End In Sight To Euro Mess (Pt. 2)

First topic message reminder :

Munchkin wrote:

Notch wrote:Wouldn't be too interested in Toulon helping keep the dying ERC competitions alive.

Whats better from an Irish/Celtic point of view-

a) Toulon help the Heineken Cup survive but continue their wild spending unchecked
b) ERC competitions are dropped, new 20 team competitions start including Celtic sides, the LNR imposes strict financial penalties on teams who rely exclusively on expensive imports.

For me b) may see the status quo change in a way which is not necessarily in our favour, but it will still allow the Irish provinces to be major powers in Europe on and off the field with the right management in both areas.

But without the culture of charismatic super-rich chairmen buying up talent from elsewhere changing in France we may not be able to keep our best players in Ireland. The likes of Boudjellal and their millions are a bigger threat to us than reform of European competitions.

He can sling his hook in conclusion. Most other sides in the competition have some kind of identity with many homegrown players. His side of imported superstars shouldn't be allowed to become the new normal.

Why is choice restricted to either (a) or (b)? What about (a), but with the Unions imposing those same penalties on clubs breaking whatever foreign player cap?

because, if you read boudjellal's statement, the reason he is saying he will join HC is because there are no caps or quotas in the HC.

Double their share of the income from the european cup:roll: 

So a case of do as we say not as we do from the Rabo Unions
I have put many proposals forward, even to the extent that many moons ago an agreement was reached between Scarletspiderman & myself

mystiroakey wrote:

TJ wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:TJ you want financial support for the smaller unions yet Italy has to pay to be in the Rabo. How is that fair?

Its not.  But what is that to do with the european cup?

Do you want only the English and french to be competitive and an end to pro rugby in Scotland and italy?

Rather than going round in circles continually how about some positive thoughts on solutions?

some of us have tried but you just call it nonsense.

I think the point is to forget about how it was done,, But to imagine its a completely new thing and we start from scratch today. What's the fair way of going about this cup?

The teams that are inthe part of it that generates the income get equal shares. the second teir get a smaller share as they generate less income. How about 2 shares votes adn finacially to the top tier, one to the second teir?

Toohey wrote:

TJ wrote:Nope - just to ensure that the relative financial positions are not changed too much in favour of the english and french.  If the english and french clubs more than double their income and the rest get less or the same as they have now ( as the PRL proposals state)  the rest will be priced out of the market for players with disastrous consequences for the game in Italy and Scotland.  We can barely compete financially as it is now.  

mystiroakey - they do not, never have and won't in the future.  You have to accept the european cup is what produces the money - not the English and french clubs  Continuing with that nonsense is daft.  without strong teams from other countries there is no european cup.

So what about if they manage to do this outside European competition?  For example if they doubled their crowds, or got apple as a new sponsor for their domestic league?  Should they turn people away at the gate and tell apple to shove their money as this wouldn't be fair on the rabo teams?

You can't claim you want a meritocratic competition and then say "but obviously, in any new competition, the big sponsorship money and best players will be syphoned up by the clubs with the largest fanbase based on biggest population density."

And it's all finally bloomin' fair dinkum!!!!!!!!!

No it ain't.  That's a mafia run cartel.

TJ wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

TJ wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:TJ you want financial support for the smaller unions yet Italy has to pay to be in the Rabo. How is that fair?

Its not.  But what is that to do with the european cup?

Do you want only the English and french to be competitive and an end to pro rugby in Scotland and italy?

Rather than going round in circles continually how about some positive thoughts on solutions?

some of us have tried but you just call it nonsense.

I think the point is to forget about how it was done,, But to imagine its a completely new thing and we start from scratch today. What's the fair way of going about this cup?

The teams that are inthe part of it that generates the income get equal shares.  the second teir get a smaller share as they generate less income.  How about 2 shares votes adn finacially to the top tier, one to the second teir?

I would be perfectly happy with that, but we do need to keep an eye on getting the best teams in to the top cup! if that meant less PRL clubs i would be fine with that, but on the flip side if that meant both italian teams went into the tier 2 cup then thats life as well.

I also think tier 2 cup competitors should receive at least 60% of what HC competitors do otherwise it makes things too hard for those teams to get better! so although we may lose italian clubs from the top cup- they may be able to drag themselves back into it. 

Happy with the voting as well. you earn an extra vote for being better

broadlandboy wrote:TJ you want financial support for the smaller unions yet Italy has to pay to be in the Rabo. How is that fair?

Travelling expenses are enormous, it would be much easier to ignore them. The Rabo teams don't have sugar daddies like the PRL & PRL.

Why didn't the French take them into one of their Leagues. It would have been way handier for everyone.

Sin é wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:TJ you want financial support for the smaller unions yet Italy has to pay to be in the Rabo. How is that fair?

Travelling expenses are enormous, it would be much easier to ignore them. The Rabo teams don't have sugar daddies like the PRL & PRL.

Why didn't the French take them into one of their Leagues. It would have been way handier for everyone.

hey! Not all teams have a sugar daddy!

broadlandboy wrote:So a case of do as we say not as we do from the Rabo Unions

How on earth do yo work that out? its simple nonsense. the double standards are incredible as are the logical distortions from the PRL apologists.

The PRL claim that they are subsidising the Rabo teams despite no money changing hands and all unions getting equal shares of the pot generated by the HC at the same time they justify this because they subsidise the bottom six clubs in the AP with a direct transfer of money.

If you want only the French and English to be competitive and an end to pro rugby in Scotland and Italy then support the PRL. If you want a european cup that is competitive and fair for all then a compromise is needed. the rabo unions have accepted a new deal is needed as the competition grows and develops. However this cannot be done in such a way as to ruin the cup.

i am sick and tired of the might is right and utter nonsense posted by PRL apologists. I will leave you to it.

mystiroakey wrote:

TJ wrote:The teams that are inthe part of it that generates the income get equal shares.  the second teir get a smaller share as they generate less income.  How about 2 shares votes adn finacially to the top tier, one to the second teir?

I would be perfectly happy with that, but we do need to keep an eye on getting the best teams in to the top cup! if that meant less PRL clubs i would be fine with that, but on the flip side if that meant both italian teams went into the tier 2 cup then thats life as well.

I also think tier 2 cup competitors should receive at least 60% of what HC competitors do otherwise it makes things too hard for those teams to get better! so although we may lose italian clubs from the top cup- they may be able to drag themselves back into it. 

Happy with the voting as well. you earn an extra vote for being better

 

It would be a compromise and the English clubs would get more than they have now but less than they are demanding. I think some sort of weighting like this could be the answer.

Doesn't wash Sin as the Italians have further to travel to their away matches(apart from the other Italian team) so by your reaconing they should recieve help.

Sin é wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:TJ you want financial support for the smaller unions yet Italy has to pay to be in the Rabo. How is that fair?

Travelling expenses are enormous, it would be much easier to ignore them. The Rabo teams don't have sugar daddies like the PRL & PRL.

Why didn't the French take them into one of their Leagues. It would have been way handier for everyone.

They're not French. We're told the 'nationality' of the AP and Top14 is not important as the clubs are privately run entities. They say they can't understand the fretting Pro12 sides do about their Independent National identities.

The truth, however, is that Top14 and the lesser leagues are French by definition, not by accident. And I'm sure they want it to remain that way.

are we getting somewhere TJ?

SecretFly wrote:

Toohey wrote:

TJ wrote:Nope - just to ensure that the relative financial positions are not changed too much in favour of the english and french.  If the english and french clubs more than double their income and the rest get less or the same as they have now ( as the PRL proposals state)  the rest will be priced out of the market for players with disastrous consequences for the game in Italy and Scotland.  We can barely compete financially as it is now.  

mystiroakey - they do not, never have and won't in the future.  You have to accept the european cup is what produces the money - not the English and french clubs  Continuing with that nonsense is daft.  without strong teams from other countries there is no european cup.

So what about if they manage to do this outside European competition?  For example if they doubled their crowds, or got apple as a new sponsor for their domestic league?  Should they turn people away at the gate and tell apple to shove their money as this wouldn't be fair on the rabo teams?

You can't claim you want a meritocratic competition and then say "but obviously, in any new competition, the big sponsorship money and best players will be syphoned up by the clubs with the largest fanbase based on biggest population density."

And it's all finally bloomin' fair dinkum!!!!!!!!!

No it ain't.  That's a mafia run cartel.

You might want to try to read and comprehend what I have actually written rather that just trying to find something that will make you angry.

The point is that the only argument I have heard against an equal distribution if revenue between leagues, where in financial terms the amounts will be no lower for the rabo unions than it would be under the old arrangement, is that it is not fair that the French and English get more money than they did before.  Despite each team in the Aviva and top 14 in effectively getting the same as the Rabo teams which to me seems the epitome of fair (Yes I know it was unions blah blah blah).

If you have a better reason why this is unfair let me hear it but if not my original point stands that TJ must also be against the English or French increasing their revenues in any other way?

On a slight slant - and to lighten the debate.

I hear the term "Deserve" used a lot to state who should or should not be in the comp. If so I vote for Exeter to be the number one team and the most deserving for a number of reasons.
1) they have built a competitive team without running a deficit.
2) they have played the most entertaining rugby so far this year with their willingness to run from everywhere against the blues
3) they are a real team built not bought
4) I believe they have a really good community engagement
5) their fans are the most entertaining I hve met with the headdresses and the drumming and chants

Which teams do you think deserve to be in the european cup on entertainment, rugby values and colourful fans? Remeber Rugby is an entertainment business.

Of course, if we forget the leagues, and racked pool points up simply by a well-constructed league/Euro overall seasonal performance calculator, the qualifiers could be picked off from the best of the top twenty (or better, 24) sides and stick them into EC/CC etc.

Preferably into eight pools of three on a winner takes all basis for progression into h/a QF and SFs before going to Rome for the final.

how about just an x factor vote off?

TJ wrote:On a slight slant - and to lighten the debate.

I hear the term "Deserve" used a lot to state who should or should not be in the comp.    If so I vote for Exeter to be the number one team and the most deserving for a number of reasons.
1) they have built a competitive team without running  a deficit.
2) they have played the most entertaining rugby so far this year with their willingness to run from everywhere against the blues
3) they are a real team built not bought
4) I believe they have a really good community engagement
5) their fans are the most entertaining I hve met with the headdresses and the drumming and chants

Which teams do you think deserve to be in the european cup on entertainment, rugby values and colourful fans?  Remeber Rugby is an entertainment business.

One correction.

The Exeter 1st 15 is almost entirely bought. Only one of the team that played the Cardiff Blues was homegrown and therefore although they generate a financial surplus they employ the same model as toulon although on a 3rd of the budget.

Exeter rely on other clubs and nations to run academies that produce their players. They are making a surplus from others hard work.

The welsh academies alone for example have provided them with Tom James, Damien Welch, Craig Mitchell, Ceri Sweeney and Phil Dolman.

I don't therefore believe that Exeter deserve to be in the Heineken cup on 'rugby values'.

Toohey wrote:

You might want to try to read and comprehend what I have actually written rather that just trying to find something that will make you angry.

The point is that the only argument I have heard against an equal distribution if revenue between leagues, where in financial terms the amounts will be no lower for the rabo unions than it would be under the old arrangement, is that it is not fair that the French and English get more money than they did before.  Despite each team in the Aviva and top 14 in effectively getting the same as the Rabo teams which to me seems the epitome of fair (Yes I know it was unions blah blah blah).

If you have a better reason why this is unfair let me hear it but if not my original point stands that TJ must also be against the English or French increasing their revenues in any other way?

Don't make rash judgements about a poster's 'anger' levels based on some typed electronic words, Toohey.  Trust me, it can often be way off the mark.
I debate/argue robustly - I rarely get angry in here.

Now, I did read you.  I read the bit I commented on and the bit I commented on still stands, regardless of the other points you were making to TJ.
AP clubs and Top14 clubs can do what they like with the funds they make from big crowds or massive sponsorships........... in their own Leagues.  
Their own Leagues are none of my business.  

What they do when they come to Europe does become my business.  And I wouldn't care what big AP or Top14 sides do with their funds as regards grounds, academies etc...but I would suggest that when all sides join in European competition, big sides with unlimited funds are controlled by European competition rules.  

These rules I've mentioned before and often.  Equalised Salary caps that all teams involved in European competition can sustain.  And a player quota system that determines a high number of 'home' grown - as in academy players rather than the kind of super paid-in selections some loaded sides can call upon now.

Getting fairness right in those areas is equally as important as getting things right in equal money for each side.  But it's seldom mentioned here.

So, I have no problem with equal money from the European competition for all sides (apart from prize money for actually performing in the competition itself..which should be tasty as incentive ) ... my comment to you was strictly on your Apple comment.  Apple it up by all means in respective Leagues.  When Europe comes, strict limits on 'fair' levels of funding.

Scrumdown wrote:

TJ wrote:On a slight slant - and to lighten the debate.

I hear the term "Deserve" used a lot to state who should or should not be in the comp.    If so I vote for Exeter to be the number one team and the most deserving for a number of reasons.
1) they have built a competitive team without running  a deficit.
2) they have played the most entertaining rugby so far this year with their willingness to run from everywhere against the blues
3) they are a real team built not bought
4) I believe they have a really good community engagement
5) their fans are the most entertaining I hve met with the headdresses and the drumming and chants

Which teams do you think deserve to be in the european cup on entertainment, rugby values and colourful fans?  Remeber Rugby is an entertainment business.

One correction.

The Exeter 1st 15 is almost entirely bought.  Only one of the team that played the Cardiff Blues was homegrown and therefore although they generate a financial surplus they employ the same model as toulon although on a 3rd of the budget.

Exeter rely on other clubs and nations to run academies that produce their players.  They are making a surplus from others hard work.

The welsh academies alone for example have provided them with Tom James, Damien Welch, Craig Mitchell, Ceri Sweeney and Phil Dolman.  

I don't therefore believe that Exeter deserve to be in the Heineken cup on 'rugby values'.  

TJ,
on behalf of Exeter, thank you for your kind words - though, we're all a rugby family, and there are so many good people in rugby.

scrumdown,
although you're correct in the thrust of your post, there's a couple of things that i take issue with.

First, I'm not sure what you mean by home grown - Dave Ewers came to Devon as a refugee at the age of 14, and has developed through the Chiefs academy. Ben Moon started playing at Crediton, a junior club just up the road from Exeter, and also developed through the Chiefs academy. Davey Lewis is certainly a foreigner, from Somerset, but was in the Exeter academy before he went up-country to Glaws. Henry Slade is from Plymouth, but even so we let him play for Exe, having come through the academy. Haydn Thomas, another foreigner from Somerset, went to Exeter Uni and played for the Chiefs before going up-country and then returning. Matt Jess had a few years at Pirates, 1 at Dragons, 1 at Launceston and the last 5 (or 6?) at Exeter.

Which one of those is the home-grown player?


Secondly, Exeter are immature in terms of top rank clubs - the RFU South West Academy was affiliated to Exeter in, I think, 2007 (may have been a year or so either way - open to correction on that). It now includes foreigners from Cornwall, Plymouth and Somerset, but it's probably fair to categorise them as home grown. 4 of England's U20 World Cup winning team came from Exeter's academy, 6 from from their JWC and 6N squad. 1 was on duty against Cardiff, 3 were injured.

Thirdly, Exeter have collected otherwise unwanted waifs and strays, particularly in their level 2 years. The likes of Steeno, Dollman, Tui, Sturge, Tom Hayes have built or rebuilt their careers at Exeter. This is continuing with players like Tom James, Ceri Sweeney, Damian Welch (a product of welsh academies -really?), Ian Whitten, Ben White.

By home grown I meant they had not bought a side full internationals from other countries. Contrast them with Toulon for example

been at a funeral all day. discovered my cousins are worcester warriors supporters.

anyone got any good news?

all quiet on the western front

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Scrumdown wrote:

TJ wrote:On a slight slant - and to lighten the debate.

I hear the term "Deserve" used a lot to state who should or should not be in the comp.    If so I vote for Exeter to be the number one team and the most deserving for a number of reasons.
1) they have built a competitive team without running  a deficit.
2) they have played the most entertaining rugby so far this year with their willingness to run from everywhere against the blues
3) they are a real team built not bought
4) I believe they have a really good community engagement
5) their fans are the most entertaining I hve met with the headdresses and the drumming and chants

Which teams do you think deserve to be in the european cup on entertainment, rugby values and colourful fans?  Remeber Rugby is an entertainment business.

One correction.

The Exeter 1st 15 is almost entirely bought.  Only one of the team that played the Cardiff Blues was homegrown and therefore although they generate a financial surplus they employ the same model as toulon although on a 3rd of the budget.

Exeter rely on other clubs and nations to run academies that produce their players.  They are making a surplus from others hard work.

The welsh academies alone for example have provided them with Tom James, Damien Welch, Craig Mitchell, Ceri Sweeney and Phil Dolman.  

I don't therefore believe that Exeter deserve to be in the Heineken cup on 'rugby values'.  

TJ,
on behalf of Exeter, thank you for your kind words - though, we're all a rugby family, and there are so many good people in rugby.

scrumdown,
although you're correct in the thrust of your post, there's a couple of things that i take issue with.

First, I'm not sure what you mean by home grown - Dave Ewers came to Devon as a refugee at the age of 14, and has developed through the Chiefs academy. Ben Moon started playing at Crediton, a junior club just up the road from Exeter, and also developed through the Chiefs academy. Davey Lewis is certainly a foreigner, from Somerset, but was in the Exeter academy before he went up-country to Glaws. Henry Slade is from Plymouth, but even so we let him play for Exe, having come through the academy. Haydn Thomas, another foreigner from Somerset, went to Exeter Uni and played for the Chiefs before going up-country and then returning. Matt Jess had a few years at Pirates, 1 at Dragons, 1 at Launceston and the last 5 (or 6?) at Exeter.

Which one of those is the home-grown player?


Secondly, Exeter are immature in terms of top rank clubs - the RFU South West Academy was affiliated to Exeter in, I think, 2007 (may have been a year or so either way - open to correction on that). It now includes foreigners from Cornwall, Plymouth and Somerset, but it's probably fair to categorise them as home grown. 4 of England's U20 World Cup winning team came from Exeter's academy, 6 from from their JWC and 6N squad. 1 was on duty against Cardiff, 3 were injured.

Thirdly, Exeter have collected otherwise unwanted waifs and strays, particularly in their level 2 years. The likes of Steeno, Dollman, Tui, Sturge, Tom Hayes have built or rebuilt their careers at Exeter. This is continuing with players like Tom James, Ceri Sweeney, Damian Welch (a product of welsh academies -really?), Ian Whitten, Ben White.

Only Dave Ewers of the team that 'started' against the Blues could be classified as an academy product.

The blues had 12 starters who were developed by the region's academy including 5 Lions,never mind under 20 players!

Tom James is from the blues academy -as is Damien Welch. Phil Dolman is a product of the dragons, Ceri Sweeney of Pontypridd rugby club (in the days prior to academies).

Craig mitchell is a product of the Ospreys academy.