard they considered that the PRLs actions were illegal and Bill Beaumont was chattin to club owners to try and resolve the situation.

Martyn Thomas, former chairman of the RFU

"There's a contractual obligation there that the RFU can enforce," he claimed.
"It not only provides that they will play in Europe to the end of the season 2014-2015, it also provides that they will play in no other professional competitions."

"The ERC (European Rugby Cup) agreement was signed, and it was signed subsequently to an agreement that the RFU and PRL [Premier Rugby Ltd] and each individual club entered into and that was in 2007.
"One of the terms of the agreement was that the Premiership clubs would remain playing in Europe until the end of that agreement with the RFU.

"The RFU have got to stand up and be counted, it's not a popularity competition being at the RFU."
Thomas also expects the French Rugby Federation and International Rugby Board to block any move to form a new tournament.

"The clubs in England require the consent of their union, the teams in France require the consent of their union," he said.
"Pierre Camou is probably one of the strongest presidents in world rugby - he is a tough guy.
"Also, because it's a cross border they require the consent of the IRB and they have a French chairman in Bernard Lapasset.
"There is no way that those two Frenchmen are going to give consent for this to occur."

Please correct your statement here. Word has not 'finally come from the RFU' when you are quoting someone who used to work for the RFU.

Toadfish wrote:
Please correct your statement here.  Word has not 'finally come from the RFU' when you are quoting someone who used to work for the RFU.

No

Martyn Thomas was Chairman when the PRL signed the deal. I said above he was a former chairman. There is nothing wrong, untrue or misleading in my post...!!!

Thank god he stepped forward to tell us all why the PRL are full of poppycock, trying to act illegally and hopefully will help this all get resolved so us fans can get on with enjoying European rugby in all its glory as soon as possible for another few years.

desi wrote:That eye-gouging has to be punished is not the issue, we all agree on that.
The issue here is Attoub received a punishment so harsh that he can't be compared to any other precedent. Many players, guilty of the same offence, received 8 or 12 weeks. How do you explain that??? This huge gap between similar cases is incomprehensible (at best), dubious (at worst).

But of course, Patrick Vieira is a wild dangerous guy and Roy Keane, a manly but straightforward player. No comparison between them.

Look, I don't intend to stir things up on this, just trying to give it a wider perspective.

Attoub's ban may not have been fair but its bananas to suggest that he got that ban because the ERC office was in Dublin. I think they were trying to make an example of Attoub. This may not have been fair.

The judicial officer Jeff Blackett in this case said:

"This is the worst act of contact with the eyes that I have had to deal with - it is a case of deliberate eye gouging which caused significant distress and some injury to the victim.

"The sanction must be such to make other players stop and think before someone suffers a really serious eye injury."

The length of punishment was also increased because Attoub refused to acknowledge that his finger was in Ferris' eye despite there being clear vido and photographic evidence:

"When he was shown the incriminating photographs and asked to explain what he saw or what was happening he replied that he did not know. He refused to accept the possibility that his finger was in the eye.

"It was this evasiveness which satisfied me that his account was less than truthful and that he knew that he had deliberately attacked the eyes of an opponent but was trying to evade responsibility."

It also didnt help that Attoubs ban came after the '09 Lions tour during which there was a lot of focus on gouging after Bergers effort on Fitzgerald.

It isnt the longest ban for a gouge though in HCup histroy it is the second longest.

The judicial officer Jeff Blacket is British not Irish

Thomas was bit of a plonker when he was RFU chairman. On this occasion the Welsh farmer (or a farmer of Welsh land - or both) seems to forget that the agreement that English clubs should be bound to play only in the HEC. Surely (maybe - and definitely would be maybe if Williams put his full ability to it) with the 2007 accord, their commitment should lapse.

Nobody would be stupid enough (apart from poiticians) to sign a time-bound agreement which commits in perpetuity. Would they?

OK. Well apart from the RFU and their even more stupid counterparts at the PRL.

Interesting post fro Brian Moore when he (MT) got chopped http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/8866079/Brian-Moore-Martyn-Thomas-has-finally-done-the-decent-thing-the-rest-of-the-RFU-board-should-follow-suit.html

maestegmafia wrote:Word finally comes from the RFU, last we heard they considered that the PRLs actions were illegal and Bill Beaumont was chatting to club owners to try and resolve the situation.

Martyn Thomas, former chairman of the RFU

"There's a contractual obligation there that the RFU can enforce," he claimed.
"It not only provides that they will play in Europe to the end of the season 2014-2015, it also provides that they will play in no other professional competitions."

"The ERC (European Rugby Cup) agreement was signed, and it was signed subsequently to an agreement that the RFU and PRL [Premier Rugby Ltd] and each individual club entered into and that was in 2007.
"One of the terms of the agreement was that the Premiership clubs would remain playing in Europe until the end of that agreement with the RFU.

"The RFU have got to stand up and be counted, it's not a popularity competition being at the RFU."
Thomas also expects the French Rugby Federation and International Rugby Board to block any move to form a new tournament.

"The clubs in England require the consent of their union, the teams in France require the consent of their union," he said.
"Pierre Camou is probably one of the strongest presidents in world rugby - he is a tough guy.
"Also, because it's a cross border they require the consent of the IRB and they have a French chairman in Bernard Lapasset.
"There is no way that those two Frenchmen are going to give consent for this to occur."

A key word.  If he's correct then the contract is between the RFU & PRL and if the RFU are happy to tear it up they can.  Even if they aren't (which I doubt given the more core ramifications within the English game and their relationship) then it only lasts for a year beyond the ERC agreement and both the PRL & LNR have said they would go without European fixtures next year if need be rather than sign up again with a competition they weren't happy with.

nth wrote:
A key word.  If he's correct then the contract is between the RFU & PRL and if the RFU are happy to tear it up they can.  Even if they aren't (which I doubt given the more core ramifications within the English game and their relationship) then it only lasts for a year beyond the ERC agreement and both the PRL & LNR have said they would go without European fixtures next year if need be rather than sign up again with a competition they weren't happy with.

Agree. I have already highlighted Martyn Thomas's comments on this thread and pointed out the obvious - that from ERC's perspective it is at best a stay of execution. It also relies on the contract being water tight (and let's face it the RFU don't have great form there) and the RFU wanting to enforce that clause (would they really do that if they're not actually profiting from HEC, it makes no difference but to put change on hold for a season or two, creates bad blood at a time when they actually seem to have a decent relationship with PRL, etc).

As the RFU dentist seats the PRL patient in his chair just before the 2015 home RWC, the PRL cups the RFU in the groin area and asks inquisitively "Now we're not going to hurt each other are we?"

maestegmafia wrote:Word finally comes from the RFU, last we heard they considered that the PRLs actions were illegal and Bill Beaumont was chatting to club owners to try and resolve the situation.

Martyn Thomas, former chairman of the RFU

"There's a contractual obligation there that the RFU can enforce," he claimed.
"It not only provides that they will play in Europe to the end of the season 2014-2015, it also provides that they will play in no other professional competitions."

"The ERC (European Rugby Cup) agreement was signed, and it was signed subsequently to an agreement that the RFU and PRL [Premier Rugby Ltd] and each individual club entered into and that was in 2007.
"One of the terms of the agreement was that the Premiership clubs would remain playing in Europe until the end of that agreement with the RFU.

"The RFU have got to stand up and be counted, it's not a popularity competition being at the RFU."
Thomas also expects the French Rugby Federation and International Rugby Board to block any move to form a new tournament.

"The clubs in England require the consent of their union, the teams in France require the consent of their union," he said.
"Pierre Camou is probably one of the strongest presidents in world rugby - he is a tough guy.
"Also, because it's a cross border they require the consent of the IRB and they have a French chairman in Bernard Lapasset.
"There is no way that those two Frenchmen are going to give consent for this to occur."

blantent lies there maes!

That quote isn't from the RFU, i've even highlighted the bit that tells us this.

maestegmafia wrote:

Toadfish wrote:
Please correct your statement here.  Word has not 'finally come from the RFU' when you are quoting someone who used to work for the RFU.

No

Martyn Thomas was Chairman when the PRL signed the deal. I said above he was a former chairman. There is nothing wrong, untrue or misleading in my post...!!!

Thank god he stepped forward to tell us all why the PRL are full of poppycock, trying to act illegally and hopefully will help this all get resolved so us fans can get on with enjoying European rugby in all its glory as soon as possible for another few years.

what are you smoking?

Your wording was "Word finally comes from the RFU". This is clearly false as Thomas doesnt work for the RFU and therefor does not represent them.

You clearly know this meas!

Yawn

Typical yobbo's attacking the poster rather than debating the content...!

The RFU can indeed force the PRL to remain in the ERC for one additional year. IF, and that is the key here, IF they want to enforce that section of the agreement.

Now Thomas would in a heart beat because he's a bitter man that fell out with the RFU board and the clubs in a big way and would love to put the boot in. However, the current RFU stance is that both sides need to work together to find middle ground. In other words they are staying well out of it as the EPS agreement is up post RWC and renewing that is their priority.

Yeah the way Thomas  left means he'd looking for a fight anyway but they won't approach it as he would. It's why he isn't there anymore.

Munchkin wrote:The counter to that is the PRL, and LNR, get almost twice as much per Union than those in the Rabo. Also, if my understanding is correct, the PRL divide their HEC share equally amongst the 12 PRL teams. That's their choice, but why should their choice on how they allocate funds be to the detriment on the other Unions? So then, if PRL decide to expand their league, say from 12 to 14 clubs, should the Rabo Unions take a cut in HEC gains to help facilitate any PRL expansion? If not, why not?

And the counter to that is that the PRL and LNR are running 3-7 times as many teams as the Rabo unions. Teams cost money to run. And the counter to the standard bleat of "why should the Rabo unions be affected by how many teams the PRL and LNR run?" is very simply one of long-term self-interest.

The PRL and LNR know that they need 12-14 teams to make their domestic leagues viable, and that these teams need to be competitive with each other for the league to be successful. This is why the PRL smooths income across the clubs and imposes a salary cap - so that the weaker teams have a decent chance of beating the stronger ones. Take that away, let it become a walkover and soon there won't be enough clubs to make a league.

Why does that matter to the Rabo unions? For several reasons. No English or French domestic leagues = at best, much reduced income from English and French viewers. So the "you could choose to spend all yer European money on yer top teams" argument would ultimately hurt the Rabo teams if implemented.

Or consider this. Suppose we did end up with fewer English clubs. What would they do? They still need a big enough domestic league. How long would it take before they tempted the Welsh and Scottish clubs into a new league? Where would the Irish and Italian teams be then?

Professional rugby in Europe is still in its infancy. Teams need multiple competitions on the go to be viable, and they need to try to keep as level a playing field as possible in each competition. Because of that, all the competitions in Europe are essentially interdependent. I guess that's why I have such a huge problem with the "it's a union-led competition and should stay that way, and we'll each look to our own interests thank you very much" attitude - because it's so simplistic as to be self-destructive.

Ignore

Poorfour wrote:

Munchkin wrote:The counter to that is the PRL, and LNR, get almost twice as much per Union than those in the Rabo. Also, if my understanding is correct, the PRL divide their HEC share equally amongst the 12 PRL teams. That's their choice, but why should their choice on how they allocate funds be to the detriment on the other Unions? So then, if PRL decide to expand their league, say from 12 to 14 clubs, should the Rabo Unions take a cut in HEC gains to help facilitate any PRL expansion? If not, why not?

And the counter to that is that the PRL and LNR are running 3-7 times as many teams as the Rabo unions. Teams cost money to run. And the counter to the standard bleat of "why should the Rabo unions be affected by how many teams the PRL and LNR run?" is very simply one of long-term self-interest.

The PRL and LNR know that they need 12-14 teams to make their domestic leagues viable, and that these teams need to be competitive with each other for the league to be successful. This is why the PRL smooths income across the clubs and imposes a salary cap - so that the weaker teams have a decent chance of beating the stronger ones. Take that away, let it become a walkover and soon there won't be enough clubs to make a league.

Why does that matter to the Rabo unions? For several reasons. No English or French domestic leagues = at best, much reduced income from English and French viewers. So the "you could choose to spend all yer European money on yer top teams" argument would ultimately hurt the Rabo teams if implemented.

Or consider this. Suppose we did end up with fewer English clubs. What would they do? They still need a big enough domestic league. How long would it take before they tempted the Welsh and Scottish clubs into a new league? Where would the Irish and Italian teams be then?

Professional rugby in Europe is still in its infancy. Teams need multiple competitions on the go to be viable, and they need to try to keep as level a playing field as possible in each competition. Because of that, all the competitions in Europe are essentially interdependent. I guess that's why I have such a huge problem with the "it's a union-led competition and should stay that way, and we'll each look to our own interests thank you very much" attitude - because it's so simplistic as to be self-destructive.

You're trying to cover all bases here in favour of PRL, and not doing a very good job of it, Poorfour. You don't get it. I accept that, but whatever hurts the PRL, or the LNR, or the Rabo, hurts us all.
Ok, the PRL, and LNR, get their wish. A new Franglo competition is started in which PRL, and LNR, get by far get the biggest slice of the European competition cake, as well as complete control in the say on how it's run. The Rabo Unions join as their poor cousins, and due to how the funds are distributed, and who it is that holds all the power, they will always remain their poor cousins, and getting poorer, weaker, to the point of extinction from European competition. The Rabo Unions top players will be sucked into playing for what is the powerhouse of European Rugby right now. France. PRL may well encounter the same problem.
As for your comment on why the PRL needs to evenly divide its HEC share with all 12 PRL clubs, at the expense of the Rabo Unions, it is beyond belief. Incredible.....

There isn't a "HEC share", the PRL & LNR are given a lump sum by the ERC for their clubs from what is generated by both the Heineken and the Amlin.

It's far from unreasonable that the PRL & LNR think their clubs should get a similar amount of money for their efforts in Europe as the PRO12 sides get.  IF the PRL paid their HC sides the same amount that the PRO12 sides get there would be next to nothing left to pay the Amlin sides.  

Splitting the money equally as the PRL do to ensure a smoothing of finances for the lower sides means that the clubs get less per match than they even do for their second strings competing in the Anglo-Welsh cup, which is frankly ridiculous given how much less money that competition generates than the European ones.

Munchkin wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

Munchkin wrote:The counter to that is the PRL, and LNR, get almost twice as much per Union than those in the Rabo. Also, if my understanding is correct, the PRL divide their HEC share equally amongst the 12 PRL teams. That's their choice, but why should their choice on how they allocate funds be to the detriment on the other Unions? So then, if PRL decide to expand their league, say from 12 to 14 clubs, should the Rabo Unions take a cut in HEC gains to help facilitate any PRL expansion? If not, why not?

And the counter to that is that the PRL and LNR are running 3-7 times as many teams as the Rabo unions. Teams cost money to run. And the counter to the standard bleat of "why should the Rabo unions be affected by how many teams the PRL and LNR run?" is very simply one of long-term self-interest.

The PRL and LNR know that they need 12-14 teams to make their domestic leagues viable, and that these teams need to be competitive with each other for the league to be successful. This is why the PRL smooths income across the clubs and imposes a salary cap - so that the weaker teams have a decent chance of beating the stronger ones. Take that away, let it become a walkover and soon there won't be enough clubs to make a league.

Why does that matter to the Rabo unions? For several reasons. No English or French domestic leagues = at best, much reduced income from English and French viewers. So the "you could choose to spend all yer European money on yer top teams" argument would ultimately hurt the Rabo teams if implemented.

Or consider this. Suppose we did end up with fewer English clubs. What would they do? They still need a big enough domestic league. How long would it take before they tempted the Welsh and Scottish clubs into a new league? Where would the Irish and Italian teams be then?

Professional rugby in Europe is still in its infancy. Teams need multiple competitions on the go to be viable, and they need to try to keep as level a playing field as possible in each competition. Because of that, all the competitions in Europe are essentially interdependent. I guess that's why I have such a huge problem with the "it's a union-led competition and should stay that way, and we'll each look to our own interests thank you very much" attitude - because it's so simplistic as to be self-destructive.

You're trying to cover all bases here in favour of PRL, and not doing a very good job of it, Poorfour. You don't get it. I accept that, but whatever hurts the PRL, or the LNR, or the Rabo, hurts us all.
Ok, the PRL, and LNR, get their wish. A new Franglo competition is started in which PRL, and LNR, get by far get the biggest slice of the European competition cake, as well as complete control in the say on how it's run. The Rabo Unions join as their poor cousins, and due to how the funds are distributed, and who it is that holds all the power, they will always remain their poor cousins, and getting poorer, weaker, to the point of extinction from European competition. The Rabo Unions top players will be sucked into playing for what is the powerhouse of European Rugby right now. France. PRL may well encounter the same problem.
As for your comment on why the PRL needs to evenly divide its HEC share with all 12 PRL clubs, at the expense of the Rabo Unions, it is beyond belief. Incredible.....

At least I am trying to explain, rather than just asserting and speculating.

Poor cousins? Get real. The Rabo teams each get considerably more from European competition than the French or English, and the PRL proposal only uses the BT money to redress that without reducing what the Rabo teams get.

Tell me why it is remotely justifiable that the Rabo teams should continue to have a massive per team advantage in cash - without resorting to the word union.

And you can't speculate on what the Anglo-French successor tournament will or won't do until we've seen a concrete proposal. All we do know is that the PRL and LNR have repeatedly asked the ERC for fairer qualification, governance and distribution of cash, and that we are where we are because the ERC and Rabo unions refused to discuss it.

Refuse to discuss it? According to who? I read the opposite.

markb wrote:There isn't a "HEC share", the PRL & LNR are given a lump sum by the ERC for their clubs from what is generated by both the Heineken and the Amlin.

It's far from unreasonable that the PRL & LNR think their clubs should get a similar amount of money for their efforts in Europe as the PRO12 sides get.  IF the PRL paid their HC sides the same amount that the PRO12 sides get there would be next to nothing left to pay the Amlin sides.  

Splitting the money equally as the PRL do to ensure a smoothing of finances for the lower sides means that the clubs get less per match than they even do for their second strings competing in the Anglo-Welsh cup, which is frankly ridiculous given how much less money that competition generates than the European ones.

All that does is level the playing field. The Top 14 league is the richest league in the world and way ahead of the Rabo in terms of finances and the AP will always have more earning power than the Rabo too. Of the first 10 HCups there was only one Rabo winner. Of the last 10 there has been 2 English, 3 French and 5 Rabo teams. It is fairly even the way it is albeit the numbers have tipped towards the Rabo because of Leinsters dominance and a golden era for them. They arent a particularly wealthy club.

This is a list of the richest clubs in the world in terms of revenue:

Top 15 Rugby Clubs (Revenue + Profit wise)

01. Toulouse
02. Clermont Auvergne
03. Leicester Tigers
04. Stade Francais
05. Racing Metro 92
06. Toulon
07. Brive
08. Montpellier
09. Biarritz Olympique
10. Perpignan
11. Northampton Saints
12. Bayonne
13. Castres Olympique
14. Harlequins
15. Gloucester

Munster for example is one of the biggest shirt sellers and seat fillers in Euro rugby but will never be able to compete with those teams for wealth so the Rabo teams rely on ERC money to stay competitive.

Why destroy the equilibrum that there currently is in the Heineken cup?

Lets face it the top 14 is only going to get wealthier and the AP potentially too.

GG. Link please? "(Revenue + Profit wise)" are two different animals.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:GG. Link please?

One from 2011

http://www.espn.co.uk/france-top-14-2011-12/rugby/story/147870.html

One from 2012

http://www.tsmplug.com/richlist/richest-rugby-clubs-in-the-world/

Oh dear.

http://www.tsmplug.com/richlist/richest-rugby-clubs-in-the-world/ (2013)

TSM wrote:Here is the small research I did and i found a top 15 list which rate teams according to the revenue earned in the last couple of years, Its wont show how much wealthy a rugby club is but just how much they are making every year, and not surprisingly most of the clubs are from France, take a look at the follwing list.

I assume that this is a trawl of turnover but the amateur sleuth does indicate that he can't differentiate between profit and turnover.


http://www.espn.co.uk/france-top-14-2011-12/rugby/story/147870.html (2011)

espn wrote:Financial information on Irish and Scottish sides was not available but provincial outfits Munster and Leinster ranked fourth and sixth respectively when it came to average match attendance.

That's the problem. So few sides publish accounts which enable comparison.

I see Uefa are thinking of combining the Champions League and the Europa League. We should the do same in rugby. Combine the HC and Amlin into one brilliant mega tournament for all. Every team gets the same TV money and nobody has different qualification rules because everyone can enter.

Feckless Rogue wrote:I see Uefa are thinking of combining the Champions League and the Europa League. We should the do same in rugby. Combine the HC and Amlin into one brilliant mega tournament for all. Every team gets the same TV money and nobody has different qualification rules because everyone can enter.

How is that any different from having equal money for entry into a two tier competition. Which what is proposed.

maestegmafia wrote:Word finally comes from the former chairman of the RFU, last we heard they considered that the PRLs actions were illegal and Bill Beaumont was chatting to club owners to try and resolve the situation.
 
Martyn Thomas, former chairman of the RFU
 
"There's a contractual obligation there that the RFU can enforce," he claimed.
"It not only provides that they will play in Europe to the end of the season 2014-2015, it also provides that they will play in no other professional competitions."
 
"The ERC (European Rugby Cup) agreement was signed, and it was signed subsequently to an agreement that the RFU and PRL [Premier Rugby Ltd] and each individual club entered into and that was in 2007.
"One of the terms of the agreement was that the Premiership clubs would remain playing in Europe until the end of that agreement with the RFU.
 
"The RFU have got to stand up and be counted, it's not a popularity competition being at the RFU."
Thomas also expects the French Rugby Federation and International Rugby Board to block any move to form a new tournament.
 
"The clubs in England require the consent of their union, the teams in France require the consent of their union," he said.
"Pierre Camou is probably one of the strongest presidents in world rugby - he is a tough guy.
"Also, because it's a cross border they require the consent of the IRB and they have a French chairman in Bernard Lapasset.
"There is no way that those two Frenchmen are going to give consent for this to occur."

Highlighted another lie mistake in bold there maes. It was Lux who said it was illegal.

The stance of the LNR and PRL is still incredibly depressing and frustrating. Can't believe we could have no European rugby next year. Sickened.

Notch wrote:The stance of the LNR and PRL is still incredibly depressing and frustrating. Can't believe we could have no European rugby next year. Sickened.

Since the only stance that the ERC and Rabos have so Dar offered as an alternative is basically "drop 'em and take it like a man", what would you do in their position?

Notch wrote:The stance of the LNR and PRL is still incredibly depressing and frustrating. Can't believe we could have no European rugby next year. Sickened.

I think we'll still have European Rugby - I think that all this is a part of the "negotiations." I'm pretty sure that there will be some tweaks though. Both sides will need to give a bit but I can't help thinking that they will. Maybe I'm hopelessly optimistic but there you go.

I think it's gone beyond that- the BT Sport deal is the the thing.

-The ERC are under contract to Sky Sports until 2018.
-The PRL have sold the rights to European games featuring their teams (and other teams?) to BT Sport.
-The PRL can't come back on board without breaking their contract with BT Sport which is worth more money to them than any ERC deal.
-The other nations will not leave the ERC fold due to concerns about the breakaway competitions legitimacy due to the fact it hasn't been endorsed by the RFU, FFR and IRB and the perception that it the outcome of bullying tactics as opposed to negotiation.

It's going to end up in a mess of lawsuits and counter-suits. Whilst I don't think that the Franglo Cup will get the go ahead for next season, too many broken contracts and too many bodies need to approve it who actively oppose it, I think the English and French will also not be involved in ERC competitions next year. Leading to- the worst of all worlds.

Poorfour wrote:

Notch wrote:The stance of the LNR and PRL is still incredibly depressing and frustrating. Can't believe we could have no European rugby next year. Sickened.

Since the only stance that the ERC and Rabos have so Dar offered as an alternative is basically "drop 'em and take it like a man", what would you do in their position?

Tell us more, you seem to have all the inside information. Considering the fact the head of the IRFU has come out and said they are willing to talk.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

Notch wrote:The stance of the LNR and PRL is still incredibly depressing and frustrating. Can't believe we could have no European rugby next year. Sickened.

Since the only stance that the ERC and Rabos have so Dar offered as an alternative is basically "drop 'em and take it like a man", what would you do in their position?

Tell us more, you seem to have all the inside information. Considering the fact the head of the IRFU has come out and said they are willing to talk.

Thats very rich Poorfour  

Notch wrote:I think it's gone beyond that- the BT Sport deal is the the thing..

If the BT contract is indeed a deal breaker for the ERC because of their Sky contract, then you can only wonder why on earth they went ahead and renewed with Sky when they did.

They did so after the BT involvement with PRL had already been announced, and after the French and English clubs had already served notice on their involvement with the ERC.

The had no reason to do so. Not immediately renewing with Sky wouldn't have left them any obligation to accept BT involvement.

The ERC doesn't exist from next season so any deal if void anyway.
All TV contracts are void. No contracts are broken. The RFU have to sanction the TV deal (probably) but they have to sanction any competition anyway.

The ERC is dead and had to die the moment the two TV contracts existed. But the ECR or REC or CRE or some other virtually identical body CAN exist. But one of the requirements is the English home games will be broadcast by BT

RFU obfuscate

Rugby Football Union chief executive Ian Ritchie feels urgent talks are necessary.
He said: "It's important for a game as a whole that we get these negotiations settled.
"Our view as well is that we would seek to achieve a European competition that would involve clubs from Scotland, Wales, France - wherever.

Right, so here's where we are.

The ERC will either not exist, or will exist but as a glorified Pro12.
The RFU may not sanction the new tournament, indications are the FFR and IRB won't.

Everybody loses.