What happens to English pro clubs if there's no Euro cup at all?

First topic message reminder :

As things now stand the h cup won't go ahead with French and English teams, but will include French provincial teams (according to a statement by the FFR). The new c cup won't go ahead as it will be blocked by the FFR. This may change after some legal battles but for a couple of years there probably won't be any competition besides the premiership to help fund the English clubs. From what I read eight out of twelve of the premiership teams are up to their eyeballs in debt. A major motivation for finding a new tv deal and new competition was to make more money, for many of them to survive. The RFU can of course try to fill the gap in funding for the premiership teams but could it do that for all eight of those in debt? If this new BT deal included some European competition broadcasts and they don't get it, they could very well sue the PRL for breach of contract, while the PRL is funding a legal battle to get this c cup underway in European courts. The French will do very well with an expanded top 14 alone but I don't see how expanding the premiership to 16 is going to bring in millions extra for the English clubs. How will clubs deeply in debt manage for a couple of years with less money than they have now, while funding international lawyers?

It looks to me like pro rugby in England is going to be in crisis very soon, with clubs going bust, the best players being picked off by the French, and no one in any rush after a couple of years of this to enter competitions with them. I read comments in French papers online already complaining that the best English team is only ranked ninth in Europe and wouldn't be good enough competition. How interested will the French clubs be in a couple of years time in playing even weaker English sides?

Refusing to negotiate a new h cup with the ERC may be done by the PRL to avoid breaking their BT contract or out of optimism that the FFR will back down, or that the LNR will get lawyers to turn over this ruling in no time. Maybe they know more than they're letting on and South African sides are queuing up to play with them. Or they think that the pro 12 sides will back down because they'll go bankrupt first. (The thing is that pro 12 countries have a small number of pro sides to help finance and could do this with extra internationals in a year.) From my perspective though the PRL are making a very expensive gamble that will cripple many of the clubs that they're trying to help. I don't see that their decisions at this point are wise, their statements to the press seem dreamed up by a stoned pr rep and it makes me think that they're out of grip with reality. The pro 12 sides are willing to negotiate a new h cup. They could at least listen and see what their other options are if the c cup doesn't work. Having a back up plan might actually be a good idea. As things stand there could be a very tough couple of years at least for English clubs on the horizon and some of them may not survive.

Feckless Rogue wrote:The clubs clearly haven't wanted to negotiate. They've wanted to sabotage the HC and make their own tournament which they control. I think they've rattled the Rabo sides enough now, that they'd definitely get favourable changes to the HC if they came back to negotiate. More money and less Rabo teams in the top tier (and more Rabo teams in the 2nd tier). But they have to accept that they can't get everything they want at the expense of everyone else. And they can't control European rugby. There has to be a compromise. On money and qualification.

But we cannot accept handing control of European rugby to these guys. If they had control they wouldn't even have to issue threats of "financial oblivion" for others to the media. Whenever they wanted more they'd take it. We know the club owners have little time for the good of their own test teams. After all they pay the players. So why would they give a flying feic what any of their future announcements for rugby did to the other four nations, once they made all the decisions. We know how sympathetic French club owners are to player welfare. Not at all. They play French international players in the weeks off between 6 Nations matches. We can't have them making the rules that we all play by. Because every decision will favour their bottom line and not anything else.

The IRB set the international windows. They set them for a reason. Why should the French clubs release players outside of the window? The RFU and WRU give out millions to get access to their players at this time. The IRFU and SRU gives millions to their teams to have this sort of control. The FFR give the clubs SFA and get the same in return.

Someone please tell me why the LNR should give up what every single other union pays for when the FFR are offering nothing?

True hammer. The clubs pay the players and I don't think get anything like the financial support the Irish provinces do from the unions. I know that. The French clubs are entitled to run their players into the ground with the money they have them on. But I'd rather that changed, than get a club run tournament. Because we know the clubs priorities, and they're not in line with my hopes for the future of the game. I don't want them calling the shots.

But the fact is you could run the Fifa world cup in a desert without selling a single stadium ticket, because TV money and sponsorship pays for it all. The Franglo's have the TV audience so they're going to get some of what they want. I just wish they'd come back and negotiate with the erc and ditch their attempt for control of a new tournament. They'll get qualification changes and a better slice of the pie now I'd say.

I don't want to lose the HC. It's brilliant. And crucial to the growing of rugby in Ireland.

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't the IRFU only have enforced rest periods for international players? I seem to remember an article about Nacewa saying he had only missed a handful of games in his time at Leinster.

That's about really about player welfare, that's keeping them fresh for the international games. If it was player welfare then it would be applied to ALL players.

Scrumdown wrote:

beshocked wrote:Welshmushroom

Yes it is a gamble with siding with BT but the PRL believe it is a risk worth taking.


Well I don't think the unions are running things perfectly.

The Irish are perhaps the exception to the rule.

No I don't rate a rugby union's success on how much money they can squeeze out of people.

There's no doubt WRU have been successful in exploiting the success of the Welsh rugby side but that's at the detriment of the Welsh regions. I don't think it's healthy for the game in Wales. I feel like the WRU has too much power.

WRU a top run organisation? They don't give a damn about Welsh clubs/regions. They only care about themselves. Where was the effort made to prevent North going to Saints for example. The best Welsh players should be incentivised to stay in Wales.

You think the extra game in the AIs to boost the WRU's coffers helps the Welsh clubs/regions?

One of my mate's who is Welsh loves the welsh national rugby side with a huge passion but couldn't give a damn about the regions. That's a typical perception.


Look if you want to talk about my club we can go to a separate thread to do so. Sarries are losing a lot of money sure but they are trying to do something about it. Having one's own stadium does help matters. They are a club that has moved around like nomads. Now that they have their own stadium things should pick up. Both on and off the pitch they are really trying to make themselves more marketable.

To prevent clubs from gaining too much control,a new compromise in regards to players turning out for their national sides could be made. I don't think anyone wants to see the destruction of the international game. We just want balance. Don't want the unions controlling everything.


The English clubs handed in their notice - the ERC have had plenty of time since then to sit down and try to sort this out. They stuck their heads in the sand. Now the English clubs are being a lot more serious - only now are the ERC going to listen.

The PRL threw the gauntlet down with the BT deal. They made their intentions clear - they want to see the end of Sky domination and ERC.

Nonsense.

On the one hand you praise saracens who have made multimillion pound losses over the years.  Similar to Toulon, they are also a drain on the playing resources of other clubs and countries because they do not produce their fair share of homegrown players.  They are a just a nuisance and without benefactor support would not exist because they do not deserve to exist.

On the other hand you criticise the WRU who run the academies that produce world class players for the regions, wales, the Lions, and increasingly the Top 14 and the Aviva. And they make a profit!

Welsh rugby is trying to live within its means whilst many English and French clubs are living beyond theirs. And we are all suffering because of them.  

Scrumdown you show your lack of knowledge of Saracens. Comparing Saracens to Toulon is insulting. Toulon fill their team with foreign internationals who are there for a final pay day.

Saracens have a more mixed squad - youngsters, a good number of decent English club players, decent foreigners.

We have our fair share of England U18s and U20s players.

We do produce our fair share of home grown players like Goode,Fraser,Farrell,Kruis,Ransom and George. Plus some youngsters to look out for in the future like Nick Tompkins and Nathan Earle plus of course the famous Maro Itoje.

Also we have helped give a springboard for players to become internationals like Taylor,Mako and Gill who came from other clubs.


You talk about world class players. Went it comes to club level they under perform. Even George North who is seen by some as the world's no 1 winger only has 1 try in 4 AP matches.

You Welsh focus far too much on the international game which is detrimental to your teams in club rugby.


Also for the record Sarries and most AP clubs do release players for internationals. We do give them rest time if we can too. Player welfare is very important to Sarries - sometimes over excessively in my opinion.

It's another way English clubs are different to French. We don't overplay our players as much as the French in general.

HammerofThunor wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but don't the IRFU only have enforced rest periods for international players? I seem to remember an article about Nacewa saying he had only missed a handful of games in his time at Leinster.

That's about really about player welfare, that's keeping them fresh for the international games. If it was player welfare then it would be applied to ALL players.

Nacewa didn't play internationals. The Welfare system only applies to Irish international players, that's not to say overseas players are not looked after but that is to the provinces discretion not the IRFU's. Why would the IRFU insist on Nacewa or any non Irish player being rested? That would be like the RFU asking clubs to rest players outside the EPS.

Leicester are carefully managing Niall Morris workload - to allow him to attend Irish training camps, yet still be firing fit for us.

This is not because we have to, or are being paid to - but because it makes sense all round. (Yes it helps that IRFU will cover insurance when he is away).

LondonTiger wrote:Leicester are carefully managing Niall Morris workload - to allow him to attend Irish training camps, yet still be firing fit for us.

This is not because we have to, or are being paid to - but because it makes sense all round. (Yes it helps that IRFU will cover insurance when he is away).

Absolutely but that's different. The IRFU player welfare system is to ensure players are fit to play for Ireland and thus restricts their club/provincial involvement. It doesn't extend to non internationals and overseas players because that is the provinces concern not the IRFU's.

Londontiger most clubs in the AP are like that.

Player welfare is important. It's also important to attracting players.

Indeed - which is why the argument about the pro 12 being able to rest players and the aviva cannot is nonsense. I think there should be a mandatory maximum number of games any player can play in a year including internationals and I also think player welfare should be of higher priority than it is

beshocked wrote:Scrumdown you show your lack of knowledge of Saracens. Comparing Saracens to Toulon is insulting. Toulon fill their team with foreign internationals who are there for a final pay day.

Saracens have a more mixed squad - youngsters, a good number of decent English club players, decent foreigners.

We have our fair share of England U18s and U20s players.

We do produce our fair share of home grown players like Goode,Fraser,Farrell,Kruis,Ransom and George. Plus some youngsters to look out for in the future like Nick Tompkins and Nathan Earle plus of course the famous Maro Itoje.

Also we have helped give a springboard for players to become internationals like Taylor,Mako and Gill who came from other clubs.


You talk about world class players. Went it comes to club level they under perform. Even George North who is seen by some as the world's no 1 winger only has 1 try in 4 AP matches.

You Welsh focus far too much on the international game which is detrimental to your teams in club rugby.


Also for the record Sarries and most AP clubs do release players for internationals. We do give them rest time if we can too. Player welfare is very important to Sarries - sometimes over excessively in my opinion.

It's another way English clubs are different to French. We don't overplay our players as much as the French in general.

You make some very sweeping statements here regarding the Welsh game. At domestic level the Ospreys are still the most successful side and even this season are showing their pedigree in the league. If you compare them to Saracens by contrast over the last 10 years they are far more successful.

I wont argue that our players primary focal point is International Rugby which has made them somewhat soft to begin with a club level. But rating North's performance on 4 games and stating that he is somehow under performing because he only scored 1 try is doing a bit of a disservice to the player. Please keep in mind he has only just started playing for a new club (which no doubt have a totally different style to what he has been used to. Also the fact they will play him all year long wont bring the very best out of him. He will get fatigued before long.

Actually the move to regional rugby was the smartest move we ever made. The WRU are now focusing their attentions on the feeder league (ASDA Premiership) in order to give the promising talent in Wales a meaningful route to become professional and increase the playing standards. WRU are investing in top class facilities and training equipment to allow teams the best access to materials to develop players.

I actually think the WRU goal of player development will in turn benefit the Regions as with more and more talent coming through the Regions will naturally become stronger. The issue upon inception of the regions in 2003 is that youth academies and training facilities didn't exist. They now all have both and its just a question of time before the next generation of superstars come through the ranks. We are already seeing some of finest talent coming through already and this will just continue.

Bottom line is that we can't compete with the French to keep our best players. If Halfpenny is given say 800,000 to play for Toulon then why would we try to compete with that. That 800K could be used to increase squad depth at the Regions by hiring even more youngsters on professional contracts.

If France want to inflate player salaries, I wouldn't even try to compete. I agree the money is better of being spent to secure the future of wales next generation of rugby. I commend the WRU and Regions for creating opportunities for your youngsters to have the opportunity to become professional rugby players. The long term future of regional teams in wales is down to the youth. We've seen with the Ospreys that success cant be bought. The ethos sides like Leinster and Munster have taken decades to build. Regional rugby will work but keep in mind its still in its infancy and will take a lot longer to really get where it needs to be.

IMHO,Part of the difference is the intensity of the matches with teams facing relegation fight harder than if they dont

I don't really agree with that - the fights between the bottom Rabo teams towards the end of the season are still intense with only pride but a lot of pride at stake

Feckless Rogue - if the clubs didn't want to negotiate they'd have pulled out far sooner than they have. There have been reports of them requesting change going back several years before they even handed in their notice (which was itself over a year ago). See http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/6269979.stm - that dates back to 2007 as it is the RFU did hand over 50% and (I think) have allowed PRL control of the RFU 50% as well for the duration of the EPS agreement. LNR on the over hand gave 50% to the clubs, but took it back when it came to the appointment of a new CEO for ERC. As a result LNR in particular are livid and PRL feel their share is meaningless if the LNR vote (which is the one most likely to support them on any proposals) can be hijacked as and when FFR feel like it.

My suspicion is that is that there will be a new organisation that is neither ERC nor the current anglo-french doing a compromise tournament further down the line. Possibly with unions representing the countries where clubs are run by the unions (i.e. Ireland, Scotland and Italy) and the clubs representatives where they are run independently (i.e. Wales, France and England).

It's not unreasonable in my view, and won't lead to rugby heading down the football route - I can't see rugby ever being popular enough for clubs to dominate the way they do in football.

Welshmushroom wrote:

beshocked wrote:Scrumdown you show your lack of knowledge of Saracens. Comparing Saracens to Toulon is insulting. Toulon fill their team with foreign internationals who are there for a final pay day.

Saracens have a more mixed squad - youngsters, a good number of decent English club players, decent foreigners.

We have our fair share of England U18s and U20s players.

We do produce our fair share of home grown players like Goode,Fraser,Farrell,Kruis,Ransom and George. Plus some youngsters to look out for in the future like Nick Tompkins and Nathan Earle plus of course the famous Maro Itoje.

Also we have helped give a springboard for players to become internationals like Taylor,Mako and Gill who came from other clubs.


You talk about world class players. Went it comes to club level they under perform. Even George North who is seen by some as the world's no 1 winger only has 1 try in 4 AP matches.

You Welsh focus far too much on the international game which is detrimental to your teams in club rugby.


Also for the record Sarries and most AP clubs do release players for internationals. We do give them rest time if we can too. Player welfare is very important to Sarries - sometimes over excessively in my opinion.

It's another way English clubs are different to French. We don't overplay our players as much as the French in general.

You make some very sweeping statements here regarding the Welsh game.  At domestic level the Ospreys are still the most successful side and even this season are showing their pedigree in the league.  If you compare them to Saracens by contrast over the last 10 years they are far more successful.  

I wont argue that our players primary focal point is International Rugby which has made them somewhat soft to begin with a club level.  But rating North's performance on 4 games and stating that he is somehow under performing because he only scored 1 try is doing a bit of a disservice to the player.  Please keep in mind he has only just started playing for a new club (which no doubt have a totally different style to what he has been used to.  Also the fact they will play him all year long wont bring the very best out of him.  He will get fatigued before long.

Actually the move to regional rugby was the smartest move we ever made.  The WRU are now focusing their attentions on the feeder league (ASDA Premiership) in order to give the promising talent in Wales a meaningful route to become professional and increase the playing standards.  WRU are investing in top class facilities and training equipment to allow teams the best access to materials to develop players.  

I actually think the WRU goal of player development will in turn benefit the Regions as with more and more talent coming through the Regions will naturally become stronger.  The issue upon inception of the regions in 2003 is that youth academies and training facilities didn't exist.  They now all have both and its just a question of time before the next generation of superstars come through the ranks.  We are already seeing some of finest talent coming through already and this will just continue.  

Bottom line is that we can't compete with the French to keep our best players.  If Halfpenny is given say 800,000 to play for Toulon then why would we try to compete with that.  That 800K could be used to increase squad depth at the Regions by hiring even more youngsters on professional contracts.

If France want to inflate player salaries, I wouldn't even try to compete.  I agree the money is better of being spent to secure the future of wales next generation of rugby.  I commend the WRU and Regions for creating opportunities for your youngsters to have the opportunity to become professional rugby players. The long term future of regional teams in wales is down to the youth.  We've seen with the Ospreys that success cant be bought.  The ethos sides like Leinster and Munster have taken decades to build.  Regional rugby will work but keep in mind its still in its infancy and will take a lot longer to really get where it needs to be.

Yes Ospreys have been more successful than Sarries in terms of league form. I can't deny that but then again Sarries have been the stronger side when they have met in the HC as shown as the 3-0 record in that competition. Also Sarries have a better overall European record. Ospreys have not successively brought their excellent league form to the HC. Ospreys have had a lot of talent in their team yet have failed to make any meaningful impact in the HC. The Ospreys team of 2008 should not have lost to the Sarries team of 2008 but they did. Ospreys that year had I think 12 grandslam winners - that's example of international form meaning very little when it came to the HC. To be fair to the O's, on the opposition side was perhaps one of the best flankers of all time - Richard Hill but still....

Look I think North is a good player and has actually done quite well for Saints despite a lack of tries so far but he's not exactly tearing up the AP despite supposedly being one of the best wingers in the world. With all the hype surrounding his signing for Saints more was expected in my opinion.

With the players like Halfpenny and Warburton in the Cardiff side losing to Zebre is inexcusable surely?

Internationals are different to club games. Some players are more comfortable at one or the other.

Perhaps you are right - maybe the regions in Wales will work eventually but at the moment it's not.

Zebre are a much improved side this year with real fight in them - hence the fightback against Glasgow. I expect them to win more games this year

rodders wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but don't the IRFU only have enforced rest periods for international players? I seem to remember an article about Nacewa saying he had only missed a handful of games in his time at Leinster.

That's about really about player welfare, that's keeping them fresh for the international games. If it was player welfare then it would be applied to ALL players.

Nacewa didn't play internationals. The Welfare system only applies to Irish international players, that's not to say overseas players are not looked after but that is to the provinces discretion not the IRFU's. Why would the IRFU insist on Nacewa or any non Irish player being rested? That would be like the RFU asking clubs to rest players outside the EPS.

ecause they're worried about player welfare. The suggestion is that the French clubs don't care about player welfare but everyone else does. But they don't (any more than the clubs) they care about their internationals being fresh.

I think someone else may have posted this already but I would think they would just bring back somesort of FA cup style competition to fill the gap.

TJ wrote:I don't really agree with that - the fights between the bottom Rabo teams towards the end of the season are still intense with only pride but a lot of pride at stake

I know we can throw examples that support both cases (such as Dragons vs Glasgow last season, or the Christmas derbies where sides fielded 3rd XVs for away fixtures - and I am sure you can identify low intensity AP matches), however I leave it to the players. Now you may expect the people who leave Wales to England to describe the AP as more physical and Intense, which Paul James did, but when Sam Warburton says he believes the same thing, well then surely people have to listen just a little?

Oh I think that is right - the aviva is more physical with attritional " must not lose" type game plans and the Rabo with attacking "must win" type game plans. I wonder what the number of points / number of penalties / ball in play stats show.

Its an entertainment business and IMO the Rabo produces more entertaining games. Maybe the few aviva games I watched are the poor ones.

TJ wrote:Oh I think that is right - the aviva is more physical with attritional " must not lose" type game plans and the Rabo with attacking "must win" type game plans.  I wonder what the number  of points / number of penalties / ball in play stats show.

Its an entertainment business and IMO the Rabo produces more entertaining games.  Maybe the few aviva games I watched are the poor ones.

Whilst I can't speak for all teams in the Premiership from what I have seen so far it has been a veritable try fest of attacking rugby. Tigers alone have scored 14 tries in 4 league games so far.

The only time you will see Premiership sides put out 2nd string sides is either through forced injury replacements, RFU rest periods for EPS or the LV Pointless Cup.

Fairy snuff. Maybe I am harking back to previous seasons but it does appear to me that the Aviva has tended to a more conservative gameplan.

TJ wrote:Fairy snuff.  Maybe I am harking back to previous seasons but it does appear to me that the Aviva has tended to a more conservative gameplan.

For the bottom end of the table involved in the relegation battle it can get pretty dire as the emphasis can be to "not lose" as oppossed to "must win" and I've seen some stinkers but I have also seen some fantastic relegation battles too. Something I think is missing from the Pro12. But hey... it's fair to say you get all types of games in the AP.

Other competitions manage quite well with no relegation - super 15 for example. In fact you could say in the world of rugby relegation is the less common option at an elite level.

the other thing with no relegation ( the argument used by the English clubs a few years ago) is that you can afford to take a longer term view. Zebre for example would have been relegated last season but instead have been able to build a team that looks much more competative this year. there is also less need to buy overseas players as you can afford the time to develop your youngsters.

Super 15 does have relegation,ask the South Africans

broadlandboy wrote:Super 15 does have relegation,ask the South Africans

No they don't - they have a play off to decide the final team that the South African Rugby Union wishes to enter in the competition.

Semantics, the team still has to qualify & stand a chance of not qualifying

LondonTiger wrote:

TJ wrote:I don't really agree with that - the fights between the bottom Rabo teams towards the end of the season are still intense with only pride but a lot of pride at stake

I know we can throw examples that support both cases (such as Dragons vs Glasgow last season, or the Christmas derbies where sides fielded 3rd XVs for away fixtures - and I am sure you can identify low intensity AP matches), however I leave it to the players. Now you may expect the people who leave Wales to England to describe the AP as more physical and Intense, which Paul James did, but when Sam Warburton says he believes the same thing, well then surely people have to listen just a little?

Think is their forwards who are playing in a forward dominated league. Also James is currently under cotract in England, and Warbs looks like he wants to head there, so neither are going to say "actually the JEff is pants and I want to player there/here so I can prolong my career playing against these jessies". It is common sense that they will talk up the legaue they are/want to be part of. Didn't a few New Zealanders slag the Jeff off when they returned home (Chris Jack?), and I believe Silalo Martens said something less than respectful about it when he signed for the Scarlets from Sale. It is just political talking.

broadlandboy wrote:Semantics, the team still has to qualify & stand a chance of not qualifying

So which NZ or Aus teams have had to qualify or risk not-qualifying? Surely the Western Force were shoe horned into the competition without ever really having to prove themselves, and the same for the Rebels.

Also how come England and France are the only top tier nations not to have gone regional/provincial/franchise, yet they seem to be willing to preach to the rest of us about not moving with the times?

TJ wrote:the other thing with no relegation ( the argument used by the English clubs a few years ago) is that you can afford to take a longer term view.  Zebre for example would have been relegated last season but instead have been able to build a team that looks much more competative this year.  there is also less need to buy overseas players as you can afford the time to develop your youngsters.

We can't ring fence the AP because we have the Championship which is quite competitive.

The Pro12 doesn't have a level below it yet.

Relegation has actually benefited both Quins and Saints. They've both come back stronger.

Perhaps an option could be to add two more sides to the AP and in the LV cup instead of playing Welsh sides it could be Championship teams.

In the interests of balance, it should be noted that relegation hasn't done much for the likes of West Hartlepool, Rotherham, Richmond, London Scottish, Leeds, Bristol and Bedford.

That's true dubbelyew l overate but they aren't part of the exclusive club of a select number of teams.

Getting entrance is tough as Exeter are finding.

PRL's downfall could be the lack of co operation with the championship clubs to help them become more competitive.



In my opinion the current top table in English rugby is Leicester,Saints,Quins,Bath,Sarries and Gloucester. I am talking about influence, publicity etc not revenue. If it was revenue my club would be way down the table.

Their mates on the table next to them are Worcester,Wasps,Sale,Exeter,London Irish, Newcastle but they are not really seen in the same light.

I would say this is the division of the 12 AP clubs as it stands. When it comes to voting on issues this is generally how things go in my opinion.

Below that you have the championship clubs who are seen in a lesser light.

He mentioned Super Rugby & as far as I know SA are in it,also I didnt mention NZ/Aus. The SH Unions acted quicker in signing the players when union went pro stiffling any chance of private clubs but it seems that NZ are trying to change that. I realise that not all countries could support a top level pro league (ENG/FRA/SA & possibly NZ seem the only candidates) as it seems that you need at least 10 teams to be economically viable

beshocked wrote:

TJ wrote:the other thing with no relegation ( the argument used by the English clubs a few years ago) is that you can afford to take a longer term view.  Zebre for example would have been relegated last season but instead have been able to build a team that looks much more competative this year.  there is also less need to buy overseas players as you can afford the time to develop your youngsters.

We can't ring fence the AP because we have the Championship which is quite competitive.

The Pro12 doesn't have a level below it yet.

Relegation has actually benefited both Quins and Saints. They've both come back stronger.

Perhaps an option could be to add two more sides to the AP and in the LV cup instead of playing Welsh sides it could be Championship teams.

beshocked,

As I understand it the PRL have no control over the Championship sides (apologies if wrong), so if along with their French counterparts they do break away and go against the RFU couldn't they then ring fence the premiership?

Bedfordwelsh yes they probably could.

bedfordwelsh wrote:beshocked,

As I understand it the PRL have no control over the Championship sides (apologies if wrong), so if along with their French counterparts they do break away and go against the RFU couldn't they then ring fence the premiership?

The only points I'd add are that according to all accounts a breakaway cup competition may go against the FFR and IRB, but that doesn't mean it would be going against the RFU who haven't voiced any major objections.

However, if they set up a breakaway stand alone league that was ringfenced - that would be major issue. That would very much be in RFU withdrawing all financial support and refusing to use their players territory. The clubs need a healthy international England team. The teams with players in get exposure and marketing that they could never get based on the club game alone, and the teams without still get a slice of the payments (indirectly) without any loss to their own squad and arguably the benefit of trying to put one over their rivals while they are depleted.

As you fired the question at beshocked I'll use Sarries as an example. They've just built a new stadium and are looking to build local support and make the team financially sustainable - how do you think that is best achieved? Personally I expect they're more likely to attract potential supporters if England win the 6 nations with players like Farrell, Ashton, that young hooker (whose name evades me but looks quite handy) etc, than they are by winning the premiership. Most people watching the premiership final will already be rugby supporters and will have decided their level of support (season ticket holder, occasional games, only on tv, etc) before the game starts. The 6 nations on the other hand is watched by millions, including fringe supporters that could be tempted in. I don't have any objective evidence for that, but it seems a reasonable deduction to me - and on that basis I'd say it is in their interest to provide players for England and for those players to do whatever they need to do to be succesful with England. How would they benefit from getting rid of relegation? I can't really see any benefit myself.

Generally speaking I'd say there are normally only 3-4 teams worried about relegation at any given time, and they can't force the rest of PRL to do something that would be hugely damaging to the league as a whole. So, while PRL could perhaps force a breakaway league I can't realistically see it happening.

Jamie George

beshocked wrote:That's true dubbelyew l overate but they aren't part of the exclusive club of a select number of teams.

Getting entrance is tough as Exeter are finding.

PRL's downfall could be the lack of co operation with the championship clubs to help them become more competitive.



In my opinion the current top table in English rugby is Leicester,Saints,Quins,Bath,Sarries and Gloucester. I am talking about influence, publicity etc not revenue. If it was revenue my club would be way down the table.

Their mates on the table next to them are Worcester,Wasps,Sale,Exeter,London Irish, Newcastle but they are not really seen in the same light.

I would say this is the division of the 12 AP clubs as it stands. When it comes to voting on issues this is generally how things go in my opinion.

Below that you have the championship clubs who are seen in a lesser light.

Hmm, by 'tough' do you in fact mean that it's simply not a level playing field?!  Odd that the PRL are willing to stomach, nay champion, that when it suits them, but not at other times?

Also, there has been no suggestion whatsoever (that I have seen) that the PRL would form a brakaway competition (in terms of breakaway from unions, not ERC). They have said that if the RFU block it they will look at their reasons and challenge them if suitable. They have also said that if the RFU DOES block it they will not be playing in Europe at all (as in if the RFU block it they're not going back to the ERC).

The French have been more bullish on it and it certainly sounds like they would consider breaking away. But even then I don't see the PRL getting involved with the French if they break away from the union.

aslongasbut100ofus I am taking a balanced point of view. Something that you and the likes of TJ cannot.

PRL are far from perfect. Exeter have found it difficult not getting the same amount of funding as the other AP sides. I am acknowledging that not everything with the English system is right.

The PRL money should be split equally between all 12 members of the Premiership with a parachute payment to the relegated club. If a club cannot be promoted due to standards they should recieve the parachute payment in full (with some sort of plan in how they're going to use it?).

Yes, this means the relegated club is most likely to go back up but it also means being relegated doesn't cripple a team.

Also, at the discussions for the next PRL and RFU agreement in 2016, the championship clubs will be involved (10 10 split?) so hopefully it'll become more integrated and fairer.

Hammerofthunor I agree with that.

beshocked wrote:aslongasbut100ofus I am taking a balanced point of view. Something that you and the likes of TJ cannot.

PRL are far from perfect. Exeter have found it difficult not getting the same amount of funding as the other AP sides. I am acknowledging that not everything with the English system is right.

But even you, from your moral high ground, should be able to see that it does bring to mind a phrase involving glass houses and stones?

BTW, I'm not convinced that you'd recognise a 'balanced point of view' if you ran in to one  

But that only applies to one side if something unfortunate happens like a non-PRL affiliate gets promoted and stays up. We work very hard to make sure That. Can't. Happen.

V good, Thunor!

 

I'm very hopeful that with the Championship sides being involved in the next RFU deal with the clubs we will see some real progress in this area. since I don't have any ties to any particular club I'm not as protective as some and I can understand why they're happy with the status quo. What we really need to do is reduce the gap between the championship and the premiership (in financial contributions). Yes there will be some difference there but maybe the BT deal money could be used for the championship sides?

Or maybe they could be given commercial control over the championship themselves  

Just a thought re the money if there's no Euro rugby but the BT money is still there (as PRL say it is) - how about giving the clubs that currently are using rented or substandard grounds the money to find a "rugby based stadium" that would fulfil Premiership criteria - there are plenty of third and four division football sides near a lot of these clubs who are in deep financial trouble so that the PRL could buy out the stadium and turn it into primarily a rugby stadium, the clubs could pay a rental to the PRL and undertake to fund any ground improvements.
Within a few years there would be a network of stadiums suitable for club level rugby accross the country.

That would cost huge amounts if money Irish Londoner. Buying a stadium, even a relatively small one, will cost a few million.

The Championship clubs are getting more Sky coverage currently following a new deal. That should see them net some extra cash. Certainly Exeter have shown it's entirely possible for a Championship club to develop itself in a sustainable manner and compete in the AP. Considering the legal case the Championship clubs were looking to bring against the RFU last season over promised revenue I'd expect the meeting in 2016 to be quite spicy.

That legal case was because the RFU had promised £XM over Y years and had given less than X/Y in the first year. Thereofre if that continues then they would give less than had promised. But the RFU hadn't ****ed them them yet and claimed they would be giving more money in the future. In fact wasn't the year they gave them less 2011, which is a world cup year and the RFU take a hit in the pocket. I think that was the reason given.

Of course that doesn't help a professional club when they're trying to budget.

I'm pretty sure it's not a new Sky deal - RFU gifted them the Championship TV rights for nowt as part of their overall deal in 2008.

Sky have been showing occasional Champ games in the past, but now that they have a void in their week-to-week rugby coverage, they seem to be taking up their full allocation.

The £300k funding to each club from the RFU was to compensate for the lack of sponsor, and has now been replaced by the Greene King funding, as far as I know. I'm not aware of any payments from RFU for the TV rights, but there's still the EQP bonus - my memory fails me on the value of that.