New European Rugby cup (or whatever it is called) - Qualification agreed

by Gibson Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:30 pm

First topic message reminder :

But didn't the WRU and its regions capitulate and join their English Masters? Have they done a U-turn now? Looks like it.

Unless they want to hype up the Low Value Cup...

by geoff998rugby Wed Nov 20, 2013 2:37 pm

quinsforever wrote: i don't want to say it but i'm going to. french sides just dont perform as well in HC as they do for home top14 games until they get to the knockout stages.

Still too good for the Englsih sides given the last 5 years or so Wink

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Wed Nov 20, 2013 2:39 pm

mystiroakey wrote:Sorry mate- but call it imperialism or whatever you want- but I trust English businessmen over the rest of your lot.

The ERC has a track record of underacheiving

Did you really just write that? Laugh

by geoff998rugby Wed Nov 20, 2013 2:39 pm

Made a SF in 1990, a QF in 1986 - still respectable.
Then the clubs took full control

by SecretFly Wed Nov 20, 2013 2:55 pm

quinsforever wrote:i dont want to say it but i'm going to. french sides just dont perform as well in HC as they do for home top14 games until they get to the knockout stages.

and i think that group of players would play at the best of their abilities given a shot at NZ, whereas Ulster play to the best of their abilities in HC already.

Yet another new European competition title proposed? We had the Profit Margins Rugby Cup, the Crowd Attendance Rugby Cup - and now, we have this new proposed We Could Win It If We Wanted To Rugby Cup

It's not exactly a catchy title...but.... I'm okay with that if it actually means what it say on the tin.

It seems though that there'll never be a genuine winner of any European Cup, as they all seem to have a dossier of excuses ready for not wanting to really win it in the first place.

I'm now thinking the You Only Won It Coz We Weren't Trying Rugby Cup has equal meritocratic relevance.

by LeinsterFan4life Wed Nov 20, 2013 3:01 pm

geoff998rugby wrote:Made a SF in 1990, a QF in 1986 - still respectable.
Then the clubs took full control

I seen a stat there a couple weeks ago, that an English player has not scored for Newcastle this season.

by quinsforever Wed Nov 20, 2013 3:02 pm

next year it'll be the You Only Won IT Cos We Weren't Playing.

Geoff'll be happy again..1998 all over... Run

by mystiroakey Wed Nov 20, 2013 3:19 pm

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
mystiroakey wrote:Sorry mate- but call it imperialism or whatever you want- but I trust English businessmen over the rest of your lot.

The ERC has a track record of underacheiving
Did you really just write that?

yes- and yes and yes and yes Wink

by mystiroakey Wed Nov 20, 2013 3:20 pm

quinsforever wrote:next year it'll be the You Only Won IT Cos We Weren't Playing.

Geoff'll be happy again..1998 all over...

Welcome to the Devalued HC 2014 and beyond

by gelodge Wed Nov 20, 2013 3:26 pm

I'm delighted that there looks like there will be HC rugby next year, but I'm not particularly confident in how long it will last or what the level of French involvement might be. If it is saved it will be down to Camou, with the French clubs a very unwilling bride forced by their domestic round of negotiations.

Once they've secured their domestic situation how commited will they remain to the HC? Camou isn't set to be president of the FFR much longer, what happens when he's gone? Are the French clubs going to do the minimum they have to do now and then just wait Camou out?

They weren't happy with Camou when he took their voting rights for the ERC presidency election a few years back, they must be seething with him now. Might we see a Marvin Gaye's Here, My Dear or Prince like 'slave' approach to the competition, treated with a dismissive attitude as something that needs to be complied with at the lowest level, second string and developmental sides primarily featuring?

I think Goze's next comments on the matter will hold the key to how succesful a continuing HC will be as his last set were not convergent with the way things now seem to be heading:

“The ERC is dead because of the two TV rights deal, there can’t be a competition ran by the ERC.

“It can’t survive because the English clubs can’t take part in an ERC-run competition and we don’t want to play in a competition without the English. The only solution is a new competition.

“We’ve known for a while now that they would meet most our format and financial demands but the TV deals make all the difference.”

“We (the clubs) are the heartbeat of this competition so we should also look after the logistics. We want a European competition.

"There will be the Champions Cup next year or there will be nothing.”

I can't get past the feeling that the can is just being kicked down the road and we will be revisiting a similar situation in the not too distant future.

by quinsforever Wed Nov 20, 2013 3:38 pm

agree with most of that gelodge. its going to be a fairly hollow victory if a victory at all.

what will the format be?

what will happen to the amlin?

12 out of 38 teams out. less matches. less gate receipts. less interest from sponsors, fans, players.

but no matter how crap or weak the competition, i understand that something is better than nothing for the celtic unions.

but i have a strong feeling that camou will soon start to be cursed by the celtic unions for the fine mess he's gotten them into...

by Jenifer McLadyboy Wed Nov 20, 2013 3:45 pm

quinsforever wrote:agree with most of that gelodge. its going to be a fairly hollow victory if a victory at all.

what will the format be?

what will happen to the amlin?

12 out of 38 teams out. less matches. less gate receipts. less interest from sponsors, fans, players.

but no matter how crap or weak the competition, i understand that something is better than nothing for the celtic unions.

but i have a strong feeling that camou will soon start to be cursed by the celtic unions for the fine mess he's gotten them into...

Thought you were focking off to the pub?

When you have given in to all the sensible demands of the other party and they still don't want to play. What else can you do?

I'd love the English clubs in even at this late stage, but they have painted themselves into a corner.

Perhaps they will back down? Doubt it at this stage.

by SecretFly Wed Nov 20, 2013 4:01 pm

Good assessment there of the 'can down the road' aspect of all of this, gelodge.

Yeah, I'd agree that any solution now (even an RCC version) would be just major war averted for a few more years. This is deep - you sense it. Hatreds and mistrust have grown on this one at boardroom level.

Club rugby in certain areas wants what it wants. And that is specifically, and ironically, not to be so tied down to certain areas. That's basically what it all comes down to. The craving to make massive profits by franchising out 'Brand' identities all over the world...just like the most famous footballing sides.

So to do that you need a competition designed to bring five or six 'big' (population density-wise) sides to prominence in Europe, keep them there by keeping others away from the yearly leader boards by as many rules and sub rules as you can muster; create a 'history' for the 'big sides (journalism, spinning and marketing will take care of all the 'history) - then sell those professionally designed and calibrated Brand identities around the world to bring in the big bucks.

The only way that dream can happen is if 'club' rugby controls its own destiny and, inevitably, then too the destiny of other lesser regions of rugby within Europe. The 'biggest' sides just don't envisage men in America and Japan wearing Toulon or Saracens shirts but they also want Irish people, Italians and Welsh people wearing their shirts too. In order for the 'biggest' to grow, they know they must hoover up the others.

And most people, if they think about it all long enough, are smart enough to realise the link between the 'survival and growth' of rugby for some and the sacrifice and death of rugby for others. So the cold war will go on for most of this decade based on those two principles of truth struggling against each other all the way. The fight will go on behind closed doors in this decade and certainly into the next one if not resolved by then.

Maybe we're witnessing the very beginnings of yet another 'code' break up of rugby itself? The emotions certainly seem high enough for one at the moment judging by how much certain administrative sections hate each other with a vengence.

by stub Wed Nov 20, 2013 4:02 pm

Hopefully we'll know a little more tomorrow...

by Guest Wed Nov 20, 2013 4:03 pm

Ultimately the French, Welsh and English Unions do not hold the player contracts, everything stems from that. The FFR have chosen to ignore that simple fact. The RFU tried to bully the English clubs a few years ago and it didn't work and they came to the conclusion it was better to entice.

Camou is trying a little of that together with outright threats. No-one on here had heard of him four weeks ago and he will disappear shortly again when his term ends next year.

The FFR accountants must be having kittens on the proposed payout seeing as the FFR were trying to work out how to own their own stadium rather than paying rent - which currently is proving expensive.

by quinsforever Wed Nov 20, 2013 4:14 pm

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:
quinsforever wrote:agree with most of that gelodge. its going to be a fairly hollow victory if a victory at all.

what will the format be?

what will happen to the amlin?

12 out of 38 teams out. less matches. less gate receipts. less interest from sponsors, fans, players.

but no matter how crap or weak the competition, i understand that something is better than nothing for the celtic unions.

but i have a strong feeling that camou will soon start to be cursed by the celtic unions for the fine mess he's gotten them into...
Thought you were focking off to the pub?

When you have given in to all the sensible demands of the other party and they still don't want to play. What else can you do?

I'd love the English clubs in even at this late stage, but they have painted themselves into a corner.

Perhaps they will back down? Doubt it at this stage.

got through my work quicker than expected...pub at 6.

i do admit that i was surprised that a deal hasnt been struck once the format, qualification, and money distribution all went PRL's way. i thought they would give in (or at least make everyone slightly unhappy but bearable) on the governance as long as BT were the broadcaster in a new corporate structure.

the fact that everyone is insisting it's ERC, and PRL are insisting its not ERC make me think that its they contracts signed with BT and SKY that are the sticking point.

for example, even if the PRL were prepared to give in on governance, it appears they are completely unwilling to be part of ERC, as that would invalidate their agreement with BT.

i actually thought the compromise would be the terms offered two weeks ago, in a new corporate structure, with BT as broadcaster (50% more money overall, guarantee of no less for anyone), and PRL would concede ground on governance. the fact that hasnt happened is what convinces me this is about the contracts signed with BT and SKY. Sad.

by quinsforever Wed Nov 20, 2013 4:21 pm

took this quote from goebbels thornley's latest piece in the irish times...

"Camou, the respective Unions and the ERC board are adamant they will adhere to the Sky TV deal."

why the loyalty to SKY? unless ERC signed a ridiculously crappy contract that would leave them high and dry if they tried to go with BT? the fact this is being driven by the contract extension ERC signed with SKY, if that is the case, is further proof, if needed, of their total incompetence. they are the titanic but they welded the liferafts onto the deck...

by Sin é Wed Nov 20, 2013 4:34 pm

quinsforever wrote:agree with most of that gelodge. its going to be a fairly hollow victory if a victory at all.

what will the format be?

what will happen to the amlin?

12 out of 38 teams out. less matches. less gate receipts. less interest from sponsors, fans, players.

but no matter how crap or weak the competition, i understand that something is better than nothing for the celtic unions.

but i have a strong feeling that camou will soon start to be cursed by the celtic unions for the fine mess he's gotten them into...

Check out what happened in 1999 to see the format as to what it could be.

Its the clubs who benefit most from gate receipts, tickets etc. I'd be more worried about clubs who don't have games to attendf.

There are 4 French teams who have said they are playing in the Heineken Cup (including Toulon) which will probably become English fans favourite team to watch.

Its interesting that the Welsh clubs (Gallagher) are attending the Thursday meeting in Dublin (according to Welsh Reporter on twitter).

by Sin é Wed Nov 20, 2013 4:39 pm

quinsforever wrote:took this quote from goebbels thornley's latest piece in the irish times...

"Camou, the respective Unions and the ERC board are adamant they will adhere to the Sky TV deal."

why the loyalty to SKY? unless ERC signed a ridiculously crappy contract that would leave them high and dry if they tried to go with BT? the fact this is being driven by the contract extension ERC signed with SKY, if that is the case, is further proof, if needed, of their total incompetence. they are the titanic but they welded the liferafts onto the deck...

Yep, the Unions knew exactly what they were doing when they approved and signed off on the Sky deal. Very Happy

The 'incompetent' ERC have a broadcaster and sponsors for their competition.
No sponsor would touch the McCaff's Cup.

by SecretFly Wed Nov 20, 2013 4:40 pm

quinsforever wrote:took this quote from goebbels thornley's latest piece in the irish times...

"Camou, the respective Unions and the ERC board are adamant they will adhere to the Sky TV deal."

why the loyalty to SKY? unless ERC signed a ridiculously crappy contract that would leave them high and dry if they tried to go with BT? the fact this is being driven by the contract extension ERC signed with SKY, if that is the case, is further proof, if needed, of their total incompetence. they are the titanic but they welded the liferafts onto the deck...

PRL/BT the same coin backways?

It's governance - governance - governance.

by quinsforever Wed Nov 20, 2013 4:42 pm

Sin é wrote:
quinsforever wrote:took this quote from goebbels thornley's latest piece in the irish times...

"Camou, the respective Unions and the ERC board are adamant they will adhere to the Sky TV deal."

why the loyalty to SKY? unless ERC signed a ridiculously crappy contract that would leave them high and dry if they tried to go with BT? the fact this is being driven by the contract extension ERC signed with SKY, if that is the case, is further proof, if needed, of their total incompetence. they are the titanic but they welded the liferafts onto the deck...
Yep, the Unions knew exactly what they were doing when they approved and signed off on the Sky deal.

The 'incompetent' ERC have a broadcaster and sponsors for their competition.
No sponsor would touch the McCaff's Cup.

erm. actually they dont have a sponsor. Heineken deal runs out when ERC participation agreeement runs out. and both had a broadcaster.

by quinsforever Wed Nov 20, 2013 4:43 pm

think heineken are going to renew with no english clubs involved? and their name being truncated to H in the other big market? methinks not.

by quinsforever Wed Nov 20, 2013 4:44 pm

SecretFly wrote:
quinsforever wrote:took this quote from goebbels thornley's latest piece in the irish times...

"Camou, the respective Unions and the ERC board are adamant they will adhere to the Sky TV deal."

why the loyalty to SKY? unless ERC signed a ridiculously crappy contract that would leave them high and dry if they tried to go with BT? the fact this is being driven by the contract extension ERC signed with SKY, if that is the case, is further proof, if needed, of their total incompetence. they are the titanic but they welded the liferafts onto the deck...
PRL/BT the same coin backways?

It's governance - governance - governance.

it's not. it's crappily drawn broadcasting contracts. governance is solvable. but according to camou and the unions, they are "adamant they will adhere to the SKY deal". note they didnt say they are adamant they will stick to the governance structure in place within the ERC...

by SecretFly Wed Nov 20, 2013 4:45 pm

quinsforever wrote:think heineken are going to renew with no english clubs involved? and their name being truncated to H in the other big market? methinks not.

Go on, tell us, Quins...who had/has McCafferty lined up? He won't tell us, but you're a likeable chap in the know.. Wink

It's Aviva, ain't it.

by quinsforever Wed Nov 20, 2013 4:45 pm

SecretFly wrote:
quinsforever wrote:took this quote from goebbels thornley's latest piece in the irish times...

"Camou, the respective Unions and the ERC board are adamant they will adhere to the Sky TV deal."

why the loyalty to SKY? unless ERC signed a ridiculously crappy contract that would leave them high and dry if they tried to go with BT? the fact this is being driven by the contract extension ERC signed with SKY, if that is the case, is further proof, if needed, of their total incompetence. they are the titanic but they welded the liferafts onto the deck...
PRL/BT the same coin backways? YES I KNOW

It's governance - governance - governance.

by quinsforever Wed Nov 20, 2013 4:46 pm

SecretFly wrote:
quinsforever wrote:think heineken are going to renew with no english clubs involved? and their name being truncated to H in the other big market? methinks not.
Go on, tell us, Quins...who had/has McCafferty lined up? He won't tell us, but you're a likeable chap in the know.. It's Aviva, ain't it.

Guinness... Run

by SecretFly Wed Nov 20, 2013 4:48 pm

quinsforever wrote:governance is solvable....

As Hitler said right before he assumed the role of dictator....

by quinsforever Wed Nov 20, 2013 4:48 pm

i love Field of Dreams..."if you build it, they will come". as with hollywood so too with sponsorship. A whole thing is worth more than a partial thing (applies to both RCC and HC)

by SecretFly Wed Nov 20, 2013 4:51 pm

I heard recently that the BT thing is only 20million in real guaranteed terms. Not so hot a deal as it first appeared then - without the sponsorship, which would have to cover the other 50million or so?

by Sin é Wed Nov 20, 2013 4:52 pm

Recwatcher wrote:Ultimately the French, Welsh and English Unions do not hold the player contracts, everything stems from that. The FFR have chosen to ignore that simple fact. The RFU tried to bully the English clubs a few years ago and it didn't work and they came to the conclusion it was better to entice.

Camou is trying a little of that together with outright threats. No-one on here had heard of him four weeks ago and he will disappear shortly again when his term ends next year.

The FFR accountants must be having kittens on the proposed payout seeing as the FFR were trying to work out how to own their own stadium rather than paying rent - which currently is proving expensive.

Camou would not be doing what he is doing without the support of his board and the IRB. Serge Blanco (who supports the HCup) is the next FFR President and will be more than anxious to have a european competition for Biarritz to play in.

If the IRFU can support 4 Pro teams, retain its players, centrally contract its important players and build 2 stadia in the last 10 years (the Aviva is paid off), 10m is owned on Thomond. I'd say the FFR will manage. They must have huge reserves and very good broadcasting deals.

by Sin é Wed Nov 20, 2013 4:54 pm

SecretFly wrote:
quinsforever wrote:think heineken are going to renew with no english clubs involved? and their name being truncated to H in the other big market? methinks not.
Go on, tell us, Quins...who had/has McCafferty lined up? He won't tell us, but you're a likeable chap in the know.. It's Aviva, ain't it.

They thought they had Guiness signed up .... Very Happy

Apparently Guinness told them they were nuts if they thought they were going to sponsor a competition that Irish people wouldn't approve of!

(They also probably remember how quickly the PRL dumped them from sponsorship for Aviva Wink

)

by Guest Wed Nov 20, 2013 4:57 pm

quinsforever wrote:took this quote from goebbels thornley's latest piece in the irish times...

"Camou, the respective Unions and the ERC board are adamant they will adhere to the Sky TV deal."

why the loyalty to SKY? unless ERC signed a ridiculously crappy contract that would leave them high and dry if they tried to go with BT? the fact this is being driven by the contract extension ERC signed with SKY, if that is the case, is further proof, if needed, of their total incompetence. they are the titanic but they welded the liferafts onto the deck...

quins, it's funny how you can only view that from one side. None of us know the SKY/BT contract details. All we can do is speculate. It very much looks though that PRL signed the BT contract in the knowledge that they were burning their bridges with ERC. Once they signed there was never a serious intention to negotiate with ERC in order to remain with ERC. No amount of compromise would have, or could have, encouraged them to remain with ERC. The PRL had effectively burnt their bridges, and all the ranting about meritocracy, split of monies, etc, was nothing more than an attempt to defect away from their sole purpose - to destroy ERC HEC, and create their own Euro competition in which they would have the controlling power.

Of course.... that's just speculation Very Happy

by Sin é Wed Nov 20, 2013 4:58 pm

quinsforever wrote:
Sin é wrote:
quinsforever wrote:took this quote from goebbels thornley's latest piece in the irish times...

"Camou, the respective Unions and the ERC board are adamant they will adhere to the Sky TV deal."

why the loyalty to SKY? unless ERC signed a ridiculously crappy contract that would leave them high and dry if they tried to go with BT? the fact this is being driven by the contract extension ERC signed with SKY, if that is the case, is further proof, if needed, of their total incompetence. they are the titanic but they welded the liferafts onto the deck...
Yep, the Unions knew exactly what they were doing when they approved and signed off on the Sky deal.

The 'incompetent' ERC have a broadcaster and sponsors for their competition.
No sponsor would touch the McCaff's Cup.

erm. actually they dont have a sponsor. Heineken deal runs out when ERC participation agreeement runs out. and both had a broadcaster.

Heineken and Amlin are staying with the ERC. It may surprise you to know this quinners, but Heineken were ERC's main sponsor before the English clubs started participating in the the Heineken Cup.

McCaff could take a leaf from Derek McGrath's book on building good corporate relationships. Hug

by quinsforever Wed Nov 20, 2013 5:03 pm

is that true sin? i thought the Heineken sponsorship automatically rolled off june 2014. have they announced an extension? did i mis-hear (very possible if i got if from 606 somewhere!)

think Amlin might have a few words to say if they're already been signed up...they've been sold a pup!

by broadlandboy Wed Nov 20, 2013 5:07 pm

PRL/LNR felt forced to give notice due to ERC failing to enter talks about concerns that both had.When signing the BT deal why would they think/want to go back? So yes bridges burnt but not just one sided as surely ERC realised that signing SKY deal would make it virtually impossible for PRL to return

by quinsforever Wed Nov 20, 2013 5:08 pm

Munchkin wrote:
quinsforever wrote:took this quote from goebbels thornley's latest piece in the irish times...

"Camou, the respective Unions and the ERC board are adamant they will adhere to the Sky TV deal."

why the loyalty to SKY? unless ERC signed a ridiculously crappy contract that would leave them high and dry if they tried to go with BT? the fact this is being driven by the contract extension ERC signed with SKY, if that is the case, is further proof, if needed, of their total incompetence. they are the titanic but they welded the liferafts onto the deck...
quins, it's funny how you can only view that from one side. None of us know the SKY/BT contract details. All we can do is speculate. It very much looks though that PRL signed the BT contract in the knowledge that they were burning their bridges with ERC. Once they signed there was never a serious intention to negotiate with ERC in order to remain with ERC. No amount of compromise would have, or could have, encouraged them to remain with ERC. The PRL had effectively burnt their bridges, and all the ranting about meritocracy, split of monies, etc, was nothing more than an attempt to defect away from their sole purpose - to destroy ERC HEC, and create their own Euro competition in which they would have the controlling power.

Of course.... that's just speculation

i didnt view it from one side. BT/PRL may well have done exactly the same. But the difference for me is PRL and the clubs are one and the same thing. ERC is not - it is a private company representing diverse interests (unions, leagues and clubs) that wanted to take everyone down with them to prevent them jumping ship rather than negotiate their position. at least PRL are only taking themselves down. ERC, particularly JP Lux are antiquated, power-hungry administrators.

by SecretFly Wed Nov 20, 2013 5:08 pm

That's a lot of pups being sold before Christmas again!!

Yous have all been warned before about buying puppies over the Christmas period and then straying them after the new year.

Quit it! And someone please find a new home for that pup McCaff. I say hire him out to golf. He might like to buy Tiger Woods....who is going much cheaper than he used to

by Guest Wed Nov 20, 2013 5:15 pm

quinsforever wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
quinsforever wrote:took this quote from goebbels thornley's latest piece in the irish times...

"Camou, the respective Unions and the ERC board are adamant they will adhere to the Sky TV deal."

why the loyalty to SKY? unless ERC signed a ridiculously crappy contract that would leave them high and dry if they tried to go with BT? the fact this is being driven by the contract extension ERC signed with SKY, if that is the case, is further proof, if needed, of their total incompetence. they are the titanic but they welded the liferafts onto the deck...
quins, it's funny how you can only view that from one side. None of us know the SKY/BT contract details. All we can do is speculate. It very much looks though that PRL signed the BT contract in the knowledge that they were burning their bridges with ERC. Once they signed there was never a serious intention to negotiate with ERC in order to remain with ERC. No amount of compromise would have, or could have, encouraged them to remain with ERC. The PRL had effectively burnt their bridges, and all the ranting about meritocracy, split of monies, etc, was nothing more than an attempt to defect away from their sole purpose - to destroy ERC HEC, and create their own Euro competition in which they would have the controlling power.

Of course.... that's just speculation
i didnt view it from one side. BT/PRL may well have done exactly the same. But the difference for me is PRL and the clubs are one and the same thing. ERC is not - it is a private company representing diverse interests (unions, leagues and clubs) that wanted to take everyone down with them to prevent them jumping ship rather than negotiate their position. at least PRL are only taking themselves down. ERC, particularly JP Lux are antiquated, power-hungry administrators.

quins, ERC can't negotiate on giving control to PRL/LNR, turkeys voting for Christmas, and PRL knew that the only way to get what they want was to destroy the HEC, and create their own competition. It wasn't ERC that was threatening to 'sink the ship', quins, it was PRL, and that was always their intention. They (PRL) were never going to agree in negotiations. That much is clear now.

by SecretFly Wed Nov 20, 2013 5:16 pm

PRL have morality on their side because they are only drowning themselves? Peculiar logic.

I don't see much morality in being thrown many lifelines (concessions) and face-saving life jackets (concessions) only to reject them all and choose to nobly go down with the ship.
The ship is where the ropes and life jackets were being thrown from in the first place.

by Sin é Wed Nov 20, 2013 5:45 pm

quinsforever wrote:is that true sin? i thought the Heineken sponsorship automatically rolled off june 2014. have they announced an extension? did i mis-hear (very possible if i got if from 606 somewhere!)

think Amlin might have a few words to say if they're already been signed up...they've been sold a pup!

The present contract finished at the end of this season. Heineken have said they want to continue sponsoring European rugby (as they have since 1995). The mess created by the PRL needs to be sorted before any contract are signed.

Amlin have a fair bit of business in France, so they will still get a lot of exposure. They probably have saturated the English market!

by mystiroakey Wed Nov 20, 2013 5:49 pm

Does anyone think its a bit strange that heineken still sponsors the ERC comps?

Most of the time sponsorship changes hands a lot , obviously there is normally a big market for sports sponsorships.

I cant help but thinking this is just typical of the ERC and just like the sky deal this time they just take whatever is offered and dont shop about

by Sin é Wed Nov 20, 2013 6:10 pm

mystiroakey wrote:Does anyone think its a bit strange that heineken still sponsors the ERC comps?

Most of the time sponsorship changes hands a lot , obviously there is normally a big market for sports sponsorships.

I cant help but thinking this is just typical of the ERC and just like the sky deal this time they just take whatever is offered and dont shop about

If you read what that bloke from Saachi said at that Rugby Expo thingy, you'd have learned that there isn't much sponsorship floating around at the moment even for sport. He also said that most new sponsors would run a mile from what is happening at the moment (The Unions should sue the PRL for bringing the sport into disrepute).

He also said that big sporting sponsorship decisions tend to be made 2-3 years before they actually happen. It wouldn't be unusual that the encumbent sponsor would be given first refusal. Their bids would be worked out to the penny as to what they are worth. Its usual for sponsors to give plenty of notice if they intend not renewing their sponsorship.

edit: Heineken is a big brand who have specialised in rugby (they are World Cup sponsors) - can you think of a better sponsor who is available?

by SecretFly Wed Nov 20, 2013 6:11 pm

Well the French and the English have been there from the beginning... or close enough to the beginning... to have voiced such concerns in the past, had they had any.

On one level you are right about shopping around and making competitors bid against each other.

But two points for that one:
1st - do we actually know such bidding exercises didn't take place and that on each occasion Heineken outbid the competitor? Just because one sponsor lasts the pace doesn't necessarily mean they didn't have to outbid others to stay there.

2nd - there is something in the idea of being a well known event, and HEC certainly is such an event in the rugby world. It's a sponsorship name yes, but it also fulfills the role of being an instantly recognisable 'brand' identity for the European Cup - and to have the assurance that everyone instantly knows what the Heineken Cup is and what its history is.
If you have a more rotational in-and-out of sponsors then things can become confusing and difficult for people trying to promote the event. You might relate it to the idea of a sponsored stadium. There is only so much name changing of a stadium that people would tolerate... and even a bigger bidding alternative might be counterproductive in terms of keeping the event itself in focus as something historic and continuous.

by Casartelli Wed Nov 20, 2013 6:17 pm

mystiroakey wrote:Does anyone think its a bit strange that heineken still sponsors the ERC comps?

Most of the time sponsorship changes hands a lot , obviously there is normally a big market for sports sponsorships.

I cant help but thinking this is just typical of the ERC and just like the sky deal this time they just take whatever is offered and dont shop about

There's probably all sorts of info available on this online, but off the top of my head; Rolex have sponsored Wimbledon since the 70s, Hugo Boss and McLaren have worked together since 70s/80s, and I think there's an Aussie rules team that have been sponsored by Ford since the 1920s.

Sometimes it's about loyalty, not just the highest short term bidder.

F***ing mad world ain't it!!!

by Casartelli Wed Nov 20, 2013 6:28 pm

The Honda Classic (a golf tournament in America) has had the same sponsor since 1982 (Honda, a Japanese car manufacturer).

1982!!!!

Those Americans and Japanese must be right amateurs! Need a couple of mystiroakey's 'English businessmen' over there to sort things out before it's too late boys!

by Gibson Wed Nov 20, 2013 6:31 pm

Well, as Heinekens unofficial rep in Amsterdam.... I can unofficially tell you, with some credence an ting, that they love the ERC being called the Heineken Cup.

Or as its known to us Leinster fans - The Heino. Why change what has already been ingrained into the rugby psyche for over 18 years now? That cost them a whole lot of time, money and effort to build up. They wont want to throw all that away without a fight. Its pure business logic Captain.

Even if their lager is total and utter shoite.

I predicted 2 months ago that the French would shaft the English on this deal. Its History man. Its what they've done to each other for eons. But, ye never listen.

Love to see McCafferty get his cards now. Man did he phhokitup, the arrogant gobshoite.

by andyi Wed Nov 20, 2013 6:34 pm

Sin é wrote:
mystiroakey wrote:Does anyone think its a bit strange that heineken still sponsors the ERC comps?

Most of the time sponsorship changes hands a lot , obviously there is normally a big market for sports sponsorships.

I cant help but thinking this is just typical of the ERC and just like the sky deal this time they just take whatever is offered and dont shop about
If you read what that bloke from Saachi said at that Rugby Expo thingy, you'd have learned that there isn't much sponsorship floating around at the moment even for sport. He also said that most new sponsors would run a mile from what is happening at the moment (The Unions should sue the PRL for bringing the sport into disrepute).

He also said that big sporting sponsorship decisions tend to be made 2-3 years before they actually happen. It wouldn't be unusual that the encumbent sponsor would be given first refusal. Their bids would be worked out to the penny as to what they are worth. Its usual for sponsors to give plenty of notice if they intend not renewing their sponsorship.

edit: Heineken is a big brand who have specialised in rugby (they are World Cup sponsors) - can you think of a better sponsor who is available?

That's not strictly true.

They have a far bigger deal in place as an associate sponsor of the Champions League.
Thev'e sponsored it since 1994 (as Amstel) and as Heineken since 2007 and have just signed an extension for the 2015-18 period at an increase to the current deal which costs them $70M a year!!!

by Casartelli Wed Nov 20, 2013 6:37 pm

mystiroakey wrote:Does anyone think its a bit strange that heineken still sponsors the ERC comps?

Most of the time sponsorship changes hands a lot , obviously there is normally a big market for sports sponsorships.

I cant help but thinking this is just typical of the ERC and just like the sky deal this time they just take whatever is offered and dont shop about

Just found out that Natwest (a banking brand) have sponsored English cricket since 1980!!!!

No wonder they got bought out by the Scots and then went belly-up!

Shop around people!!!

by SecretFly Wed Nov 20, 2013 6:43 pm

This topic is food and drink and then much much more. It has everything. Microscopic economic detail, business buzz words, percentages and coefficients, blazers and shiny Mafiosi Italian cut suits........................ and then it has oodles of high grade comedy. Who needs the Monty Phytoners back when this place does the surreal to perfection.

by andyi Wed Nov 20, 2013 6:49 pm

I'm curious as to what posters feel, what kind of Revenues, ERC should be generating for the HC and Amlin as % of what UEFA generate for the CL, Europa and Super cup.

Its a far far smaller market and has a lot less global interest and value but what do people feel ERC should (or could) be achieving?

I save the actual answers till we've had some opinions.

by Casartelli Wed Nov 20, 2013 6:54 pm

Gene Sarazen (US golfer) was sponsored by Wilson Sporting Goods (WILSSUUUUUUNNNNN!!!!!) for 50 years until Sarazen passed away in 1999.

Fifty!

Gene should have definitely shopped around.

by Sponsored content