Why have the PRL and BT not explained their blue print for their concept competition...?

On this Forum the argument rages on between a few supporters of the PRL under the guise of some mislead Thatcher-esq concept of free market economy.

The greatest gaping hole in the argument of those wishing for a monumental change of power from a Unions controlled European competition to something else is that those touting a new competition have released no details whatsoever.

Why would anyone with what they consider a better competition not reveal the competition itself, but rather wrangle and antagonise those that they know currently oppose it.

Should those taking the lead in this, Mark McCafferty and Marc Watson, really want everyone to join their concept, to embrace their BT vision surely they have to reveal a blue print as to what it is, how it works, why it is better.

We know where they are with the situation now, they want more much money, they want more control, they want the clubs and Media company they represent to run a European competition, they want everyone else to join in too.

Why will they not lay down the competition for all to see...?

I suppose it's like the prl have said........

We want you to shag this gorgous woman. Now she's a real looker. Better than you could do on your own.....BUT. She's a bit shy.

You can only shag her in a dark room......wearing a blindfold.......and boxing gloves......

I do guarantee she is gorgeous though.......just.....well......ah never mind.

Question?

Would you go for it?

What would you do if you found out she was a man? Or a ladyboy?

From the Telegraph:


*************************
McCafferty told Telegraph Sport that the English clubs' ultimate goal was for two European competitions of 20 teams each and a third tournament involving teams from developing nations.

"In the debate over the future of European Rugby the second competition has been forgotten but it is crucial to its success. Anyone who is serious about creating better European club competitions must also focus on the second competition," McCafferty said.

“Our new European competitions will not only bring more money into European club rugby but it will lead to three competitive tournaments.

"The top two tournaments will be more competitive than the current two so it will not only help club rugby but international rugby too. There are many England Test players in the Amlin Challenge Cup so if the standard of that competition rises it will also help the England team.

“We would like to see two European competitions of 20 teams each and a third tournament involving teams from developing nations. Each season two teams from the developing nations would be able to play in the second competitions and there would also be access into the top competition.
************************

So there you have it in principle.  Probably difficult to give exact details until you know who/how many will be participating.

Answer me one question though.  If the English and French way of doing things is so against your morals and principals why don't you just let them run off into the sunset and do their own thing?

Toadfish wrote:If the English and French way of doing things is so against your morals and principals why don't you just let them run off into the sunset and do their own thing?

Quite. Given that the English and the French seem to be such anti-rugby miscreants I'm surprised the moral crusaders of the Pro12 aren't happy to see us go.

Not against my morals and principals at all. I'm happy to let them go their own way rather than join in.

It will fock Intl rugby though. to the detriment of ALL.

So....eh..... mark. What's the details of this new bird? Sorry I mean BT deal that we can't see then?

I love the way we are moral crusaders for not wanting it up the ass from the prl.

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:So....eh..... mark. What's the details of this new bird? Sorry I mean BT deal that we can't see then?

You mean you haven't had the letter? I guess the Irish, Scottish and Italian ones got lost in the post. The Welsh replied by return of post

because they need the money the French and English (mostly) generate through the HC. They may not like it, but the Rabo teams need that European Cup money to survive, and having what basically amounts to a second Rabo competition (ie the HC if the Franglos pull out) simply won't be enough to sustain them.

Unfortunately you currently have one side of the table who holds the financial cards, while the other side has (mostly) control of voting. Something had to give...

There is no blue print, its all pie in the sky.

GunsGerms wrote:There is no blue print, its all pie in the sky.

Toadfish's post outlines the idea pretty clearly. 3 tiers of competitions. 20 teams in each of the first two tiers. First tier would be 6 English, 6 French, 6 Rabo, and winners of top two tier comps. I think that's a pretty decent blueprint...

Talkiing out of both sides of your mouth again mark? Divide and conquer eh?

Worked before. I gotta hand it to yah.

I see the paranoid Rabo fans are out in force again  

This could be a great deal for everyone, except ERC.

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:I love the way we are moral crusaders for not wanting it up the ass from the prl.

They aren't making you do anything? We don't want to do what you want to do, so we are going to go over here and do this other thing. You can come if you want? Who's forcing you to do anything? I'd say trying to force us to stay in the ERC under the old agreement is closer to the anal violation of which you mention.

Toadfish wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:I love the way we are moral crusaders for not wanting it up the ass from the prl.

They aren't making you do anything?  We don't want to do what you want to do, so we are going to go over here and do this other thing.  You can come if you want?  Who's forcing you to do anything?  I'd say trying to force us to stay in the ERC under the old agreement is closer to the anal violation of which you mention.

+1

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:There is no blue print, its all pie in the sky.

Toadfish's post outlines the idea pretty clearly. 3 tiers of competitions. 20 teams in each of the first two tiers. First tier would be 6 English, 6 French, 6 Rabo, and winners of top two tier comps. I think that's a pretty decent blueprint...

And what about the £152 million? Is that shared equally? Or fairly? What is it based on?

Where are the details on how that's divided up...???

Will the PRL form an independent organisation to run this cup...?

How many voting rights on the cup will everyone get?

Don't want to force you to do anything either. I'm sure someone will come up with an 11th hour solution.

If not then it's only a matter of time. We will all be focked as rugby fans. Just a matter of who is focked first. You might get an extra year or two out of it. Then you might not.

Scrumpy wrote:I see the paranoid Rabo fans are out in force again

This could be a great deal for everyone

What deal???

Where is it announced, there are so few ramifications announced there is no surprised that you presume people to be paranoid, a good number of English fans have expressed serious concerns too.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:because they need the money the French and English (mostly) generate through the HC. They may not like it, but the Rabo teams need that European Cup money to survive, and having what basically amounts to a second Rabo competition (ie the HC if the Franglos pull out) simply won't be enough to sustain them.

Unfortunately you currently have one side of the table who holds the financial cards, while the other side has (mostly) control of voting. Something had to give...

You do realise that we poor, skint, Celts, do have contingency plans to make up the money if the HC all goes jubblies up don't you ? I have hered that the unions will sanction another international match somewhere and give the monies made to the regions.

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:I suppose it's like the prl have said........

We want you to shag this gorgous woman. Now she's a real looker. Better than you could do on your own.....BUT. She's a bit shy.

You can only shag her in a dark room......wearing a blindfold.......and boxing gloves......

I do guarantee she is gorgeous though.......just.....well......ah never mind.

Question?

Would you go for it?

What would you do if you found out she was a man? Or a ladyboy?

  Classic.

Quick question. How much were sky paying for the current deal? How much do people get for a EC team and how much for a CC team?

I'm also curious about how much the BBC give for the Pro12 W, S and NI individually.

How much do the teams get for the LV cup?

Does this detail EVER get released? Usually if the money goes up it's released as a general figure but that's it.

Still no answers as to why the PRL won't let anyone know the finer details if this competition????

I think you're getting a little confused. As far I was aware it was the TV contract they won't show. The 'new' competition has been sorted yet the so there aren't any details. The changes they want have been disclosed many times, hence all the bashing of teeth.

HammerofThunor wrote:I think you're getting a little confused. As far I was aware it was the TV contract they won't show. The 'new' competition has been sorted yet the so there aren't any details. The changes they want have been disclosed many times, hence all the bashing of teeth.

I am not in the slightest bit confused... There are no competition plans the PRL they have laid down nothing, one minute they are talking about an all encompassing three tier European Cup next it is Franglos league stuff the rest of you and bugger promotion relegation because that wont work for us...

Seriously? You think the PRL should publicly disclose details of a tournament that are a) still a long way from being finalised, b) commercially sensitive and c) to be negotiated with other parties who've hitherto declined to negotiate. And for the benefit of a bunch of fans who will dislike whatever's proposed on principle?

Crikey. I bet they're seriously considering it, because the opinions of a bunch of internet know-alls are far more important than proper negotiations. Obviously.

So the PRL were bad for dictating terms and now they're bad for not dictating terms.

I honestly can't keep up with all the complaints.

Also many of these comments are coming from individuals not the collective. Nigel Wray is just Nigel Wray. What he says doesn't mean anything specific.

Out of curiosity where has the Anglo-French league idea without promotion come from? I haven't heard of it myself (other than speculation on here).

And if you are talking about the new competition, there are no details. They're looking at setting one up and determining these details will be part of that.

Poorfour wrote:Seriously? You think the PRL should publicly disclose details of a tournament that are a) still a long way from being finalised, b) commercially sensitive and c) to be negotiated with other parties who've hitherto declined to negotiate. And for the benefit of a bunch of fans who will dislike whatever's proposed on principle?

Crikey. I bet they're seriously considering it, because the opinions of a bunch of internet know-alls are far more important than proper negotiations. Obviously.

Reading your post while easily skipping your attempts to patronise anyone who disagrees with you, what you are saying is:-


a) The PRL/BT Vision will come up with something last minute if they actually get their way at the expense of everyone else in world rugby's wishes.

b) The ERC might steal the PRLs concept for a tournament that in the above part a). you agree they haven't really actually invented yet because they might not need to invent it.

c) Waiting game to see if world rugby will actually cave in to the pressures the PRL have been threatening to use since they were created.



Its more like a hostage situation than any negotiation i have ever heard of...!

HammerofThunor wrote:And if you are talking about the new competition, there are no details. They're looking at setting one up and determining these details will be part of that.

How can you sell the concept of a competition to other people if you don't actually have one?

The rest of European rugby are against what the PRL/LNR/BT are trying to apparently sell to us all because no one has anything to sell other than the idea that the PRL have been offered lots of money if they can organise their own cup.

Now if the PRL said right, "we will give each Union/Club/Organisation involved and equal share in the voting and a fair and just financial reward for their participation" then maybe there is something to discuss.

The PRL have not done that once...

Nice to see those that are pro the PRLs new concept agree that there is no current competition just a concept.

They're not showing the details because they've obviously something to hide. Therefore they're not in as strong a position as they're letting on.


It looks like the unions will call their bluff anyway.

profitius wrote:They're not showing the details because they've obviously something to hide. Therefore they're not in as strong a position as they're letting on.

It looks like the unions will call their bluff anyway.

But what can they hide?

This is the thing, it is a rugby competition that they are hoping will be the best, most profitable, most exciting, most challenging comp in the world. Why would you hide anything...


My annoyance at the PRL/BT is the fact that they have everything to offer but offer nothing.

I agree and always have agreed that the HEC is not ideal, I like the idea of making more competition in the RP12, I love the idea of a smaller competition, I think the concept of a three tier european competition is fantastic...

But these are all buzz words and shallow promises until finalities are put down in print for all to see.

Three tiers, who is in what, how does it work?

Is there promotion and relegation from each tier, how does that work?

Does every team in the competition get a share of the money, if so how much and for who?

How long will this competition last for?

How will it benefit my team?

Will it be good for International rugby?

Will it be good for youth rugby?

How much is BT Sport going to cost in four months when their free with broadband deal finishes are all subscribers going to get screwed?

How financially secure is BTs involvement in sport. Is this a couple of years or on going like BSkyB...?

An observation;

BT Sport are the current shirt sponsors of Glasgow and Edinburgh Rugby. BT is also a sponsor of Ulster Rugby. Would it not be in their interest to make sure these teams are on board?

maestegmafia wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:And if you are talking about the new competition, there are no details. They're looking at setting one up and determining these details will be part of that.

Now if the PRL said right, "we will give each Union/Club/Organisation involved and equal share in the voting and a fair and just financial reward for their participation" then maybe there is something to discuss.

The PRL have not done that once...

Thats it- well, the PRL/LNR obviously believe there should be three stakeholders. The PRL, the LNR and the Pro12 (if the Pro12 came along) with qualification split the same way. Obviously thats misguided given our league is between four nations not one, but there you go.

I would be happy if thats the case and the new competition was set-up IF

1) they agreed that instead of going to the winners of the two comps the last two places were ring-fenced to make sure there was at least one side from all of the six nations
2) Competition and TV money was split equally between all 38 top-flight sides in European rugby regardless of participation in the top tier tournament.

We go 6-6-8 in deference to the fact the Pro12 has the two extra places to ensure participation of all four nations each year and a completely even split of TV money and they have a deal. Is what I would say.

Notch wrote:An observation;

BT Sport are the current shirt sponsors of Glasgow and Edinburgh Rugby. BT is also a sponsor of Ulster Rugby. Would it not be in their interest to make sure these teams are on board?

Laurence Dallaglio is one of their high profile pundit employees and he was in the press all week urging the PRL not to leave the Heineken Cup...

The BT Vision guys should have offered to buy the RP12 league for £152 million and they would likely have had us on side too... Why didn't they try to buy all of rugby in Britain and Ireland?

The whole thing has so many unanswered questions that are not being answered publicly by McCafferty and his cronies.

Notch wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:And if you are talking about the new competition, there are no details. They're looking at setting one up and determining these details will be part of that.

Now if the PRL said right, "we will give each Union/Club/Organisation involved and equal share in the voting and a fair and just financial reward for their participation" then maybe there is something to discuss.

The PRL have not done that once...

Thats it- well, the PRL/LNR obviously believe there should be three stakeholders. The PRL, the LNR and the Pro12 (if the Pro12 came along) with qualification split the same way. Obviously thats misguided given our league is between four nations not one, but there you go.

I would be happy if thats the case and the new competition was set-up IF

1) they agreed that instead of going to the winners of the two comps the last two places were ring-fenced to make sure there was at least one side from all of the six nations
2) Competition and TV money was split equally between all 38 top-flight sides in European rugby regardless of participation in the top tier tournament.

We go 6-6-8 in deference to the fact the Pro12 has the two extra places to ensure participation of all four nations each year and a completely even split of TV money and they have a deal. Is what I would say.

Definitely...


No I have questioned many many many times that I really think the PRL are trying to Ringfence their Premiership clubs and lots of English Premiership fans keep telling me how it is that the PRL are trying to protect clubs from going bankrupt so they have tight rules regarding the need for a privately owned 10,000 seater stadium and so forth...!

So I would like the PRL to also take a lead in making this super competition sustainable for all and trying to massively reduce the cost of rugby throughout Europe by wage capping all teams to around £3.5m per team.

Tbh, I would say thats a case of Dayglos personal opinion.

At the same time I don't think for a second that BT (or even the PRL) want an Anglo-French Cup over a competition with the best English, French and Pro12 sides. And our challenge is to leverage that into getting a competition that won't create a financial imbalance in Europe or exclude any nation from the top tier.

Notch wrote:Tbh, I would say thats a case of Dayglos personal opinion.

At the same time I don't think for a second that BT (or even the PRL) want an Anglo-French Cup over a competition with the best English, French and Pro12 sides. And our challenge is to leverage that into getting a competition that won't create a financial imbalance in Europe or exclude any nation from the top tier.

Without doubt...

This is what amazes me about some peoples opinions.

They seem to want to have a competition that would benefit their team at the expense of others, that would not benefit the game at large and they are happy to express that... It makes no sense...

I want to see a great and fair rugby competition that encompasses, that benefits, that improves, that challenges European rugby as a whole. I don't want to see something that just means the two richest nations involved get wealthier and wealthier as everyone else falls to pieces.

Notch isn't pretty much what the PRL were proposing? The only thing I've not seen stated was the saving of the two spots to ensure full union involvement. Which a huge change. But we don't know if that was suggested, by whom and who rejected it.

HammerofThunor wrote:Notch isn't pretty much what the PRL were proposing? The only thing I've not seen stated was the saving of the two spots to ensure full union involvement. Which a huge change. But we don't know if that was suggested, by whom and who rejected it.

HT

We also know that the PRL do not want any automatic qualification. That was their first stipulation.

HammerofThunor wrote:Notch isn't pretty much what the PRL were proposing? The only thing I've not seen stated was the saving of the two spots to ensure full union involvement. Which a huge change. But we don't know if that was suggested, by whom and who rejected it.

No-one suggested it but me. It's not an 'official' suggestion. It was just a thought exercise I had- what is the worst possible compromise I (as a rugby fan) would be prepared to accept?

I put the results up in a poll in which most people voted in favour of that compromise...

https://www.606v2.com/t48062-would-you-vote-for-this-european-cup-deal

Okay, make a few changes like 20 team second tier comp. instead of 16 or whatever, but basically that.

1) 6-6-6 automatic qualifiers for Tier 1 from each league
2) Remaining 2 places- every nation from Italy, Scotland, Ireland, Wales gets a guaranteed spot in the top tier competition for their best team, so either 7th and 8th in the Pro12 or the best placed side(s) from the nation(s) that have no representation. Last two sides entered this way are always bottom seeds.
3) TV Money is split equally across all teams competing in the top two tournaments. The big one. A more competitive tournament will result from equal distribution of the money.

But there was also an article where Bruce Craig said they were willing the 'allow' the Pro12 unions the sort there places so that at least one from each was in the top tier. Again just one bloke but the suggestion is there.

Also how would a cap of £3.5M be inherently sustainable? Having any fixed limit isn't necessarily sustainable. What you would need is a cap based on turnover. Otherwise Richie Rich could wander in pick a club (it would have to be English or French due to the closed off nature of other systems) pump in a few million for a few years to buy a squad, get them to the top and then get bored and walk away. Leaving the club to collapse.

What you're think of is not sustainability. It's trying to fix the quality across the board. But you would have to ban central contracts (or at least include them in the cap) and count things like the Irish tax breaks (which would be difficult).

Which do you want?

Notch, the big one you mentioned (money split evenly across both top tiers) is what everyone has been complaining about. That would give the English clubs combined the same as all the Pro12 teams put together. Under the suggested finances it would be a small increase in money for all the pro12 teams and a large increase for the clubs.

HammerofThunor wrote:But there was also an article where Bruce Craig said they were willing the 'allow' the Pro12 unions the sort there places so that at least one from each was in the top tier. Again just one bloke but the suggestion is there.

Then hopefully we'll see that in action.

Regarding salary caps, I think the genie is out of the bottle and the LNR are not going to be amenable to the suggestion it goes back in. Can you imagine Boudjellal signing up to that? It would be the same problem we have right now; both sides are making demands the other side is unwilling to consider. We'll agree on a Europe wide salary cap for club rugby the same day Israel and Palestine get around the table and sort their problems. Thats some proper Good Friday Agreement shiz.

I would say a more realistic compromise is an equal distribution of TV money and then clubs are responsible for sourcing there other income- be that through sponsorship, from their Union or even (sadly) a Sugar Daddy. Once Zebre are getting the same amount of TV money as Clermont or Leinster or Saracens, they'll still be poorer than them but at least they'll have a chance of one day developing into a force and a chance to retain their best players.

Given that Toulon make a profit I can see them signing up to it.

HammerofThunor wrote:Notch, the big one you mentioned (money split evenly across both top tiers) is what everyone has been complaining about. That would give the English clubs combined the same as all the Pro12 teams put together. Under the suggested finances it would be a small increase in money for all the pro12 teams and a large increase for the clubs.

There are 12 English clubs. There are 12 Pro12 sides. Each side would get the same amount of money from this deal. Fair, no?  Otherwise we're going to be in a situation where the problems of player drain are exacerbated with the resulting impact that has on rugby in smaller nations and the ramifications for the international game etc. Changing that is what's needed for a compromise.

I understand that thats the English clubs position but if you're interested in ensuring that European rugby remains competitive and we don't end up with some sides being the poor relations then thats how it needs to be. We address the fact that for example Quins got less than Zebre for their participation last year, but equally we don't want to tip the balance too tip the other way otherwise we risk Zebre's best talent getting hoovered up as soon as they bring players through- already the grim spectre of feeder clubs is something that is appearing with the money the French are throwing around. We simply can't make that worse.

If it's a sticking point, then lets be realistic; we're not going to get very far in negotiations because the other Unions aren't going to sign up to something that threatens the existence of professional rugby in their countries. I think European Rugby could end up going the way of being dominated by a cartel of rich clubs if the PRLs suggestion of distributing income is followed and that would be a real tragedy for the game world wide.

I think you've misunderstood. I do think it's fair. I also think it's what the PRL want. It's the (at least on here) pro12 supporters who were against it. In fact didn't a SRU officially say the same as you, at least one Scottish team in top tier and no loss of money if the other one doesn't make it. If I remember correctly he was accused of being a disgrace and a sell out.

Oh and again, I've said this several times recently, the PRL is controlled by the mid-bottom sides. The ones likely/possibly in the CC. They want being in the CC to better, including improving competition as a whole.

HammerofThunor wrote:I think you've misunderstood. I do think it's fair. I also think it's what the PRL want. It's the (at least on here) pro12 supporters who were against it. In fact didn't a SRU officially say the same as you, at least one Scottish team in top tier and no loss of money if the other one doesn't make it. If I remember correctly he was accused of being a disgrace and a sell out.

Hmm.

Well I don't speak for all Pro12 fans, and I don't remember that (neither the statement nor the reaction). But I think our demands have to be realistic as do the demands of the PRL/LNR. The status quo can't go on but neither can we have the threat of breakaway competitions and secretive TV deals hanging over proceedings. The PRL needs to disclose the details of it's deal with BT Sport and get back in the room. Similarly we need to suggest a template that allows for qualification in the main but with guaranteed spots for all nations and an equitable distribution of income.

I can't imagine BT Sport are too happy with this willy-waving match- they'll want to show a European Cup (or Cups), including the Pro12 sides they sponsor.

HammerofThunor wrote:Oh and again, I've said this several times recently, the PRL is controlled by the mid-bottom sides. The ones likely/possibly in the CC. They want being in the CC to better, including improving competition as a whole.

I was thinking 16 sides would be better than 20 for that though?

Because the mid-bottom French sides are MUCH more worried about relegation than taking the current CC seriously.

It might have been a dream as I'm struggling to find it.

HammerofThunor wrote:But there was also an article where Bruce Craig said they were willing the 'allow' the Pro12 unions the sort there places so that at least one from each was in the top tier. Again just one bloke but the suggestion is there.

Also how would a cap of £3.5M be inherently sustainable? Having any fixed limit isn't necessarily sustainable. What you would need is a cap based on turnover. Otherwise Richie Rich could wander in pick a club (it would have to be English or French due to the closed off nature of other systems) pump in a few million for a few years to buy a squad, get them to the top and then get bored and walk away. Leaving the club to collapse.

What you're think of is not sustainability. It's trying to fix the quality across the board. But you would have to ban central contracts (or at least include them in the cap) and count things like the Irish tax breaks (which would be difficult).

Which do you want?

You already derided Nigel Wray earlier, Bruce Craig's contribution should be no different in your opinion?

Yes these are club owners, (Richie Rich type club owners) but it is McCafferty hand in hand with Marc Watson hand in hand with the IRB and RFU that we want to see explain their BT vision for the future of rugby...


Levelling the playing field through how much a team is allowed to spend on wages is easy. There are no excuses for not doing it, it will in every way help sustainability.

Just looking at the Welsh Regions who implemented the same £3.5m cap a year ago and have changed from debt to projected profit in one fiscal year shows how well it works.

Massively beneficial to nearly all AP who have a collective annual debt of around £15m only a few making any profit. Similarly across Europe.

HammerofThunor wrote:Otherwise Richie Rich could wander in pick a club (it would have to be English or French due to the closed off nature of other systems) pump in a few million for a few years to buy a squad, get them to the top and then get bored and walk away. Leaving the club to collapse.

That is exactly what is currently happening at Bath RFC, Saracens RFC, RC Toulon, Racing Metro, Wasps were begging for one last year...! The premiership has found one in BT...

Private financing is not a problem but sustainability has to be key.