End in sight to Euro Mess?

First topic message reminder :

Reports in the Times today that agreement may be close for pan-European competitions for the next 8 seasons including Pro12/AP/T14 teams. (cannot link due to paywall).

It seems that in the last few weeks Ian Ritchie has been hosting a series of private meetings with all relevant parties to try and thrash out a deal. Interestingly PRLs representative in these meetings has been Bruce Craig - Mark McCafferty being sidelined?
Any way it seems that compromises have been reached on qualification methods, division of finances and management of the new competition. It would seem ERC are out, but the clubs will only have a say in the new competition not the full control they demanded. It even suggests we may see BT and SKY operate as joint broadcasters!!

Supposedly this new competition is almost agreed by all the relevant stakeholders (primarily the 6 Unions but also PRL/LNR). It may all be journalistic bluster - but I see no reason why a NewsCorp paper should be peddling this line if they did not believe it. After all until very recently their stories have always been heaping the utmost scorn on PRL/RFU.


So if a deal is struck that gives us a true set of pan-European competitions I can only be really pleased. I do hope that the story is true about the private meetings - as there has been far too much public posturing from people that only serves to antagonise. A public argument is much harder to heal than a private one.

So if true I guess congrats to Ian Ritchie who has kept RFU out of the limelight. Accused of sticking his head in the sands, it would suggest that he has actually been doing something useful away from the glare of the press and internet.

I need a shower now, cannot believe I just said something decent about the RFU.

Thats a parrot cat dude!!

No a para cat is more like this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6PfW7uEmfQ

quinsforever wrote:2.bp.blogspot.com/-2WK2LzOsTz0/TfH016IbBSI/AAAAAAAAADw/2xj7OkFC6D0/s200/paracat.jpg

put the httpbits in front...

And that image is a little disturbing!

mystiroakey wrote:Thats a parrot cat dude!!

No a para cat is more like this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6PfW7uEmfQ

Ha ha!

(Do you think we're off topic?)

Yeah maybe a touch....

stub wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Thats a parrot cat dude!!

No a para cat is more like this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6PfW7uEmfQ

Ha ha!

(Do you think we're off topic?)

only by a little!  

I have seen no confirmation of this thread from any other source website or paper hopefully
it is true.Don`t doubt things are going on behind the scenes and hopefully it will be sorted
out.Joint coverage would be to the armchair consumers benefit access to virtually all rugby
in one place being the ideal.

emack2 wrote:I have seen no confirmation of this thread from any other source website or paper hopefully
it is true.Don`t doubt things are going on behind the scenes and hopefully it will be sorted
out.Joint coverage would be to the armchair consumers benefit access to virtually all rugby
in one place being the ideal.

i pasted the entire article plus one other, in full above

As a fan I would really p1ssed off if there was a deal involving two broadcasters. It would seriously show these muppets at the top of the game up if they (after fannying about for years to bloody agree with each other) ask the ordinary supporter to subscribe to sky and BT to get coverage of the cup and would mark a new low in the game.

I don't know how reliable that info is but if the above scenario came to pass I would be fuming

maestegmafia wrote:

Griff wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:The £152 is a considerable investment even for a a company valued by the market at £27,568.23m ( http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/BT/A:LN ) The marginal cost of broadband/TV to the consumer is incredibly small as the network is at virtually everyone's doorstep.

BSB Gross mkt value £13,904.37m and BT want a chunk of its subscriber value.

I don't think the £152m is the right figure now. That was for a new PRL run euro competition that's not happening anymore. The BT figure will be less. I can't see BT being very happy about the outcome in all this. They aren't getting what McCafferty sold them.

It just seems so important to you that somehow the PRL should get less money - should lose out in some way. Some kind of irrational hatred going on. The way they were originally talking about the money they were planning to split it- so if somehow it goes belly up there will be less money for everyone.

Bizarre

Try thinking about what you write before you type. Then your post might make some sense...! Are you a dyslexic?

Maybe you should also read the post you are replying to a few times, to make sure you understand what other people are talking about too...!

Maes, using learning difficulties to mock someone is a new low even for you. The likelihood is that quite a number of posters on here have some form of dyslexia, such is the prevalence in the population, so it's likely that you've offended a large number of people with that. Poor form.

Griff I am dyslexic myself, was actually showing the guy some sympathy. Don't be curtailed into believing the tripe written by this nasty group of posters who try to defame those that prove their arguments as failed.

Thanks for the sympathy for a condition I don't suffer from. Given the circumstances it seems an odd choice of attack to draw attention away from what I said.

Seeing as its so important to make things straightforward for the hard of understanding I'll rephrase what I originally wrote as a simple question.

Maes, do you want the BT deal to fail?

(And to everyone else I apologise in advance if this post drags the thread back into the gutter.)

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/oct/12/celtic-nations-european-heineken-cup

I would not trust a word the guardian prints about celtic rugby. I read the guardian daily but its coverage of non english rugby is woeful as is that article

Well it does seem like that is going to happen(by the other sources mentioned)

A meeting will happen soon and before the ERC meeting date and the ERC is out!

Just read that Guardian article. If the Celtic Unions concede to the 3 way (by league) split of monies then they'll be putting the noose around our own necks. As it says in the article the pot will have to be nearly doubled for the Celtic regions to stand still - guess who gets the extra cash! No way should we accede to these ridiculous demands on the money - the disparity is already hurting us. The fair way to distribute the money is a basic, equal, sum per entrant club/region and topped up according to performance in the competition (what position in the group, which round they reach). If the Franglo's refuse then we should say goodbye to them. Wales' regions will have to be rejigged but at least we'll still have professional rugby. If we go along with this money-grab we will never ever be able to compete and it will damage our international team. We cannot accept this argument that the Celts are one entity (because we compete in the Pro12). It's a false argument and an excuse for royally ripping us off.

Qualification according to league position is sensible, but how on earth can anybody justify a situation where the Franglo's considerably increase the financial disparity by hogging the TV money for themselves under threat of pulling out?

As a Guardian reader can I say the Guardian are totally clueless and without knowledge of the Celtic game

I would doubt the negotiation will give the PRL everything they want nor does that article say it is. Celtic nations are prepared to compromise on most issues - but not just roll over

TJ wrote:I would not trust a word the guardian prints about celtic rugby.  I read the guardian daily but its coverage of non english rugby is woeful as is that article

Indeed, it's very one sided in its rugby coverage.

Totally, An equal amount for each team in both comps with performance bonus is what the PRL/LNR are proposing. Just goes to show how unfair the money has been split on a per team basis

Totallybiasedscarlet wrote:Just read that Guardian article. If the Celtic Unions concede to the 3 way (by league) split of monies then they'll be putting the noose around our own necks. As it says in the article the pot will have to be nearly doubled for the Celtic regions to stand still - guess who gets the extra cash! No way should we accede to these ridiculous demands on the money - the disparity is already hurting us. The fair way to distribute the money is a basic, equal, sum per entrant club/region and topped up according to performance in the competition (what position in the group, which round they reach). If the Franglo's refuse then we should say goodbye to them. Wales' regions will have to be rejigged but at least we'll still have professional rugby. If we go along with this money-grab we will never ever be able to compete and it will damage our international team. We cannot accept this argument that the Celts are one entity (because we compete in the Pro12). It's a false argument and an excuse for royally ripping us off.

Qualification according to league position is sensible, but how on earth can anybody justify a situation where the Franglo's considerably increase the financial disparity by hogging the TV money for themselves under threat of pulling out?

With a three way split between the leagues on the 'participation payments' that's close to what would happen.  Performance in the competition is currently rewarded with the seperate 'meritiocracy payments' and as far as I'm aware that has been suggested to continue.

broadlandboy wrote:Totally, An equal amount for each team in both comps with performance bonus is what the PRL/LNR are proposing. Just goes to show how unfair the money has been split on a per team basis

Nope, they've been arguing it should be split by league. Then they said the Celts wouldn't lose out in the deal they so graciously negotiated for us - we'd stay still whilst they got more AND total control of the competition.

It's like asking someone to step into the prison showers and expecting them to put the soap on the floor themselves ...  

broadlandboy wrote:Totally, An equal amount for each team in both comps with performance bonus is what the PRL/LNR are proposing. Just goes to show how unfair the money has been split on a per team basis

No its nothing like fair. The amlin brings in no money - why should teams in that get as much as those in the HC? Its a transparent device to enrich the english and french clubs at the expense of everyone else. at the moment all unions get the same amount (roughly) per team in the top teir which is the only one that generates any money.

Going down this road will concentrate power and wealth.

fair is subjective depending where you stand

That's the troble if you have assured entry into the Hec, you dont think that there is another comp that other teams play in. So much for wanting to grow the game as long as you are alright that's ok

"Fair is relative depending on your viewpoint"

Until you understand this you will not understand why the celtic unions cannot give in to the ridiculous and unfair PRL demands

It's not true that the Amlin doesn't bring in any money, obviously it's not as much as the Heineken, but between the sponsorship and TV rights it's probably around a quarter of the total.  Sky don't show a huge amount of the Amlin games, but they show more in France because of how many of their sides are involved and the interest of the public in seeing their particular team play.  One of the benefits of splitting the rights between Sky & BT will be that we'll get more matches on over the weekend with BT certainly likely to show far more Amlin.  Supporters of teams like Wasps, Bath, Irish, Sale etc. still want to watch their team play even if they're not in the Heineken, especially if the quality of the Amlin goes up from more PRO12 sides coming down and a third tier created so that there aren't so many whipping boys.  Broadcasters will be quite aware of that value from attracting extra eyes over the weekends in terms of subscribers and advertisment revenue.

broadlandboy wrote:That's the troble if you have assured entry into the Hec, you dont think that there is another comp that other teams play in. So much for wanting to grow the game as long as you are alright that's ok

Funny, that's what the Celts think of the Franglo's at the moment.

And by the way, what a bogus accusation. The Celts don't mind negotiating the qualification conditions. It's the totally unfair demands on the money that's causing the problem. Just like it did when the English threatened the 6N ... sound familiar?

What's unfair about all the teams from the three leagues getting the same basic amount for playing in Europe, with extras coming depending on how far you progress and the extra gates you get? If the qualification changes go through as suggested by these recent articles, the Rabo will have the same proportion of their sides in the Amlin as the Franglos, do you want those Rabo sides to get far less than those in the Heineken?

Why should 4 unions lose 40% of their representation? At the moment we have equal shares of money in the only part that produces any profits.

Just because we optimised our structures and you did not that is no reason to try to handicap us further.

We all get the same amount of money for playing in the profitable bit right now.

TJ wrote:I would doubt the negotiation will give the PRL everything they want nor does that article say it is.  Celtic nations are prepared to compromise on most issues - but not just roll over

Agree. The key word, of course, is compromise. No one should roll over.

The difference, as I see it reported, is there now seems to be a slight bit of momentum for all sides to actually negotiate with each other rather than making grandiose, misleading, and insipid comments to the media. Up to now, it seems that everyone was practising brinksmanship as opposed to engaging in meaningful dialogue to find a solution. If all sides talk, we all win.

broadlandboy wrote:Totally, An equal amount for each team in both comps with performance bonus is what the PRL/LNR are proposing. Just goes to show how unfair the money has been split on a per team basis

It's a red herring- the argument is whether the split should be per team or per country.

I would favour per country, as I come from a country whose "clubs" (actually provinces/regions) are integrated with the national side. Ulster and Irelands national team are simply different parts of the same organisation, hence why additional revenue generated by an Irish team for winning the Heineken Cup or going far is split between all the provinces and why we think the success of an Irish team is fairly rewarded by another Irish team (Connacht) getting exposure in the top tier. The success of one Irish province is the success of Irish Rugby in general, not necessarily just down to that province- its a validation of our entire system.

The culture is totally different to England and France, and English and French fans simply don't get it. If Toulon win the Cup, Grenoble don't benefit (unless they finish 7th in the Top14 and qualify for the HEC that way). But if Leinster win, then it means more money and a promotion to the top tier for Connacht, as well as more money for Ulster and Munster- it's just more money towards the IRFUs budget for funding the provinces hence it's more of a rising tide that lifts all boats then a direct financial boon to only Leinster.

What the PRL/LNR are asking for is a third of the revenue each, and then a third of the revenue between the four remaining countries. Thats how its seen outside French and English rugby circles. But they don't understand that because of the cultural difference where teams are funded as individual entities as opposed to the money going back to the Union to fund professional rugby in general.

However the disparity in income from Europe is created by the English and French clubs, not anyone else. They choose a model where they have many professional sides. This generates money for the PRL or LNR in that there are more domestic fixtures to sell, but affects income in the European sense because the pie they get has to be divided into smaller pieces- even though it's bigger than what Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy get.

On the other hand the four nations listed above have chosen a system of having fewer professional sides, mainly due to their much smaller playing pool and the smaller pool of fans that comes with a smaller population- this means they can enjoy a larger share of their European profits per team, it's also advantageous in that a large proportion of their international squads are playing together at club level. But it also means they can't sustain domestic leagues in the manner that the french and English can, which is a massive advantage to them. However by pooling their resources into one league they've managed to overcome that obstacle, although the Pro12 has it's own unique challenges.

Essentially, the good decisions made by the Celtic Unions in the structure of their professional game have narrowed the gap in revenue that you'd expect to exist between Europes larger countries and the smaller countries, even whilst our league gives more exposure to our international players. The French/English demands seek to undo much of this by changing the per country distribution of money into a per side distribution but are one-sided in their failure to see that the so-called 'unfairness' is a result of their own decisions when the game went professional. A degree of compromise between the two sides is fair and hopefully thats what we'll get.

seems to me that no teams lose their representation. all will be playing in euro competitions. how each league divides its money up between HC and Amlin participants is up to them.

but just like in every other sport played internationally, qualification spots are determined by league not nationality. unlike most other sports played internationally, the money is proposed to be divided equally by league - in point of fact in most sports the money is divided according to TV rights contribution AND performance within the competition. any proposal along these lines would go down like a cup of cold sick though

people need to stop clinging to the old ERC arrangements as they are dead. this is about negotiating a deal with a clean slate. if people cling to their old HC deals then there will be no compromise, and that hurts some more than others.

Nonsense. why should 4 countries lose 40% of their representation? We optimised and modernised our structures and now you want to handicap us because of this?

TJ, the alternative interpretation would be that some countries made themselves excessively reliant on HC monies in the way they completely changed their club setups, and therefore excessively vulnerable in any renegotiation.

ire your qn - if all 12 rabo teams would still play in euro competitions how is there any loss or representation?

But can yo give any rational reason why 4 countries lose 40% of their representation and two countries none?

TJ wrote:But can yo give any rational reason why 4 countries lose 40% of their representation and two countries none?

re your qn - if all 12 rabo teams would still play in euro competitions how is there any loss or representation?

At the momnet its 6 places each for england and france, 3 for ireland, 3 for wales, 2 for italy, 2 for scotland. What possible rational reason can there be for all the reduction to come from the four countries wiuth the least?

Notch wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Totally, An equal amount for each team in both comps with performance bonus is what the PRL/LNR are proposing. Just goes to show how unfair the money has been split on a per team basis

It's a red herring- the argument is whether the split should be per team or per country.

I would favour per country, as I come from a country whose "clubs" (actually provinces/regions) are integrated with the national side. Ulster and Irelands national team are simply different parts of the same organisation, hence why additional revenue generated by an Irish team for winning the Heineken Cup or going far is split between all the provinces and why we think the success of an Irish team is fairly rewarded by another Irish team (Connacht) getting exposure in the top tier. The success of one Irish province is the success of Irish Rugby in general, not necessarily just down to that province- its a validation of our entire system.

The culture is totally different to England and France, and English and French fans simply don't get it. If Toulon win the Cup, Grenoble don't benefit (unless they finish 7th in the Top14 and qualify for the HEC that way). But if Leinster win, then it means more money and a promotion to the top tier for Connacht, as well as more money for Ulster and Munster- it's just more money towards the IRFUs budget for funding the provinces hence it's more of a rising tide that lifts all boats then a direct financial boon to only Leinster.

What the PRL/LNR are asking for is a third of the revenue each, and then a third of the revenue between the four remaining countries. Thats how its seen outside French and English rugby circles. But they don't understand that because of the cultural difference where teams are funded as individual entities as opposed to the money going back to the Union to fund professional rugby in general.

However the disparity in income from Europe is created by the English and French clubs, not anyone else. They choose a model where they have many professional sides. This generates money for the PRL or LNR in that there are more domestic fixtures to sell, but affects income in the European sense because the pie they get has to be divided into smaller pieces- even though it's bigger than what Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy get.

On the other hand the four nations listed above have chosen a system of having fewer professional sides, mainly due to their much smaller playing pool and the smaller pool of fans that comes with a smaller population- this means they can enjoy a larger share of their European profits per team, it's also advantageous in that a large proportion of their international squads are playing together at club level. But it also means they can't sustain domestic leagues in the manner that the french and English can, which is a massive advantage to them. However by pooling their resources into one league they've managed to overcome that obstacle, although the Pro12 has it's own unique challenges.

Essentially, the good decisions made by the Celtic Unions in the structure of their professional game have narrowed the gap in revenue that you'd expect to exist between Europes larger countries and the smaller countries, even whilst our league gives more exposure to our international players. The French/English demands seek to undo much of this by changing the per country distribution of money into a per side distribution but are one-sided in their failure to see that the so-called 'unfairness' is a result of their own decisions when the game went professional. A degree of compromise between the two sides is fair and hopefully thats what we'll get.

i totally understand all these points notch and they seem like a very balanced description of the evolution of the pro game in celtic nations. i think english club fans do see this, and some have sympathy, and some dont. english club fans would like to see their own clubs getting more money and silverware, and english national team fans would like to see the english national team perform better. and more money going to english clubs and the rfu is likely to tick both boxes. thats not necessarily unfair. its just why the prl/lnr have quite a lot of sympathy over here.

TJ wrote:Nonsense.  why should 4 countries lose 40% of their representation?  We optimised and modernised our structures and now you want to handicap us because of this?

Those countries lose no representation in Europe, just in the top tier, and even in that it's the league that loses 40%, not the countries, plus 40% is the worst possible scenario, winning the Heineken and Amlin would make it only 20%. The reason why those sides would 'lose out' is beacuse they are no better than the sides in the French and English leagues that also have to accept the level of competition that better suits their abilities.

Yes they do lose representation - at the top table. and it is about countries not leagues - this is the point you have to understand. You cannot penalise us for modifying our structures and you cannot disadvantage us for our success.

I am still await a rational explantation as to why this is fair. the four countries with the lest representation loose 40% of their representation at the top table, the two countries witht eh most representation lose none.

Can anyone make any logical case for this being fair?

TJ wrote:At the momnet its 6 places each for england and france, 3 for ireland, 3 for wales, 2 for italy, 2 for scotland.  What possible rational reason can there be for all the  reduction to come from the four countries wiuth the least?  

at the moment its 12 for AP, 14 for LNR and 12 for Rabo. which it will continue to be, and the prl/lnr proposal is the same for each league in terms of qualifies to each competition from each league.

are you really saying that the above is irrational?

being able to ignore the Amlin is a luxury you are going to have to give up.

quinsforever wrote:

TJ wrote:At the momnet its 6 places each for england and france, 3 for ireland, 3 for wales, 2 for italy, 2 for scotland.  What possible rational reason can there be for all the  reduction to come from the four countries wiuth the least?  

at the moment its 12 for AP, 14 for LNR and 12 for Rabo. which it will continue to be, and the prl/lnr proposal is the same for each league in terms of qualifies to each competition from each league.

are you really saying that the above is irrational?

being able to ignore the Amlin is a luxury you are going to have to give up.

welsh and english teams play in the same football league, and qualification to the Champions league is on the basis of league position not nationailty.

is this irrational or unfair? no, its just different.

Notch wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Totally, An equal amount for each team in both comps with performance bonus is what the PRL/LNR are proposing. Just goes to show how unfair the money has been split on a per team basis

It's a red herring- the argument is whether the split should be per team or per country.

I would favour per country, as I come from a country whose "clubs" (actually provinces/regions) are integrated with the national side. Ulster and Irelands national team are simply different parts of the same organisation, hence why additional revenue generated by an Irish team for winning the Heineken Cup or going far is split between all the provinces and why we think the success of an Irish team is fairly rewarded by another Irish team (Connacht) getting exposure in the top tier. The success of one Irish province is the success of Irish Rugby in general, not necessarily just down to that province- its a validation of our entire system.

The culture is totally different to England and France, and English and French fans simply don't get it. If Toulon win the Cup, Grenoble don't benefit (unless they finish 7th in the Top14 and qualify for the HEC that way). But if Leinster win, then it means more money and a promotion to the top tier for Connacht, as well as more money for Ulster and Munster- it's just more money towards the IRFUs budget for funding the provinces hence it's more of a rising tide that lifts all boats then a direct financial boon to only Leinster.

What the PRL/LNR are asking for is a third of the revenue each, and then a third of the revenue between the four remaining countries. Thats how its seen outside French and English rugby circles. But they don't understand that because of the cultural difference where teams are funded as individual entities as opposed to the money going back to the Union to fund professional rugby in general.

However the disparity in income from Europe is created by the English and French clubs, not anyone else. They choose a model where they have many professional sides. This generates money for the PRL or LNR in that there are more domestic fixtures to sell, but affects income in the European sense because the pie they get has to be divided into smaller pieces- even though it's bigger than what Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy get.

On the other hand the four nations listed above have chosen a system of having fewer professional sides, mainly due to their much smaller playing pool and the smaller pool of fans that comes with a smaller population- this means they can enjoy a larger share of their European profits per team, it's also advantageous in that a large proportion of their international squads are playing together at club level. But it also means they can't sustain domestic leagues in the manner that the french and English can, which is a massive advantage to them. However by pooling their resources into one league they've managed to overcome that obstacle, although the Pro12 has it's own unique challenges.

Essentially, the good decisions made by the Celtic Unions in the structure of their professional game have narrowed the gap in revenue that you'd expect to exist between Europes larger countries and the smaller countries, even whilst our league gives more exposure to our international players. The French/English demands seek to undo much of this by changing the per country distribution of money into a per side distribution but are one-sided in their failure to see that the so-called 'unfairness' is a result of their own decisions when the game went professional. A degree of compromise between the two sides is fair and hopefully thats what we'll get.

That's very clearly laid out Notch although I'm sure that many English and French rugby fans do understand this already - we have been over this ground a few times already after all! I think the main issue is the lack of empathy shown by the various factions and, as you, TJ and Doc (+I'm sure many others) have said the only way forward is compromise on all sides. There does seem to be a whiff of that in the air though now with reports of unions talking and behind the scenes activity. There is woefully little coverage of this though - I bought the Sunday Times today (not my usual choice) but on skimming the sports section can't see any reference to Euro negotiations. Not much on the internet either aside from Guardian and Telegraph... Maybe it is a good sign that things could be going on in private for now at least - I do hope so.

quinsforever wrote:

TJ wrote:At the momnet its 6 places each for england and france, 3 for ireland, 3 for wales, 2 for italy, 2 for scotland.  What possible rational reason can there be for all the  reduction to come from the four countries wiuth the least?  

at the moment its 12 for AP, 14 for LNR and 12 for Rabo. which it will continue to be, and the prl/lnr proposal is the same for each league in terms of qualifies to each competition from each league.

No its not. Its not about leagues. Its about countries The rabo has no places in an european competition - the various unions do

Now again. try to actually answer the question instead of assertions that show your lack of understanding. Or is it simply the PRL proposals are so clearly unfair you cannot justify them?

TJ wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

TJ wrote:At the momnet its 6 places each for england and france, 3 for ireland, 3 for wales, 2 for italy, 2 for scotland.  What possible rational reason can there be for all the  reduction to come from the four countries wiuth the least?  

at the moment its 12 for AP, 14 for LNR and 12 for Rabo. which it will continue to be, and the prl/lnr proposal is the same for each league in terms of qualifies to each competition from each league.

No its not.  Its not about leagues.  Its about countries  The rabo has no places in an  european competition - the various unions do

Now again.  try to actually answer the question instead of assertions that show your lack of understanding.  Or is it simply the PRL proposals are so clearly unfair you cannot justify them?

actually TJ, the unions only have places in the HC (and Amlin) as organised by the ERC. the qualification rules of any new organisation have not been written yet - in fact they are probably being negotiated now.

Now again. try to actually answer the question instead of assertions that show your lack of understanding. Or is it simply the PRL proposals are so clearly unfair you cannot justify them?

either you lack the desire or wit to understand the various point on this TJ. blasting the same post at people who explain something you dont want to hear, sounds remarkably similar to the approach of ERC over the last 18months, and that didnt work out too well for ERC and JP Lux either.

Notch wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Totally, An equal amount for each team in both comps with performance bonus is what the PRL/LNR are proposing. Just goes to show how unfair the money has been split on a per team basis

It's a red herring- the argument is whether the split should be per team or per country.

I would favour per country, as I come from a country whose "clubs" (actually provinces/regions) are integrated with the national side. Ulster and Irelands national team are simply different parts of the same organisation, hence why additional revenue generated by an Irish team for winning the Heineken Cup or going far is split between all the provinces and why we think the success of an Irish team is fairly rewarded by another Irish team (Connacht) getting exposure in the top tier. The success of one Irish province is the success of Irish Rugby in general, not necessarily just down to that province- its a validation of our entire system.

The culture is totally different to England and France, and English and French fans simply don't get it. If Toulon win the Cup, Grenoble don't benefit (unless they finish 7th in the Top14 and qualify for the HEC that way). But if Leinster win, then it means more money and a promotion to the top tier for Connacht, as well as more money for Ulster and Munster- it's just more money towards the IRFUs budget for funding the provinces hence it's more of a rising tide that lifts all boats then a direct financial boon to only Leinster.

What the PRL/LNR are asking for is a third of the revenue each, and then a third of the revenue between the four remaining countries. Thats how its seen outside French and English rugby circles. But they don't understand that because of the cultural difference where teams are funded as individual entities as opposed to the money going back to the Union to fund professional rugby in general.

However the disparity in income from Europe is created by the English and French clubs, not anyone else. They choose a model where they have many professional sides. This generates money for the PRL or LNR in that there are more domestic fixtures to sell, but affects income in the European sense because the pie they get has to be divided into smaller pieces- even though it's bigger than what Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy get.

On the other hand the four nations listed above have chosen a system of having fewer professional sides, mainly due to their much smaller playing pool and the smaller pool of fans that comes with a smaller population- this means they can enjoy a larger share of their European profits per team, it's also advantageous in that a large proportion of their international squads are playing together at club level. But it also means they can't sustain domestic leagues in the manner that the french and English can, which is a massive advantage to them. However by pooling their resources into one league they've managed to overcome that obstacle, although the Pro12 has it's own unique challenges.

Essentially, the good decisions made by the Celtic Unions in the structure of their professional game have narrowed the gap in revenue that you'd expect to exist between Europes larger countries and the smaller countries, even whilst our league gives more exposure to our international players. The French/English demands seek to undo much of this by changing the per country distribution of money into a per side distribution but are one-sided in their failure to see that the so-called 'unfairness' is a result of their own decisions when the game went professional. A degree of compromise between the two sides is fair and hopefully thats what we'll get.

Notch, your second paragraph, I would favour per country, fundamentally RRW do not agree with, that is why there are all those rumours of Welsh defections, any money accrued from the HC TV deal does not come back in total to the Welsh Regions, it goes into the WRU coffers for all of Welsh Rugby. If from the new deal with BT and next seasons deals with Sky and the existing BBC and S4C deals, came in their entirety (sp) to the Regions as your money does, we would be much better off financially. RRW actually had a meeting with the WRU yesterday, it was under the auspices of the PRGB, I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't first on the agenda and debated the longest, I'm just surprised nothing has been leaked yet.

I am trying to get you to answer a simple question. the fact you and others are unable to do so shows the inherent unfairness .

Now its very simple. One question. Can you please answer it.

" why should the 4 countries with the least representation in the HC lose 40% of their places while the 2 countries with the most representation do not lose any?

TJ wrote:I am trying to get you to answer a simple question.  the fact you and others  are unable to do so shows the inherent unfairness .  

Now its very simple.  One question.  Can you please answer it.

" why should the 4 countries with the least representation in the HC lose 40% of their places while the 2 countries with the most representation do not lose any?

very simply, because they dont have the financial clout to stop the changes.

TJ wrote:Yes they do lose representation - at the top table.   and it is about countries not leagues - this is the point you have to understand.  You cannot penalise us for modifying our structures and you cannot disadvantage us for our success.

I am still await a rational explantation as to why this is fair.  the four  countries with the lest representation loose 40% of their representation at the top table, the two countries witht eh most representation lose none.

Can anyone make any logical case for this being fair?

Yes, that's exactly what I said, they lose out at the top tier, but they don't lose out on Europe.

I never said it wasn't about countries, just that the countries won't lose 40%, the league would lose 20-40% and that will translate differently to each of the 4 countries.

As I said, the reasoning is that those 20-40% who would miss out are no better (or in fact are worse) than the English and French sides who also have to miss out on the top tier.

Right - so nothing to do with what is fair, its all about power and money. At least you are honest about the naked greed and hunger for power behind this.

hawalsh wrote:

TJ wrote:Yes they do lose representation - at the top table.   and it is about countries not leagues - this is the point you have to understand.  You cannot penalise us for modifying our structures and you cannot disadvantage us for our success.

I am still await a rational explantation as to why this is fair.  the four  countries with the lest representation loose 40% of their representation at the top table, the two countries witht eh most representation lose none.

Can anyone make any logical case for this being fair?

Yes, that's exactly what I said, they lose out at the top tier, but they don't lose out on Europe.

I never said it wasn't about countries, just that the countries won't lose 40%, the league would lose 20-40% and that will translate differently to each of the 4 countries.

As I said, the reasoning is that those 20-40% who would miss out are no better (or in fact are worse) than the English and French sides who also have to miss out on the top tier.

So WHY IS THIS FAIR? that is the question. why should 4 unions bear the whole brunt of the reduction.