What use is Pemiership Rugby Limited?

Since its inception it has always seemed to me that this bunch of ne're-do-wells had leapt from one disastrous decision to the next.

At which point did they lose what brains they had?

Someone will have to remind me of the last (any) time when they formulated a creative and connected collective decision which stood the test of time.

....everybody is still trying to think of one.......

bear with....

Well they did give us the Playoffs, Ron.
Yeah! And the A and P shares!
Don't forget the ground restrictions mate. They gave us that.
And effective negotiating skills, Ron!

Long live the Prostitutes' Rugby Limited Managers!

No. Its the Professional Rugby Limited, Ron!

Yeah.
I forgot.

I think the RFU brought in the requirements for Championship promotion. The RFU insist on certain requirements as you move up through the leagues.

The PRL did help bring us the EPS.

formerly known as Sam wrote:I think the RFU brought in the requirements for Championship promotion. The RFU insist on certain requirements as you move up through the leagues.

The PRL did help bring us the EPS.

The PRL were heavily involved in the committee that drew up the MSCs. The same MSC's that lots of their members don't meet, hence the very quick-back track on their behalf  when London Welsh threatened them with court. The panel knew the MSC's would be a much use as a chocolate fireguard in court!

PRL gives it members (the majority, if not all of the Jeff teams at this time) a united mouthpiece to deal with negotiations with their governing body (RFU) and helps to try and obtain lucrative commercial contracts for the Jeff (BT, Aviva, Land Rover, Guinness, Hilton, Gilbert, Gatorade, QBE, JP Morgan).

I'd say that in the past number of years the Jeff has definitely grown in it's popularity and exposure in the media (my perspective from afar).

If the PRL wins out in its power struggle with the RFU over the next couple of years it will become the primary body who controls professional rugby union in England both from a club perspective and also with more than significant influence over English rugby on the international stage.

What power struggle with the RFU?

They are good at keeping secrets though.
Like selling TV rights from under the noses of their 'partners'.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:PRL gives it members (the majority, if not all of the Jeff teams at this time) a united mouthpiece to deal with negotiations with their governing body (RFU) and helps to try and obtain lucrative commercial contracts for the Jeff (BT, Aviva, Land Rover, Guinness, Hilton, Gilbert, Gatorade, QBE, JP Morgan).

I'd say that in the past number of years the Jeff has definitely grown in it's popularity and exposure in the media (my perspective from afar).

If the PRL wins out in its power struggle with the RFU over the next couple of years it will become the primary body who controls professional rugby union in England both from a club perspective and also with more than significant influence over English rugby on the international stage.

SHUDDER...  

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/9302963/London-Welsh-MD-John-Taylor-fears-for-the-future-of-the-Championship-should-Exiles-bid-for-promotion-fail.html

There you go Andyi, it was the RFU that threatened the LW promotion. Whilst I'm sure they were in the consultation for minium requirements but I'm sure similar occurred when the RFU set up minimum requirements for League 1 and Championship Clubs.

formerly known as Sam wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/9302963/London-Welsh-MD-John-Taylor-fears-for-the-future-of-the-Championship-should-Exiles-bid-for-promotion-fail.html

There you go Andyi, it was the RFU that threatened the LW promotion. Whilst I'm sure they were in the consultation for minium requirements but I'm sure similar occurred when the RFU set up minimum requirements for League 1 and Championship Clubs.

Fair enough. Didn't know the RFU had acted on its own.

The MSC's were drawn up by the PGB (professional game board) IIRC. I think that was/is made up of PRL, RFU and possibly a couple of token guys form the Championship clubs but not 100% sure.

I think PGB is just RFU and PRL. The new 2016 deal will supposedly involve the championship sides (according Bedford boss a while ago) so hopefully we'll get a joined up sensible set-up. Maybe instead of the PRL we should have the equivalent of the LNR (made up of prem and champ clubs)

The PGB formed to agree the rules but it was the RFU who tried to enforce them to the detriment of LW.

formerly known as Sam wrote:The PGB formed to agree the rules but it was the RFU who tried to enforce them to the detriment of LW.

.
Bollix, it is PRL alone who crafted MSC as one of their triple thrusts to virtual ringfencing. PGB rubber stamped it, which enabled PRL to shift the flak from LW promotion onto RFU.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
Someone will have to remind me of the last (any) time when they formulated a creative and connected collective decision which stood the test of time.

Its taken me days to come up with anything and all I have is this.

The appointment of McCafferty - its was creative & collective (until they actually chose him as & appointed him) and he has managed to survive this long in the position.


That's all I got.......

PRL did agree to hand out EPS money equally to all and sundry regardless of player contributions. That was a brilliant idea.



Wan't it?  

Well it was done to stop teams like Leicester from buying up ALL the EPS players and getting paid for it. Also the money isn't given out equally. It's smoothed but not completely. Juggler posted the details back in the day.

What has the PRL given us?

The most competitive league in the NH. Compare it to the Rabo where second string teams are put out regularly because it dose not matter whether a team wins or loses because European competition is guaranteed and relegation is not a threat.

The rising crowds and TV audiences suggest that they are not as bad as all that.

As for European rugby we have yet to see how this pans out. The Celtic fans seem to place an awful lot of faith in Camou.

Exiledinborders wrote:What has the PRL given us?

The most competitive league in the NH. Compare it to the Rabo where second string teams are put out regularly because it dose not matter whether a team wins or loses because European competition is guaranteed and relegation is not a threat.

this is utter nonsense. It simply does not happen. rotation in the AP and the Rabo is the same. Most Rabo squads are significantly smaller than AP ones as well Somone on here did a good analysis of this and showed it to be nonsense.

What the AP is is an attritional league with teams unable to make long term plans and end up afraid to lose so play a dull game. also its not really competitive. Only a few teams can win.

Not really competitive? Over the last ten years there have been great teams from Bath, Wasps, Glaws, Saints, Quins, LI, Saracens and Tigers all winning or challenging for the title. This season Bath, Saints, Sarries, Quins and Tigers are all very much in the race for the title.

Interestingly those five teams are the teams that have invested in young talent through their own academies or from outside sources (mainly outside for Bath). The teams that have planned short term tend not to do so well, in particular Worcester this season.

Have to say I don't agree with the rotation thing in the Rabo. More AP games are meaningful as the top 6 positions are so sought after, finishing top 2 is a major advantage and the threat of relegation is a great motivator. However, with international call ups and long seasons most of the top sides have good squads which they look to use to ensure that the team is capable of their best form for the end of season push so rotation probably evens out. Especially with Tigers and their massive injury crisis this season, we've had to use about 40 odd players.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:They are good at keeping secrets though.
Like selling TV rights from under the noses of their 'partners'.

How were they legally allowed to do that while sitting on the ERC board?

maestegmafia wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:They are good at keeping secrets though.
Like selling TV rights from under the noses of their 'partners'.

How were they legally allowed to do that while sitting on the ERC board?

I don't know, maes .I'm not an legal beagle.

In the RCC debacle, I thought that all the ideas (proposed by the Franglos) were good (although there were probably not enough of them principally by not revising the seedings, h/a qtrs/semis etc.).

But once again the PRL demonstrated an inability to construct a coherent decision-making process and a  woeful skills in negotiating and now English participation in European club rugby hangs precariously by a gossamer thread.

To the detriment of everyone. Except in all likelihood, the legal profession...

What did the Romans ever do for us?  

Decimation?
A language that's all Greek to me?
The swastika?

I think they do a grand job.

I what way, Scrumpy?

I can see how they've tried. But I'm at a loss to find a long-term decision that has been successfully made without subsequent fudge-packing (as they say).

For example:
When they come up with against serious club v country conflict with the RFU what will/would/could they do having already painted themselves into a corner?

Ummm.....

How long have I got to come up with something?  

Well no doubt you'll pull the entire, unexpurgated text of 'The Wit and Wisdom of the PRL' on your Christmas cracker, Scrumps. 

HammerofThunor wrote:What power struggle with the RFU?

It's the standard struggle between clubs and Unions.  Clubs want to be successful by winning trophies.  To do this they need to generate sufficient revenues to cover the costs of their playing staff (and overheads) to put a team of sufficient quality onto the field.  They do not want to be spending time or money for items where they don't receive the benefit.  Unions want to generate sufficient funds to cover the costs of the amateur game and provide sufficient funding towards professional clubs to allow them to assemble a successful Test side. 

These are not the same objectives, and while they are not mutually exclusive, over powerment by one impacts to an extent on the other.

Even on this level, there are two key elements to focus on (there are plenty more as well, but I'll focus on two) and that is the cash coming in and the rights to players.  If the money hits your bank balance first, you control where it goes.  If you control that then you are in control of where it has to go and any negotiations can be controlled by you to a far greater extent.  See the PRL saying 'we' have a great deal with BT for 'our' tv rights and 'we' will share some of it with you, whereas the ERC (which has more voting and control by Unions) have tv rights money and at that table it is the Unions who have the votes for where the money goes.

So the PRL trying to move the control from ERC (which is mainly Unions with some PRL/LNR votes) to a 'new' governing body is an attempt to seize power from the RFU.

Exiledinborders wrote:

The most competitive league in the NH. Compare it to the Rabo where second string teams are put out regularly because it dose not matter whether a team wins or loses because European competition is guaranteed and relegation is not a threat.

Total myth - regarding player resting. English clubs rest players the same as Pro 12 sides.

As for the most competitive league in the NH you have made me laugh. Firstly in terms of players on show, clearly the Top 14 boast the best in the NH. I would argue it's probably the most physical league in the NH as well. Personally I think the Top 14 & Pro 12 are a long way ahead of the Aviva. You are only as strong as your weakest side and the PRL have only achieved competitiveness by handicapping the best sides in the league in order to preserve competitiveness. The Pro 12 by contrast has no such restrictions and its up to the participating bottom sides to improve regardless. So even though people are quick to point fingers at teams like Connacht & the Italian sides, keep in mind the Aviva has far worse teams in it such as Worcester (almost conceding 28 points a match), Newcastle (unable to score tries at all), London Irish, Gloucester, etc. Half the teams in the Aviva are an embarrassment to professional rugby to be honest and contribute very little to England's International setup. And with the Top 14 growing so rapidly it's even hard to see how the Aviva will become nothing but a feeder league to the "best league in NH", which of course is the Top 14. Pro 12 sides are currently the target however because they have more international calibre players in their ranks.

There is already major issues with player drain to the Top 14 and fringe English players are already being lined up. Flood for example, which is why RC was so desperate for him to play as he knows he will probably lose him at the end of the year if he is not part of England's plan. That's just going to weaken the league even further. The best decision made was by the RFU (not the PRL) to only pick only home based players because otherwise there wouldn't be an even bigger exodus of players (with half of them not having returned in the first place).

Welshmushroom wrote:Total myth - regarding player resting.  English clubs rest players the same as Pro 12 sides.

I don't agree with that, its well known that the Rabo teams protect their start players around HC fixtures, if they had to earn HC places that wouldn't always be the case.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:What power struggle with the RFU?

It's the standard struggle between clubs and Unions.  Clubs want to be successful by winning trophies.  To do this they need to generate sufficient revenues to cover the costs of their playing staff (and overheads) to put a team of sufficient quality onto the field.  They do not want to be spending time or money for items where they don't receive the benefit.  Unions want to generate sufficient funds to cover the costs of the amateur game and provide sufficient funding towards professional clubs to allow them to assemble a successful Test side. 

These are not the same objectives, and while they are not mutually exclusive, over powerment by one impacts to an extent on the other.

Even on this level, there are two key elements to focus on (there are plenty more as well, but I'll focus on two) and that is the cash coming in and the rights to players.  If the money hits your bank balance first, you control where it goes.  If you control that then you are in control of where it has to go and any negotiations can be controlled by you to a far greater extent.  See the PRL saying 'we' have a great deal with BT for 'our' tv rights and 'we' will share some of it with you, whereas the ERC (which has more voting and control by Unions) have tv rights money and at that table it is the Unions who have the votes for where the money goes.

So the PRL trying to move the control from ERC (which is mainly Unions with some PRL/LNR votes) to a 'new' governing body is an attempt to seize power from the RFU.

Except the RFU GAVE the PRL half their votes on the ERC AND agreed to vote their way unless they felt it was seriously against the good of the game (they actually voted for Wheeler along with the PRL). The RFU have a good deal with the PRL, it's working well. I see nothing there is any sort of power struggle. The RFU accept that the PRL are the best people to run the top tier of English domestic rugby (within their defined framework) and work with them through the PGB to ensure the whole system moves in a way that is beneficial for English rugby. Hopefully with the next deal the Championship clubs will be brought on board since to the LNR in France.

HammerofThunor wrote:

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:What power struggle with the RFU?

It's the standard struggle between clubs and Unions.  Clubs want to be successful by winning trophies.  To do this they need to generate sufficient revenues to cover the costs of their playing staff (and overheads) to put a team of sufficient quality onto the field.  They do not want to be spending time or money for items where they don't receive the benefit.  Unions want to generate sufficient funds to cover the costs of the amateur game and provide sufficient funding towards professional clubs to allow them to assemble a successful Test side. 

These are not the same objectives, and while they are not mutually exclusive, over powerment by one impacts to an extent on the other.

Even on this level, there are two key elements to focus on (there are plenty more as well, but I'll focus on two) and that is the cash coming in and the rights to players.  If the money hits your bank balance first, you control where it goes.  If you control that then you are in control of where it has to go and any negotiations can be controlled by you to a far greater extent.  See the PRL saying 'we' have a great deal with BT for 'our' tv rights and 'we' will share some of it with you, whereas the ERC (which has more voting and control by Unions) have tv rights money and at that table it is the Unions who have the votes for where the money goes.

So the PRL trying to move the control from ERC (which is mainly Unions with some PRL/LNR votes) to a 'new' governing body is an attempt to seize power from the RFU.

Except the RFU GAVE the PRL half their votes on the ERC AND agreed to vote their way unless they felt it was seriously against the good of the game (they actually voted for Wheeler along with the PRL). The RFU have a good deal with the PRL, it's working well. I see nothing there is any sort of power struggle. The RFU accept that the PRL are the best people to run the top tier of English domestic rugby (within their defined framework) and work with them through the PGB to ensure the whole system moves in a way that is beneficial for English rugby. Hopefully with the next deal the Championship clubs will be brought on board since to the LNR in France.

I think I'd view that slightly differently, but everyone is entitled to their view.  The PRL contain the entities who hold the English international players (and potential players) employment contracts.  In order to appease the clubs and protect access to those players, the RFU gave up half of their votes on the ERC. At other times in the past, the RFU have also handed over negotiating power for tv contracts containing PRL teams (so the PRL would contend in court anyway) and that move as well would have been part of the RFU being removed from the cash supply chain in order to have a smoother supply of players for england.  So the PRL started by representing the rights of clubs and their bargaining chip was supply of players to England and so far, to maintain access the RFU have been removed from half of the ERC and the RFU has been removed from the negotiating/decision table on tv and other income negotiations.  Each time the PRL grows in strength, they have the same threat of player access as their bargaining chip.  With a RWC in less than 2 years, they are attempting to gain more control at this opportune time.

From a PRL point of view, it is perfectly acceptable.  They are mandated to represent the interests of their members, being the professional clubs and they use the weapons in their arsenal to improve those interests.  Your last line of the championship coming under the PRL would be yet further growth in size and bargaining power for the PRL.  It could be argued that this does not necessarily mean it would be a good thing for the RFU or indeed England on the international stage.

Scrumpy wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:Total myth - regarding player resting.  English clubs rest players the same as Pro 12 sides.

I don't agree with that, its well known that the Rabo teams protect their start players around HC fixtures, if they had to earn HC places that wouldn't always be the case.

This again presumes that Leinster and Munster, or whoever might be highly ranked in HEC terms in any given year, sacrifice Pro12 placement because they don't rely on it to be in the following year's competition.  If you genuinely looked at Pro12 over the years - and I truly doubt that you do - you'd see that this case just isn't so.  Leinster and other Pro12 sides that do well in HEC give as much of themselves to their League.  The 'lesser' sides in Pro12 have no reason to rotate or protect their best players as their best players aren't generally of high enough standard to worry top HEC opponents anyway.  

So again, it's the idea that Irish sides benefit in HEC by not having to try so hard in Pro12.  But they do try hard because despite what outsiders might like to think about the Pro12 - it's a League worth winning - quite a few HEC winners have won it

Plus - had all English sides to earn their places and not have 6 of those places guaranteed, then we might have the parity that PRL seems to suggest they want.  
You see you can never get away from the point that in a theoretical sense, English rugby could provide the six worst sides to HEC in any given year in terms of ability - but they'd still be there - by right.  So much for the magical figure of six being somehow a meritocratic one for the English.  No - it's a number and regardless of ability in any given year, we'd always see English sides in Europe - six of them.

Player release though at the end of the day isn't down to the PRL. We are already seeing leading welsh players who leave wales signing appearance & training clause availability as part of their contracts.

So for example in George North's contract he has such clauses with his contract with Northampton. As a result, even if the PRL state Northampton shouldn't release him because the game against Australia is outside of the test window (and usually they try to secure extra funds for internationals of other countries for games outside of the IRB test window), they have no choice but to release him because that is a direct clause he has in his contract with Northampton. Bottom line the best players will always be able to amend their own contracts because usually there are a number of clubs and in order to sign them they often have to bow to player demands. So does the PRL really hold the cards in the long term, we'll see because I cant see them challenging individual contracts and this Saturdays match (Wales vs Australia) will be a clear indicator if in fact they can't dictate to players regarding availability. The WRU wont be compensating Northampton for the release either because they don't have too now that he is free to play regardless.

Sorry if any of this puts words in your mouth but...

You seem to be suggesting that any deal between the RFU and PRL is based on threats. I think you're a bit misinformed about the system in England. The RFU didn't have any extra to the players before 2007. They weren't trying to protect those rights, nor were the PRL threatening to take them away. The RFU has the standard access right defined and protected by the IRB. The RFU wanted more time so they gave extra funding to he PRL. The TV rights thing is irrelevant as they already had them.

It seems you guys keep banging on about union control. Do you think that maybe the RFU and PRL have come to a more reasonable symbiotic relationship and he union doesn't need direct control over every aspect?

The PRL wanted to add two extra teams, the RFU said no. The PRL wanted to ring fence (they said they didn't but pretty much every club had said hey wanted it) and the RFU said no. In 2016 the RFU can take back the TV rights if they want. The RFU still has ultimate power, they just devolve a little to the clubs on a temporary basis.

SecretFly wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:Total myth - regarding player resting.  English clubs rest players the same as Pro 12 sides.

I don't agree with that, its well known that the Rabo teams protect their start players around HC fixtures, if they had to earn HC places that wouldn't always be the case.

This again presumes that Leinster and Munster, or whoever might be highly ranked in HEC terms in any given year, sacrifice Pro12 placement because they don't rely on it to be in the following year's competition.  If you genuinely looked at Pro12 over the years - and I truly doubt that you do - you'd see that this case just isn't so.  Leinster and other Pro12 sides that do well in HEC give as much of themselves to their League.  The 'lesser' sides in Pro12 have no reason to rotate or protect their best players as their best players aren't generally of high enough standard to worry top HEC opponents anyway.  

So again, it's the idea that Irish sides benefit in HEC by not having to try so hard in Pro12.  But they do try hard because despite what outsiders might like to think about the Pro12 - it's a League worth winning - quite a few HEC winners have won it

Plus - had all English sides to earn their places and not have 6 of those places guaranteed, then we might have the parity that PRL seems to suggest they want.  
You see you can never get away from the point that in a theoretical sense, English rugby could provide the six worst sides to HEC in any given year in terms of ability - but they'd still be there - by right.  So much for the magical figure of six being somehow a meritocratic one for the English.  No - it's a number and regardless of ability in any given year, we'd always see English sides in Europe - six of them.

I don't agree, all to often I tune in to watch a Rabo game (most weeks thanks) only to see two 2nd XV teams slug out a mud fest, no wonder fans don't go!

SecretFly wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:Total myth - regarding player resting.  English clubs rest players the same as Pro 12 sides.

I don't agree with that, its well known that the Rabo teams protect their start players around HC fixtures, if they had to earn HC places that wouldn't always be the case.

This again presumes that Leinster and Munster, or whoever might be highly ranked in HEC terms in any given year, sacrifice Pro12 placement because they don't rely on it to be in the following year's competition.  If you genuinely looked at Pro12 over the years - and I truly doubt that you do - you'd see that this case just isn't so.  Leinster and other Pro12 sides that do well in HEC give as much of themselves to their League.  The 'lesser' sides in Pro12 have no reason to rotate or protect their best players as their best players aren't generally of high enough standard to worry top HEC opponents anyway.  

So again, it's the idea that Irish sides benefit in HEC by not having to try so hard in Pro12.  But they do try hard because despite what outsiders might like to think about the Pro12 - it's a League worth winning - quite a few HEC winners have won it

Plus - had all English sides to earn their places and not have 6 of those places guaranteed, then we might have the parity that PRL seems to suggest they want.  
You see you can never get away from the point that in a theoretical sense, English rugby could provide the six worst sides to HEC in any given year in terms of ability - but they'd still be there - by right.  So much for the magical figure of six being somehow a meritocratic one for the English.  No - it's a number and regardless of ability in any given year, we'd always see English sides in Europe - six of them.

I'd agree with everything you've said here - the introduction of the play off in the Pro 12 has added even further incentives to the league. I don't think anyone would argue about the sheer success that Ireland have had in the HC, has also translated to league titles with the exception of the Ospreys (which mirrors not only their dominance in the HC but everything they play in). That's setting standards.

In my personal opinion the Irish have forced the Welsh & Scottish (as well as the Italians since their inception) to up their standards to compete with them. Welsh sides during the Pro12 creation used to get hammered a lot by the Irish provinces in the early years and it took us a fair while to even get used to playing at the level in a league. But teams are building all the time and we can see with sides like Glasgow challenging so hard in the last couple of seasons, how driven each team within the league is to improving standards.

I've always been a strong believer that HC qualification shouldn't be place orientated. For me, with the exception of each leagues championship winning side - no team should deserve automatic qualification. Not if you are looking to create the best European competition. Instead other than maybe 3 league winners and last years HC champions, the remaining teams should be drawn in a pre round qualifier where all teams can potentially qualify for the group stages of the HC but only if they win their opening match against their counterpart. That would spell the end for all this automatic entry nonsense.

Scrumpy wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:Total myth - regarding player resting.  English clubs rest players the same as Pro 12 sides.

I don't agree with that, its well known that the Rabo teams protect their start players around HC fixtures, if they had to earn HC places that wouldn't always be the case.

This again presumes that Leinster and Munster, or whoever might be highly ranked in HEC terms in any given year, sacrifice Pro12 placement because they don't rely on it to be in the following year's competition.  If you genuinely looked at Pro12 over the years - and I truly doubt that you do - you'd see that this case just isn't so.  Leinster and other Pro12 sides that do well in HEC give as much of themselves to their League.  The 'lesser' sides in Pro12 have no reason to rotate or protect their best players as their best players aren't generally of high enough standard to worry top HEC opponents anyway.  

So again, it's the idea that Irish sides benefit in HEC by not having to try so hard in Pro12.  But they do try hard because despite what outsiders might like to think about the Pro12 - it's a League worth winning - quite a few HEC winners have won it

Plus - had all English sides to earn their places and not have 6 of those places guaranteed, then we might have the parity that PRL seems to suggest they want.  
You see you can never get away from the point that in a theoretical sense, English rugby could provide the six worst sides to HEC in any given year in terms of ability - but they'd still be there - by right.  So much for the magical figure of six being somehow a meritocratic one for the English.  No - it's a number and regardless of ability in any given year, we'd always see English sides in Europe - six of them.

I don't agree, all to often I tune in to watch a Rabo game (most weeks thanks) only to see two 2nd XV teams slug out a mud fest, no wonder fans don't go!

Attendances are an issue because of a number of reasons. Firstly more Pro 12 rugby is available on terrestrial TV than any other league. That kind of accessibility will always keep arm chair fans away who may rather watch it in a pub when its raining outside. Secondly Irish sides have great attendances. Glasgow's attendances have been growing this year due to their success given where they started out. Rugby in Scotland isn't overly supported. In Wales we had the whole mess with regional rugby to begin with. Plus success is a major factor. Welsh sides (with the exception of the Ospreys) have had very little to shout about. Besides the Aviva has some dire home attendances as well. Saracens are struggling for home matches and they are based in London! At least the Scarlets have an excuse. Their nearest town only has a population of around 100K in the first place. London's got millions!

As for your comment you tune in most weeks, I really am not sure that's the case. This year due to Lions participation some of that squad where rested. Outside of that most teams started the season full strength. Just because you don't see O'Driscoll on the team sheet hardly means its a weakened team.

Oh and btw on that premises the Aviva also do it. 1 in 4 matches a EPS player cannot be present in match day squads (that's out of the 64 players involved with England).

And while I'm at it, you cant have been watching any Dragons & Scarlets matches. They have fielded full strength virtually every game (subject to injury availability which is the case for all teams).

Minor point. Regions won the league 3 times out of the first 4. Since then they've never topped the table (it's always been the Irish). Ospreys have won it once or twice on the playoffs. Have they really raised their game to the Irish level? Seems more like the Irish raised it to the Welsh level and beyond. Obviously financial issues have hit in the last couple of years.

I love it when people tell me I haven't been watching it just because my view differs to there own. Thanks guys well done  

I don't know that you do see 2nd XV teams every week. International windows, definitely, but I don't think the big guns are rested more than other leagues.

Given the attrition rate and the length of the season I'd say that most teams use about 40 players and about 20-25 of them are first choices, its rare that injury lets you pick a full deck in the Pro12 or elsewhere.

HammerofThunor wrote:Minor point. Regions won the league 3 times out of the first 4. Since then they've never topped the table (it's always been the Irish). Ospreys have won it once or twice on the playoffs. Have they really raised their game to the Irish level? Seems more like the Irish raised it to the Welsh level and beyond. Obviously financial issues have hit in the last couple of years.

You do realise that the team with the most titles in the league is not Irish, right?

Scrumpy wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:Total myth - regarding player resting.  English clubs rest players the same as Pro 12 sides.

I don't agree with that, its well known that the Rabo teams protect their start players around HC fixtures, if they had to earn HC places that wouldn't always be the case.

No - its an oft repeated myth used to attempt to justify the PRL nonsense. it simply is not true that the rabo teams do this any more than the AP teams

Player management in both leagues, but it impacts more in the Rabo due to the number of Internationals in the squads. Off the top of my head 19 from Leinster, 15 from Glasgow 10 from Edinburgh, sorry don't know Welsh numbers. That compares to 64 EPS obviously impacting the top teams more.

Top of my head, so happy to be proved wrong, but fact remains that the Rabo provide the bulk of 4 International teams, AP one.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:They are good at keeping secrets though.
Like selling TV rights from under the noses of their 'partners'.

How were they legally allowed to do that while sitting on the ERC board?

I don't know, maes .I'm not an legal beagle.

In the RCC debacle, I thought that all the ideas (proposed by the Franglos) were good (although there were probably not enough of them principally by not revising the seedings, h/a qtrs/semis etc.).

But once again the PRL demonstrated an inability to construct a coherent decision-making process and a  woeful skills in negotiating and now English participation in European club rugby hangs precariously by a gossamer thread.

To the detriment of everyone. Except in all likelihood, the legal profession...

If i did the same in business I am pretty sure i would end up in legal hot water. Peter Wheeler was sitting in the meetings where the English handed in their notice and was at the meeting where the ERC announced their renewal of their sky tv deal, the mean time he was negotiating a deal with BT on behalf of the PRL.

HammerofThunor wrote:Minor point. Regions won the league 3 times out of the first 4. Since then they've never topped the table (it's always been the Irish). Ospreys have won it once or twice on the playoffs. Have they really raised their game to the Irish level? Seems more like the Irish raised it to the Welsh level and beyond. Obviously financial issues have hit in the last couple of years.

Yes we have had some good teams in Wales who have challenged but you only have to look at the historical league standings to realize that actually more often than not, our Irish counterparts finished in the top half. When 3 of your 4 sides are finishing in the top 6 its hard to argue they are not setting the standards in my opinion.

Maes, Wheeler has stated that he was at no meeting where that discusiion took place, see european thread for quotes