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

First topic message reminder :

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:I don't think any one is argueing that the HEC is not a great comp, some are saying that it is not be all & end all & there is more to rugby.
PRL/BT have not stated the amount for Aviva & Europe separately as this would give information to Sky. However PRL have stated that PRL clubs will be better off with just the Aviva under the BT deal than they are now with the present combined Aviva/Europe.
The BT deal is for Aviva with an agreement that BT will have PRL's rights in any European comp.

It sounds like they have. The quote from Sin e suggests the BT part is worth about 20-odd million per year. Assuming he's talking in Euros and that 20-odd is about 20 (certainly reads that way). Over three years so thats 60 million. So that's about £50MM. Assuming that's top amount and therefore releases the whole "up to" £152M it means there is between £102M for the Premiership over four years. So thats £25M per year. Previous Sky/ESPN deal was for around £54M for 3 years, or about £18M per year. So that's an extra £7M a year for the Premeirship.

About

Thats working out ok so for the AP clubs. They now have a little over £2m for tv rights this year. Last year they got £1.9m (between AP & ERC).

Down guarantee of 3 home sell-out games (plus corporate entertainment ect).

They weren't sell outs. Even Tigers didn't sell out all the ERC games. But they can replace it with an English cup. Won't make as much but will probably make enough. Would be great if the Championship sides got involved and got an equal share (per team).

I wouldn't expect Tigers to sell out as they have a fairly big stadium, but clubs like Exeter were selling out (average 10k for HCup). Average about 7K for Aviva Premiership last year.

No HC sell-outs at Sandy Park last year (not even for Leinster), and the AP average was a little higher.

Last season:

Sale Sharks 5,568
Saracens 6,141
Quins 8,472
Warriors 7,295
Wasps 7,557
L Irish 7,557
Bath 10,744
L Welsh 7,317

etc. etc..

Heineken Cup
Clermont 9,819
Scarlets 9,258
Leinster 10,198

At least 2k more per game (and tickets are also more expensive).

mystiroakey wrote:SF

Couldn't hold out I take it 

Not with the 'spin' being shown in these here parts...no

Don't worry. I won't spoil the party for long.

SecretFly wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:SF

Couldn't hold out I take it 

Not with the 'spin' being shown in these here parts...no  

Don't worry.  I won't spoil the party for long.

Your not spoiling anything dude.

Its just you really seemed like you wanted that break.. I mean you really wanted it . You didn't hold out. Its an addiction

There is a commerical sub committee there which was filled with club representatives.

As events have shown, the PRL wanted to take over the running of the ERC - the Unions were never going to let this happen. Their little coup failed, so then they tried to destroy it.

You seem to forget who owns the Heineken Cup (the Unions). Why in the name of god would they give the chairman ship of the board to someone who is going to favour the clubs.

Some of the big battles in the past have been about disciplinery issues. With Wheeler as the chair of the board no one could trust any decision that they make.

The PRL have declare that their main interest in the ERC was to drive it commericlally, why couldn't they do that through the committee that they had control of?

I think the PRL just wanted more club control not total control.

"The PRL have declare that their main interest in the ERC was to drive it commericlally, why couldn't they do that through the committee that they had control of"

they tried and tried and tried in the years running up to there withdrawel

SecretFly wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

The FFR's recent tactics make it clear why. It may suit the IRFU, SRU, WRU and FIR that the FFR has acted the way it has now, but how long will it remain aligned to the other unions? Governance reform is in everyone's long term interest.

Only if Governance FOR everyone is the conclusion of that reform.  Meaning - if you have a vote, we have a vote.  If you have two votes, we have two.  But that's NOT the kind of reform McCafferty seemed altogether interested in.  
Turkeys don't vote for Christmas... and the PRL are just a little annoyed (and surprised!) that dumb turkeys showed so much interest in their civic rights.

+1 altho as you point out, that's not really what the PRL are after

mystiroakey wrote:I think the PRL just wanted more club control not total control.

"The PRL have declare that their main interest in the ERC was to drive it commericlally, why couldn't they do that through the committee that they had control of"

they tried and tried and tried in the years running up to there withdrawel

Hmm, splitting hairs a wee bit there, strokey - control by any one party (ie clubs, unions, a particular nation, etc) is total control - and don't forget that voting is already skewed in favour of England and France

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:I think the PRL just wanted more club control not total control.

"The PRL have declare that their main interest in the ERC was to drive it commericlally, why couldn't they do that through the committee that they had control of"

they tried and tried and tried in the years running up to there withdrawel

Hmm, splitting hairs a wee bit there, strokey - control by any one party (ie clubs, unions, a particular nation, etc) is total control - and don't forget that voting is already skewed in favour of England and France

We are never going to get past that point are we.

because for the PRL its about the RABBO having more control. Its about leagues not nations.(or clubs not unions)

mystiroakey wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:I think the PRL just wanted more club control not total control.

"The PRL have declare that their main interest in the ERC was to drive it commericlally, why couldn't they do that through the committee that they had control of"

they tried and tried and tried in the years running up to there withdrawel

Hmm, splitting hairs a wee bit there, strokey - control by any one party (ie clubs, unions, a particular nation, etc) is total control - and don't forget that voting is already skewed in favour of England and France

We are never going to get past that point are we.

because for the PRL its about the RABBO having more control. Its about leagues not nations.

Yep that's the main problem the PRL don't seem to understand that the Unions that make up the Rabo don't vote as one,they might be sticking together for this episode but there is no agreement between them to always vote the same way whereas the clubs that make up the PRL and LNR would toe the party line.

The point is is that the PRL are the collective AP teams, they only look at it from the CLUB POV. That is what they are there for.

Blame the RFU for allowing them a say if you want to blame someone.

We do things differently and its a political difference that cant work together- like communism with democracy.

And when it boils down to it.

Maybe we are best without each other.

Because the longer this differerence goes on, the longer issues will crop up.

There is i suppose no right or wrong here. Just a different outlook, I am beginning to respect both

mystiroakey wrote:And when it boils down to it.

Maybe we are best without each other.

Because the longer this differerence goes on, the longer issues will crop up.

There is i suppose no right or wrong here. Just a different outlook, I am beginning to respect both

Yeah it's very hard to see how these differences can be worked out but one thing is for sure,if there's enough money to be made then they will find a way to work together eventually.

It's strange how a few posters on both sides of the argument seem to be claiming victory and ignoring the fact, that this is a complete cluster f**k for Club/Region Rugby in most of the NH.


It seems to me the only real victors in this are the French clubs and SKY*
*(to a extent, see below)

The French:
They have got a massive new TV deal and an agreement with their union. They will turn out for the devalued HC certainly, but if you thought the current apathy of some teams was bad, wait till till a couple of bad results in the new one. You'll be watching reserve teams! Given the huge discrepancy between the financial returns of their domestic league and the HC, they wont want to jeopardise being in the former.

The English:
They have their BT deal to fall back on. No one knows for sure if the £152M included a portion for the proposed RCC or whether that was separate. I'd speculate it did, as one PRL chairman/spokesperson said the domestic portion of the deal was a 50% increase over the previous ESPN/SKY deal which was worth £18M a year.
Whatever the ins and outs of that deal, the RCC appears to be a non starter and anyone thinking BT would be happy with a comp that has them handing out 100 point thrashings to mickey-mouse teams from the far flung corners of Europe are living in cloud cuckoo land.

The rest:
They've got a devalued HC which given the intention to bring in 2 mickey-mouse teams from the Amlin and the probable apathy of some French teams and absence of the English is going to struggle to live up to the previous HC's let alone be the pinnacle of NH club/region rugby its supposed to be. Sky have apparently agreed to pay enough for this pup, that all the Rabo unions get the same as before which is generous of them and given there new PRO12 deal sensible.
Financially they have the same HC income and a 50% increase of their domestic deal (SKY are paying half of what the existing RTE/BBCW,BBC Alba etc are paying) so they are slightly better off but its not much.
The Amlin is history and Welsh Rugby may be about to go into meltdown.

SKY:
They get the new HC for less (no English portion to pay) and PRO-12 games for tuppence-happeny (in terms of their sports budget) so still have plenty of RU to show.

BT:
They are getting good figures for the AP (average is well up on ESPN but down on SKY) and will play the long game for any future RCC.

Meanwhile UEFA are pi**ing themselves as the value of their TV deals go through the roof (and they were already worth 33 x more than ERC's) whilst Rugby Union looks like its being run by a set of complete tools who couldn't agree on the time of day!

mystiroakey wrote:And when it boils down to it.

Maybe we are best without each other.

Because the longer this differerence goes on, the longer issues will crop up.

There is i suppose no right or wrong here. Just a different outlook, I am beginning to respect both

Spot on!

Not just different outlooks, but different structures for the professional game. I'm struggling to see a sensible way to mesh the two and I'm not surprised at the ongoing disputes.

Andy, considering the amount of money that will now be in France, even their second string teams will be better than any of our first ones and they will need the games anyway if they are to progress.

Even the teams without really rich sugar daddies will be very well off now.

I don't agree that the Heineken Cup will be less competitive now as the French are top of the pile anyway in competitiveness, not like the last English strike when the English clubs were very dominant.

Edit: and Uefa shouldn't be Wee weeing them laughing at the deal they got. All that will happen there is that the Manchester Uniteds, and Barcelona's will get even more money and pay their players even more dish, while the Wigans & Sunderlands will be unable to compete because they are not getting any of this Champions League dosh.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:And when it boils down to it.

Maybe we are best without each other.

Because the longer this differerence goes on, the longer issues will crop up.

There is i suppose no right or wrong here. Just a different outlook, I am beginning to respect both

Yeah it's very hard to see how these differences can be worked out but one thing is for sure,if there's enough money to be made then they will find a way to work together eventually.

Facepalm!

This is what the PRL have been pushing for since before the Wheeler/Lux debacle. They have always felt that the commercial aspects have been undersold and that they could do more. The BT deal suggests that they might be right. But a) the ERC spent a long time not responding to these concerns, prompting the whole breakaway; b) the current governance model means that the FFR can always make a mess of things if it wants to (which in turn affects the ability to negotiate tv and sponsorship deals).

I suppose the big issue that I have with union control is that the controlling unions were and still seem to be unable or uwilling to respond to these concerns. That's not a productive or even sensible attitude when your one and only product depends on the co-operation of the parties you're stonewalling. The ERC has got (some of) its way in the short term but only through a quirk of French law, a quirk of French timing and some strong-arm tactics that aren't going to promote sweetness and light among the LNR members.

Ultimately, all the unions need European rugby (except perhaps the French). Yes, reaching agreement with the PRL would have required turkeys to vote for Christmas. But forcing your biggest market out by refusing to compromise until they are committed to leaving, is akin to turkeys voting for the release of a genetically engineered turkey plague because they don't like the turkeys in the next farm along.

Poorfour, I see no evidence whatsoever that the PRL or the LNR are well run leagues. The PRL's turnover has been static for the last 4/5 years at 35M. All but 4 of its clubs are losing money.

That doesn't point to having much commercial acumen.

Meanwhile, the ERC's has doubled its turnover in the last 4/5 years to 50M.

I can see why the PRL wanted to get their hands on it.

Poorfour wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:And when it boils down to it.

Maybe we are best without each other.

Because the longer this differerence goes on, the longer issues will crop up.

There is i suppose no right or wrong here. Just a different outlook, I am beginning to respect both

Yeah it's very hard to see how these differences can be worked out but one thing is for sure,if there's enough money to be made then they will find a way to work together eventually.

Facepalm!

This is what the PRL have been pushing for since before the Wheeler/Lux debacle. They have always felt that the commercial aspects have been undersold and that they could do more. The BT deal suggests that they might be right. But a) the ERC spent a long time not responding to these concerns, prompting the whole breakaway; b) the current governance model means that the FFR can always make a mess of things if it wants to (which in turn affects the ability to negotiate tv and sponsorship deals).

I suppose the big issue that I have with union control is that the controlling unions were and still seem to be unable or uwilling to respond to these concerns. That's not a productive or even sensible attitude when your one and only product depends on the co-operation of the parties you're stonewalling. The ERC has got (some of) its way in the short term but only through a quirk of French law, a quirk of French timing and some strong-arm tactics that aren't going to promote sweetness and light among the LNR members.

Ultimately, all the unions need European rugby (except perhaps the French). Yes, reaching agreement with the PRL would have required turkeys to vote for Christmas. But forcing your biggest market out by refusing to compromise until they are committed to leaving, is akin to turkeys voting for the release of a genetically engineered turkey plague because they don't like the turkeys in the next farm along.

lol flour!!

an 18 FOOT CHICKEN, stop feeding them beef burgers!!

What does the ERC have for breakfast, infected spinal column in a bap?!

Yeah you got it

 

Something from my youth I can remember! Dementia from repeated knocks to the head haven't completely taken their toll!

Manofthematch wrote:What does the ERC have for breakfast, infected spinal column in a bap?!

THe ERC eat PRL & LNR reps for breakfast.  

Poorfour wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:And when it boils down to it.

Maybe we are best without each other.

Because the longer this differerence goes on, the longer issues will crop up.

There is i suppose no right or wrong here. Just a different outlook, I am beginning to respect both

Yeah it's very hard to see how these differences can be worked out but one thing is for sure,if there's enough money to be made then they will find a way to work together eventually.

Facepalm!

This is what the PRL have been pushing for since before the Wheeler/Lux debacle. They have always felt that the commercial aspects have been undersold and that they could do more. The BT deal suggests that they might be right. But a) the ERC spent a long time not responding to these concerns, prompting the whole breakaway; b) the current governance model means that the FFR can always make a mess of things if it wants to (which in turn affects the ability to negotiate tv and sponsorship deals).

I suppose the big issue that I have with union control is that the controlling unions were and still seem to be unable or uwilling to respond to these concerns. That's not a productive or even sensible attitude when your one and only product depends on the co-operation of the parties you're stonewalling. The ERC has got (some of) its way in the short term but only through a quirk of French law, a quirk of French timing and some strong-arm tactics that aren't going to promote sweetness and light among the LNR members.

Ultimately, all the unions need European rugby (except perhaps the French). Yes, reaching agreement with the PRL would have required turkeys to vote for Christmas. But forcing your biggest market out by refusing to compromise until they are committed to leaving, is akin to turkeys voting for the release of a genetically engineered turkey plague because they don't like the turkeys in the next farm along.

I don't think it's that bad for us,we still have a HC next year and we've yet to see how things work out in the future so while it would be better to have the English clubs it's not a complete disaster.It's also open for the English clubs to come back in after a year or two when things have settled down a bit and the consequences of their stance become more apparent.

Sin é wrote:Poorfour, I see no evidence whatsoever that the PRL or the LNR are well run leagues. The PRL's turnover has been static for the last 4/5 years at 35M. All but 4 of its clubs are losing money.

That doesn't point to having much commercial acumen.

Meanwhile, the ERC's has doubled its turnover in the last 4/5 years to 50M.

I can see why the PRL wanted to get their hands on it.

The PRL's turnover isn't a measure of the league's commercial performance; it only sees part of the revenue (I'm assuming that's domestic tv and sponsorship, RFU EPS and EQP payments and the ERC revenue share, in which case why hasn't the PRL's take risen as the ERC's has?). I imagine the revenue has been static for a while because its major commercial arrangements are, um, long term deals that weren't up for renewal. The BT deal only took effect this year, so won't be in the results.

The bulk of the clubs' revenues come from their gate receipts and individual sponsorship deals, and that's been improving. 5 years ago, only 1 club was consistently profitable, so moving to 4 profitable clubs is a significant improvement. Several other clubs would be profitable already if the proposed ERC revenue sharing were in force today. Chances are that once the BT domestic revenues are factored in a couple more clubs will become profitable.

And, as several people have taken pains to point out to you, profitability is not the only indicator of whether a business is well run. At some stages in a business's growth it can even be better to be unprofitable, if you are investing in growth that will eventually lead to profits.

Sin e - wasn't it the FFR who ate the LNR for breakfast, the PRL weren't invited?

The whole thing stinks, the ERC could have started addressing the well documented issues the PRL have had a couple of years ago but instead decided to blindly carry on with the status quo then even had the cheek to say after notice had been served 'they're not talking to our mediator who we've appointed' (two years too late) bunch of a$$holes

Poorfour wrote:

And, as several people have taken pains to point out to you, profitability is not the only indicator of whether a business is well run. At some stages in a business's growth it can even be better to be unprofitable, if you are investing in growth that will eventually lead to profits.

Mark wouldn't like you.... seditionist speak! Practically a pat on the back to the Dark Lords of the ERC.

Manofthematch wrote:Sin e - wasn't it the FFR who ate the LNR for breakfast, the PRL weren't invited?

The whole thing stinks, the ERC could have started addressing the well documented issues the PRL have had a couple of years ago but instead decided to blindly carry on with the status quo then even had the cheek to say after notice had been served 'they're not talking to our mediator who we've appointed' (two years too late) bunch of a$$holes

That's all we need a new contributor who sees things in black and white terms  

http://www.sudouest.fr/2013/12/06/ce-qui-va-changer-1250620-5103.php

implications of the new accord for french rugby

after months of tricky negotiations, FFR + LNR found agreement at dawn yersterday. still needs to be signed off by the general assembly of each though. one of the important tenets of this new 4 year deal has to do with the French XV.

the new rules relating to France XV are sensible, not that revolutionary, and modelled on the RFU/PRL changes adopted since 2008 - creation of elite player group and limits on matches played for these players. will start from the next 6N tournament (dont know if that means before or after).

the hard part of the negotiations:
was not to do with the France XV, but the different views of FFR and LNR with respect to french clubs playing in a european cup without the english clubs. FFR have to adopt and ratify the text by tomorrow. The LNR have to do likewise by 19th Dec.

France XV setup - 30 players. can be modified by St Andre for various reasons.

limit of 30 matches outside of knockout phases of top14 and HCup. Includes all international matches and friendlies. 20mins counts as a match played.

St Andre couldnt get a 4 week training period pre-season because most of the french intl players had played 35 matches by last june.

13 days of prep with squad prior to start of 6N was agreed. So from 19th january 2014 the day after HC round 6. The group will be reduced to 23 midweek, with 7 players returned to their clubs on 24/25 jan. French XV coaches and doctors can also, in consultation with club officials, request rest days as required for players on the 6N rest weekends (14th feb and mar 1st).

AI matches wont get this same enlarged preparation period. instead, 4 days in september and 4 days in october will be made available for Les Bleus squad.

The english "NO" puts Goze in a tough spot:
English said no yday. makes it tough for Goze to get PRL to change course between now and march which he indicated previously that he wanted. Seems unlikely that the FFR-LNR deal will allow the french clubs to pull out. On the other side, Goze is going to have to deal with the hardline top14 owners of Toulouse, Stade, Racing Metro and Toulon who were ranged against the FFR. All the owners all met last night to discuss the european situation, and also the initiation by Goze of an auction for the top14 TV rights. There is clearly some risk still of the top14 clubs not falling into line between now and the LNR general assembly 19th december. Could Goze be forced to backtrack?

geoff998rugby wrote:

Manofthematch wrote:Sin e - wasn't it the FFR who ate the LNR for breakfast, the PRL weren't invited?

The whole thing stinks, the ERC could have started addressing the well documented issues the PRL have had a couple of years ago but instead decided to blindly carry on with the status quo then even had the cheek to say after notice had been served 'they're not talking to our mediator who we've appointed' (two years too late) bunch of a$$holes

That's all we need a new contributor who sees things in black and white terms  

BUt He likes Alan Partridge so he must be ok!!

That is the only important fact surely!!

mystiroakey wrote:The point is is that the PRL are the collective AP teams, they only look at it from the CLUB POV. That is what they are there for.

Blame the RFU for allowing them a say if you want to blame someone.

We do things differently and its a political difference that cant work together- like communism with democracy.

Strokey, leagues are merely a convenient view point for the PRL way of thinking - for example, in a true meritocracy, European ranking would be done without respect to league or union, and the bet however many teams would simply play in the top level cup - but let's be honest that might well mean very few English teams, no Italians, not many Scots or Welsh either

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:The point is is that the PRL are the collective AP teams, they only look at it from the CLUB POV. That is what they are there for.

Blame the RFU for allowing them a say if you want to blame someone.

We do things differently and its a political difference that cant work together- like communism with democracy.

Strokey, leagues are merely a convenient view point for the PRL way of thinking - for example, in a true meritocracy, European ranking would be done without respect to league or union, and the bet however many teams would simply play in the top level cup - but let's be honest that might well mean very few English teams, no Italians, not many Scots or Welsh either

fine by me..

I would no problems with having less AP teams within a truly meritocratic solution(based on quality).

That off course would give the Amlin more of a draw as well. It would also push us all to get better.

We have been here and debated this a million times over though

My ideal solution would be to have a truly great first cup, and then a very well supported second.

BUt now we are going of on a tangent from were wewhhen I made the original comment in this post

Poorfour wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:And when it boils down to it.

Maybe we are best without each other.

Because the longer this differerence goes on, the longer issues will crop up.

There is i suppose no right or wrong here. Just a different outlook, I am beginning to respect both

Yeah it's very hard to see how these differences can be worked out but one thing is for sure,if there's enough money to be made then they will find a way to work together eventually.

Facepalm!

This is what the PRL have been pushing for since before the Wheeler/Lux debacle. They have always felt that the commercial aspects have been undersold and that they could do more. The BT deal suggests that they might be right. But a) the ERC spent a long time not responding to these concerns, prompting the whole breakaway; b) the current governance model means that the FFR can always make a mess of things if it wants to (which in turn affects the ability to negotiate tv and sponsorship deals).

I suppose the big issue that I have with union control is that the controlling unions were and still seem to be unable or uwilling to respond to these concerns. That's not a productive or even sensible attitude when your one and only product depends on the co-operation of the parties you're stonewalling. The ERC has got (some of) its way in the short term but only through a quirk of French law, a quirk of French timing and some strong-arm tactics that aren't going to promote sweetness and light among the LNR members.

Ultimately, all the unions need European rugby (except perhaps the French). Yes, reaching agreement with the PRL would have required turkeys to vote for Christmas. But forcing your biggest market out by refusing to compromise until they are committed to leaving, is akin to turkeys voting for the release of a genetically engineered turkey plague because they don't like the turkeys in the next farm along.

Can you pls explain that, Poorfour?  There is no guarantee that the Celtic and Italian unions will always vote as one block, nor any that the French will effectively become a veto in a dispute between Celts/Italians and France.  Think you might need to broaden your thinking!  The PRL have everything that they (and the LNR) originally wanted, except on the governance issue - it is laughable how you still manage to cling on to the delusion that they are the victim of RABO obstinacy, truly laughable

mystiroakey wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:The point is is that the PRL are the collective AP teams, they only look at it from the CLUB POV. That is what they are there for.

Blame the RFU for allowing them a say if you want to blame someone.

We do things differently and its a political difference that cant work together- like communism with democracy.

Strokey, leagues are merely a convenient view point for the PRL way of thinking - for example, in a true meritocracy, European ranking would be done without respect to league or union, and the bet however many teams would simply play in the top level cup - but let's be honest that might well mean very few English teams, no Italians, not many Scots or Welsh either

fine by me..

I would no problems with having less AP teams within a truly meritocratic solution(based on quality)

It might be, but trust me, that is not in any way what the PRL want

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:The point is is that the PRL are the collective AP teams, they only look at it from the CLUB POV. That is what they are there for.

Blame the RFU for allowing them a say if you want to blame someone.

We do things differently and its a political difference that cant work together- like communism with democracy.

Strokey, leagues are merely a convenient view point for the PRL way of thinking - for example, in a true meritocracy, European ranking would be done without respect to league or union, and the bet however many teams would simply play in the top level cup - but let's be honest that might well mean very few English teams, no Italians, not many Scots or Welsh either

fine by me..

I would no problems with having less AP teams within a truly meritocratic solution(based on quality)

It might be, but trust me, that is not in any way what the PRL want

I am not suggesting they are

Manofthematch wrote:Sin e - wasn't it the FFR who ate the LNR for breakfast, the PRL weren't invited?

The whole thing stinks, the ERC could have started addressing the well documented issues the PRL have had a couple of years ago but instead decided to blindly carry on with the status quo then even had the cheek to say after notice had been served 'they're not talking to our mediator who we've appointed' (two years too late) bunch of a$$holes

With that attitude, MotM, I think you'd probably be happier on another forum

The deal for player release sounds great. Basically the EPS deal.

The last time I met a 'Celt' I was in school reading about the adventures of Cuchulainn.

I am Irish.  The English are English.  The Welsh are (very much proving themselves!) Welsh, given the threats of court war now to get to play with their English fwiends across the border rather than with their 'Celtic' fwiends in the Pro12.

The debate is belittled by the constant suggestion that there is an English element, a French element, and a 'Celtic' element to the ongoing war in Europe.

No. There is an English element, a French element, an Irish element, a Welsh element, a Scottish element and an Italian element.

I am not a 'Celt'.  I'm Irish.  The Welsh Regions are out for themselves and their exploits in Europe have been and will continue to be their business.  I am Irish... I care as little about the Welsh regions as I care about the English clubs.  

HammerofThunor wrote:The deal for player release sounds great. Basically the EPS deal.

and so begins France XV's much anticipated climb back to the top on the NH pyramid. maybe too soon for RWC2015. but if the FFR and LNR can really get their combined acts together, i think France will become the most successful club and international side for the next several decades.

this new TV deal, lets say they get EUR100m per annum, is probably greater than the value of all of the rest of the worlds rugby leagues combined. they are going to go from strength to strength. and good for them i say.

really looking forwards to watching toulon play exeter. has all the ingredients. plucky underdogs with incredible teamwork and character vs wilko, mitchell, habana, williams, botha, etc etc. awesome.

Being a Celt is a good thing Fly.

You are a warrior.. A Moral truth fighting against the evils of Englishdom

Asbo - it's all about the attitude!

mystiroakey wrote:Being a Celt is a good thing Fly.

You are a warrior.. A Moral truth fighting against the evils of Englishdom

Nah..being Irish is good enough for that bizz, mystir

SecretFly wrote:The last time I met a 'Celt' I was in school reading about the adventures of Cuchulainn.

I am Irish.  The English are English.  The Welsh are (very much proving themselves!) Welsh, given the threats of court war now to get to play with their English fwiends across the border rather than with their 'Celtic' fwiends in the Pro12.

The debate is belittled by the constant suggestion that there is an English element, a French element, and a 'Celtic' element to the ongoing war in Europe.

No.  There is an English element, a French element, an Irish element, a Welsh element, a Scottish element and an Italian element.

I am not a 'Celt'.  I'm Irish.  The Welsh Regions are out for themselves and their exploits in Europe have been and will continue to be their business.  I am Irish... I care as little about the Welsh regions as I care about the English clubs.  

not trying to fan any flames, but technically, wales is english. and i know the welsh like nothing more than beating the english at rugby, but the welsh are also undoubtedly the closest to the english and most likely to support each other's teams, compared to the other home unions, ire and france.

so while you might be inaccurately described (apparently) as celt-ic, the welsh could be equally inaccurately described as celt-ish.

That's right strokey, when you combine some Danish with some Germans, add a smidgen of Viking and sprinkle with some French oppressors you get the most reviled race imaginable!

MOTM

Who were you before?

SecretFly wrote:

rodders wrote:OK I'm lost can anyone please summerize where things are at?

All the Unions bar the RFU have backed the heino.

The PRL have left the heino. The RFU are sitting on the fence.

The LNR have committed to the Heino, if the English play.

The Welsh Regions previously backed the RC.

Have I missed something?

I was on a nice winter break from this madhouse.  Read a few posts on this one this morning and here I am, dragged back to the nuthouse.  Hopefully not for long though.

Anyway, you're almost spot on there, Rodders...but there are a number of fatal errors - itemised below:


All the Unions bar the RFU have backed the heino.

The PRL have left the heino. The RFU are sitting on the fence.  

No.  The RFU have already burned the section of the fence they were sitting on in their little stove, coz it's been nippy of late.  Besides, in some media circles it has been suggested that RFU considered themselves a 'neutral' honest broker by virtue of the fact that they make no direct money from HEC.  One then asks why they were ever allowed to sit on the ERC board in the first place?  And there is certainly scant room for them now, given that they'll have no teams with them at any HEC boardroom meetings.


The LNR have committed to the Heino, if the English play.  

The LNR also committed to the RCC, even if the rest of us (Pro12) didn't! 
The LNR also got into bed with the PRL and slipped out the window after the deal was 'consumated', leaving their "Don't ring us, we'll ring you" card on the pillow.  The LNR also committed themselves to collecting as many blank cheques as possible from anyone prepared to give them during this strategic period that they've known was coming for a long, long time...as PRL rightly wouldn't shut up about what was coming for a long, long time.


The Welsh Regions previously backed the RC.  

The Welsh regions hate being Welsh it seems... and would much prefer be controlled by PRL than their own Welsh Union ... except of course the relegation.... which they never could accept ....as they are Unique  ...being Welsh and all..............................!!!!   In short, the Welsh regions don't like the idea of being controlled by anyone!! 
Go figure that one out - I know the WRU are trying to at present.  And the English clubs that will be expected to continue to fall down the relegation ladder will also be trying to work out the logic of that one if the Welsh come onboard - with their NO-RELEGATION clause, signed by a 'happy-to-see-you' McCafferty.

Good man fly, crystal clear now!

Poorfour wrote:

Sin é wrote:Poorfour, I see no evidence whatsoever that the PRL or the LNR are well run leagues. The PRL's turnover has been static for the last 4/5 years at 35M. All but 4 of its clubs are losing money.

That doesn't point to having much commercial acumen.

Meanwhile, the ERC's has doubled its turnover in the last 4/5 years to 50M.

I can see why the PRL wanted to get their hands on it.

The PRL's turnover isn't a measure of the league's commercial performance; it only sees part of the revenue (I'm assuming that's domestic tv and sponsorship, RFU EPS and EQP payments and the ERC revenue share, in which case why hasn't the PRL's take risen as the ERC's has?). I imagine the revenue has been static for a while because its major commercial arrangements are, um, long term deals that weren't up for renewal. The BT deal only took effect this year, so won't be in the results.

The bulk of the clubs' revenues come from their gate receipts and individual sponsorship deals, and that's been improving. 5 years ago, only 1 club was consistently profitable, so moving to 4 profitable clubs is a significant improvement. Several other clubs would be profitable already if the proposed ERC revenue sharing were in force today. Chances are that once the BT domestic revenues are factored in a couple more clubs will become profitable.

And, as several people have taken pains to point out to you, profitability is not the only indicator of whether a business is well run. At some stages in a business's growth it can even be better to be unprofitable, if you are investing in growth that will eventually lead to profits.

Of course its a measure as to how commercially successful the PRL is. Increased income means that they can distribute more money. Who knows how the money from the ERC is distributed - it could be a direct cheque from the ERC to each club or more than likely directly from the RFU to each club (distributed as governing body grant to avoid having to pay tax on it).

The period of time is over the same period (from 2006-2012) where the ERC has nearly trebled its turnover and the PRL has remained static. In the meantime, only 4 of the clubs are living within their means. Why wouldn't the PRL eye up the Heineken Cup to save them?

These struggling teams are going to miss the gates of Heineken Cup rugby (i.e., Leicester made 400K for their away QF against Leinster 2 years ago in Dublin). Hardly surprising that Tigers are one of the clubs that are living within their means when they get to pick up handy gate money like that.

I haven't seen many indicators that the PRL is thriving (Saracens, one of the most successful teams) is unable to give away tickets to fill a stadium regularly based in an area that has 12M people living there.

Thats the real problem of the PRL. Attracting fans.

I think the RFU should pull rank and put England in the Heino next year

Strokey in my past life? Hopefully not Joan of Arc then I'd be defending the b'stards who burnt me at the stake!

Are you serious about the RFU putting teams in the Heino now? It wouldn't be fun watching the Bedford Blues or the Pirates getting smashed

Nah they can just put England in it

Some people call me roakey- these are the ones that remember my old username on 606

there are others that call me MYST

there are others that call me Oakey

There are a few that call me strokey- only on the rugby forums. You are another poster. I have it narrowed down to a few!

Imagine if England didn't get out of the group stages, oh the sledging we'd get!

I'll call you mysti if you prefer?