English clubs "grand standing" and cannot leave Heineken Cup until 2015 according to ex RFU Chairman.

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/24074931

The current two European competitions, the Heineken Cup and Amlin Challenge Cup, involve teams from England, France, Ireland, Italy, Scotland, Wales, Portugal and Romania.
However, the English and French argue their qualification criteria are much tougher and put them at a disadvantage in the competitions.
They served notice to quit the tournament in 2012, however, Thomas does not believe their proposed alternative can get off the ground.
"It's grandstanding," he said.
"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."
RFU chief executive Ian Ritchie has since released a statement stating that his organisation is "supportive of the Premiership clubs seeking greater meritocracy," while stressing that rugby should "continue to thrive and grow" and urging "compromise on both sides".
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."

One thing we have learnt in the Celtic league is if a flight is involved the away fans sparsely travel and that will undo the franglais concept.

maestegmafia wrote:One thing we have learnt in the Celtic league is if a flight is involved the away fans sparsely travel and that will undo the franglais concept.

And there are no flights involved in the HC as is of course. Nor is there a very fast train link to France.

the whole idea of selling cheap tickets to fill bigger venues all started in France anyway with Stade Français under Guazzini. Put on a show, cheap tickets, fill the Stade de France. Sarries and Quins saw the results and thought they'd do the same, quite rightfully so. I remember attending a Stade Français - Bayonne match at the Stade de France. Mid-December, horrible day, and I think the public transport were on strike. Still managed an attendance of 76 000 or so. That's for a club match, not even against one of the elite teams. Now even if you're selling 10 euro tickets for half of those seats, you're making a huge amount more than selling out a 20k stadium, or so.

Nothing to do with devaluing the product, simply sound business sense. Say a family who can't afford to spend 80-odd euros just to watch a couple of hours rugby, might be perfectly happy to spend 40-odd to see the rugby and a bit of a show as well...

Mad for Chelsea - you do realise that Stade Francais was just about saved from bankruptcy (and relegation) in 2011. 

Sin é wrote:Mad for Chelsea - you do realise that Stade Francais was just about saved from bankruptcy (and relegation) in 2011. 

Which is relevant how, precisely? Stade had the idea, doesn't mean that someone else can't be successful with it. Microsoft tried tablet PCs unsuccessfully, but that didn't stop Apple being wildly successful with the iPad.

As I said before, the Big Game has been profitable for Quins every year, and they have a business plan to achieve overall profitability.

Gosh, you know what? If they got the same share of ERC money that Zebre or even Munster get, they'd be profitable today.

Poorfour wrote:

Sin é wrote:Mad for Chelsea - you do realise that Stade Francais was just about saved from bankruptcy (and relegation) in 2011. 

Which is relevant how, precisely? Stade had the idea, doesn't mean that someone else can't be successful with it. Microsoft tried tablet PCs unsuccessfully, but that didn't stop Apple being wildly successful with the iPad.

As I said before, the Big Game has been profitable for Quins every year, and they have a business plan to achieve overall profitability.

Gosh, you know what? If they got the same share of ERC money that Zebre or even Munster get, they'd be profitable today.

Saracens are losing money hand over fist. 5m+ last season. Quins the same (1m+ last season). The one game that Quins should have moved to a bigger stadium, they didn't. And what did their fans do? Sell their tickets to the Munster supporters  .

By the way, Munster get nothing from the ERC. The IRFU gets it all. I'd imagine its a similar situation with Zebre. 

niwatts wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:One thing we have learnt in the Celtic league is if a flight is involved the away fans sparsely travel and that will undo the franglais concept.

And there are no flights involved in the HC as is of course.  Nor is there a very fast train link to France.

Sorry you don't make any sense...!!!

There are loads of flights to France and Eurostar.

Somebody doesn't get sarcasm.

Sin é wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

Sin é wrote:Mad for Chelsea - you do realise that Stade Francais was just about saved from bankruptcy (and relegation) in 2011. 

Which is relevant how, precisely? Stade had the idea, doesn't mean that someone else can't be successful with it. Microsoft tried tablet PCs unsuccessfully, but that didn't stop Apple being wildly successful with the iPad.

As I said before, the Big Game has been profitable for Quins every year, and they have a business plan to achieve overall profitability.

Gosh, you know what? If they got the same share of ERC money that Zebre or even Munster get, they'd be profitable today.

Saracens are losing money hand over fist. 5m+ last season. Quins the same (1m+ last season). The one game that Quins should have  moved to a bigger stadium, they didn't. And what did their fans do? Sell their tickets to the Munster supporters  .

By the way, Munster get nothing from the ERC. The IRFU gets it all. I'd imagine its a similar situation with Zebre. 

Do Munster not get said money from the IRFU, may not be directly from the ERC but they do get it.

Sarries moved into a new stadium last season with a new pitch. Of course there finances won't look the best. Thats common sense.

Sin é wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

Sin é wrote:Mad for Chelsea - you do realise that Stade Francais was just about saved from bankruptcy (and relegation) in 2011. 

Which is relevant how, precisely? Stade had the idea, doesn't mean that someone else can't be successful with it. Microsoft tried tablet PCs unsuccessfully, but that didn't stop Apple being wildly successful with the iPad.

As I said before, the Big Game has been profitable for Quins every year, and they have a business plan to achieve overall profitability.

Gosh, you know what? If they got the same share of ERC money that Zebre or even Munster get, they'd be profitable today.

Saracens are losing money hand over fist. 5m+ last season. Quins the same (1m+ last season). The one game that Quins should have  moved to a bigger stadium, they didn't. And what did their fans do? Sell their tickets to the Munster supporters  .

By the way, Munster get nothing from the ERC. The IRFU gets it all. I'd imagine its a similar situation with Zebre. 

Interesting that that £1m is about the differential in the per team share of ERC money that the IRFU and PRL distribute, isn't it?

Quins seriously considered taking the Munster QF to Twickenham (they took a pool game back in 2005 and got 30k fans even then), but decided it would be better to have home advantage. The ticket distribution did go awry - we underestimated how much Munster fans would offer for a ticket, but it's still not clear whether the majority of the extra tickets Munster fans secured came from fans or from the ERC allocation.

It's not really germane to this discussion, though. A home HEC QF is a one-off (not guaranteed for anyone each year, and always very different conditions and opposition) and each one is a bit of an experiment at this point in time. It was also a good example of what you're advocating: the base ticket prices were significantly higher for that game than for ordinary games (the cheapest were around £35 and the better seats were £50) - even ignoring the touting that went on, it was a sellout and generated a lot of revenue for someone (I believe the ERC takes a fair chunk of the gate receipts and redistributes them according to its own rules).

You're repeatedly ignoring the three points that are relevant:
1) Quins aren't profitable today, but they know what it will take to get there and are on track to achieve it in the next couple of years.
2) The Big Game is a profitable contributor to that plan, so rubbishing it and its ilk for having discounted tickets is ignoring the facts.
3) The fact that the English and French games receive far less per team from European competition than the other unions involved makes a material difference to their plan to reach profitability.

Gibbo on here by any chance ?

Sin e being antagonistic, shocker

Knowsit17 wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Knowsit17
If all Unions should have representation why should it be limited to only the 6 Nation unions & not all European Unions?
Also if they can't get into the top 6 of their "domestic" league what makes you think that they could win the top European competition?

I never said the same access shouldn't be extended to other unions at any such time that the format is revised to integrate more clubs. In the meantime why should the rules apply differently to English and French clubs just because they are able to have their own domestic leagues?

Why would the pro12 want a level playing field so only the best in each league meet, when they can have "special" treatment and then carry on blaming the "franglos" that there is no equality.

Metal Tiger wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Knowsit17
If all Unions should have representation why should it be limited to only the 6 Nation unions & not all European Unions?
Also if they can't get into the top 6 of their "domestic" league what makes you think that they could win the top European competition?

I never said the same access shouldn't be extended to other unions at any such time that the format is revised to integrate more clubs. In the meantime why should the rules apply differently to English and French clubs just because they are able to have their own domestic leagues?

Why would the pro12 want a level playing field so only the best in each league meet, when they can have "special" treatment and then carry on blaming the "franglos" that there is no equality.

Sorry, but if you think that England and France being guaranteed participation every year whilst no other nation is guaranteed an entry is fair you need your head checked.

Notch wrote:
Sorry, but if you think that England and France being guaranteed participation every year whilst no other nation is guaranteed an entry is fair you need your head checked.

Sorry, but if you think that England and France Scottish teams being guaranteed participation every year whilst no other nation is English and French teams are not guaranteed an entry is fair you need your head checked.

Notch wrote:

Metal Tiger wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Knowsit17
If all Unions should have representation why should it be limited to only the 6 Nation unions & not all European Unions?
Also if they can't get into the top 6 of their "domestic" league what makes you think that they could win the top European competition?

I never said the same access shouldn't be extended to other unions at any such time that the format is revised to integrate more clubs. In the meantime why should the rules apply differently to English and French clubs just because they are able to have their own domestic leagues?

Why would the pro12 want a level playing field so only the best in each league meet, when they can have "special" treatment and then carry on blaming the "franglos" that there is no equality.

Sorry, but if you think that England and France being guaranteed participation every year whilst no other nation is guaranteed an entry is fair you need your head checked.

Eventually the penny will drop that this is about 3 leagues and not 6 nations. The Celts chose to join up in one league so live with your choice. Its not the Franglos fault you cant support your own domestic competitions, although it appears you thimk we should pay for it. You're the one that needs your head checking psl.

I am all for fairness and equality.

Stricter rules to reduce the cost of the game will help everyone, and will improve the quality of the games too.

1). Overseas player caps for all teams competing.

2). Wage Caps set at an amount all clubs can afford.

maestegmafia wrote:I am all for fairness and equality.

Stricter rules to reduce the cost of the game will help everyone, and will improve the quality of the games too.

1). Overseas player caps for all teams competing.

2). Wage Caps set at an amount all clubs can afford.

Just as in the banking crisis, individual nations or blocs would have little effect as only global agreements (which are meticulously monitored, regulated and enforced) would have be effective.

Is that going to happen? 

The game in Europe is too expensive, 95% of clubs in England and France are losing money. Even big clubs like Biarritz are starting to complain about the arms race.

This is a great opportunity to halt it.

Monitoring is easy, it is done in without any issues in Wales and Ireland where there are strict rules applied.

But Franglo clubs are independent of their Unions and their employment policies are bound only by national employment legislation. I'm not saying that that makes for a perfect situation (indeed I think more to the contrary) but it is a fact.

Legal challenges might be technically valid against other unions under similar legislation within other jurisdictions however.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:But Franglo clubs are independent of their Unions and their employment policies are bound only by national employment legislation. I'm not saying that that makes for a perfect situation (indeed I think more to the contrary) but it is a fact.

Legal challenges might be technically valid against other unions under similar legislation within other jurisdictions however.

Why would you make legal challwnges to ground rules set down from the start.

Having a great competition means having great games, putting all clubs on a financial even keel would make a huge difference, save clubs millions of pounds that they could invest in academies, avoid much of the player release issues, it is what the game needs...!

I don't think anyone enjoyed watching Toulon buy their first Heineken Cup last year.

Why? In a professional game it was a logical although undesirable inevitability.

The controls available do not exist to 'level the playing field'.

I wouldn't bother to make legal challenges to ground rules as it would pointless and I never said that I would. What I was suggesting was that many if not all unions and elite representatives rules could technically be challenged if the needs must.

Witness LW's boo to the goose of PRL/RFU.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Why? In a professional game it was a logical although undesirable inevitability.

The controls available do not exist to 'level the playing field'.

Self implied controls are applied in all countries, even France and England have Caps on spending, England have some type of limit on foreign players too, (?)..

It is easy to imply common sense fairness, it is ridiculous to let a few clubs make rugby more expensive and more in debt.

Firstly you'd have to agree a cap. Is one acceptable for Wales equally agreeable to Japan, South Africa, Argentina and France*? How would it be administered?

Frankly although I agree with your sentiment, I cannot see it is remotely possible or workable.

Not globally, not hemispherically, not continentally, not nationally.
It's a pipe dream sadly.

maestegmafia wrote:I am all for fairness and equality.

Stricter rules to reduce the cost of the game will help everyone, and will improve the quality of the games too.

1). Overseas player caps for all teams competing.

2). Wage Caps set at an amount all clubs can afford.

I don't see how you could have a flat wage cap without adjusting for cost of living etc. in particular areas. For example for a Quins player to buy a 4 bed family house in a not particularly great area (Teddington) would cost him about £750k. For a Cardiff player to buy a 5 bed house within half a mile of the city centre would cost £350k. You can't apply the same wage cap to both teams. In fact as the Aviva wage cap is approx. £4.5m and Welsh teams at £3.5m you could probably argue that on a like for like basis the Welsh cap is higher.

It has usually not been the job of an employer to buy someone a house anywhere. Cost of living is a point of discussion. But here is no reason why that can not be reflected in a wage cap.

But the disparity if some clubs having the operating budget five times of others is ridiculous.

Why would you not want a level playing field in Europe that all clubs could afford.

Because the cloth would have to be cut to fit the poorest and players will seek to maximise their earnings elsewhere?

That's why it would have to be a global deal in which nobody cheats.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Because the cloth would have to be cut to fit the poorest and players will seek to maximise their earnings elsewhere?

That's why it would have to be a global deal in which nobody cheats.

Sounds great.

Would stop the player drain, the as well as stopping the ridiculous, completely unnecessary escalating cost of the game.

maestegmafia wrote:It has usually not been the job of an employer to buy someone a house anywhere. Cost of living is a point of discussion. But here is no reason why that can not be reflected in a wage cap.

But the disparity if some clubs having the operating budget five times of others is ridiculous.

Why would you not want a level playing field in Europe that all clubs could afford.  

It's not an employer’s job no but it will be a consideration of an employee.  £250k working in London might be the equivalent to them of £150k in Cardiff.  Likewise in Ireland you have their tax saving system to adjust for. So to your question about do I want a cap?  No for three reasons.  First it's too complicated as the above points too.  Even in England alone you would have to have regional variations let alone across borders. Second I'm not against players trying to earn more.  It's a short and potentially dangerous career with no guarantees of future employment once their playing days are over. Finally I'm a free market capitalist and so I believe the market should be allowed to dictate.

maestegmafia wrote:It has usually not been the job of an employer to buy someone a house anywhere. Cost of living is a point of discussion. But here is no reason why that can not be reflected in a wage cap
But the disparity if some clubs having the operating budget five times of others is ridiculous.

Why would you not want a level playing field in Europe that all clubs could afford.  

You might want one, whether you'd get one is another question. The English salary cap is not so far from the Welsh one (sorry, don't know what the Irish or Scottish ones are) that you couldn't harmonise them over time - though practically this would have to be done by freezing the English cap until the others caught up. You couldn't move the cap down as it would mean shrinking squads when they are already pretty small given the number of games played. It might even be possible to negotiate a slightly distorted share of European revenues to allow for it.

The bigger problem is the French cap, which is so far ahead of anyone else's that it would be very hard to harmonise. I can't seethe LNR negotiating it away, but it doesn't look sustainable so I have always thought it's just something you have to live with and wait for it to collapse under its own weight. Haven't got a better idea than that, I'm afraid.

Toadfish wrote:Finally I'm a free market capitalist and so I believe the market should be allowed to dictate.

A free market can only exist under a strong legislative umbrella. The free market went spectacularly t!ts up in 2007.

In rugby like everywhere in the commercial world there is no impermeable membrane surrounding the game so almost everyone loses. Only the rich will get richer so its best to ally yourself by proxy with a rich side otherwise you'll get extremely depressed.

That's unfettered capitalism for you.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

Toadfish wrote:Finally I'm a free market capitalist and so I believe the market should be allowed to dictate.

A free market can only exist under a strong legislative umbrella. The free market went spectacularly t!ts up in 2007.

In rugby like everywhere in the commercial world there is no impermeable membrane surrounding the game so almost everyone loses. Only the rich will get richer so its best to ally yourself by proxy with a rich side otherwise you'll get extremely depressed.

That's unfettered capitalism for you.

No it didn't, because there wasn't one. Simple evidence of this is that there were government bailouts and the expectation that there would be.

I could turn things around (PRL style) and ask why should English teams like Worcester recieve as much HEC money as Munster, Leinster, Ospreys, Ulster, Scarlets etc

Couple of things.

1. A limit on non residency qualified players would last about a week as it is illegal to limit the employment of EU or Kolpak nationality peoples. Therefore that particular brand of national discrimination would not work.

2. Why should players be largely restricted in their career movement? Not to mention the sod the third tier nation countries all we are about is our own national interests that your limits on qualified players suggests. As far as I'm concerned rugby is an inclusive sport and always should be.

3. Financially we should be ensuring clubs do not over spend and maintain/grow themselves in a sustainable way. Criticising financial success and organically grown wealth is, however, foolish in the extreme. The HEC competition already has a limit in squad size so that only so many players can be registered and play. Perhaps a cap based on turnover of we were to have one at all?

Poorfour wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:It has usually not been the job of an employer to buy someone a house anywhere. Cost of living is a point of discussion. But here is no reason why that can not be reflected in a wage cap
But the disparity if some clubs having the operating budget five times of others is ridiculous.

Why would you not want a level playing field in Europe that all clubs could afford.  

You might want one, whether you'd get one is another question. The English salary cap is not so far from the Welsh one (sorry, don't know what the Irish or Scottish ones are) that you couldn't harmonise them over time - though practically this would have to be done by freezing the English cap until the others caught up. You couldn't move the cap down as it would mean shrinking squads when they are already pretty small given the number of games played. It might even be possible to negotiate a slightly distorted share of European revenues to allow for it.

The bigger problem is the French cap, which is so far ahead of anyone else's that it would be very hard to harmonise. I can't seethe LNR negotiating it away, but it doesn't look sustainable so I have always thought it's just something you have to live with and wait for it to collapse under its own weight. Haven't got a better idea than that, I'm afraid.

Some of the French clubs, Biarritz President Serge Blanco has been very outspoken on this, are calling for restraint within their game.
Mourad Boudjellal, president of the Toulon Rugby Club, derides that clubs that can not compete economically shouldn't hold back those who can. Which is frankly ridiculous.

Soccer is easily ten times the economic size of rugby, if not much more and as a sport there is a massive issue with the clubs outgrowing the game. We have the time, good sense and opportunity to protect rugby from escalating beyond its means.

It seems frankly preposterous that any club president, CEO, or their representatives could not think on similar lines. There is no reason to escalate the cost of the sport. Why would you do it....?????

http://www.planetrugby.co.uk/story/0,25883,9818_8803549,00.html

formerly known as Sam wrote:Couple of things.

1. A limit on non residency qualified players would last about a week as it is illegal to limit the employment of EU or Kolpak nationality peoples. Therefore that particular brand of national discrimination would not work.

That is a bogus argument as there is no prevention of employment only a limit to maintain financial stability within a work place. Wales, Ireland, England and many other countries already limit the number of overseas players in their professional teams and for that very reason, as well as protecting national player growth within the leagues they compete in.

formerly known as Sam wrote:2. Why should players be largely restricted in their career movement? Not to mention the sod the third tier nation countries all we are about is our own national interests that your limits on qualified players suggests. As far as I'm concerned rugby is an inclusive sport and always should be.

Rugby is an inclusive sport that should look to spread the game, but measures have to be taken to control its growth in a positive sense and that is already happening, wage caps exist everywhere. Levelling wage caps would aid competition by preventing one team from being able to buy their success.

The stipulations that the PRL have enforced on English clubs that want to compete in the Premiership are designed to prevent financial instability, al la Richmond in the mid nineties.

formerly known as Sam wrote:3. Financially we should be ensuring clubs do not over spend and maintain/grow themselves in a sustainable way. Criticising financial success and organically grown wealth is, however, foolish in the extreme. The HEC competition already has a limit in squad size so that only so many players can be registered and play. Perhaps a cap based on turnover of we were to have one at all?

Organically Grown wealth can be redistributed within that club to provide better academies that will improve those clubs and their pool talent, how on earth can that be foolish?

Though there are actually few examples of a club growing financial success organically, most are from large injections of private capital supporting a fragile economic model.

maestegmafia wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:It has usually not been the job of an employer to buy someone a house anywhere. Cost of living is a point of discussion. But here is no reason why that can not be reflected in a wage cap
But the disparity if some clubs having the operating budget five times of others is ridiculous.

Why would you not want a level playing field in Europe that all clubs could afford.  

You might want one, whether you'd get one is another question. The English salary cap is not so far from the Welsh one (sorry, don't know what the Irish or Scottish ones are) that you couldn't harmonise them over time - though practically this would have to be done by freezing the English cap until the others caught up. You couldn't move the cap down as it would mean shrinking squads when they are already pretty small given the number of games played. It might even be possible to negotiate a slightly distorted share of European revenues to allow for it.

The bigger problem is the French cap, which is so far ahead of anyone else's that it would be very hard to harmonise. I can't seethe LNR negotiating it away, but it doesn't look sustainable so I have always thought it's just something you have to live with and wait for it to collapse under its own weight. Haven't got a better idea than that, I'm afraid.

Some of the French clubs, Biarritz President Serge Blanco has been very outspoken on this, are calling for restraint within their game.
Mourad Boudjellal, president of the Toulon Rugby Club, derides that clubs that can not compete economically shouldn't hold back those who can. Which is frankly ridiculous.

Soccer is easily ten times the economic size of rugby, if not much more and as a sport there is a massive issue with the clubs outgrowing the game. We have the time, good sense and opportunity to protect rugby from escalating beyond its means.

It seems frankly preposterous that any club president, CEO, or their representatives could not think on similar lines. There is no reason to escalate the cost of the sport. Why would you do it....?????

http://www.planetrugby.co.uk/story/0,25883,9818_8803549,00.html

You seem to be assuming that an increase in revenue would automatically result in an increase in the salary cap? This doesn't necessarily have to be the case. The owners could forsee that this money is to i) Provide a return on their investment (which in some cases is well deserved after plowing money in for many years) ii) Allow for investment in infrastructure (Ground, academies, new technology, player support/welfare) iii) Allow them to reduce ticket prices etc etc etc.

maestegmafia wrote:
Some of the French clubs, Biarritz President Serge Blanco has been very outspoken on this, are calling for restraint within their game.
Mourad Boudjellal, president of the Toulon Rugby Club, derides that clubs that can not compete economically shouldn't hold back those who can. Which is frankly ridiculous.

Soccer is easily ten times the economic size of rugby, if not much more and as a sport there is a massive issue with the clubs outgrowing the game. We have the time, good sense and opportunity to protect rugby from escalating beyond its means.

It seems frankly preposterous that any club president, CEO, or their representatives could not think on similar lines. There is no reason to escalate the cost of the sport. Why would you do it....?????

http://www.planetrugby.co.uk/story/0,25883,9818_8803549,00.html

I would agree with the above.  However, I don't think that ties in with the current debate, as there's a big difference between limiting the amount clubs can spend, and dictating their revenue generation.  Surely the best way to keep clubs sustainable is to allow them to maximise their revenue while limiting excessive spending?
 
Personally I'd be quite happy to see rules restricting clubs to operating within their means - I think that would do everyone a world of good.  Alternatively it may be better if salary caps were set by the unions, to keep them in check and ensure that the rich clubs and clubs with rich owners weren't putting too much of a squeeze on everyone else.  However, I have no objection to clubs organising their own tournaments to maximise their revenue. I wouldn't be too keen on a universal salary cap though - there are significant variations in cost of living without even leaving the UK, and I'd argue that clubs in London for example are already at a disadvantage to a club like Newcastle up in the North East. Once you start to take into account cost of living changes and variable tax regimes between countries I think it would be almost impossible to apply fairly.

" Organically Grown wealth can be redistributed within that club to provide better academies that will improve those clubs and their pool talent, how on earth can that be foolish?"

Read the entire sentence Maes.

The PRL have a salary cap and did have a non Kolpak qualified player agreement (not sure if they still did). That doesn't really effect many teams though as only a small amount of players are covered by those restrictions. The RFU offer incentives for for clubs that average a certain number of EQ players. There are no Welsh/Irish restrictions as those Unions only get away with that because their clubs are so financially reliant on the union.

Toadfish wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

Toadfish wrote:Finally I'm a free market capitalist and so I believe the market should be allowed to dictate.

A free market can only exist under a strong legislative umbrella. The free market went spectacularly t!ts up in 2007.

In rugby like everywhere in the commercial world there is no impermeable membrane surrounding the game so almost everyone loses. Only the rich will get richer so its best to ally yourself by proxy with a rich side otherwise you'll get extremely depressed.

That's unfettered capitalism for you.

No it didn't, because there wasn't one.  Simple evidence of this is that there were government bailouts and the expectation that there would be.

Hmm. So you are not a believer in the free market after all then?

The market failed and as usual the poor get kicked even harder. Monarchs, dictators and plutocrats don't have to vote or pay.

Metal Tiger wrote:Eventually the penny will drop that this is about 3 leagues and not 6 nations. The Celts chose to join up in one league so live with your choice. Its not the Franglos fault you cant support your own domestic competitions, although it appears you thimk we should pay for it. You're the one that needs your head checking psl.

Isn't the reverse equally true? You get the biggest slice of the cake and it's not our fault you've decided to split it 12 ways instead of 10 or 8 or 4. You appear to believe that the nations that live within their means should pay for it... You see if you could actually pay for your own league then a lot more of your clubs would be in the black. I would think the reason your holding a gun to everyone elses head has a lot to do with your league not being self-sustaining enough.

I'm sure the nation thats contributed six winners out of eighteen and consistently sends the largest numbers of traveling fans to away games has put in a hell of lot more than it's taken out over the years to European rugby. I would be pretty certain we've increased the value of European rugby as a whole and put a lot of money into the coffers of English/French clubs over the years. It would be funny if people like you weren't on the verge of destroying rugby in Europe. You honestly believe the world revolves around your system...

Some of the argument (whether people want to argue about power of money is up to them) does come down to league or nation qualification. can you imagine the Premier League guaranteeing Newcastle and Sunderland a spot every year in the Champions League just because they come from the NE and they need to be represented. Or does it work better as the best 4 teams get it and Newcastle have to improve to get there?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Some of the argument (whether people want to argue about power of money is up to them) does come down to league or nation qualification. can you imagine the Premier League guaranteeing Newcastle and Sunderland a spot every year in the Champions League just because they come from the NE and they need to be represented. Or does it work better as the best 4 teams get it and Newcastle have to improve to get there?

Another person who doesn't understand the difference between a national competition and an international competition.

In European football, every nation that is affiliated with UEFA gets at least one spot in the Champions League- the best-performing nations get an automatic pass into the group stages whilst the lesser nations have to pre-qualify.

The North-East doesn't get a free entry but France does.

Club competition. Sorry I'll change it.

'Some of the argument (whether people want to argue about power of money is up to them) does come down to league or nation qualification. can you imagine the Premier League guaranteeing Swansea and Cardiff a spot every year in the Champions League just because they come from Wales and they need to be represented. Or does it work better as the best 4 teams get it and Swansea have to improve to get there?'

I'm from the NE which is why I used them initially.

Notch wrote:

Metal Tiger wrote:Eventually the penny will drop that this is about 3 leagues and not 6 nations. The Celts chose to join up in one league so live with your choice. Its not the Franglos fault you cant support your own domestic competitions, although it appears you thimk we should pay for it. You're the one that needs your head checking psl.

Isn't the reverse equally true? You get the biggest slice of the cake and it's not our fault you've decided to split it 12 ways instead of 10 or 8 or 4. You appear to believe that the nations that live within their means should pay for it... You see if you could actually pay for your own league then a lot more of your clubs would be in the black. I would think the reason your holding a gun to everyone elses head has a lot to do with your league not being self-sustaining enough.

I'm sure the nation thats contributed six winners out of eighteen and consistently sends the largest numbers of traveling fans to away games has put in a hell of lot more than it's taken out over the years to European rugby. I would be pretty certain we've increased the value of European rugby as a whole and put a lot of money into the coffers of English/French clubs over the years. It would be funny if people like you weren't on the verge of destroying rugby in Europe. You honestly believe the world revolves around your system...

And to be fair, Irish provinces have earned their success mainly with squads which apart from a few players are homegrown.

In contrast, England and France do not have the talent to sustain 12 and 14 clubs. They are a drain on the playing resources of other nations and giving these clubs more money just makes the situation worse.

Like I say, the relevant body is UEFA. And they do do that. Every nation in Europe is indeed guaranteed at least one spot- either an automatic spot in the group stages or a shot at preliminary qualifying.

To qualify you just have to be the best team from your nation, like Treviso or Glasgow are right now.

I'm in favour of the Pro12 moving to a qualifying basis. I've said time and again that I want Top 6 from the 3 leagues and then the 19th and 20th spot to be ringfenced to ensure that we have representation from all Six Nations.

So 6-6-8 with all six nations represented. Even 6-6-6 wouldn't solve this impasse however. This impasse is about the desire of the English and French to control the future direction of European rugby. A negotiated deal can be reached on qualifying but the issues of broadcasting rights and administration are the sticking points.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

Toadfish wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

Toadfish wrote:Finally I'm a free market capitalist and so I believe the market should be allowed to dictate.

A free market can only exist under a strong legislative umbrella. The free market went spectacularly t!ts up in 2007.

In rugby like everywhere in the commercial world there is no impermeable membrane surrounding the game so almost everyone loses. Only the rich will get richer so its best to ally yourself by proxy with a rich side otherwise you'll get extremely depressed.

That's unfettered capitalism for you.

No it didn't, because there wasn't one.  Simple evidence of this is that there were government bailouts and the expectation that there would be.

Hmm. So you are not a believer in the free market after all then?

The market failed and as usual the poor get kicked even harder. Monarchs, dictators and plutocrats don't have to vote or pay.

I don't think you understood what I said. Try again.

The place is given to the league not nation. For instance if clubs from the PL did really badly and were knocked out first round for 10 years they would have their amount of placings reduced to say 2. If Swansea and Cardiff (big if I know) then finished 1st and 2nd they would get the PL spots. Places at the top table go to the clubs which performed best the previous year.

Notch wrote:

Metal Tiger wrote:Eventually the penny will drop that this is about 3 leagues and not 6 nations. The Celts chose to join up in one league so live with your choice. Its not the Franglos fault you cant support your own domestic competitions, although it appears you thimk we should pay for it. You're the one that needs your head checking psl.

Isn't the reverse equally true? You get the biggest slice of the cake and it's not our fault you've decided to split it 12 ways instead of 10 or 8 or 4. You appear to believe that the nations that live within their means should pay for it... You see if you could actually pay for your own league then a lot more of your clubs would be in the black. I would think the reason your holding a gun to everyone elses head has a lot to do with your league not being self-sustaining enough.

I'm sure the nation thats contributed six winners out of eighteen and consistently sends the largest numbers of traveling fans to away games has put in a hell of lot more than it's taken out over the years to European rugby. I would be pretty certain we've increased the value of European rugby as a whole and put a lot of money into the coffers of English/French clubs over the years. It would be funny if people like you weren't on the verge of destroying rugby in Europe. You honestly believe the world revolves around your system...

I think you are misunderstanding the situation but to use your analogy, we are not fighting over the old cake. It's gone stale and hard and not very palatable. We've gone out and sourced a new giant cake and as we got it, without any help from you, we want to make sure we eat most of it. There will however be as much cake left for you as you are used to.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The place is given to the league not nation. For instance if clubs from the PL did really badly and were knocked out first round for 10 years they would have their amount of placings reduced to say 2. If Swansea and Cardiff (big if I know) then finished 1st and 2nd they would get the PL spots. Places at the top table go to the clubs which performed best the previous year.

Even though the FA said openly that Europa Cup place for the FA Cup winners would not be given to Cardiff (a few years back) even if they did win the FA Cup.