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."

Can't ever imagine that happening but it would certainly make for some amazing fixtures every week...

The Welsh have been wanting that for years, trouble is the English don't.

Maybe there is going to be a shift in that thinking then if Wray's comments are anything to go by?

trebellbobaggins wrote:

DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:So then nice to see the English have sold out to BT, awful format also the footie scores banner was very off putting whilst the game was on.

Getting it free with my broadband made it easy to cancel sky and save a fortune so I reckon its ok.

And how long will you be getting it for free?

That has been the only game where stupid football scores have been scrolling across the screen. It was really annoying as BT have for the other games provided about an hour of build up, good half time discussion and interesting final score summary. Sky uses to talk for about a minute post game and then finish. I'm still glad BT have come in, the Sky commentary was absolutely dire. You Rabo fans will find out next season when you have the Harrison/Barnes combo of drivel.

I agree that BT coverage is superior to Sky. There seems to be more rugby available to watch too. I'm pleased to say that I haven't noticed any football information spoiling the rugby in the games I've watched.

DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:

nathan wrote:

DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:Funny how Wheeler wanted to be the chair man of the ERC but since he loss he has championed the break away league.

 

  my thoughts exactly

Who wanted Lux ?
- Irish Federation and Irish Provinces
- Welsh Federation
- Scotish Federation and regions
- French Federation

Who wanted Wheeler ?
- English clubs and Federation
- Welsh regions
- French clubs

This would have given Wheeler the majority he needed to be elected. Then the French Federation decided to take over the votes of the French clubs and vote for one of their own Lux.

So of the teams involved in the ERC competitions twenty eight wanted Wheeler and six wanted Lux but Lux won. Is it any wonder that the English and French clubs want out of such an organisation?

Sin é wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

The European Cup started as a club competition (the Irish provincial teams excepted, but they have a long legacy).  Later on it evolved to regions/franchises in Wales and Scotland, and the Celtic League formed. So the original baseline of the competition has changed amongst the Celts, but not the English and French.  So the English and French clubs still view it though that lens.  And as a club competition, their position makes perfect sense. 

It was the Celt's idea in the first place. The driving force behind the setting up of the European Cup was Tom Kiernan (Ireland) first Chairman and Vernon Pugh (Wales) who I think was IRB Chair at the time.

The award [ERC Achievement Award - Kiernan was the inaugural winner) is in recognition of the key role Kiernan played in the early years of the then fledgling tournament and was presented to him by current ERC Chairman Jean-Pierre Lux.

"Tom did an outstanding job in helping launch the tournament at extremely short notice and then defending and championing the principles and objectives of the Heineken Cup," Lux said.
"The Heineken Cup has made enormous strides since 1995 and the groundwork done by Tom in those early seasons has proved to be the perfect and solid foundation for the continuing growth of the tournament."

Sin - Thanks for filling in the gaps in the history.  I had truly forgotten the names of the people involved.  Old age memory loss, I guess.  

I thought the principles and objectives of the tournament was a cross border club tournament. As I said, things have already evolved from the beginning.

It is a tremendous lack of maturity, emotional intelligence, and big picture thinking on all sides which is hindering real negotiations. I believe the alternatives offered on all sides are laughable in their simplicity and lack of connection with reality. Maybe one season with no European Cup will allow reality to crash into the arrogant righteous and obviously naive types on all sides.

We have had this tournament for a long time now.  And we have a lot of stakeholders, to which I include a lot of fans.

Notch wrote:

markb wrote:You're either missing or willfully ignoring the fact that the English & French clubs are getting paid almost half as much to play in Europe as the sides from the PRO12.

No because that money doesn't go into the pockets of the teams that compete in the Heineken Cup. It goes to the IRFU who put it into investment in every level of the game from grassroots to international, from centrally contracted players to stadia upgrades, from the club game to the provinces. You think all the IRFUs share goes to Ulster, Munster, Leinster etc? Nonsense. None of the money goes directly to the teams. It goes into the main pot that the IRFU uses to pay for the game at every level.

Here's the way it is. The PRL gets 10 million, which is shared amongst 12 teams. The IRFU gets 4.5 million which is shared amongst an entire Union- hundreds of clubs, four provincial sides, loads of other expenses. I don't really care as much about what the Welsh, Scottish and Italians get because I'm not Welsh, Scottish and Italian- all I hope is that they get a fair share. I would be absolutely stunned if at the end of the day the provinces were getting more out of this than the PRL clubs. I would be utterly astonished.

You want a deal where the English will go from getting more than twice as much money as us, too many multiples more money than us despite the fact we (the IRFU) have provided the winners of one-third of European Cups and some of the most recognisable brands in European Rugby.

You can't just pretend the two completely different system are equivalent. And you really, really can't play the poormouth card and say you're getting a rough deal when you are getting more than twice as much money than any of the four Unions you want to take a massive haircut. To be quite frank, how the PRL divides its money is an internal issue that doesn't concern any of the other unions. If they are moaning about having to pay for 12 sides- no-one is making them have that many sides.

I, personally, am totally willing to see concessions made on the qualification issue. But no way should we crumble in the face of PRL demands to sign up to an unfair distribution of money. What we have now acknowledges the contribution made by the French and English by giving nearly half of the money to two out of six Unions, whilst still allowing rugby to grow across Europe.

The bulk of the money still goes towards the provinces in one form or another, and the total IRFU sum is around 5.2m, not 4.5, the English share just under 10.

You say that how the PRL divides the money is an internal issue, well in that case the same could be said for how the IRFU spend theirs.  Even if the RFU did exactly the same as the IRFU it wouldn't change the core issue that these are termed 'participation payments' by the ERC and the current split means that the English & French clubs are in principle assigned significantly less by the ERC for their equivalent initial participation (less than we even get from the Anglo-Welsh Cup).

You talk about remuneration in light of comparable achievements (incidentally Ireland, England & France have all each supplied a third of the winners, that France have supplied half of all finalists is equally meaningless), this is addressed by the additional payments from the separate 6.3m 'meritocracy fund', along with the additional gate revenues, not to mention what success does for the club in the game outside of the competition.

The issue about England & France entering fewer sides I already addressed in the part of my previous post that you didn't quote.  Withdrawing the number of sides that would mean 'participation payments' matched the other nations on a per club basis would effectively mean the end of the Amlin and the sponsorship & TV rights it attracts, which would mean less money in the ERC pot and therefore reduced money for everyone (less English sides certainly wouldn't attract a similar deal from BT to add to the pot to counter the proposed reduced share).


What it comes down to is that it's the clubs and provinces that play the matches, not the unions, and the French & English sides are assigned significantly less by the ERC for their participation in them.  Extra funding has been found that would mean the proposed change to the participation share would result in no drop in actual revenue for the other nations.  The alternative would be less French & English participation that would mean a drop in revenue for everyone, or that we just drop out altogether and fill our time with more profitable and equally challenging matches against the French or from increasing the size of our domestic league.

The Great Aukster wrote:The Welsh have been wanting that for years, trouble is the English don't.

I suspect I'm not alone among the fans in thinking it would be great in itself. Not sure I'd want the death of the Rabo league on our conscious though. I'm happy enough to see our clubs leaving a tournament that they feel doesn't work for them for whatever reason, but would feel a bit differently about them trying to tempt the Welsh out of the Rabo leaving the Irish, Scots and Italians potentially in very serious brown stuff.

I would however very happily see the Anglo-Welsh become a first team tournament if there is no European or Anglo French cup next year (and arguably the most prestigious silverware for that year). Would need to see the daft qualification process sorted out though.

Dr Grey - I'm not sure how much help big picture thinking is. Big picture thinking would require looking at the entire season structure, and pathway for player development. If I do that I still struggle to see space for the Heineken Cup as the top level tournament (not that an anglo french direct substitute would be a lot better).

Big,
You are going even more big picture than I was.  And there is a good idea there.  But to maintain a European Cup in something similar to its current format, we need key people from each team/league and their representatives to rise above their parochial outlook and try for a mutually acceptable path forwards.  Can only work if we get that by all parties, which no one has shown so far. We know it all comes back to revenue (some people have referred to this as greed) for and by ALL parties.  

To your concept of REALLY looking at the big picture (mind blowing concept, but actually right on the money), there is a notion.  How about one league comprising all teams, Premiership, Celtic, French?  Set it up loosely based upon the NFL with total sharing of tv revenue, proportional sharing of gate revenue between home and away teams, and salary cap which applies to all teams.  Too radical for now, though, especially for the simple minds we have on it at the moment..........

doctor_grey wrote:Big,
You are going even more big picture than I was.  And there is a good idea there.  But to maintain a European Cup in something similar to its current format, we need key people from each team/league and their representatives to rise above their parochial outlook and try for a mutually acceptable path forwards.  Can only work if we get that by all parties, which no one has shown so far.  We know it all comes back to revenue (some people have referred to this as greed) for and by ALL parties.    

To your concept of REALLY looking at the big picture (mind blowing concept, but actually right on the money), there is a notion.  How about one league comprising all teams, Premiership, Celtic, French?  Set it up loosely based upon the NFL with total sharing of tv revenue, proportional sharing of gate revenue between home and away teams, and salary cap which applies to all teams.  Too radical for now, though, especially for the simple minds we have on it at the moment..........

I appreciate it's going beyond what you said, but if the set up that we've had for the last decade or so is going to change then it really is a sensible time to think that way. It is too radical for now, but sadly it's not going to be any less radical tomorrow or the day after. Unsurprisingly the SANZAR teams thought about all this as soon as the game turned professional and set up a decent system. Although commercialisation is having an impact (ever increasing number of internationals and Super matches must be starting to put strain on it) the fundamentals are still pretty good. Rather than having the clubs fighting to be in the top tier, they seem to make the most of being where they are. That's how it seems from a distance anyway.

lostinwales wrote:

Remember, comrades, your resolution must never falter. No argument must lead you astray. Never listen when they tell you that Man and the animals have a common interest, that the prosperity of the one is the prosperity of the others. It is all lies. Man serves the interests of no creature except himself. And among us animals let there be perfect unity, perfect comradeship in the struggle. All men are enemies. All animals are comrades.

ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.

Not sure what point you are trying to make?

Are the Rabo teams more equal than others because they get twice as much money as the English and French?

IRB needs to call this bluff
Northern hemisphere rugby is at risk unless top dogs show some bite, says Neil Francis

Neil Francis – 15 September 2013
Most of you will never have heard of Continental Illinois Bank. It failed in the 1980s and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation had to make a strategic intervention in conjunction with the Federal Revenue Bank to save the bank – back then rated seventh in the USA. Quite simply the bank was "too big to fail" because of the interconnections and critical function it had with all the other majors – the fallout or the failure would have had such adverse and catastrophic consequences that regulatory bodies had no choice.

The Heineken Cup has been the backbone of the professional game since 1995. If it had not been in existence for those 18 years, the professional game in the northern hemisphere would have faltered and fallen away. The critical function of the competition is such that if it stopped at the end of this season, it would signal the end of the pro game at all levels. The competition is simply too big to fail.

Sad to relate but there are some people who are prepared to gamble with the Heineken Cup's very existence just to have more money to cover the deficit of the English game, which is an unworkable model as it consistently shows.

The performance of the 12 English clubs in this year's Premiership tells a story (see panel). For the last reporting period the Premiership clubs lost a combined total of £16.2m (€19m) down from £21m (€24.7m) the previous year. Retained losses on their balance sheets from the previous 18 years of professional rugby wouldn't be in our national debt's league, but they would make for very unpleasant reading.

It is hard to interpret just how accurate those accounts are because it is hard to know how the £4m annual subvention from the RFU – which goes to all of the 12 Premiership clubs – is treated in the accounts. Nor is it easy to ascertain how much money the sugar daddies have to stump up on a regular basis just to keep their clubs going.

That kind of financial haemorrhaging is unsustainable and the turkeys who threw their money into these clubs have used their umbrella group to try to scrabble extra income from wherever they can get it. And to hell with the consequences and the greater good of the game elsewhere. Little wonder that Nigel Wray, whose club Saracens lost £5.6m last year, is one of the most vocal in the English press.

One of the things that annoyed me most about the recent posturing was that Premiership Rugby's (PRL) Mark McCafferty and the unspeakable Quentin Smith launched their campaign on the day before the ERC met last Wednesday. If I ever get anal polyps, I will know what to call them.

Unquestionably it is amateurish and quite tiresome, but most of our national dailies ran with the story which was covered by English journalists Gavin Mairs and Chris Hewlett, or worse, carried no byline at all. No one is calling for those sports editors to observe their patriotic duty, pointing out that there was no objectivity or even a piece to counter the propaganda. A free run for the English journos telling the Irish people that the Heineken Cup was dead and inviting us to join an Anglo-French competition.

Funny that the two English stakeholders turned up at the meeting on Wednesday. I know Peter Wheeler – he is a good fella – he represents PRL on the board. But there is something I don't understand. The ERC is a €50m turnover company – why would a board member of that company be trying to shut that company down while trying to establish a rival organisation? Doesn't make sense to me.

I don't think the French are quite as interested in this as the English. The Ligue Nationale de Rugby (the French equivalent of PRL) have a window of opportunity between now and December to withdraw from their current TV deal with Canal+. Be-in Sports – a Qatari TV sports entity – has entered the market and has signalled that it will bid twice the €27m rights fees. If that happens the French won't give a damn about what the divvy is in the Heineken Cup – discussions are in train as we speak.

Currently, the divvy of circa €44m goes along the following lines: England gets €11m, France €12m, Ireland €6.6m, Wales €5m, Scotland €5m and Italy €4.5m

Of that, 85 per cent is on a pre-ordained and agreed basis and 15 per cent on merit, i.e. if a country's teams get to the play-offs or all the way to the final. England and France got €23m of the pot. The Rabo sides got €21m between four of them. How much more do England and France want? An extra €7m to €10m? Hardly seems worthwhile scrapping for something in the region of €3m to €5m.

The Anglo-French want the split to be a third each for them and a third between all four Rabo sides You can see why the Rabo sides are holding firm. A compromise will come, but at what cost?

In negotiations like this, if you blink you are dead. The Rabo sides have to stand together. This might not be a charitable thing to say but I would keep an eye on the Welsh – what do they say about keeping your friends close and your enemies closer?

If there is one nation open to a deal, Wales is the one that could be most tempted – even by the English. What would Ireland have to give up? Currently, our three competitive sides are ranked first (Leinster), sixth (Munster) and seventh (Ulster). It is inconceivable that one of those sides won't be included in a new Heineken Cup. Northampton are the only English side ranked in the top 10. How do you reconcile the fact that they should get six clubs in if they have only one in the top 10?

Do I think Scottish and Italian sides are good enough to have two teams in the competition? No, I don't. Do I think it is important to have them there? Yes, I do. Do we need to compromise? No, we don't, not when the future of the Six Nations is at stake.

This whole episode is a great bluff by PRL – they have nothing. They have no television rights. They cannot, under regulation 13.2 of the IRB broadcasting rights, negotiate or enter into any broadcasting rights without the express permission of their union. All parties would also end up in court if they tried to renege on the TV deal with Sky – a deal that both English shareholders signed this year.

The English and French businessmen have no interest in the Six Nations – they see their clubs as commercial enterprises, they don't care about the game above or below and they, particularly the English, need extra money to stem their huge losses. And they don't care how they go about achieving this or the lasting damage they will undoubtedly do.

If the unions of the Six Nations allow these people to dictate to them it means they have effectively ceded control of a power to them. It will affirm the death of the Six Nations and they hope (wrongly) the advent of the rise of the club. These idiots will control the game in Europe. Whatever you think about the blazers . . . The RFU could nip this in the bud by refusing PRL the right to go with their own television deal (BT). The RFU are in a tricky position because they are currently negotiating with PRL for the release of their English players for the 2015 World Cup – that could get very tricky.

Who would you turn to here to act as a facilitator or consiglieri? The IRB of course. This body has sat back and watched, voyeur-like, as the unseemly scrap escalates. They have the power and the money to stop it right now before it gets out of hand.

The IRB picked up a handy €105m from the World Cup in New Zealand. They must be acutely aware that the Six Nations Championship is on the wane – the IRFU can't sell their tickets.

If England and France break away, it means the Heineken is dead and club rugby will fall off a cliff. As a consequence, international rugby in Italy, Scotland, Wales and Ireland will fall off a cliff because they can't sustain the payroll of the players without these competitions. The Six Nations dies.

The IRB sends me daily emails about rugby in the Cook Islands, investment in the game there, women's rugby, sevens rugby etc. They might look a little closer to home and splash the cash to compensate Italy, Scotland etc for the monies which they will be bullied out of. A compromise would be tempered by some stringent directives by the IRB.

The IRB could, for instance, forbid any of their referees to officiate in any Anglo-French league. No refs equals no matches. They might possibly forbid any international player from playing in an Anglo-French league. They control the international fixture lists.

The IRB need to intervene. Premiership Rugby might actually get away with their bluff and if they do the game is gone.

A couple of phone calls behind the scenes. €3m or €4m each for the greedy English and French meant for development in the Cook Islands?

Frankly, nobody gives a continental. The game in the northern hemisphere could go down the pan – engage before it is too late.


ENGLISH CLUBS’ CASH CRISIS
Club Turnover Profit
or Loss)
Bath 9.6m (1.8m)
Exeter 8.3m 0.9m
Gloucester 11.3m 0.6m
Harlequins 12.3m (1.6m)
Leicester 19.5m 0.6m
London Irish 8.2m (1.1m)
London Wasps 8.4m (3.1m)
Newcastle 6m (1.6m)
Northampton 13.2m 0.9m
Sale 8m (1.6m)
Saracens 7.6m (5.6m)
Worcester 7.6m (2.8m)

Sin é the article mentions rankings. However this just another case of how things are stacked against the English and French. Because the Rabo teams do not have to quailfy they are guaranteed ranking points every year.  Treviso have four points for coming last in their group for the last four years.

As for the IRB stopping a breakaway. What do you think a court would make of any attempt to stop a break away? It would be an obvious restraint of trade.

Please provide a link for Dr Goebbels' Neil Francis' article, Sin é.

So to paraphrase - the English game is losing money and is unsustainable so they should be forced to continue in what is for them the least cost effective tournament. Right.

PRL/LNR are entitled to say run things to be run differently or we're off, and the Rabo unions are entitled to say no thanks. They've given due notice and done it all by the book. However, PRL/LNR can't demand that the Rabo teams compete in a new tournament, and likewise the Rabo teams can't demand that PRL/LNR stay in the current one. It's been fun, thanks, but lets move on. And lets not kid ourselves into thinking it's the end of rugby.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Please provide a link for the one who has nailed the situation Neil Francis' article, Sin é.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/irb-needs-to-call-this-bluff-29580346.html

Exiledinborders wrote:Sin é the article mentions rankings. However this just another case of how things are stacked against the English and French. Because the Rabo teams do not have to quailfy they are guaranteed ranking points every year.  Treviso have four points for coming last in their group for the last four years.

As for the IRB stopping a breakaway. What do you think a court would make of any attempt to stop a break away? It would be an obvious restraint of trade.

Seems the French can rise to the challenge with 5 in the Top 10;) 
1. Leinster (35pts)
2. Toulon (26pts)
3. Toulouse (26 pts)
4. Clermont (25 pts)
5. Biarritz
6. Munster
7. Ulster
8. Stade Francais
9. Northampton
10. Quins

I think you should revert back to blaming the salary cap.
By the way, you get 1 pt for qualifying. Leinster earned 6pts for winning the Amlin this year, Stade 5 for making the final.

The IRB have only to block France & England from participating in any of the games or competitions that they organise (world cup, 6Ns, summer tours). And where are the refs going to come from? I'd say Wayne Barnes wouldn't be happy about saying goodbye to his international career!

Big wrote:So to paraphrase - the English game is losing money and is unsustainable so they should be forced to continue in what is for them the least cost effective tournament.  Right.  

You sure ain't going to fill twickers with Stade Francais supporters, unlike you do with any of the Irish clubs when you meet in competition.

Pretty much every French club move their games to a bigger stadium to accommodate the travelling Irish fans. Leicester had a bit of a windfall by getting Leinster in a QF who brought the game to the 50K Aviva - and unlike Sarries & Co., they were not giving the tickets away to school kids. Munster said that getting a home semi-final in Thomond Park was worth 800K a few years ago.

PRL/LNR are entitled to say run things to be run differently or we're off, and the Rabo unions are entitled to say no thanks.  They've given due notice and done it all by the book.  However, PRL/LNR can't demand that the Rabo teams compete in a new tournament, and likewise the Rabo teams can't demand that PRL/LNR stay in the current one.  It's been fun, thanks, but lets move on.  And lets not kid ourselves into thinking it's the end of rugby.  

The PRL/LNR need to stop running an unsustainable game and live within their means.

Big wrote:So to paraphrase - the English game is losing money and is unsustainable so they should be forced to continue in what is for them the least cost effective tournament.  Right.  

You sure ain't going to fill twickers with Stade Francais supporters, unlike you do with any of the Irish  clubs when you meet in competition.

Pretty much every French club move their games to a bigger stadium to accommodate the travelling Irish fans. Leicester had a bit of a windfall by getting Leinster in a QF who brought the game to the 50K Aviva - and unlike Sarries & Co., they were not giving the tickets away to school kids. Munster said that getting a home semi-final in Thomond Park was worth 800K a few years ago.

PRL/LNR are entitled to say run things to be run differently or we're off, and the Rabo unions are entitled to say no thanks.  They've given due notice and done it all by the book.  However, PRL/LNR can't demand that the Rabo teams compete in a new tournament, and likewise the Rabo teams can't demand that PRL/LNR stay in the current one.  It's been fun, thanks, but lets move on.  And lets not kid ourselves into thinking it's the end of rugby.  

The PRL/LNR need to stop running an unsustainable game and live within their means.

Many thanks, Sin é. But it is a message from a complete propagandist rather than a journalist. Does it (for instance) present a balancing picture of the dire finances of the Rabo teams? No. Is the argument of the the Franglos presented? Definitely not. Just as an an assertion like "The English and French businessmen have no interest in the Six Nations – they see their clubs as commercial enterprises, they don't care about the game above or below and they, particularly the English, need extra money to stem their huge losses. And they don't care how they go about achieving this or the lasting damage they will undoubtedly do."

So far as journalism, this is just about as poor as anything you might see anywhere in the World and it demeans the Irish Independent (sic) to publish it unless there is a balancing article to present the Franglo view.

That's all good and well. It doesn't change the fact that PRL and LNR are entitled to look elsewhere, and doesn't change the fact that they probably can do better financially. There is nothing to stop the Rabo unions carrying on with a Rabo Cup through ERC and (obviously) keeping all the revenue from that for themselves.

I've had a fantastic time at some of the Heineken Cup games. As a Tigers fan I'd say we've always had a soft spot for Munster and their fans having had a number of cracking contests over the years. That doesn't mean it should carry on ad infinitum though.

And it's not just PRL maintaining the status quo in the English structure. PRL have tried to get a ringfenced league so they could invest in wider development rather than focus on buying a team to survive - that way at least some of the concerns would likely be addressed. The RFU said no (rightly in my opinion at the time). They wanted to maintain the current traditional league structure, and the PRL teams now need to find a way to survive financially within that structure. The French are in a similar position.

IF the RFU decided to review the structure of the game in England the clubs position may change. But even if negotations start soon that's unlikely to be implemented until after the world cup when the existing agreements between the RFU and PRL run out.

Exiledinborders wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Remember, comrades, your resolution must never falter. No argument must lead you astray. Never listen when they tell you that Man and the animals have a common interest, that the prosperity of the one is the prosperity of the others. It is all lies. Man serves the interests of no creature except himself. And among us animals let there be perfect unity, perfect comradeship in the struggle. All men are enemies. All animals are comrades.

ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.

Not sure what point you are trying to make?

Are the Rabo teams more equal than others because they get twice as much money as the English and French?

You can read what you like into it. Just listening to all the endless arguments from one side reminded me of a book I read a long time ago. Stealing (and modifying) another quote gives you

'Four unions good, two unions bad'

Amalgamate all three leagues, make three divisioins based on prevoius league position with promtion/relegation.

If you are bottom of the lowest league - goodbye.  

You can break into this elite system by being top of your domestic league and winning the play offs between the othe domestic leagues - all European Unions eligible, lets get rid of the 6N elitist rubbish.

Replace the HC with a knock out competion between the three elite divisions.

Who wouldn't want to watch that?

This is a very interesting thread. Thank you for posting.

Seeing how many of the English clubs are losing money makes this situation easier to understand. Yes the RFU need to step in but why don't they step in to offer more money to their clubs? I keep reading that the RFU have the most money of any union. So why don't they subsidize their clubs so that they aren't driven to desperate measures? It would in the long run give them more power to negotiate player release too.

The first thing that I thought as I read this was is this contract that the PRL signed really going to stop them from doing anything? Yes they may get tied up in a court case and yes they may be fined but how much would that fine amount to? If they make far more money and gain power over the club game in Europe then maybe this theoretical fine wouldn't be such a huge impediment. As for the IRB having to approve a cross border tournament the same question comes up for me. If they do it any way what are the consequences?

If clubs are facing a stark choice between bankruptcy and rebellion of course they are going to choose rebellion!

"The IRB could, for instance, forbid any of their referees to officiate in any Anglo-French league. No refs equals no matches. They might possibly forbid any international player from playing in an Anglo-French league. They control the international fixture lists." This is a terrific idea. But again, money talks. The new body can hire referees just as well as the the IRB can. Maybe they won't officiate in internationals but they may get better money and conditions.

I wouldn't for one, it probably would kill most of the English/French clubs

Intouch, with the PRL/LNR proposals a lot of the money loses would be removed. Hence why they want to do it, they are fed up of providing the majority of the teams & getting less than half the money

TrailApe wrote:Amalgamate all three leagues, make three divisioins based on prevoius league position with promtion/relegation.

If you are bottom of the lowest league - goodbye.  

You can break into this elite system by being top of your domestic league and winning the play offs between the othe domestic leagues - all European Unions eligible, lets get rid of the 6N elitist rubbish.

Replace the HC with a knock out competion between the three elite divisions.

Who wouldn't want to watch that?

One of the most attractive things about the HCup is that the randomness of who you meet every year. I think I'd tire of Munster v Leicester 4 or 5 times every year.

Seeing how many of the English clubs are losing money makes this situation easier to understand. Yes the RFU need to step in but why don't they step in to offer more money to their clubs?

Whilst the Franglo's have the richest Unions, they have more to spend their money against. Both the English and French have a second tier of professional sides which have to be funded and there must be thousands of amateur clubs out there in England and France that are due their piece of the ££££.

In short, more money but more buckets that require filling.

One of the most attractive things about the HCup is that the randomness of who you meet every year. I think I'd tire of Munster v Leicester 4 or 5 times every year.

Oh aye, nice for some eh. Randomness in the HC is ok as a long as YOUR team are guarenteed a place every year.

Besides that, a top league where the best play the best, is the only way we will develope the NH game to start to outstrip our SH compatriots.

Fans of teams that have been to 14 QFs, 10 semis & 4 finals don't tend to worry about qualifying for the competition in the first place. 

I think the Neil Francis piece alludes to a far more important fact and that is there is no reason why Rugby Union in France and England's club game needs to be as expensive as it is.

The astronomical rise in cost of the two Countries professional games in the last decade and a half has caused more problems for the countries themselves and most others than it has benefitted anyone. Far too few teams are making profits to claim these leagues are in anyway successfully run businesses.

Why don't they both control the spending and make themselves profitable. THy can see how budgeting and imposing legislation on the clubs involved would massively benefit the balance books.

Limiting overseas players and introducing a lower wage cap that all teams involved can afford would save the clubs millions.

lostinwales wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Remember, comrades, your resolution must never falter. No argument must lead you astray. Never listen when they tell you that Man and the animals have a common interest, that the prosperity of the one is the prosperity of the others. It is all lies. Man serves the interests of no creature except himself. And among us animals let there be perfect unity, perfect comradeship in the struggle. All men are enemies. All animals are comrades.

ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.

Not sure what point you are trying to make?

Are the Rabo teams more equal than others because they get twice as much money as the English and French?

You can read what you like into it. Just listening to all the endless arguments from one side reminded me of a book I read a long time ago. Stealing (and modifying) another quote gives you

'Four unions good, two unions bad'

"Animals look from Napoleon to Pilkington, from man to pig back to man, they find that they are unable to tell the difference."

Who will the pigs be? I suspect the Welsh will end up playing cards in the warm with the Irish, Scots and Italians left toiling outside in the cold field.

Exiledinborders wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Remember, comrades, your resolution must never falter. No argument must lead you astray. Never listen when they tell you that Man and the animals have a common interest, that the prosperity of the one is the prosperity of the others. It is all lies. Man serves the interests of no creature except himself. And among us animals let there be perfect unity, perfect comradeship in the struggle. All men are enemies. All animals are comrades.

ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.

Not sure what point you are trying to make?

Are the Rabo teams more equal than others because they get twice as much money as the English and French?

You can read what you like into it. Just listening to all the endless arguments from one side reminded me of a book I read a long time ago. Stealing (and modifying) another quote gives you

'Four unions good, two unions bad'

"Animals look from Napoleon to Pilkington, from man to pig back to man, they find that they are unable to tell the difference."

Who will the pigs be? I suspect the Welsh will end up playing cards in the warm with the Irish, Scots and Italians left toiling outside in the cold field.

I don't disagree that, if we are making suppositions then, Wales are far more likely to look for the injection of cash than Ireland, Scotland or Italy. But remember that is just a supposition and until either the WRU or RRW say anything of the like then it is an erroneous point.

Exiledinborders wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Remember, comrades, your resolution must never falter. No argument must lead you astray. Never listen when they tell you that Man and the animals have a common interest, that the prosperity of the one is the prosperity of the others. It is all lies. Man serves the interests of no creature except himself. And among us animals let there be perfect unity, perfect comradeship in the struggle. All men are enemies. All animals are comrades.

ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.

Not sure what point you are trying to make?

Are the Rabo teams more equal than others because they get twice as much money as the English and French?

You can read what you like into it. Just listening to all the endless arguments from one side reminded me of a book I read a long time ago. Stealing (and modifying) another quote gives you

'Four unions good, two unions bad'

"Animals look from Napoleon to Pilkington, from man to pig back to man, they find that they are unable to tell the difference."

Who will the pigs be? I suspect the Welsh will end up playing cards in the warm with the Irish, Scots and Italians left toiling outside in the cold field.

Well there seems to be plenty of squealing coming from the ERC at the moment but as ever in this debate I am sure someone else will look at the same situation from a different point of view and think the same quotes apply to the other side.

maestegmafia wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Remember, comrades, your resolution must never falter. No argument must lead you astray. Never listen when they tell you that Man and the animals have a common interest, that the prosperity of the one is the prosperity of the others. It is all lies. Man serves the interests of no creature except himself. And among us animals let there be perfect unity, perfect comradeship in the struggle. All men are enemies. All animals are comrades.

ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.

Not sure what point you are trying to make?

Are the Rabo teams more equal than others because they get twice as much money as the English and French?

You can read what you like into it. Just listening to all the endless arguments from one side reminded me of a book I read a long time ago. Stealing (and modifying) another quote gives you

'Four unions good, two unions bad'

"Animals look from Napoleon to Pilkington, from man to pig back to man, they find that they are unable to tell the difference."

Who will the pigs be? I suspect the Welsh will end up playing cards in the warm with the Irish, Scots and Italians left toiling outside in the cold field.

I don't disagree that, if we are making suppositions then, Wales are far more likely to look for the injection of cash than Ireland, Scotland or Italy. But remember that is just a supposition and until either the WRU or RRW say anything of the like then it is an erroneous point.

Whereas it seems to be fine for you to 'suppose' or make-up things that the PRL or RFU have 'said'?

maes wrote:Why don't they both control the spending and make themselves profitable. THy can see how budgeting and imposing legislation on the clubs involved would massively benefit the balance books.

In common with most sugar daddies, none (apart from the Walkinshaws at Glaws?) made their money out of sport. I suspect that their losses in rugby are absorbed by clever accountants to reduce their HMRC bills in other areas in a tax avoidance process.

Fans of teams that have been to 14 QFs, 10 semis & 4 finals don't tend to worry about qualifying for the competition in the first place

Well good for you, although it doesn't harm your stats by being given a place every time, however credit where credit is due.

However there ARE teams that are given automatic participation every year when, if they had to compete for selection they would struggle to qualify.

And they get paid for turning up, year in year out, yet do nothing to merit their inclusion.

How can you then label the HC as a competition between the BEST teams?
.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

maes wrote:Why don't they both control the spending and make themselves profitable. THy can see how budgeting and imposing legislation on the clubs involved would massively benefit the balance books.

In common with most sugar daddies, none (apart from the Walkinshaws at Glaws?) made their money out of sport. I suspect that their losses in rugby are absorbed by clever accountants to reduce their HMRC bills in other areas in a tax avoidance process.

Only covering the failings that are apparent in most sports. Predominantly so that the whole league can attract larger media incomings.

Reducing the operating costs is the most sensible measure, but the leagues leading clubs want the league to become more expensive by wanting to raise the salary cap again.

It is a bizarre way to run a business.

I think it's worth pointing out that those turnover and profit/loss figures for Premiership sides are from the year 2010-11, with the Wasps and Sale ones from 2009-10.

It's also necessary to look at the clubs in two different categories.  Those that don't own their grounds will probably continue to post losses for a while and they recognise that, with all but London Irish and Sale committing to resolve this issue.

Then there are those that do own their grounds and these are the clubs that are capable of or do make profits.  Where expansion or large building works have taken place in this regard the costs are paid for by the clubs, not their union, so paying off those debts are temporarily on the books and will affect the figures signifiacntly in the short-term but result in profits once they've been written off.  These and similar short-term structural costs shouldn't be confused with the underlying club costs and revenues when looking at ongoing profitability.

TrailApe wrote:

Fans of teams that have been to 14 QFs, 10 semis & 4 finals don't tend to worry about qualifying for the competition in the first place

Well good for you, although it doesn't harm your stats by being given a place every time, however credit where credit is due.

However there ARE teams that are given automatic participation every year when, if they had to compete for selection they would struggle to qualify.

And they get paid for turning up, year in year out, yet do nothing to merit their inclusion.

How can you then label the HC as a competition between the BEST teams?
.

Munster has mainly been a Top 4 club since the start of the Celtic League (and won it 3 or 4 times). It was 7th once in the 04-05 season.

As far as I know, the HCup was never meant to be between the BEST teams. If that was the case the Irish teams would never have made it. Toulouse put 50pts on Munster in the early years.

"As far as I know, the HCup was never meant to be between the BEST teams. If that was the case the Irish teams would never have made it. Toulouse put 50pts on Munster in the early years."

So they have improved then, I guess being gifted a place every year works!

Can Bath be gifted a place every year without earning it, we did win it once so it wouldn't be that unfair on the other English clubs that have to fight for it all year long.

Scrumpy wrote:"As far as I know, the HCup was never meant to be between the BEST teams. If that was the case the Irish teams would never have made it. Toulouse put 50pts on Munster in the early years."

So they have improved then, I guess being gifted a place every year works!

Can Bath be gifted a place every year without earning it, we did win it once so it wouldn't be that unfair on the other English clubs that have to fight for it all year long.

You have a better chance of making the QFs being in a group with Aironi rather than a Leinster  

PS - Strings wasn't involved in that 50pt loss to Toulouse, but he was involved in the semi final win down in Toulouse in 2000.
Got yourselves a diamond there.

Stringer is imo still the best Irish scrum half, we lost our way when he came off at the weekend.

So much for equality IIRC Italy have to pay to participate in the Rabo & do not get a share of any profits

Scrumpy wrote:Stringer is imo still the best Irish scrum half, we lost our way when he came off at the weekend.

Strings is a warrior and will suit the English game (bossing a big pack around so they don't have to think for themselves). He just doesn't suit the Munster game anymore unfortunately.

Bath has done well to get Strings (thanks Munster for developing such a fine player, enjoy while you can because the way things are going, Munster won't be passing on such top notch players like Strings & O'Leary to the Aviva;)  always gives his all and is an absolute model pro.

broadlandboy wrote:So much for equality IIRC Italy have to pay to participate in the Rabo & do not get a share of any profits

They have to pay for the travelling costs of the teams going out there (for instance, Munster are out there for 8 or 9 days at the moment as they are playing Treviso next weekend having played Zebre last weekend).

Do the Rabo have profits?

Do the Irish pay the Italians who have to play twice as many games in Ireland as the Irish have to in Italy so twice the cost

Bath has done well to get Strings (thanks Munster for developing such a fine player)

I like to think it was the Falcons that developeed Stringer after Saracens messed him about. 

After all, Munster were never really known for their forwards game  were they?

Sarries v Toulouse H Cup tickets available for a £5 with Groupon