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).

Recwatcher wrote:A simple question - who do the Unions think they should play against in a euro competition if the French and English club owners hadn't put their money where their mouth is unlike the Union/administrator employees ?

To hold out for the status quo using arcane statute or head in the sand for so long hasn't done anyone any favours.  The stage has been set now for this to run and run.

The Union/Administrators are not making any sacrifices? The Irish provinces are run on a shoestring and produce the goods. Its just our adminstrators/Union are much better than the club owners who rely on sugar daddies to keep them afloat.

66% of Munster's income comes from ticket sales. Maybe some of the club owners should try that one out rather than piggy-backing onto the success of the Irish teams to drive the broadcasting rights and then tell us we should be grateful.

edit: while all the provinces get a grant every year from the IRFU, the provinces do not get any of the income from the ERC or Pro 12. In fact, if a Province gets a home QF, it has to give half of its shared gate with the IRFU.

Sin perhaps my question was too simple.

Whose money is being put where their mouth is?

What percentage of each club's seasonal money comes straight out of the pocket of sugar-daddy suits?  
What percentage comes from merchandise?  Ticket sales? Competition share?  TV share?  Sponsorship?

Just what is the exact figure on this personal money that comes into each club that isn't generated in the same way that Leinster would generate their income?

Club owners want one thing - to make a profit on their investment.  They may be millionaires a hundred times over but they invest only so much of that into clubs - enough to make a profit on it in a certain given period.

Don't sell me the 'poor private little self made men against the big bad corporate Unions' bull.  I just don't believe it.

If you think that any successful business man invests in rugby for a profit you are delusional. If they wanted to make a profit they would invest in the area of business that made them their money. Most are trying to make the clubs financially viable so that they don't have to keep dipping into their pockets. They seem to be giving something back to the clubs for whatever reason. If you could find someone who invested in rugby hoping to see a return on their investment please enlighten me & show the evidence.

True broad they are rich fans. You dont invest in a rugby club to make money. You dont even invest in Football clubs to make money!!

You do it because its a great thing to get in to. They do it for the love of the game, power, mixing with players etc, being part of the game..

Don't believe that for a second broadlandboy.  Not about the Glazer brothers, not about Abramovich, not about any of the rugby guys.
Tell me the percentages...........

The very reason the PRL ( the owners conglomerate) want so many changes to the European competition is because they're not happy just "giving something back to the clubs for whatever reason".  They are hard-nosed business men who want clear profits being made by their product.  No further elaboration is needed.  PRL want to line pockets with profit - they even admit that.  That's profitable sport = personal profits.

No

But owner a sporting club can raise your profile and aid your profit making businesses. It opens up a lot of doors.

But there are not in sporting team ownership to directly make a profit. Yes they want to make a profit , but that isn't the 
Direct aim

Yes.

No

mystiroakey wrote:But owner a sporting club can raise your profile and aid your profit making businesses. It opens up a lot of doors.

But there are not in sporting team ownership to directly make a profit. Yes they want to make a profit , but that isn't the 
Direct aim

It is the aim of the section of their hobbies that includes rugby. And that's more than enough to prove my point.

Oui

jeez. just imagine the bawling on here if they proposed to base FIRA-AER's new club-running bit in London or Paris!

talk about status quo biased.

and we wonder why the english and french teams were unhappy.

Neit

Sin é wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Sin é if they were so willing to compromise all along how come it took PRL/LNR giving notice,18 months passing & the prospect of a rival competition before they did?

Because we know that the PRL didn't want compromise in the first place, they wanted to take over the running of the competition.

If that was their belief, then it made even less sense to prevaricate. Which is why it is evident that these compromises were not always easily on the table.

Secret, I don't care what you believe( as stated before perception is stonger than reality).
I said invested in rugby
You have yet to show any evidense to back up your claim.

Recwatcher wrote:Sin perhaps my question was too simple.

Perhaps my answer was too sophisticated. The rich owners put money (mostly not enough) into clubs and then complain about it. Sarries are trying to buy success with their recruitment policy. If they want to spend their money on buying success, fine. But it should not be at the expense of the sport of rugby, which is what it is at the moment.

Wray is trying to destroy Welsh rugby at the moment, and he couldn't give two tosses about it. Who is Wray answerable to? It seems he isn't answerable to the RFU as he does what he likes. And the fans of his club just want success so they don't care how they may affect the sport.

From what I can see (in Ireland anyway), the best run sporting organisations are rugby & GAA, both organisations who have a strong amateur ethos. Typically people involved are very hard working and have much higher standards of ethics. Its when business gets involved, you have the trouble.

Munster have a voluntary Commercial Board which would be the envy of most plc's in the world when you see who is on it - and they all give their time for free.

But would Irish rugby be able to sustain its self without money from Europe?

quinsforever wrote:jeez. just imagine the bawling on here if they proposed to base FIRA-AER's new club-running bit in London or Paris!

talk about status quo biased.

and we wonder why the english and french teams were unhappy.

I just pity them poor self-made men that come up from the tough streets and want to share their good fortune by giving a lot of their money to money losing clubs.  
That's the ones I pity if they have to fund a new admin building in Paris or London!!!  My word, the cost of that for honest, decent skins that have managed to make a few honest coppers in their lives and now are forced by the Unions to build or furnish out a building too!!!

The strain will show!  There is only so much good-natured loss even multimillionaire owners can take in a year.  I mean even a single Ikea chair ain't cheap these days.

broadlandboy wrote:But would Irish rugby be able to sustain its self without money from Europe?

It would be very difficult. Its not the prize money etc. that is the issue, but losing the gates of the games. Munster would have taken in about 1.2M gate money last weekend. Leinster should make about 6/700K (after paying for the hire of the Aviva next weekend).

broadlandboy wrote:Secret, I don't care what you believe( as stated before perception is stonger than reality).
I said invested in rugby
You have yet to show any evidense to back up your claim.

My claim that they want to make profits?  

Pick a mid ranking AP side and get back to me with personal investment from owners over the course of lets say 5 years?  And add to that any profits they've made from merchandise, tickets, alcohol sales etc, sponsorships, TV profit shares, competition funds issued out.  I'm willing to be proved wrong that they spend a lot more of their personal income than they earn.  I'm willing to have it proven to me that club rugby in England is run by people who don't want to and aren't concerned with making a profit.

You prove me wrong - you prove to me that all along professional club rugby in England has been unviable.  Because that's not what the PRL supporters have been saying to this point.

broadlandboy wrote:But would Irish rugby be able to sustain its self without money from Europe?

Well many of you guys seem to hope the answer is 'no'. It's done as a question but the inference is always that "pull the HEC carpet from under the irish and they'll sink". Quite possibly true - but then that's the very reason we fight like cats and dogs to stop that scenario - and it's why the PRL were so eager to test it out

 i thought rugby administrators were in the rugby administration business not the real estate business.

100% certainty the lease their office space
100% certainty they would do so wherever they are based
EUR50m per annum of tv rights alone buys you 1 or 2 ikea desks i think, or could even pay for the man-and-van to move their current desks to new digs...

please tell me this isnt your strongest objection to moving the location of ERC?

 ah well, irony is lost on some.

Just make sure the furniture is not Ikea - that bit was only a joke!!  Good quality leather is what IRFU members only sit their azzes down to! - I was so ultra serious about the rest of it though..................!!  

I wouldn't care where it was based, its who is running the show is the important thing.

Sin é wrote:...From what I can see (in Ireland anyway), the best run sporting organisations are rugby & GAA, both organisations who have a strong amateur ethos...

The GAA seems like a good model, and rugby may regret going professional and losing those amateur roots.

However, it wasn't greedy players, agents, or owners who took rugby down the road of professionalism. It was the unions.

The unions kept wanting more and more money out of the game - the first two World Cups were held while the game was still amateur. Rich sponsors were courted, corporate boxes sold, sinecures and honours sought and empires built. None of these glories trickled down to the players except through byzantine, often corrupt deals. Should a player want to make his money openly, whether through a book, or newspaper column or - god forbid - playing league - he was banned from all involvement with the sport.

Just think about that for a moment. A retiring Test player who penned an autobiography was not allowed to set foot on a pitch again, could not become an officer of his local club, could not train to become a referee, and could not even coach children. This exile was demanded by national unions who were using their overflowing coffers to pay for first class tickets and hotels with plenty of lavish dinners along the way.

I don't have to like players salaries and some of the brash new owners. Forgive, though, me if I fail to see how the national unions are guardians of the soul of rugby.

Obviously the clubs want to make a profit(making £1 profit is a profit) so that they can continue to invest in rugby. The "sugar daddies" however are very unlikely to see a return on their investment, most would be lucky to see all the money back.

Hold on there Secretfly, it isn't just their money but their time and ideas they invest.
As we speak Nigel Wray is locked in a studio with Steps recording a new anthem for the RCC - it will be over 80 minutes long so it can be played over the tannoy system throughout the matches, the poor man - its difficult finding a rhyme for 'screw the Rabo'

I am not the one stating a fact with no evidence

he's got plenty of rhymes for "Lux" though

Rugby Fan wrote:

Sin é wrote:...From what I can see (in Ireland anyway), the best run sporting organisations are rugby & GAA, both organisations who have a strong amateur ethos...

The GAA seems like a good model, and rugby may regret going professional and losing those amateur roots.

However, it wasn't greedy players, agents, or owners who took rugby down the road of professionalism. It was the unions.

The unions kept wanting more and more money out of the game - the first two World Cups were held while the game was still amateur. Rich sponsors were courted, corporate boxes sold, sinecures and honours sought and empires built. None of these glories trickled down to the players except through byzantine, often corrupt deals. Should a player want to make his money openly, whether through a book, or newspaper column or - god forbid - playing league - he was banned from all involvement with the sport.

Just think about that for a moment. A retiring Test player who penned an autobiography was not allowed to set foot on a pitch again, could not become an officer of his local club, could not train to become a referee, and could not even coach children. This exile was demanded by national unions who were using their overflowing coffers to pay for first class tickets and hotels with plenty of lavish dinners along the way.

I don't have to like players salaries and some of the brash new owners. Forgive, though, me if I fail to see how the national unions are guardians of the soul of rugby.

        

Rugby Fan wrote: Forgive, though, me if I fail to see how the national unions are guardians of the soul of rugby.

They are guardians of nobody's soul but, evidently, they are staunch guardians of their rights as the very code's administrators. And some others are guardians of their rights as owners themselves of 'clubs'.

Nothing less, nothing more, I'd assume. PRL want their rights, Unions want theirs. PRL is a Union BTW I'd like to hear from the individual clubs in France and Europe. Are they all perfectly happy with everything their 'Unions' have been doing and saying? Or are they told to just be quiet as Individual owners as their Union conducts their business for them?

or as carling liked to refer to them, 57 old farts...

broadlandboy wrote:I am not the one stating a fact with no evidence

The usual evasion tactic. You're afraid what would come up. Okay so - but whenver you want to tell me my 'facts' are wrong come to me with 'facts' that prove me wrong. I've admitted being wrong before on these boards. Facts would prove me wrong again.
But I'm really interested to see the 'facts' that would prove that AP and PRL is a non-profit making outfit of professional rugby clubs.

SecretFly wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote: Forgive, though, me if I fail to see how the national unions are guardians of the soul of rugby.

They are guardians of nobody's soul but, evidently, they are staunch guardians of their rights as the very code's administrators.  And some others are guardians of their rights as owners themselves of 'clubs'.

Nothing less, nothing more, I'd assume.  PRL want their rights, Unions want theirs.  PRL is a Union BTW   I'd like to hear from the individual clubs in France and Europe.  Are they all perfectly happy with everything their 'Unions' have been doing and saying?  Or are they told to just be quiet as Individual owners as their Union conducts their business for them?

SF, please. you can't call an association of for-profit companies a union. that's like saying the guy at the top of a communist regime is a King (opposite actually but you can see my point).

or are you making the point that all companies with more than 1 shareholder are "unions"? again, not very plausible.

PRL were "unanimous" in withdrawing from ERC according to the statement on thursday.

broadlandboy wrote:Obviously the clubs want to make a profit(making £1 profit is a profit) so that they can continue to invest in rugby. The "sugar daddies" however are very unlikely to see a return on their investment, most would be lucky to see all the money back.

Profit is another way of saying you haven't spent any money at all. Profit kills the idea that club rugby in England is a charity.
It isn't and you and others know it isn't. That's my only point on this one. Club rugby in England is not a charity.

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote: Forgive, though, me if I fail to see how the national unions are guardians of the soul of rugby.

They are guardians of nobody's soul but, evidently, they are staunch guardians of their rights as the very code's administrators.  And some others are guardians of their rights as owners themselves of 'clubs'.

Nothing less, nothing more, I'd assume.  PRL want their rights, Unions want theirs.  PRL is a Union BTW   I'd like to hear from the individual clubs in France and Europe.  Are they all perfectly happy with everything their 'Unions' have been doing and saying?  Or are they told to just be quiet as Individual owners as their Union conducts their business for them?

SF, please. you can't call an association of for-profit companies a union. that's like saying the guy at the top of a communist regime is a King (opposite actually but you can see my point).

or are you making the point that all companies with more than 1 shareholder are "unions"? again, not very plausible.

PRL were "unanimous" in withdrawing from ERC according to the statement on thursday.

PRL is a Union. It is that which you must belong to to get to play in AP. No discussion, no non-unionised teams playing in AP. They join in order to play.

Secret you have yet to provide any facts. By your definition the Unions are greedy as well as they seem to want to make a profit as much as the PRL clubs.

SecretFly wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Obviously the clubs want to make a profit(making £1 profit is a profit) so that they can continue to invest in rugby. The "sugar daddies" however are very unlikely to see a return on their investment, most would be lucky to see all the money back.

Profit is another way of saying you haven't spent any money at all. Profit kills the idea that club rugby in England is a charity.
It isn't and you and others know it isn't.  That's my only point on this one.  Club rugby in England is not a charity.

appears to be at the moment (with the subsidising of international club rugby within the 6N   ), but that's clearly not the goal, and PRL is set up explicitly to help the AP clubs make as much money as possible.

broadlandboy wrote:Secret you have yet to provide any facts. By your definition the Unions are greedy as well as they seem to want to make a profit as much as the PRL clubs.

it is by definition a limited company. now if you want to stick your own random definitions all over the place there's not much we can do. but you would be dead wrong in this instance.

meant to reply to SF obviously. not BB

SecretFly wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Obviously the clubs want to make a profit(making £1 profit is a profit) so that they can continue to invest in rugby. The "sugar daddies" however are very unlikely to see a return on their investment, most would be lucky to see all the money back.

Profit is another way of saying you haven't spent any money at all. Profit kills the idea that club rugby in England is a charity.
It isn't and you and others know it isn't.  That's my only point on this one.  Club rugby in England is not a charity.

A sugar daddy is a term for someone not looking at a return on investment

I think people need to understand that- they keep using sugar daddy when it suits and then clubs are out to make evil profits in another when it suits.

The two are completely exclusive.

broadlandboy wrote:Secret you have yet to provide any facts. By your definition the Unions are greedy as well as they seem to want to make a profit as much as the PRL clubs.

You forget or overlook that I never deny that Unions are out for themselves and certainly my Union is out for our Provinces - which they own - just like the sugar-daddies

It's not me that is saying profit isn't the motive if you look above you - it is PRL supporters who say privately club owners aren't interested in profit. Profit is the very reason these months of arguing have happened. PRL is a professional body and it want's more profit not less.

So never mind Unions wanting profit - they do. Find me the paper-work which will conform for me that the AP is a charity.

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Obviously the clubs want to make a profit(making £1 profit is a profit) so that they can continue to invest in rugby. The "sugar daddies" however are very unlikely to see a return on their investment, most would be lucky to see all the money back.

Profit is another way of saying you haven't spent any money at all. Profit kills the idea that club rugby in England is a charity.
It isn't and you and others know it isn't.  That's my only point on this one.  Club rugby in England is not a charity.

appears to be at the moment (with the subsidising of international club rugby within the 6N   ), but that's clearly not the goal, and PRL is set up explicitly to help the AP clubs make as much money as possible.

I'm glad we're all back on track after a funny-season selection of posts from some who seem to disagree with in a bizarre way.

English club subsidise nobody because it's not ever English club money put on the table but the sponsors and TV people's money. Okay? Or are you telling me that the poor afflicted English private owners fork out for Welsh, Scottish, italian and Irish rugby too - from their own pokets? Them boys are saints.

Hopefully Connacht's win over Toulouse will further weaken the thinly veiled "meritocracy" arguement for revised qualification in the Heineken cup. It has always been about money and very little else.

The lesson to be learned is that teams with less resources can be competitive if they are smart and have the right structures and personel in place. Perhaps this should be the PRLs focus for their teams?

quinsforever wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Secret you have yet to provide any facts. By your definition the Unions are greedy as well as they seem to want to make a profit as much as the PRL clubs.

it is by definition a limited company. now if you want to stick your own random definitions all over the place there's not much we can do. but you would be dead wrong in this instance.

I'll stick on the tag that most suits it on a practical level. It's a Union...fighting for it's members. But in order to work at that company (AP) you must join that Union

SecretFly wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Secret, I don't care what you believe( as stated before perception is stonger than reality).
I said invested in rugby
You have yet to show any evidense to back up your claim.

My claim that they want to make profits?  

Pick a mid ranking AP side and get back to me with personal investment from owners over the course of lets say 5 years?  And add to that any profits they've made from merchandise, tickets, alcohol sales etc, sponsorships, TV profit shares, competition funds issued out.  I'm willing to be proved wrong that they spend a lot more of their personal income than they earn.  I'm willing to have it proven to me that club rugby in England is run by people who don't want to and aren't concerned with making a profit.

You prove me wrong - you prove to me that all along professional club rugby in England has been unviable.  Because that's not what the PRL supporters have been saying to this point.

This is exactly the kind of shifting stance that makes this debate so frustrating. You are choosing to interpret something we have been saying consistently all along in a different light because it suits the point you are making.

I will set it out as simply as I can. Most of these points have been made time and again by me and others, and as far as I can recall have been made consistently. It's likely that there are some quotes somewhere in the innumerable posts on this topic that you could present as contradictory, but I can honestly say that everything I've read from the PRL side of the fence has seemed to me consistent in what it's been trying to say.

1) The majority of English professional clubs don't make a profit and haven't since the start of professionalism

2) This is not surprising. At the outset of professionalism, many of them didn't own stadia, had minimal facilities, no handouts from the RFU and limited supporter bases - i.e. they were starting from a very low base in terms of revenue generation and limited opportunity to improve that without serious investment.

3) It was also a competitive market with some bigger and better funded players (e.g. Leicester, early Newcastle, French clubs) able to set the market rate for salaries. Slow growth while "living within their means" therefore presented challenges of its own - e.g. the revenue from 3,000 fans doesn't cover the salary for a full squad. Most clubs needed capital to grow and to absorb losses while trying to build a fan base to support profitability. That led to rich fans investing in the clubs

4) That investment has been for the long term. From memory, Bath, Newcastle and Wasps have changed hands since professionalism, and Saracens have brought in additional investors. I think all the other major clubs are still owned by the original owners, or at least the ones who were in place 10 years ago. There's no-one who's equivalent to the Glazers (i.e. professional sports investors looking to extract short term profits) or Abramovich (throwing the cash to buy success) - the closest would probably be Saracens, who have been the most outspoken about commercial ambitions, but even they seem to be investing for the long term.

5) The way the clubs organise themselves (the PRL) has several characteristics that are designed to ensure financial stability over winner-takes-all - e.g. salary cap (limits the gap in spending between biggest and smallest), smoothing of RFU payments (for EPS and EQP - relatively recent innovations), parachute payments & share structure (not great for Exeter, and needs reform now but has in the past prevented the relegated club from folding)

6) Today, most of the clubs do not make an operating profit and many of them have large debts to manage down over time. However, they've built up those debts in the interests of building a business. Most of them are closer to profitability than they were 4-5 years ago, and several of them will get there in the next couple of years. Businesses that are investing in growth can live with large amounts of debt and losses and still be successful businesses (e.g. Amazon, Google before AdWords) - as long as there's a plan to stop making losses and clear the debt eventually

7) Most clubs do seem to have a plan. Negotiating a better TV deal, for one thing, negotiating a better share of HEC revenues, drawing in bigger crowds etc.

8) Losses today are generally in the £0.5-1.5m range. That's less than the difference between what Quins were paid and what Zebre were paid for last year's HEC. The new revenue distribution (with BT deal included) would have been enough to push most of the clubs into operating profit, accelerating the point at which they become viable without the owners pumping in additional funds

9) Even when the clubs reach profitability, there will be years of paying down debt before the owners can take out a profit. When they get to that point will we see profiteering? I don't know. Maybe. It is some years off, and to be honest I would not be unhappy with Quins' investors taking something out after what they have put in as long as the club is in good shape and prices don't get hiked ridiculously (which would probably be self-defeating in the long run)

10) By the way, the RFU could not have funded 12 professional clubs through this.

We've been pretty consistent about this, I think. The clubs don't make a profit. Most of them have a plan to make a profit at the operating level, which would allow them to pay down debt rather than line someone's pockets. Ensuring that European rugby doesn't sell itself short commercially and that the proceeds are fairly distributed (which to me means in line with the number of teams contributing to making it a successful spectacle - across all competitions) would accelerate that process. None of this seems unreasonable or poor business sense (other than in the general sense that the owners could make much more money elsewhere. But as has been said, they are not doing it just for the money).

I hope I have been clear. I fully expect to see someone twist my words to make a trap for fools. But at least I tried.

mystiroakey wrote:

The two are completely exclusive.

the two what, mystir? Daddies? Yes, they are. A daddy who wants to make profit is a business man - a Daddy who doesn't care is usually a man who came across an 'abandoned' oil well or two and 'disappeared' the real owners.

SF- profits are exactly what we need, but if we are arguing that the AP club owners are out for a profit~(long term) over anything else- they are not suger daddies

GunsGerms wrote:Hopefully Connacht's win over Toulouse will further weaken the thinly veiled "meritocracy" arguement for revised qualification in the Heineken cup. It has always been about money and very little else.

The lesson to be learned is that teams with less resources can be competitive if they are smart and have the right structures and personel in place. Perhaps this should be the PRLs focus for their teams?

No, it strengthens the case for meritocracy. I don't want to take anything away from Connacht's performance (or the provinces as a whole). It was a great result. But Connacht could target it. They are not fighting for qualification, they got a better seeding than their league performances would merit (because seeding rewards being in the HEC, so Connacht have benefited from Leinster's success).

Meritocracy means that you have to earn a place by being among the best in your league (and country, if we apply the "all 6 nations" compromise). It means a level playing field for entry and seeding in the tournament. One perspective is that the English teams at the moment have the worst of both worlds - they don't have the salary cap advantage of the French, and they don't have the qualification advantages of the Rabo teams. I can't see anything that can be done about the salary cap differentials, except to wait for French clubs to implode or everyone else to catch up (I've explained that on an earlier thread), but the qualification issues can and should be fixed.

Or turn it around. A Rabo team is at the bottom of 5 of the 6 HEC groups, with Scarlets in 3rd ahead of Racing on points difference. If the Irish teams' strong performances are an argument for the French and English having fewer places, why isn't the Scots, Welsh and Italian teams' poor performances a stronger argument for fewer Rabo places?