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.

quinsforever wrote:good link. still unclear whether there are other ways those 7 non-european players mentioned in the piece might be able to be defined as european by other means...ancestry, residence, etc. kolpak stuff looks pretty clear cut.

The comments explain a lot of that. It does feel tenuous, but if them's the rules...

The SRUs chief exec

"What we would like to do is ensure that there is a rounded and fair solution," added Dodson.

"We are prepared to look at meritocracy and some of the other tweaks that might need to be made to allow that to happen.

"But don't let anyone be under any doubt, we are working very hard to make this work.

"There has to be give and take. It can't be all take or it won't work.

"We understand, we need to modernise and I have some sympathy with the English clubs' predicament. But they are working with a mix of models.

"It doesn't work only the way the French and English leagues work. The Celtic and Italian clubs are run in a fundamentally different way

So one side is prepare to compromise - will the PRL make meaningful compromise especially now it becoming ever more obvious that they do not have the unqualified backing of the french.

Griff wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Stella artois is 100% belgium and i have been to the brewery in leuven!!

you have proven your european-ness fully grasshopper.

Sorry to disappoint Mysti, but they also brew Stella in Magor, just outside Newport in South Wales.  They probably make and distribute a lot of the stuff we have in the UK, rather than it being imported.  I've known a few people work there over the years.  Sort of takes the shine off it a bit!

I dont drink stella in the uk- its awful..

Only on the continent..

And in belgium its the mellow beer, that or a jupiler.. there are basically treated like shandys!

Standulstermen wrote:Any move that results in two paytv broadcasters is unnacceptable. I feel that strongly about this I would reconsider my season ticket

So because you would have to pay two subscriptions you would give up guaranteed tickets to see our home games live, hence not needing a subscription to any TV station for those games?

So we have in the HC this round Perpingnon and Glaws both resting players. Shows the double swtandards when part of the complaint is that its easier for the Rabo teams as they rest players in the league ( which is nonsense anyway)

There have been a good few French teams taking this approach over the years but I'm disappointed in Gloucester.

don't want to tempt fate, but peace, love and reasonableness appears to be breaking out all over v2 at the moment.  

maybe its just the calm before the storm.  

Notch wrote:There have been a good few French teams taking this approach over the years but I'm disappointed in Gloucester.

They're saving themselves for Bath next week, just goes to show why the HC needs to be reworked as Glaws and other Aviva teams have to earn the right to take part in the HC and not gifted a place year after year, Bath will be a rival for HC qualifying places come the end of the season.

Notch wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:Any move that results in two paytv broadcasters is unnacceptable. I feel that strongly about this I would reconsider my season ticket

So because you would have to pay two subscriptions you would give up guaranteed tickets to see our home games live, hence not needing a subscription to any TV station for those games?

I would resent watching a competition that was made so as to fleece ordinary rugby fans yes. I would rather pay extra for individual Rabo tickets even.

I would just be against any competition that fleeces ordinary fans. To be honest I don't know if I would ever make good on a threat to not renew my season ticket. Typing it though makes me feel like I could  

Scrumpy, then a lot more money should go into merit payments. From what you say, Gloucester are only interested in getting into the Heineken Cup - not competing in it.

Nice try Scrumpy, but it's clear getting to the show is far more important than the show itself, surely a decent HC run would be a better idea than throwing the tournament for a potential 4 points.

Any team willing to throw a HC game is one that takes away from the tournament, even my beloved, thats the reason why I am so against the PRL's standpoint, not only will it take away from the tournament, it'll create less unity between clubs and fans.

I know a lot of shed heads who got excited last week, and arranged a cheeky trip to Thomond to find out the lineup...

No thats not the case, but Aviva teams sometimes have to make a tough choice about which battles they try and win, Glaws feel the Bath game is more important the following week as it could come down to that game as to whether they qualify for the HC next year (if there is one)

Scrumpy wrote:

Notch wrote:There have been a good few French teams taking this approach over the years but I'm disappointed in Gloucester.

They're saving themselves for Bath next week, just goes to show why the HC needs to be reworked as Glaws and other Aviva teams have to earn the right to take part in the HC and not gifted a place year after year, Bath will be a rival for HC qualifying places come the end of the season.

Right, so- how will the HC being reworked change that.

You're saying if everyone has to qualify- teams are less likely to rest players in the Heineken Cup itself. How does that work?

Qualifying for the show, and not competing in the show is the saddest form of existence, and frankly does nothing for the show or euro rugby in general. It is the equivilant as a benefit scrounger, ensuring their knowledge is good enough to screw the system but not good enough to get a job or career!

butterfingers wrote:Nice try Scrumpy, but it's clear getting to the show is far more important than the show itself

Thats because Aviva teams have to earn the right to be there, Top 3 spots will go to Sarries, Tigers, Saints (most likely) the other 3 spots are up for grabs by everyone except Worcester and Falcons.

Glaws are taking a risk but thats modern rugby.

Scrumpy wrote:No thats not the case, but Aviva teams sometimes have to make a tough choice about which battles they try and win, Glaws feel the Bath game is more important the following week as it could come down to that game as to whether they qualify for the HC next year (if there is one)

exactly the point!!

Notch wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:

Notch wrote:There have been a good few French teams taking this approach over the years but I'm disappointed in Gloucester.

They're saving themselves for Bath next week, just goes to show why the HC needs to be reworked as Glaws and other Aviva teams have to earn the right to take part in the HC and not gifted a place year after year, Bath will be a rival for HC qualifying places come the end of the season.

Right, so- how will the HC being reworked change that.

You're saying if everyone has to qualify- teams are less likely to rest players in the Heineken Cup itself. How does that work?

But Rabo teams will have to make the same tough choices when it comes to finding a balance between league and HC and not just rest players for uncompetitive league games.

Believe me as a Bath fan I'd love to be gifted a HC place year after year.

Absolute bullsoite!

If you want the benefits of being at the top table you have a duty to perform in the top table, there has been no Rabo incuded team that has merely glided through without competing and purely skimming the benefits of the tournament!

That is why I think Rabo teams are worth more to a euro tournament than anyone else.

To drop HC games without trying because a league game is more important has to be the weakest form of the argument I have ever heard, it is the same level that the T14 and AP teams are throwing games on purpose to devalue the HC in efforts to boost PRL standpoint.

if the ERC the next year is the only way to earn money to keep the club just about breaking even or running a relatively small loss- survival comes first.

I hope PRL and LNR stick to their guns and don't give an inch. 

But lets give Glaws some credit the game hasn't been played yet!
another fine example of the arrogance of some rugby fans!

mystiroakey wrote:if the ERC the next year is the only way to earn money to keep the club just about breaking even or running a relatively small loss- survival comes first.

Any chance you could rehash that in English, strokey? If this was your point, I don't think Glaws are worried about survival exactly, do you?

I personally hope the PRL goes down in flames, it's done so little for the average club fan, and will only do worse for the average England fan.

Funny thing is, the PRL have backed themselves into such a position if they don't get everything they want they are in serious trouble   I havn't routed for the celts this hard since I was a boy

I thought it was quite easy to work out.

Survival comes first, the majority of clubs in the AP arent making profits(same is going on in the other lesagues).. its that simple- it can't keep going the way it is

butterfingers wrote:I personally hope the PRL goes down in flames, it's done so little for the average club fan, and will only do worse for the average England fan.

Funny thing is, the PRL have backed themselves into such a position if they don't get everything they want they are in serious trouble   I havn't routed for the celts this hard since I was a boy

bitter pill was it bud?

Is that why the PRL are holding the rugby world to ransom?

butterfingers wrote:I personally hope the PRL goes down in flames.

That was the view of many Celtic fans before they even listened to what was on offer!  

mystiroakey wrote:I thought it was quite easy to work out.

Survival comes first, the majority of clubs in the AP arent making profits(same is going on in the other lesagues).. its that simple- it can't keep going the way it is

Some of your countrymen always disagree when the 'viability' of AP clubs come up verses the viability of many Pro12 sides, that always seem to be told they don't have the crowds or the quality rugby to attract money on their own.

Seems now, you're admitting that many AP clubs are in the same position.

no. they're doing it (ransom is a bit strong - franglos have not "taken" anything they just pulled themselves out) because they can, and because they got fed up of things under the ERC umbrella.

it must be beer o'clock by the way as everyone's dusting off the boxing gloves...

mystiroakey wrote:I thought it was quite easy to work out.

Survival comes first, the majority of clubs in the AP arent making profits(same is going on in the other lesagues).. its that simple- it can't keep going the way it is

Gotcha, i assumed, wrongly, that your comments were related to Glaws' decision to switch 12 out of 15 starting players - apologies. Survival does come first (see Maslow's hierarchy), but I'm not aware that the finances of any AP are sufficiently parlous at the moment for 'survival' to be their greatest concern? A short handful of teams seems to be able to turn a profit (incl Glaws), so lets exclude them, a couple of those with larger yearly losses are backed by wealthy individuals with seemingly bottomless pockets, the rest lie somewhere in between - but I haven't heard that their very operations are threatened?

mystiroakey wrote:I dont even think Gloucestershire has even made back its loss from 2009 yet as they have only been recording minor profits since..

And yet they are the top of the pile. Its pretty worrying tbh!!

I think you and I are operating on a different plane again, strokey, but can you explain what you mean by 'top of the pile'?

ERC are a bunch of fools that settled for a small TV deal when others were willing to pay a hell of a lot more, and they have the interest of all the team in the HC at heart?

Love sacks do they!

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:I dont even think Gloucestershire has even made back its loss from 2009 yet as they have only been recording minor profits since..

And yet they are the top of the pile. Its pretty worrying tbh!!

I think you and I are operating on a different plane again, strokey, but can you explain what you mean by 'top of the pile'?

"amongst the few who are profitable"?

Scrumpy wrote:

butterfingers wrote:I personally hope the PRL goes down in flames.

That was the view of many Celtic fans before they even listened to what was on offer!  

Wanting the HC to remain is hardly 'looking' for the demise' of PRL - given their six spots are written in stone each year. But insulting the presence of Scottish and Italian sides (and even sniping at the presence of Welsh sides) in the HC is kind of a pretty convincing definition of someone somewhere wanting the demise of something.

But that was always going to be a knee jerk reaction by the celts.

As I have stated previous, I could get on board with certain aspects of the negotiations, the ERC have been bunk, the Rabo league is designed to aid the international teams, and the T14 teams do focus on league far more.

But even the most hardened apologist of the PRL has to struggle to justify just how they have gone about things, if you have a specific gripe with a competition you renegotiate with your strongest hand, you don't go and sell the rights to the competition to the highest bidder, then totally lose the plot and undercut everyone else.

It's almost as if Leicester serves notice on the PRL, they win the thing every year, provide the best crowds so demand more money fro HC appearances etc, then start a new league and invite all the clubs to join theirs under their terms!

There are 3 trains of thought here, the celtic die hards who will conced nothing, the PRL apologists who will concede nothing, then a small bunch of us in the middle looking at the bigger picture and how this coup could effect the sport as a whole, and sadly I seem to be the only English man in the middle.

Glaws recorded the most profit last year (i assumed that was the initial point you made)

quinsforever wrote:it must be beer o'clock by the way as everyone's dusting off the boxing gloves...

Nope, you were just a little premature in declaring a love-in, quins That's all.

butterfingers wrote:But that was always going to be a knee jerk reaction by the celts.

As I have stated previous, I could get on board with certain aspects of the negotiations, the ERC have been bunk, the Rabo league is designed to aid the international teams, and the T14 teams do focus on league far more.

But even the most hardened apologist of the PRL has to struggle to justify just how they have gone about things, if you have a specific gripe with a competition you renegotiate with your strongest hand, you don't go and sell the rights to the competition to the highest bidder, then totally lose the plot and undercut everyone else.

It's almost as if Leicester serves notice on the PRL, they win the thing every year, provide the best crowds so demand more money fro HC appearances etc, then start a new league and invite all the clubs to join theirs under their terms!

There are 3 trains of thought here, the celtic die hards who will conced nothing, the PRL apologists who will concede nothing, then a small bunch of us in the middle looking at the bigger picture and how this coup could effect the sport as a whole, and sadly I seem to be the only English man in the middle.

BF - slightly disagree with you there about TV rights. the reason the prl got stonewalled into coming back to the table in 2007 was because prl had no alternative. This time they explore a TV deal, and having found what looked like a decent one, have decided that being armed with the BT deal (legitimate or not i dont want to go there) was both their strongest hand and biggest stick. if prl hadnt gotten themselves a TV deal, ERC would still be refusing to meaningfully negotiate.

 

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:it must be beer o'clock by the way as everyone's dusting off the boxing gloves...

Nope, you were just a little premature in declaring a love-in, quins ;)That's all.  

This is hardly a fight, we are arguing against the issues not each other. Misters opinions are as valid as mine, i just disagree with them.

 

Scrumpy wrote:ERC are a bunch of fools that settled for a small TV deal when others were willing to pay a hell of a lot more, and they have the interest of all the team in the HC at heart?

Love sacks do they!

If that's all true, just like you say - the why didn't PRL just simply say "We've got a bundle more money promised from BT. Let's keep the same structure, same entry rules, same national selection numbers and shaft miserly Sky"

Did they say that? No, they didn't.

SecretFly wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:ERC are a bunch of fools that settled for a small TV deal when others were willing to pay a hell of a lot more, and they have the interest of all the team in the HC at heart?

Love sacks do they!

If that's all true, just like you say - the why didn't PRL just simply say "We've got a bundle more money promised from BT.  Let's keep the same structure, same entry rules, same national selection numbers and shaft miserly Sky"

Did they say that?  No, they didn't.  

Can they legally shaft sky?

if we keep it as it is(erc controlled)

quins

You are absolutely correct, but had the PRL gone about it the right way the BT deal wouldve proved invaluable to their negotiations. What they did however was create a deal that aided them massivley and essentially meant the end of a competitive Rabo based HC showing. Despite the Rabo teas getting a better deal than they have now, the deal benefited the PRL hugely and the Rabo nations knew it. They overplayed their hand and the Rabo nations had no choice but to say no.

Had the PRL used the BT deal to highlight a better pie for everyone, with only a minor better splashing for the PRL everyone may have gotten on board.

And I just want to say, between the ERC and Sky the HC has got where it is today, I'm not saying they should still have it, but we can't just criticise them, they have clearly done a decent job of promoting the competitiion.

Notch wrote:There have been a good few French teams taking this approach over the years but I'm disappointed in Gloucester.

Wish Toulon had rested a few of their's llast weekend !!!! 

mystiroakey wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:ERC are a bunch of fools that settled for a small TV deal when others were willing to pay a hell of a lot more, and they have the interest of all the team in the HC at heart?

Love sacks do they!

If that's all true, just like you say - the why didn't PRL just simply say "We've got a bundle more money promised from BT.  Let's keep the same structure, same entry rules, same national selection numbers and shaft miserly Sky"

Did they say that?  No, they didn't.  

Can they legally shaft sky?

if we keep it as it is(erc controlled)

Perhaps not now (given ERC went ahead with a Sky deal based on the principle that PRL/BT wasn't just a more money deal but a dramatic change of rules proposal - money with strings attached, as I've alrady said many times.

But certainly, before ERC renewed a deal with Sky (that must gotta be paid for in compensation terms if Sky now lose that deal again - ERC members paying it - of which RFU/PRL are); but before the renewed that deal, BT and PRL could have come with an offer to them - a more money only offer - and the ERC might have considered it.  I'm sure they very much would have considered it.

ERC is not legally tied to Sky unless they do a contract deal with Sky.  But there is nothing in ERC rules that required it eternally to do business with Sky.

SecretFly wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:ERC are a bunch of fools that settled for a small TV deal when others were willing to pay a hell of a lot more, and they have the interest of all the team in the HC at heart?

Love sacks do they!

If that's all true, just like you say - the why didn't PRL just simply say "We've got a bundle more money promised from BT.  Let's keep the same structure, same entry rules, same national selection numbers and shaft miserly Sky"

Did they say that?  No, they didn't.  

Can they legally shaft sky?

if we keep it as it is(erc controlled)

Perhaps not now (given ERC went ahead with a Sky deal based on the principle that PRL/BT wasn't just a more money deal but a dramatic change of rules proposal - money with strings attached, as I've alrady said many times.

But certainly, before ERC renewed a deal with Sky (that must gotta be paid for in compensation terms if Sky now lose that deal again - ERC members paying it - of which RFU/PRL are); but before the renewed that deal, BT and PRL could have come with an offer to them - a more money only offer - and the ERC might have considered it.  I'm sure they very much would have considered it.

ERC is not legally tied to Sky unless they do a contract deal with Sky.  But their is nothing in ERC rules that required it eternally to do business with Sky.

yes that was my point. I didn't know if the new sky deal was signed or when it was signed!

I think tbh if what you say is true them signing the sky deal so soon after hearing about any possible change is also pretty stupid!!

So now we are in a position of staying ERC controlled with sky or having to break up the ERC to get out of it!

SecretFly wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:ERC are a bunch of fools that settled for a small TV deal when others were willing to pay a hell of a lot more, and they have the interest of all the team in the HC at heart?

Love sacks do they!

If that's all true, just like you say - the why didn't PRL just simply say "We've got a bundle more money promised from BT.  Let's keep the same structure, same entry rules, same national selection numbers and shaft miserly Sky"

Did they say that?  No, they didn't.  

Can they legally shaft sky?

if we keep it as it is(erc controlled)

Perhaps not now (given ERC went ahead with a Sky deal based on the principle that PRL/BT wasn't just a more money deal but a dramatic change of rules proposal - money with strings attached, as I've alrady said many times.

But certainly, before ERC renewed a deal with Sky (that must gotta be paid for in compensation terms if Sky now lose that deal again - ERC members paying it - of which RFU/PRL are); but before the renewed that deal, BT and PRL could have come with an offer to them - a more money only offer - and the ERC might have considered it.  I'm sure they very much would have considered it.

ERC is not legally tied to Sky unless they do a contract deal with Sky.  But there is nothing in ERC rules that required it eternally to do business with Sky.

SF, who knows. two things are absolutely clear - i) prl/lnr needed to file their 2-yr withdrawal or they had no credible threat (and the BT deal came after the notice to withdraw), and ii) prl/lnr completely mistrusted ERC and JP Lux in particular so i dont think there is any way in hell they would have trusted him with a superior financial TV rights deal and expected to get anything in return - same distribution of monies, same everything.

PRL should have satisfied itself with more money for everyone and brought the proposals before ERC (of which they are a part, as everyone who doesn't like ERC keeps forgetting)

But no, the PRL got cocky and decided they could use the extra cash carrot to use a big stick on the structure of the contest itself.

They said they had a 'deal' for the future of Europe already signed up for with partners BT.  ERC said "you think so?" and signed a deal with Sky.

BT came with the domineering snarl first, when they could have come with simply more money for everyone period, without conditions declared.  But it was extortion money "Give us what we want first and then you'll all get it" ERC were never going to give way to that presentation