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.

sin, pls stop with the silly points

"Most of the population prefer soccer and if anything despise rugby as they regard it as a posh game."

even if that were true that would still mean rugby players and fans in england could well be 10x that of any celtic nation.

rfu annual report - 2,500,000 people enjoying rugby at 2,000 clubs, 10,000 school and 140 universities

TJ wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

TJ wrote:So actually running deficit financing on a huge scale.  Not self finacing at all - requiring money to be given to them to stay afloat

name one club that is doing that?

Man city.  

You mean man city is running at at a loss(self financing as i have explained means something very different).

The owner is certainly self financing the club!! and if he left tomorrow the club could easily just scale down on the players to stay afloat

Anyway yes they run a loss. But a lot of that foreign money is being sucked up in england thats for sure!! Its still a benefit on the UK economy.

It certainly doesn't make it right though! 

I am very proud of my team palace that we haven't gone mad and are trying to remain self sufficient for the long term,(not looking for short term success) and My second team arsenal is playing lovely football and also are no idiots on the transfer or wages market!

No PL has not help NI from a soccer point of view - what it has done is sucked the life out of Irish and Scottish football. The big clubs signing on youngesters here who show any talent to reach the top at 12/13/14 years of age. We are left with the not good enough semi-pros.

We need to do what we can to avoid the same happening to Rugby.

Capping the number of foreigners in each squad would be a good start.

TJ wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

TJ wrote:So actually running deficit financing on a huge scale.  Not self finacing at all - requiring money to be given to them to stay afloat

name one club that is doing that?

Man city.  

Aren't arsenal the only premiership club with an operating profit? The others all either have big debts or rely on wealthy backers. French rugby is already well down this road and but for the English salary cap I think the PL would be too.

munkian wrote:Rugby is a posh game in Ireland compared to GAA. How many of the Irish Leinster players went to posh schools ?

Its both. Most of the schools in Munster are not private. And quite a few of the 'posh' boys all played GAA to a fairly decent level like Tommy Bowe and Rob Kearney.

I thought Exeter were running a balanced budget as well?

quinsforever wrote:sin, pls stop with the silly points

"Most of the population prefer soccer and if anything despise rugby as they regard it as a posh game."

even if that were true that would still mean rugby players and fans in england could well be 10x that of any celtic nation.

rfu annual report - 2,500,000 people enjoying rugby at 2,000 clubs, 10,000 school and 140 universities

Can you give me the figures for soccer so that I can compare.

mystiroakey wrote:

TJ wrote:Nonsense - many of them run huge deficits

self financing doesn't mean they run a loss or a profit- it means they are self financed!

They are financed by the interest they can glean from the public (fans) and the success they can gain on the field (value).  Irish provinces are financed in the same way.  Interest in and a modicum of 'paying your own way' in value-for-money terms.  It wasn't all that long ago that IRFU were thinking of pulling the plug on Connacht (in reality that still could happen if the rugby business world changes dramatically in the next few years) as the numbers weren't adding up

The IRFU are just a group of 'owners' whilst the individual English clubs have individual 'owners'.  The individual English club owners however have their PRL negotiating for them on a joined-up ticket... ie, as a group of owners.  
So it ain't all that different.  PRL represents more owners in real living and breathing humanbeings, with money in their pockets and opinions on their lips, than IRFU represents.  Don't cry too loudly oakey, them's crocodile tears..

Sin é wrote:

munkian wrote:Rugby is a posh game in Ireland compared to GAA. How many of the Irish Leinster players went to posh schools ?

Its both. Most of the schools in Munster are not private. And quite a few of the 'posh' boys all played GAA to a fairly decent level like Tommy Bowe and Rob Kearney.

Leinster's homeground is full of nouveau riche and has hedges in it, I totes rest my case, roish ?  

TJ wrote:I thought Exeter were running a balanced budget as well?  

and glawster made £300k last year.

avg top14 losses in 2011/12 season were EUR932k per club (with IIRC stade francais having a loss of eur5m?). 3 top14 clubs made money agen, brive, bordeaux

so fairly similar situation to AP on average and thats with a higher salary cap. easy to see why prl/lnr are pushing for an extra eur1million per franglo team as, on average, that would make the leagues profitable or thereabouts.

SecretFly wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

TJ wrote:Nonsense - many of them run huge deficits

self financing doesn't mean they run a loss or a profit- it means they are self financed!

They are financed by the interest they can glean from the public (fans) and the success they can gain on the field (value).  Irish provinces are financed in the same way.  Interest in and a modicum of 'paying your own way' in value-for-money terms.  It wasn't all that long ago that IRFU were thinking of pulling the plug on Connacht (in reality that still could happen if the rugby business world changes dramatically in the next few years) as the numbers weren't adding up

The IRFU are just a group of 'owners' whilst the individual English clubs have individual 'owners'.  The individual English club owners however have their PRL negotiating for them on a joined-up ticket... ie, as a group of owners.  
So it ain't all that different.  PRL represents more owners in real living and breathing humanbeings, with money in their pockets and opinions on their lips, than IRFU represents.  Don't cry too loudly oakey, them's crocodile tears..

If either one of those clubs run at a loss and had issues- would they not get bailed out by the irfu? which is basically then having to take money out of the international pot?

Its all well and good talking about this stuff, but you have to actually understand the difference and the consequences!!

NZ would be a perfect example of the problems that can occur- They make a lot out of the international game but run a massive loss domestically- which is subsidised by their international pot.

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:sin, pls stop with the silly points

"Most of the population prefer soccer and if anything despise rugby as they regard it as a posh game."

even if that were true that would still mean rugby players and fans in england could well be 10x that of any celtic nation.

rfu annual report - 2,500,000 people enjoying rugby at 2,000 clubs, 10,000 school and 140 universities

Can you give me the figures for soccer so that I can compare.

no-one apart from u is comparing soccer to rugby in terms of number of participants or money generated with a country. everyone else is comparing rugby in england to rugby elsewhere. thats why i gave you the numbers. the relevant question you should be asking is how does this compare to my own country, and how do the viewing audiences compare.

What's the IRB definition of 'self-financing'??? What can you include as legitimate income? Gate receipts presumably. Bar takings? Jersey sales? TV money? Union subsidies? Benefactor donations?

Where can one find the rules on what defines a profitable club, as opposed to one being propped up by windfall cash?

OK. Bored of my Dad is bigger than your Dad and all the endless "Facts"

I'm hijacking this thread.

Here's a nice recipe for Pancakes.... Which I think we can all agree is a nice tasty treat.

Ingredients
135g/4¾oz plain flour

1 tsp baking powder

½ tsp salt

2 tbsp caster sugar

130ml/4½fl oz milk

1 large egg, lightly beaten

2 tbsp melted butter (allowed to cool slightly) or olive oil, plus extra for cooking

To serve
Maple syrup

Butter

Preparation method
1.Sift the flour, baking powder, salt and caster sugar into a large bowl. In a separate bowl or jug, lightly whisk together the milk and egg, then whisk in the melted butter.

2.Pour the milk mixture into the flour mixture and, using a fork, beat until you have a smooth batter. Any lumps will soon disappear with a little mixing. Let the batter stand for a few minutes.

3.Heat a non-stick frying pan over a medium heat and add a knob of butter. When it's melted, add a ladle of batter (or two if your frying pan is big enough to cook two pancakes at the same time). It will seem very thick but this is how it should be. Wait until the top of the pancake begins to bubble, then turn it over and cook until both sides are golden brown and the pancake has risen to about 1cm (½in) thick.

4.Repeat until all the batter is used up. You can keep the pancakes warm in a low oven, but they taste best fresh out the pan.

5.Serve with lashings of real maple syrup and extra butter if you like.

Now argue about that.

mystiroakey wrote:
NZ would be a perfect example of the problems that can occur- They make a lot out of the international game but run a massive loss domestically- which is subsidised by their international pot.

That's exactly how it works in Ireland, and its a good way for the game because it means the power lies with a body/group who's interests and responsibilities lie at all levels of the game from grassroots to international, rather than with one who's interests start and end with ensuring its own existence and maximising its own financial gain.

newsflash...sort of...

Welsh clubs want more cash to break away
ESPN Staff
October 14, 2013
Welsh teams are set to ask for a bigger share of the spoils in return for ditching the Heineken Cup and throwing in their lot with the breakaway Champions' Cup according to a report in the Rugby Paper.

As it stands, projected income will only leave the clubs around £100,000 better off than they are in the current system - the paper estimates they get £1.3 million now - and it is felt that their as their participation is a key part of making the new event credible, they should get more of the income.

The English and French clubs leading the breakaway will make around £1.7 million each from the new competition and it is expected the Welsh will ask for the same when talks resume this week.

It is looking increasingly likely the Celtic unions will agree to back the new competition rather than be left with the shell of the Heineken Cup as it stands.

The Rugby Paper quoted an unnamed English source as saying "there is a reluctant acceptance of what we are doing … [there is a] realisation that what we are proposing is not as revolutionary as it sounds.

"The Unions might now recognise that this new competition is beneficial to everyone. There will be significantly more for all the competing teams."

who is to say that your batter is batter than my batter ?

 Agree with me otherwise I'll batter you

Casartelli wrote:What's the IRB definition of 'self-financing'???  What can you include as legitimate income?  Gate receipts presumably.  Bar takings?  Jersey sales?  TV money?  Union subsidies?  Benefactor donations?

Where can one find the rules on what defines a profitable club, as opposed to one being propped up by windfall cash?

well for me self financing is just a private entity not public,

But maybe within the IRB  the logic its very different.

Fact is in football the teams are separate entities and are self financed theoretically- profit or nonprofit.
Certain sporting leagues out there are purely there for the benefit of the game and are financed by the union or government(we could even include english cricket into this as well) The english domestic cricket comps are very much there for the benefit of international cricket and are helped out by the ECB

But yes it is very important that however something is 'financed' that it can deal with the worst case scenario and many sporting teams out there are on a tightrope!!

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:sin, pls stop with the silly points

"Most of the population prefer soccer and if anything despise rugby as they regard it as a posh game."

even if that were true that would still mean rugby players and fans in england could well be 10x that of any celtic nation.

rfu annual report - 2,500,000 people enjoying rugby at 2,000 clubs, 10,000 school and 140 universities

Can you give me the figures for soccer so that I can compare.

no-one apart from u is comparing soccer to rugby in terms of number of participants or money generated with a country. everyone else is comparing rugby in england to rugby elsewhere. thats why i gave you the numbers. the relevant question you should be asking is how does this compare to my own country, and how do the viewing audiences compare.

I didn't try and compare them, you did. I just made the point that most the population of England have abolutely no interest in watching rugby live or on tv because their main interest is soccer.

Personally I enjoy watching the transfers more than the actual game that is played in England.

Look Metal Tiger...there ain't not big deal in making a pancake.

Now decide how you're going to divide one amongst a family consisting of a big rough basteraud of a dad... with hair not only in his nostrils but on his eyelids.... the momma who likes to dress in expensive clothes and go out shopping without her wedding ring, the large for her age 13 year old girl, the small for his age 16 year old runt, the loud mouthed baby who cries for food all the time and the under-fed cat!!

They all have to feel equally satisfied that they got their 'fair' share of the pancake ........

geoff998rugby wrote: Agree with me otherwise I'll batter you

i could take u on any day pieze of  (with batter)

some interesting facts from a french article over the weekend:

THis w/end saw some impressive TV stats eg

-1.3m tv hits by Frnce 2 on Castres/Saints match
-Expected >2M expected for Toulon match

-France Televisions (public/free to air) quoted as only interested in an Euro competition agreed by IRB and also threatening a switch to other Sports eg Basket (there' some pique by FT because of format of current TV renegotiation content and process)

-Mentions that BT have suggested that there was room for 2 TV company involvement

-Goze quoted as saying that nothing will stop RCC and to expect a press conference launch announcement in early Nov.

-Goze states that they will not attend the 23 Oct meeting and have the support of the Club Presidents (the PRL are not attending either)

SecretFly wrote:Look Metal Tiger...there ain't not big deal in making a pancake.

Now decide how you're going to divide one amongst a family consisting of a big rough basteraud of a dad... with hair not only in his nostrils but on his eyelids.... the momma who likes to dress in expensive clothes and go out shopping without her wedding ring, the large for her age 13 year old girl, the small for his age 16 year old runt, the loud mouthed baby who cries for food all the time and the under-fed cat!!

They all have to feel equally satisfied that they got their 'fair' share of the pancake ........

obviously, a third for daddy, a third for mommy, and let the rest fight for the remaining third and see who wins

quinsforever wrote:

The Rugby Paper quoted an unnamed English source as saying "there is a reluctant acceptance of what we are doing … [there is a] realisation that what we are proposing is not as revolutionary as it sounds.

"The Unions might now recognise that this new competition is beneficial to everyone. There will be significantly more for all the competing teams."

It sounds a sweet yet plaintive song of hope for that poor unnamed English lad............. an unnamed Welsh lad said "we've changed our mind again.  Our heart is with our Celtic enemies...until we get 1.9 million each too  ."

would certainly be more entertaining than watching rabo matches:boxing: 

We save the entertainment for English clubs... AP spreads around the entertainment too liberally. By the time the entertainment means something, they're jacked.

rodders wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:
NZ would be a perfect example of the problems that can occur- They make a lot out of the international game but run a massive loss domestically- which is subsidised by their international pot.

That's exactly how it works in Ireland, and its a good way for the game because it means the power lies with a body/group who's interests and responsibilities lie at all levels of the game from grassroots to international, rather than with one who's interests start and end with ensuring its own existence and maximising its own financial gain.

It is fine but the NZRU threw a paddy last year because it wanted more of the POT generated by the International game. Which in fairness isn't really fair. There excuses was that they couldn't afford to tour anymore and that they can't afford to show up at the 2015 RWC!!(but the key to note is that there international game made big money)

its just it is being sucked up domestically. They then win because they have the international muscle- so they can keep up the grass roots in NZ at the cost of spreading the game further around the globe!!

nice balanced  article from brian moore today in torygraph:

Saying we need Europe is not the same as saying we need European Rugby Cup to organise it
Everyone knows that these continental competitions are vital, but that should not mean they are inviolate

When is a European Cup competition not a European Cup competition?
Well, seemingly when it is not exactly the same as one presently run by European Rugby Cup.
As expected, European club cup rugby provided its usual fare of high intensity, sometimes, thrilling rugby and in one case, Exeter Chiefs v Cardiff Blues, a most extraordinarily and weird game involving 10 tries.
It was apparent that the level was higher than in any domestic club competition and for some this was evidence that only in its present incarnation could this sort of stepping stone between club and international rugby be provided.
Nobody disputes the necessity for this as preparation for international rugby, but to make its existence a conclusive argument for no change in its composition is simply strange.

It was probably inevitable, though a bit desperate, that even after just one round of games all manner of fanciful and ill-considered comments would be made about the furore over the future of the Heineken Cup and Amlin Cup competitions.
Many in social and print media were quick to mock the contribution of the English clubs, which was uneven, and the following win-loss ratios were returned in the Heineken – France 5-2, England 3-3, Ireland 2-2, Scotland 1-1, Wales 1-2, Italy 0-2.
Make your mind up people, either the English clubs bring little and thus you must be indifferent to their cessation or they are essential and you have to deal with their concerns.
There has been much made by acolytes lauding ERC for its masterful stewardship of European cup rugby but this fails to understand what actually makes the competitions a success.
The quality of the teams and their commercial broadcasting value are the only things that matter to those who pay.
Any competition involving the current teams would have been a commercial success, whether run by ERC or another body.
Do you honestly believe that broadcasters care a jot about what body administrates their product?
And while we are considering ERC’s administration consider this – if you have a European business (and ERC is a business not a parliament) of six national divisions and two of them are unhappy, especially the one from which most revenue comes, what do you do?
Do you sit down immediately and find a solution or do you effectively say: “We are not changing and if you don’t like it – leave?”
When those two divisions formally tell you they are leaving in two years’ time, do you immediately convene urgent meetings to find a compromise or do you wait until the last minute, after they have made other business arrangements, to indicate that you might consider their suggestions?
Whatever spin comes from ERC that is how, de facto, they have dealt with this. How competent is that?
It has been reported that the Celts and Italians will be meeting the Rugby Football Union this week, ready to make concessions in line with the Anglo-French proposals – a meritocratic qualification process and an equal division of money between the Aviva Premiership, Top 14 and RaboDirect Pro12 leagues.
This could have been done years ago and yet it now comes at this late hour when they have finally realised the consequences of inaction.
Everyone wants European rugby, the question is how it is formed – and that is a matter of degree, not principle.
Never forget that there are other motivations working in the background of this debate.
Many individuals are protecting their jobs at ERC. Some may be employed by an alternative administrator, but some high-profile and well-paid people will not.
The French clubs and their union are in dispute over the latter’s usurpation of the former’s power by use of an ancient French statute that effectively means the clubs cannot make their own unfettered decisions.
The friction between the Celtic unions and the RFU has repercussions for their relationships within the Six Nations.
This is about money and power as well as rugby, and it should be acknowledged by everyone that this is the case for all parties, not just the English and French clubs.
Some are choosing to frame this in terms of democracy, when it is no more or less than business, where that lofty principle does not apply.
But, if we are talking democracy, why not extend the competitions to include more of the northern hemisphere, with qualification from subsidiary competitions giving far more countries, provinces or clubs a chance to climb the ladder?
Why not also develop international rugby by creating several levels of tournaments with, ultimately, promotion and relegation to and from the Six Nations? Or would that be a bit too democratic for the cosy northern hemisphere elite?

mystiroakey wrote:

rodders wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:
NZ would be a perfect example of the problems that can occur- They make a lot out of the international game but run a massive loss domestically- which is subsidised by their international pot.

That's exactly how it works in Ireland, and its a good way for the game because it means the power lies with a body/group who's interests and responsibilities lie at all levels of the game from grassroots to international, rather than with one who's interests start and end with ensuring its own existence and maximising its own financial gain.

It is fine but the NZRU threw a paddy last year because it wanted more of the POT generated by the International game. Which in fairness isn't really fair. There excuses was that they couldn't afford to tour anymore and that they can't afford to show up at the 2015 RWC!!(but the key to note is that there international game made big money)

its just it is being sucked up domestically. They then win because they have the international muscle- so they can keep up the grass roots in NZ at the cost of spreading the game further around the globe!!

What's your point in all this oakey?

Is NZ rugby run badly or is Irish rugby run criminally or is English rugby run dreadfully? I'm losing the comparisons you're trying to make on this privately run club v Union subsidised thing. Surely, it's simply that you run your rugby your way and others run it their way.

quinsforever wrote:newsflash...sort of...

Welsh clubs want more cash to break away
ESPN Staff
October 14, 2013
Welsh teams are set to ask for a bigger share of the spoils in return for ditching the Heineken Cup and throwing in their lot with the breakaway Champions' Cup according to a report in the Rugby Paper.

As it stands, projected income will only leave the clubs around £100,000 better off than they are in the current system - the paper estimates they get £1.3 million now - and it is felt that their as their participation is a key part of making the new event credible, they should get more of the income.

The English and French clubs leading the breakaway will make around £1.7 million each from the new competition and it is expected the Welsh will ask for the same when talks resume this week.

It is looking increasingly likely the Celtic unions will agree to back the new competition rather than be left with the shell of the Heineken Cup as it stands.

The Rugby Paper quoted an unnamed English source as saying "there is a reluctant acceptance of what we are doing … [there is a] realisation that what we are proposing is not as revolutionary as it sounds.

"The Unions might now recognise that this new competition is beneficial to everyone. There will be significantly more for all the competing teams."

I think they were also demanding some of the pool matches from the 2019 RWC to be played in Millenium Stadium.........

SecretFly wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

rodders wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:
NZ would be a perfect example of the problems that can occur- They make a lot out of the international game but run a massive loss domestically- which is subsidised by their international pot.

That's exactly how it works in Ireland, and its a good way for the game because it means the power lies with a body/group who's interests and responsibilities lie at all levels of the game from grassroots to international, rather than with one who's interests start and end with ensuring its own existence and maximising its own financial gain.

It is fine but the NZRU threw a paddy last year because it wanted more of the POT generated by the International game. Which in fairness isn't really fair. There excuses was that they couldn't afford to tour anymore and that they can't afford to show up at the 2015 RWC!!(but the key to note is that there international game made big money)

its just it is being sucked up domestically. They then win because they have the international muscle- so they can keep up the grass roots in NZ at the cost of spreading the game further around the globe!!

What's your point in all this oakey?

Is NZ rugby run badly or is Irish rugby run criminally or is English rugby run dreadfully?  I'm losing the comparisons you're trying to make on this privately run club v Union subsidised thing.  Surely, it's simply that you run your rugby your way and others run it their way.

English rugby is more meritocratized. And more coefficient. And thus better. And thus deserves more money. And more decision making power over countries that don't add as much value to European rugby.

SecretFly wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

rodders wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:
NZ would be a perfect example of the problems that can occur- They make a lot out of the international game but run a massive loss domestically- which is subsidised by their international pot.

That's exactly how it works in Ireland, and its a good way for the game because it means the power lies with a body/group who's interests and responsibilities lie at all levels of the game from grassroots to international, rather than with one who's interests start and end with ensuring its own existence and maximising its own financial gain.

It is fine but the NZRU threw a paddy last year because it wanted more of the POT generated by the International game. Which in fairness isn't really fair. There excuses was that they couldn't afford to tour anymore and that they can't afford to show up at the 2015 RWC!!(but the key to note is that there international game made big money)

its just it is being sucked up domestically. They then win because they have the international muscle- so they can keep up the grass roots in NZ at the cost of spreading the game further around the globe!!

What's your point in all this oakey?

Is NZ rugby run badly or is Irish rugby run criminally or is English rugby run dreadfully?  I'm losing the comparisons you're trying to make on this privately run club v Union subsidised thing.  Surely, it's simply that you run your rugby your way and others run it their way.

people think that club rugby should be about the international game therefore be run by the respective unions.

This is a fallacy because if clubs were actually run more like football rugby would grow around the globe and aid the international game- just not the ones currently involved that are just fighting over there right to the piece of the apple turnover that is created,
 
If clubs/leagues come in and start ruling the game and utilise players from all over and we have proper marketing we will get more and more countries into the game and it will actually grow the game. Yes the unions today that are involved in the game will get a smaller piece of the pie. But that pie has now just turned into a Monster Show piece BAKE off final cake!!(from the show the great british bake off)

Funny how Brian Moore can pretend he's speaking from outside a particular 'camp' as a frustrated 'neutral' as it were; and yet by his references and his little side-kicks and his tone when mentioning the English bit of the equation...................

well, let's just say "Hello Brian.... glad to see you're still firmly in the English PRL 'camp'...just where I'd expect to see you and no harm done at all repeating your preference"

Sin é wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

TJ wrote:So actually running deficit financing on a huge scale.  Not self finacing at all - requiring money to be given to them to stay afloat

name one club that is doing that?

Pretty much most of the England teams are running at a deficit. Only ones not are Leicester & Northampton. Sarries lost 4.5m last season.

Been through this a number of times been accused of lying by writing the exact same thing you are.

The other club not in the red is Exeter. French league is in a worse state. Even Toulouse lost money last year.

The question is simple

Do you want rugby to grow?

Or do you want your team to get more of the limited pie we currently have?

mystiroakey wrote:The question is simple

Do you want rugby to grow?

Or do you want your team to get more of the limited pie we currently have?

Well actually that's two questions....

If only it was Rodders

mystiroakey wrote:people think that club rugby should be about the international game therefore be run by the respective unions.

This is a fallacy because if clubs were actually run more like football rugby would grow around the globe and aid the international game- just not the ones currently involved that are just fighting over there right to the piece of the apple turnover that is created,
 
If clubs/leagues come in and start ruling the game and utilise players from all over and we have proper marketing we will get more and more countries into the game and it will actually grow the game. Yes the unions today that are involved in the game will get a smaller piece of the pie. But that pie has now just turned into a Monster Show piece BAKE off final cake!!(from the show the great british bake off)

A league is a League.  It doesn't run anything.  PRL negotiates for teams within the APL.... and it can do so because it is in the one Nation.  English clubs allow PRL to negotiate for them because they are all English clubs in it.  Had English clubs been involved in a Pro12 type League (just as legitimate as a one nation league!) I wonder would they be ready to give up some HC places to their Pro12 colleagues in Italy or Scotland?  Huh?

So, it's easy to see Leagues controlling 'club' rugby in Europe when your experience is of a very limited one-Nation league to begin with.  AP league control is 'English' control.  Stop making excuses, that's the only reason you like the present power struggle - it might mean your national league calls the shots in Europe to a greater degree than before, and that pleases you because you're.......English.

On your Utopia view of Rugby extending throughout the wyold....and International rugby growing because of it.  That would have nothing at all to do with the juicy prospect of more developing rugby nations to draw players from, to fill the AP teams with, and also a few choice exotic lads being Naturalised for England International too to get you back on terms with them awful shower down in Zealand??

You're like Brian I'm afraid.  You believe fully that England will be part of any new all inclusive world religion of club rugby...and therefore you don't rightly care about the small fry trying to survive the end that is nigh (them Celts and things!). You'll have our players in your clubs by then anyway...just like it used to be in the good ol' days. 

You don't honestly care about us - but we do.... thus the continuing boardroom fight.  
We don't fall for silly tricks and "it's more money for everyone of us, lads!" tripe.  It is a power struggle - Moore is right.  That's all it is.  The grandiose stuff about growin' the sport across the world like those football fellas do is crap.  It's the here and the now and everyone wants a fair piece of that here and now.

i put the "growing the game internationally" argument and the "unions are fighting for the soul of rugby" argument on the same shelf marked - "attempts to take the moral high ground".

You are right SF. I know if rugby goes fully global within a free market structure . I know that the english league will be massive.. I am not denying it. If I was welsh or scottish however I would be sticking very close to the english and try and get the teams in before its to late!

quinsforever wrote:i put the "growing the game internationally" argument and the "unions are fighting for the soul of rugby" argument on the same shelf marked - "attempts to take the moral high ground".

Correct.

quinsforever wrote:nice balanced  article from brian moore today in torygraph:

Saying we need Europe is not the same as saying we need European Rugby Cup to organise it
Everyone knows that these continental competitions are vital, but that should not mean they are inviolate

When is a European Cup competition not a European Cup competition?
Well, seemingly when it is not exactly the same as one presently run by European Rugby Cup.
As expected, European club cup rugby provided its usual fare of high intensity, sometimes, thrilling rugby and in one case, Exeter Chiefs v Cardiff Blues, a most extraordinarily and weird game involving 10 tries.
It was apparent that the level was higher than in any domestic club competition and for some this was evidence that only in its present incarnation could this sort of stepping stone between club and international rugby be provided.
Nobody disputes the necessity for this as preparation for international rugby, but to make its existence a conclusive argument for no change in its composition is simply strange.

It was probably inevitable, though a bit desperate, that even after just one round of games all manner of fanciful and ill-considered comments would be made about the furore over the future of the Heineken Cup and Amlin Cup competitions.
Many in social and print media were quick to mock the contribution of the English clubs, which was uneven, and the following win-loss ratios were returned in the Heineken – France 5-2, England 3-3, Ireland 2-2, Scotland 1-1, Wales 1-2, Italy 0-2.
Make your mind up people, either the English clubs bring little and thus you must be indifferent to their cessation or they are essential and you have to deal with their concerns.
There has been much made by acolytes lauding ERC for its masterful stewardship of European cup rugby but this fails to understand what actually makes the competitions a success.
The quality of the teams and their commercial broadcasting value are the only things that matter to those who pay.
Any competition involving the current teams would have been a commercial success, whether run by ERC or another body.
Do you honestly believe that broadcasters care a jot about what body administrates their product?
And while we are considering ERC’s administration consider this – if you have a European business (and ERC is a business not a parliament) of six national divisions and two of them are unhappy, especially the one from which most revenue comes, what do you do?
Do you sit down immediately and find a solution or do you effectively say: “We are not changing and if you don’t like it – leave?”
When those two divisions formally tell you they are leaving in two years’ time, do you immediately convene urgent meetings to find a compromise or do you wait until the last minute, after they have made other business arrangements, to indicate that you might consider their suggestions?
Whatever spin comes from ERC that is how, de facto, they have dealt with this. How competent is that?
It has been reported that the Celts and Italians will be meeting the Rugby Football Union this week, ready to make concessions in line with the Anglo-French proposals – a meritocratic qualification process and an equal division of money between the Aviva Premiership, Top 14 and RaboDirect Pro12 leagues.
This could have been done years ago and yet it now comes at this late hour when they have finally realised the consequences of inaction.
Everyone wants European rugby, the question is how it is formed – and that is a matter of degree, not principle.
Never forget that there are other motivations working in the background of this debate.
Many individuals are protecting their jobs at ERC. Some may be employed by an alternative administrator, but some high-profile and well-paid people will not.
The French clubs and their union are in dispute over the latter’s usurpation of the former’s power by use of an ancient French statute that effectively means the clubs cannot make their own unfettered decisions.
The friction between the Celtic unions and the RFU has repercussions for their relationships within the Six Nations.
This is about money and power as well as rugby, and it should be acknowledged by everyone that this is the case for all parties, not just the English and French clubs.
Some are choosing to frame this in terms of democracy, when it is no more or less than business, where that lofty principle does not apply.
But, if we are talking democracy, why not extend the competitions to include more of the northern hemisphere, with qualification from subsidiary competitions giving far more countries, provinces or clubs a chance to climb the ladder?
Why not also develop international rugby by creating several levels of tournaments with, ultimately, promotion and relegation to and from the Six Nations? Or would that be a bit too democratic for the cosy northern hemisphere elite?

I agree with every word of Pitbull's analysis. Professional rugby is what it says on the tin. It's no more than a money-grubbing enterprise than it is a charity or a League of Nations reincarnate.

I agree particularly with his comments that the 6Ns effectively represents not just rugby but the overall desperate cartel to insulate the game from external competition. It's not sport. It's not a matter of ethics or morality.

It's a matter of collective or individual self-interest driven by business.

Is the End in sight for this discussion?  

"It's a matter of collective or individual self-interest"




spot on - But a very short sighted outlook as well.


Let the game grow and align yourself with the right nations and they will make even more!! so stop the fighting over pennies.. Lets take this game global!

and yes i 100% agree with Brian

mystiroakey wrote:"It's a matter of collective or individual self-interest"




spot on - But a very short sighted outlook as well.


Let the game grow and align yourself with the right nations and they will make even more!! so stop the fighting over pennies.. Lets take this game global!

so if you want that then you want to make sure that as many nations have leagues playing professional rugby as possible.

not less. 

Once other nations consumers start turning into their latest player playing in the "GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND SUPER DUPER CHAMPIONS OF AWESOMENESS RUGBY UNION LEAGUE" more and more fans will come of the back of it,, they will then start playing it in more schools and eventually countries that can self sustain a league will eventually get a pro league on the go.

mystiroakey wrote:and yes i 100% agree with Brian

All pie in the sky - BM is clueless - how can the Unions develop rugby further, if most of the funds will be grabbed by the greedy English & French club owners.

Sin é wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:and yes i 100% agree with Brian

All pie in the sky - BM is clueless - how can the Unions develop rugby further, if most of the funds will be grabbed by the greedy English & French club owners.

zzzzzzzz etc....