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

First topic message reminder :

TJ wrote:What the PRL said.  They were saying how much the RCC was worth and how much each union would get from it.  That implies they had "sold" all the games.

They haven't specifically said how much it will be worth, just that there will be more money than the ERC have negotiated because of what they've managed to negotiate and what the French are expecting to get.  They won't know for certain what it is worth until the French have sold their rights.  The LNR ccertainly wouldn't be on board with the PLR if they had sold rights to their games, and there wouldn't be the money they are alluding to if they had.

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Knock it on the head in what way?

Are you saying more money is not raised from subscribers in England (<24%)?

Or is it that this is irrelevant (if true) because it's the teams that make the competition?

Given that the IRFU have stated that they generate less money from Ireland than they take from the 6 Nations and ERC, and the Pro12 split their TV finances based on where the money is generated, do you agree that this is a hypocritical stance?

I think what happens is the BBC buy the UK & Ireland rights to the Six Nations (which is on FTA). RTE then buy the Irish rights from them. You can watch 6 Nations games on both RTE & BBC in Ireland.

Six Nations is FTA in Ireland and so based on the population. It might be a different story if it was pay per view where they know exactly the number of subscribers that watch it there.

So is it hypocritical that the 6 Nations and ERC TV money isn't split like the Pro12 money is?

mystiroakey wrote:

Sin é wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Sin é wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Under IRB regs each union owns the rights under their jurisdiction (RFU seems to have given these to PRL) irrelevent to where they are broadcast. That seems to be the point that you dont realise.

I do realise that. Its getting around the technical broadcasting issues I'd like explained.

techinically its easy- because everyone that has sky/virgin/bt has an area code and a viewing card number.

to scramble signals is easy

So that excludes FTA broadcasters then from the bidding process?

That would also exclude Sky, because they purchase the rights of UK & Ireland generally (English speaking). I'd imagine Sky would not be too happy to buy the broadcasting rights to Welsh games that they would have to exclude their English or Irish subscribers to.

Sorry, the way the PRL are going about it would mean that it would be a complete nightmare to operate and make it practially impossible for the other UK nations & Ireland to sell their rights.

I dont think the PRL want to go on that route, but its all possible- i just thought you were asking a general technical question on how you could block regions from TV programmes

I'm trying to explain to you the difficulties that arise from England having sold their rights without consulting anyone.

They were told they were out of the Six Nations when they sold their rights to Sky before (they got out of their contract to Sky and were back with BBC the following year).

Sin é wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Sin é wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Sin é wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Under IRB regs each union owns the rights under their jurisdiction (RFU seems to have given these to PRL) irrelevent to where they are broadcast. That seems to be the point that you dont realise.

I do realise that. Its getting around the technical broadcasting issues I'd like explained.

techinically its easy- because everyone that has sky/virgin/bt has an area code and a viewing card number.

to scramble signals is easy

So that excludes FTA broadcasters then from the bidding process?

That would also exclude Sky, because they purchase the rights of UK & Ireland generally (English speaking). I'd imagine Sky would not be too happy to buy the broadcasting rights to Welsh games that they would have to exclude their English or Irish subscribers to.

Sorry, the way the PRL are going about it would mean that it would be a complete nightmare to operate and make it practially impossible for the other UK nations & Ireland to sell their rights.

I dont think the PRL want to go on that route, but its all possible- i just thought you were asking a general technical question on how you could block regions from TV programmes

I'm trying to explain to you the difficulties that arise from England having sold their rights without consulting anyone.

They were told they were out of the Six Nations when they sold their rights to Sky before (they got out of their contract to Sky and were back with BBC the following year).

they didnt need to tell anyone as the rights was for a new comp and they quit the erc.

the difficulties are due to things none of us are actually aware of or a party to.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Knock it on the head in what way?

Are you saying more money is not raised from subscribers in England (<24%)?

Or is it that this is irrelevant (if true) because it's the teams that make the competition?

Given that the IRFU have stated that they generate less money from Ireland than they take from the 6 Nations and ERC, and the Pro12 split their TV finances based on where the money is generated, do you agree that this is a hypocritical stance?

I think what happens is the BBC buy the UK & Ireland rights to the Six Nations (which is on FTA). RTE then buy the Irish rights from them. You can watch 6 Nations games on both RTE & BBC in Ireland.

Six Nations is FTA in Ireland and so based on the population. It might be a different story if it was pay per view where they know exactly the number of subscribers that watch it there.

So is it hypocritical that the 6 Nations and ERC TV money isn't split like the Pro12 money is?

Why is it hypocritical. I presume the IRFU (whose clubs get high viewing numbers as well as attendances) take the view that it helps stop Welsh clubs from going under.

mystiroakey wrote:they didnt need to tell anyone as the rights was for a new comp and they quit the erc.

the difficulties are due to things none of us are actually aware of or a party to.

Well, hope they are not too surprised that they haven't got too much interest in joining in their new Cup when not supplying any information about it.

Bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Sin e are you a wum or just not getting it the Rights holder sells the games played in their area of jurisdiction,the deal will say where the broadcaster can show them. If Sky buy the Welsh rights the deal with the Welsh will say where it can be shown,as England has a larger population that subscribes to Sky to be able to show it in England & Wales should cost more than just Wales, Sky would want the right to show them in England, nothing to do with PRL.
The problem arose because ERC sold exclusive rights (including English) despite being told that they didnt have them. As PRL had given notice they were not covered by the existing accord which gave the rights to ERC

Sin é wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:they didnt need to tell anyone as the rights was for a new comp and they quit the erc.

the difficulties are due to things none of us are actually aware of or a party to.

Well, hope they are not too surprised that they haven't got too much interest in joining in their new Cup when not supplying any information about it.

Bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

the tv stuff stuff can be dealt with, if other unions are willing to discuss it and allow clubs some say in the process

the PRL in effect was only trying to earn more money- but not try and take any lions share- as they had agreed to pool the money.

The problem is them(prl) quitting because they felt they were being held back- The LNR and Welsh clubs also agreed,

http://www.espn.co.uk/england/rugby/story/207845.html

broadlandboy wrote:Sin e are you a wum or just not getting it the Rights holder sells the games played in their area of jurisdiction,the deal will say where the broadcaster can show them. If Sky buy the Welsh rights the deal with the Welsh will say where it can be shown,as England has a larger population that subscribes to Sky to be able to show it in England & Wales should cost more than just Wales, Sky would want the right to show them in England, nothing to do with PRL.
The problem arose because ERC sold exclusive rights (including English) despite being told that they didnt have them. As PRL had given notice they were not covered by the existing accord which gave the rights to ERC

Your presuming a lot when you think that Sky will play ball and fall into line with BT.

I don't know why you keep bringing up about ERC selling exclusive rights to the ERC. The RFU had agreed at a Board meeting to go ahead and sell them and the PRL would have known of this as they are members of the Board. Just because the PRL don't turn up to a Board Meeting doesn't mean that the Board can't approve them.

edit: *The French & Welsh were at this meeting.

1. Sky were aware that the PRL would not be participating in the competition.
2. ERC got on with its business and sold exclusive rights to UK & Ireland - nothing to do with PRL where who or where they sold them since they had resigned.

"McCafferty and (PRL chairman) Quentin Smith were traipsing around Auckland like Trappist monks in sackcloth and ashes
Read more at http://www.espnscrum.com/england/rugby/story/207845.html#38gDB5AzKDqjlKXQ.99"


yeah lol

Sin é wrote:Why is it hypocritical. I presume the IRFU (whose clubs get high viewing numbers as well as attendances) take the view that it helps stop Welsh clubs from going under.

But the Italians are given nothing and the Scots get bugger all? cowpat and you know it.

Sin é wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Sin e are you a wum or just not getting it the Rights holder sells the games played in their area of jurisdiction,the deal will say where the broadcaster can show them. If Sky buy the Welsh rights the deal with the Welsh will say where it can be shown,as England has a larger population that subscribes to Sky to be able to show it in England & Wales should cost more than just Wales, Sky would want the right to show them in England, nothing to do with PRL.
The problem arose because ERC sold exclusive rights (including English) despite being told that they didnt have them. As PRL had given notice they were not covered by the existing accord which gave the rights to ERC

Your presuming a lot when you think that Sky will play ball and fall into line with BT.

I don't know why you keep bringing up about ERC selling exclusive rights to the ERC. The RFU had agreed at a Board meeting to go ahead and sell them and the PRL would have known of this as they are members of the Board. Just because the PRL don't turn up to a Board Meeting doesn't mean that the Board can't approve them./

1. Sky were aware that the PRL would not be participating in the competition.
2. ERC got on with its business and sold exclusive rights to UK & Ireland - nothing to do with PRL where who or where they sold them since they had resigned.

thats the problem isnt it.

we then after all this happened agreed to include the English with a deal(3rd splits )

If they just signed a deal knowing the English were not available why did they talk about this new deal.

SKY want england in the tourny. SKY have not created a contract for a long term ERC without the english. So you can say what you want about what the ERC have done- but that doesnt change skys position

It is not to but from that is the problem. ERC could sell the rest of the UK & IRE rights to Sky to be shown in UK & IRE but could not sell the PRL home games to be shown anywhere

mystiroakey wrote:
we then after all this happened agreed to include the English with a deal(3rd splits )

If they just signed a deal knowing the English were not available why did they talk about this new deal.

SKY want england in the tourny. SKY have not created a contract for a long term ERC without the english. So you can say what you want about what the ERC have done- but that doesnt change skys position

They probably had to go through the motions to bring the French along as they had declared they wouldn't play in the competition without the English clubs.

Everyone wants England in the tournament - just not at any price.

I have no idea what contract Sky have signed (or indeed what sponsorship Heineken have signed).

Problem is that the PRL have not been open and transparent in their dealings with the ERC. It was the the French who let it out that BT had signed this exclusive contract.

Perhaps the ERC didn't know when they signed the contract with Sky what kind of contract the PRL had signed with BT?

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:http://www.espn.co.uk/england/rugby/story/207845.html

unfortunately, criticism from Martyn Thomas is only going to bolster the position of McCafferty and Q Smith within England. that is how much Martyn Thomas is generally reviled.

Is a false comfort to place too much weight on his words McLad.

The PRL sent e-mails to ERC/SKY saying that they didnt have PRL rights,when the PRL/BT deal was announced (before the ERC/SKY deal) part of it was that after this season BT would have the PRL rights for european competition

quinsforever wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:http://www.espn.co.uk/england/rugby/story/207845.html

unfortunately, criticism from Martyn Thomas is only going to bolster the position of McCafferty and Q Smith within England. that is how much Martyn Thomas is generally reviled.

Is a false comfort to place too much weight on his words McLad.

None of my business what goes on in another countries League/Union/whatever.. Just adding it to the thread.

broadlandboy wrote:It is not to but from that is the problem. ERC could sell the rest of the UK & IRE rights to Sky to be shown in UK & IRE but could not sell the PRL home games to be shown anywhere

The Exclusive Deal for Sky to broadcast the Heineken Cup in UK & Ireland had been agreed by the ERC Board (including French and RFU rep).

You seriously think it would have been wise to not sign that deal bearing in mind that representatives of 34 of the 40 clubs (or whatever it is now) clubs had agreed to it?

Bear in mind the French games are televised by Sky in the UK.

quinsforever wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:http://www.espn.co.uk/england/rugby/story/207845.html

unfortunately, criticism from Martyn Thomas is only going to bolster the position of McCafferty and Q Smith within England. that is how much Martyn Thomas is generally reviled.

Is a false comfort to place too much weight on his words McLad.

It just makes England rugby a laughing stock though and confirm how dysfunctional the whole set-up is.

It also confirms what a mistake it was for the English, French & Welsh RFUs to allow the clubs get out of control.

The best run clubs in world rugby are all run by Unions or supporter owned clubs (All the clubs in NZ, SA, Irish, Leicester, Exeter).

Sin é wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:It is not to but from that is the problem. ERC could sell the rest of the UK & IRE rights to Sky to be shown in UK & IRE but could not sell the PRL home games to be shown anywhere

The Exclusive Deal for Sky to broadcast the Heineken Cup in UK & Ireland had been agreed by the ERC Board (including French and RFU rep).

You seriously think it would have been wise to not sign that deal bearing in mind that representatives of 34 of the 40 clubs (or whatever it is now) clubs had agreed to it?

Bear in mind the French games are televised by Sky in the UK.

Wheeler has said that the TV was NOT agreed at the meeting the ERC said it was. He didn't say he wasn't at the meeting. He said that no specific deal was raised or voted on at the meeting on the 6th June or at any meeting after then.

Sin e the deal is to broadcast from. At the time of the ERC/SKY deal 26 teams (PRL & LNR) & FFR had given notice, there was some dispute over whether RFU or PRL owned the rights(due to the ESP agreement with imho RFU thinking they had given the rights for just the AVIVA while the wording could be interpreted as all rights(PRL having taken legal advice))

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:It is not to but from that is the problem. ERC could sell the rest of the UK & IRE rights to Sky to be shown in UK & IRE but could not sell the PRL home games to be shown anywhere

The Exclusive Deal for Sky to broadcast the Heineken Cup in UK & Ireland had been agreed by the ERC Board (including French and RFU rep).

You seriously think it would have been wise to not sign that deal bearing in mind that representatives of 34 of the 40 clubs (or whatever it is now) clubs had agreed to it?

Bear in mind the French games are televised by Sky in the UK.

Wheeler has said that the TV was NOT agreed at the meeting the ERC said it was. He didn't say he wasn't at the meeting. He said that no specific deal was raised or voted on at the meeting on the 6th June or at any meeting after then.

Well, if that was the case you would think that the RFU, LNR & RCC (all board members) would have backed Wheeler up. The ERC are quite adament that it was agreed to go ahead with the deal (and I would expect it they would have minuted it).

They also haven't said that it was. Could be a case of least said soonest mended

broadlandboy wrote:Sin e the deal is to broadcast from. At the time of the ERC/SKY deal 26 teams (PRL & LNR) & FFR  had given notice, there was some dispute over whether RFU or PRL owned the rights(due to the ESP agreement with imho RFU thinking they had given the rights for just the AVIVA while the wording could be interpreted as all rights(PRL having taken legal advice))

More internal mess from English rugby - they don't know who has the rights.

Knowing what a mess English rugby is, you'd hardly blame the ERC to just ignore them and try and do their best for the rest of the countries involved.

Why did the representatives of the LNR/FRR think it was ok to approve the Sky deal going ahead.

i wouldn't say we are in a mess.

We have larger ap viewing figures than before. The league is earning more and the national team is in the up .

No mess, just a few bargaining issues with the ERC.

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:http://www.espn.co.uk/england/rugby/story/207845.html

unfortunately, criticism from Martyn Thomas is only going to bolster the position of McCafferty and Q Smith within England. that is how much Martyn Thomas is generally reviled.

Is a false comfort to place too much weight on his words McLad.

It just makes England rugby a laughing stock though and confirm how dysfunctional the whole set-up is.

It also confirms what a mistake it was for the English, French & Welsh RFUs to allow the clubs get out of control.

The best run clubs in world rugby are all run by Unions or supporter owned clubs (All the clubs in NZ, SA, Irish, Leicester, Exeter).

 I don't think England rugby is a laughing stock. Has been the most successful NH side since the dawn of professionalism, and the clubs second only to France in HC wins + runner-ups, and second only to france in financial power of clubs (wealth), and an RFU that now has total spending fractionally less than the combined spending of WRU, SRU, IRFU, FIR combined.

how is that growth and evolution a mistake? Professionalism is helping the "english" and "french" games more than any other countries. admittedly the french haven't got the club/country balance sorted yet, but the RFU and PRL are certainly getting there.

i'm not going to comment on your one-eyed comment (even by your standards!) about the best run clubs in world rugby...lets just say that none of them would be able to survive without massive subsidy (via central contracting or by being owned 100%) from their respective unions. how is that well run? they are addicted to HC monies as shown by this thread. a well run club has a sustainable business.

mystiroakey wrote:i wouldn't say we are in a mess.

We have larger ap viewing figures than before. The league is earning more and the national team is in the up .

No mess, just a few bargaining issues with the ERC.

The PRL have some heavy lifting to do with BT to get out of their contract with them and I wouldn't depend on the French if I were you to back you up.

Your facing no European rugby next year and you expect your teams to perform coming up to a world cup?

You've also peed off all of your Union Partners and are now isolated.

Good shape indeed.

Enjoy playing rugby with yourselves.

The LNR/FFR had given notice so probably were not that interested so kept quiet.
Why did the ERC sell the rights to PRL games after they had been told that they didn't have them?

the ERC is in a mess, and its going to affect every team.

but over all there is a bright future in the english game. that is for sure.

I would rather our players are not burnt out for the RWC tbh

if i were the RFU i would be licking my lips at the thought of a 1-year pass from HC ahead of a home RWC. look at the niggling injury list after the lions tour? wales, england and ireland are all struglling on this front.

remove 6-10 HC games from the schedule in 2014-15, have the RFU pay for some extra player release for squad training to balance the PRL clubs books, and I would be very happy if i were RFU. It is only the celtic nations who need the HC to "test" their players against the best (having seen the % of matches played by irish squad players in Rabo its easy to see why). Aviva Premiership does that just fine already.

might be a mess for ireland and the other nations in a weakened HC, with a highly uncertain 2015-onwards in HC. Personally i would be thrilled for England's chances in RWC 2015.

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:http://www.espn.co.uk/england/rugby/story/207845.html

unfortunately, criticism from Martyn Thomas is only going to bolster the position of McCafferty and Q Smith within England. that is how much Martyn Thomas is generally reviled.

Is a false comfort to place too much weight on his words McLad.

It just makes England rugby a laughing stock though and confirm how dysfunctional the whole set-up is.

It also confirms what a mistake it was for the English, French & Welsh RFUs to allow the clubs get out of control.

The best run clubs in world rugby are all run by Unions or supporter owned clubs (All the clubs in NZ, SA, Irish, Leicester, Exeter).

 I don't think England rugby is a laughing stock. Has been the most successful NH side since the dawn of professionalism, and the clubs second only to France in HC wins + runner-ups, and second only to france in financial power of clubs (wealth), and an RFU that now has total spending fractionally less than the combined spending of WRU, SRU, IRFU, FIR combined.

how is that growth and evolution a mistake? Professionalism is helping the "english" and "french" games more than any other countries. admittedly the french haven't got the club/country balance sorted yet, but the RFU and PRL are certainly getting there.

i'm not going to comment on your one-eyed comment (even by your standards!) about the best run clubs in world rugby...lets just say that none of them would be able to survive without massive subsidy (via central contracting or by being owned 100%) from their respective unions. how is that well run? they are addicted to HC monies as shown by this thread. a well run club has a sustainable business.

England's success is now in the past. You were a laughing stock at the last world cup, remember.

Most of the clubs are in deep financial trouble. (Only 4 of the 12 are living within their means).

Thanks for pointing out and confirming my point that the Union owned clubs are the best run clubs because they live within their means, retain their best players and wins lots of stuff.

Just so you know, the IRFU 'subsidy' to clubs is paid out of ERC money as the IRFU retain all of it. The Provinces get to keep ticket money, jersey sales and sponsorship. Munster could earn twice to three times in ticket sales for home games in Thomond Park than the likes of Quins, Northampton etc. because of the capacity of their grounds and of course, Munster would have much better corporate facilities.

Leinster can even do better. Probably get 50K paying full whack for the sale of their tickets for the Northampton home game before Christmas in the Aviva.

Hard for English clubs (exception Leicester) in competing with that.

Lol sine. You speak so much rubbish in regards to England don't you. It's like you are just hoping your words are true.

No England are fine thanks, worry about your own nation

broadlandboy wrote:The LNR/FFR had given notice so probably were not that interested so kept quiet.
Why did the ERC sell the rights to PRL games after they had been told that they didn't have them?

One does not follow the other

The PRL was not a member of the ERC - so its team may well have said they will not play in an ERC run competition but the body who had the shares representing the English game (eRFU) did not serve notice and remained a member.
You cant leave something you are not a member of.

Only one organization (LNR) who were members of the ERC served notice to quit.
They were 8% of the ERC organization.
The other 92% went ahead an negotiated a deal with Sky - they were perfectly entitled to do so.

quinsforever wrote:if i were the RFU i would be licking my lips at the thought of a 1-year pass from HC ahead of a home RWC. look at the niggling injury list after the lions tour? wales, england and ireland are all struglling on this front.

Ireland are not struggling from injuries from the Lions - POC broke his arm, but he is in fine fettle now.

remove 6-10 HC games from the schedule in 2014-15, have the RFU pay for some extra player release for squad training to balance the PRL clubs books, and I would be very happy if i were RFU. It is only the celtic nations who need the HC to "test" their players against the best (having seen the % of matches played by irish squad players in Rabo its easy to see why). Aviva Premiership does that just fine already.

Max of 35/40 would be required for these training squads. What would the rest of the players do in the meantime. Train for an extra 9 weeks as well  

might be a mess for ireland and the other nations in a weakened HC, with a highly uncertain 2015-onwards in HC. Personally i would be thrilled for England's chances in RWC 2015.

Dream on.

quinsforever wrote: (having seen the % of matches played by irish squad players in Rabo its easy to see why). .

The old you rotate more in your league myth  

What would you lot prefer. A good ERC or England to collapse in to the sea

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:if i were the RFU i would be licking my lips at the thought of a 1-year pass from HC ahead of a home RWC. look at the niggling injury list after the lions tour? wales, england and ireland are all struglling on this front.

Ireland are not struggling from injuries from the Lions - POC broke his arm, but he is in fine fettle now.

remove 6-10 HC games from the schedule in 2014-15, have the RFU pay for some extra player release for squad training to balance the PRL clubs books, and I would be very happy if i were RFU. It is only the celtic nations who need the HC to "test" their players against the best (having seen the % of matches played by irish squad players in Rabo its easy to see why). Aviva Premiership does that just fine already.

Max of 35/40 would be required for these training squads. What would the rest of the players do in the meantime. Train for an extra 9 weeks as well  

might be a mess for ireland and the other nations in a weakened HC, with a highly uncertain 2015-onwards in HC. Personally i would be thrilled for England's chances in RWC 2015.

Dream on.

i just hope that ireland manage to make it out of the group stages this time Sin e, as the apparent "strength" of the game in ireland should make that a certainty every time, no?

What would the rest of the players do in the meantime? Play in the highly competitive domestic league that we already have perhaps?

Sin e could you give evidence that the union run clubs make a profit as it seems that they take more from the Unions than they contrbute. Also the English teams seem to be the only ones who have to pay for their stadiums. This is were several PRL clubs do not make a profit because either they don't own their home grounds or are spending money to upgrade them so that they are financialy viable.

Sin é wrote:England's success is now in the past. You were a laughing stock at the last world cup, remember.

Most of the clubs are in deep financial trouble. (Only 4 of the 12 are living within their means).

Thanks for pointing out and confirming my point that the Union owned clubs are the best run clubs because they live within their means, retain their best players and wins lots of stuff.

Just so you know, the IRFU 'subsidy' to clubs is paid out of ERC money as the IRFU retain all of it. The Provinces get to keep ticket money, jersey sales and sponsorship. Munster could earn twice to three times in ticket sales for home games in Thomond Park than the likes of Quins, Northampton etc. because of the capacity of their grounds and of course, Munster would have much better corporate facilities.

Leinster can even do better. Probably get 50K paying full whack for the sale of their tickets for the Northampton home game before Christmas in the Aviva.

Hard for English clubs (exception Leicester) in competing with that.

So the English clubs should be given a bigger share of the ERC money. After all you're suggesting the WRU get more of the Pro12 TV money because their teams need it. You've just demostrated that the Irish teams are in a much better financial situation than the English clubs so they should get a bigger slice.....right?

geoff998rugby wrote:

quinsforever wrote: (having seen the % of matches played by irish squad players in Rabo its easy to see why). .

The old you rotate more in your league myth  

1. it's no myth. look at playing % of intl squad members in their domestic leagues in matches where there is no HC conflict.
2. it's contracutally enforced by IRFU on their "well-run" clubs so its not about rotation.
3. why is it always the irish players who say they need HC as their "testing-ground" for picking the international squad? don't hear that from england or french union setups.

mystiroakey wrote:What would you lot prefer. A good ERC or England to collapse in to the sea

i suspect both ends of the spectrum would find agreement with different people here, mysti.

broadlandboy wrote:Sin e could you give evidence that the union run clubs make a profit as it seems that they take more from the Unions than they contrbute. Also the English teams seem to be the only ones who have to pay for their stadiums. This is were several PRL clubs do not make a profit because either they don't own their home grounds or are spending money to upgrade them so that they are financialy viable.

correct BB. they take far more from the IRFU than they receive in HC monies. but there's no engaging with sin e on this one. he's in complete denial.

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:if i were the RFU i would be licking my lips at the thought of a 1-year pass from HC ahead of a home RWC. look at the niggling injury list after the lions tour? wales, england and ireland are all struglling on this front.

Ireland are not struggling from injuries from the Lions - POC broke his arm, but he is in fine fettle now.

remove 6-10 HC games from the schedule in 2014-15, have the RFU pay for some extra player release for squad training to balance the PRL clubs books, and I would be very happy if i were RFU. It is only the celtic nations who need the HC to "test" their players against the best (having seen the % of matches played by irish squad players in Rabo its easy to see why). Aviva Premiership does that just fine already.

Max of 35/40 would be required for these training squads. What would the rest of the players do in the meantime. Train for an extra 9 weeks as well  

might be a mess for ireland and the other nations in a weakened HC, with a highly uncertain 2015-onwards in HC. Personally i would be thrilled for England's chances in RWC 2015.

Dream on.

i just hope that ireland manage to make it out of the group stages this time Sin e, as the apparent "strength" of the game in ireland should make that a certainty every time, no?

What would the rest of the players do in the meantime? Play in the highly competitive domestic league that we already have perhaps?

We topped our group last time with a Top 3 country in it. We've an easier group this time, so I would be hopeful that we get out of our group this time.

So, you would play each other 3 times instead of 3 times a year or something?  

22 AP matches
NZ tour june (3 tests)
AIs (3)
6Ns (5)
+ AP playoffs

i think that's more than enough.

players are getting bled dry and overplayed generally anyway. that is a world rugby problem.

and we could still keep the LV cup as a developmental competition.

Yep true I hope we arnt in the ERC tbh. It's all about the RWC

broadlandboy wrote:Sin e could you give evidence that the union run clubs make a profit as it seems that they take more from the Unions than they contrbute. Also the English teams seem to be the only ones who have to pay for their stadiums. This is were several PRL clubs do not make a profit because either they don't own their home grounds or are spending money to upgrade them so that they are financialy viable.

The IRFU take all the money that the clubs earn from Heineken Cup Rugby & Rabo (like prize money, merit payments etc). They pay the clubs something like 5m per year from central funds.

The clubs own and sell their own sponsorship, ticket sale, jersey sales, corporate entertainment etc.

Munster developed Thomond Park (with a repayable loan from the IRFU - Munster has to repay the IRFU something like 10m by 2018 or something). Munster are also in the process of developing our other ground in Cork (Musgrave Park). This is being done by the sale of some land down there and is not reliant on funds from the IRFU.

So, Munster has two stadiums to finance and isn't moaning about it. It also supports two training bases (One in Limerick and one in Cork)  

I believe the turnover of Munster Rugby is about 12m per annum. I know a few years ago, getting a home semi in the HC was worth 800K to Munster (between ticket sales and sponsorship merit payments).

The provinces do have benefactors - for instance, a Leinster supporter built their training centre for them. And JP McManus (of Manchester United / Racing fame) supposedly donated the amount of money necessary so that Thomond Park Stadium didn't need to sell its naming rights.

Thankfully, all these benefactors stay in the background and don't go crawthumpting like Wray and Co about how much money they spend on 'their' club.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:England's success is now in the past. You were a laughing stock at the last world cup, remember.

Most of the clubs are in deep financial trouble. (Only 4 of the 12 are living within their means).

Thanks for pointing out and confirming my point that the Union owned clubs are the best run clubs because they live within their means, retain their best players and wins lots of stuff.

Just so you know, the IRFU 'subsidy' to clubs is paid out of ERC money as the IRFU retain all of it. The Provinces get to keep ticket money, jersey sales and sponsorship. Munster could earn twice to three times in ticket sales for home games in Thomond Park than the likes of Quins, Northampton etc. because of the capacity of their grounds and of course, Munster would have much better corporate facilities.

Leinster can even do better. Probably get 50K paying full whack for the sale of their tickets for the Northampton home game before Christmas in the Aviva.

Hard for English clubs (exception Leicester) in competing with that.

So the English clubs should be given a bigger share of the ERC money. After all you're suggesting the WRU get more of the Pro12 TV money because their teams need it. You've just demostrated that the Irish teams are in a much better financial situation than the English clubs so they should get a bigger slice.....right?

I think the English clubs should live within their means. Look to clubs like Exeter & Leicester who are able to manage their affairs well.

Soft cash isn't a good idea. Saracens etc. will only squander the extra money on Elvis entertainers and giving free beer to students (and they still can't get people to support the club).

Sin é wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Sin e could you give evidence that the union run clubs make a profit as it seems that they take more from the Unions than they contrbute. Also the English teams seem to be the only ones who have to pay for their stadiums. This is were several PRL clubs do not make a profit because either they don't own their home grounds or are spending money to upgrade them so that they are financialy viable.

The IRFU take all the money that the clubs earn from Heineken Cup Rugby & Rabo (like prize money, merit payments etc). They pay the clubs something like 5m per year from central funds.

The clubs own and sell their own sponsorship, ticket sale, jersey sales, corporate entertainment etc.

Munster developed Thomond Park (with a repayable loan from the IRFU - Munster has to repay the IRFU something like 10m by 2018 or something). Munster are also in the process of developing our other ground in Cork (Musgrave Park). This is being done by the sale of some land down there and is not reliant on funds from the IRFU.

So, Munster has two stadiums to finance and isn't moaning about it. It also supports two training bases (One in Limerick and one in Cork)  

I believe the turnover of Munster Rugby is about 12m per annum. I know a few years ago, getting a home semi in the HC was worth 800K to Munster (between ticket sales and sponsorship merit payments).

The provinces do have benefactors - for instance, a Leinster supporter built their training centre for them. And JP McManus (of Manchester United / Racing fame) supposedly donated the amount of money necessary so that Thomond Park Stadium didn't need to sell its naming rights.

Thankfully, all these benefactors stay in the background and don't go crawthumpting like Wray and Co about how much money they spend on 'their' club.

because there is a big difference between a club being "yours" because you support it, and a club being "yours" because you own it. the IRFU owns the provincial branches that field the teams. If McManus did "own" the club i bet he, like any owner, might expect to have control and input.

anyway it's all by the by, as its very hard to compare such totally contrasting systems as Eng/Fre and Irish, without understanding all the small contributing factors to how they operate. keeps us amused here while we wait for more scraps from the ERC/PRL/FFR/LNR table.

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Sin e could you give evidence that the union run clubs make a profit as it seems that they take more from the Unions than they contrbute. Also the English teams seem to be the only ones who have to pay for their stadiums. This is were several PRL clubs do not make a profit because either they don't own their home grounds or are spending money to upgrade them so that they are financialy viable.

The IRFU take all the money that the clubs earn from Heineken Cup Rugby & Rabo (like prize money, merit payments etc). They pay the clubs something like 5m per year from central funds.

The clubs own and sell their own sponsorship, ticket sale, jersey sales, corporate entertainment etc.

Munster developed Thomond Park (with a repayable loan from the IRFU - Munster has to repay the IRFU something like 10m by 2018 or something). Munster are also in the process of developing our other ground in Cork (Musgrave Park). This is being done by the sale of some land down there and is not reliant on funds from the IRFU.

So, Munster has two stadiums to finance and isn't moaning about it. It also supports two training bases (One in Limerick and one in Cork)  

I believe the turnover of Munster Rugby is about 12m per annum. I know a few years ago, getting a home semi in the HC was worth 800K to Munster (between ticket sales and sponsorship merit payments).

The provinces do have benefactors - for instance, a Leinster supporter built their training centre for them. And JP McManus (of Manchester United / Racing fame) supposedly donated the amount of money necessary so that Thomond Park Stadium didn't need to sell its naming rights.

Thankfully, all these benefactors stay in the background and don't go crawthumpting like Wray and Co about how much money they spend on 'their' club.

because there is a big difference between a club being "yours" because you support it, and a club being "yours" because you own it. the IRFU owns the provincial branches that field the teams. If McManus did "own" the club i bet he, like any owner, might expect to have control and input.

anyway it's all by the by, as its very hard to compare such totally contrasting systems as Eng/Fre and Irish, without understanding all the small contributing factors to how they operate. keeps us amused here while we wait for more scraps from the ERC/PRL/FFR/LNR table.

Don't think he bothered too much with any input into Manchester United when he was a majority shareholder (with Magnier) - left them to it. And when the price was right, he just sold his interest.

This might keep you amused:

Its against EU law to sell exclusive broadcasting rights for longer than 3 years.

@FootballLaw BREAKING: Mediapro & Real, Barca, Sevilla & Racing fined by Spanish Comp Authority for signing b'casting agreements longer than 3 yrs.

@FootballLaw The fine amounts are €6.5 Mediapro, €3.9m Real, €3.6m Barca , €900k Sevilla & Racing €30,000.

@FootballLaw The Spanish language press release is here http://cnmcblog.es/2013/12/02/multa-...ubs-de-futbol/ …

@FootballLaw @KevSportsLaw The Commission has been pretty insistent over the years that any exclusive contract should not be for more than 3 years.

Guess what the PRL have done? Thats right - sold the Aviva to BT for 4 years  

(from a poster on Munsterfans).