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

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.

Poorfour wrote:

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?

Poorfour wrote:

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?

Poorfour wrote:

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:

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.

Poorfour wrote:

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?

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

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?

Imo it's because the Scots,Welsh and Italians have got nothing to do with us,if you want to argue that they deserve fewer places because of their poor showing then do so,they can fight their own corner but leave the Irish out of it.Our provinces have more than justified their inclusion and having 6 French or English teams no matter how strong or weak and then whinging that Ireland has 4 just doesn't make sense.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

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.

A sugar daddy most definitely is looking for a return on investment.Rich older guy spends big money on beautiful young woman and doesn't want anything in return,not realistic.

Now that's not saying that all the rich club owners want a monetary return,some might get value from just creating a team and being involved in a major sport.I'd say the return that each owner wants is different and you can't say they all want to make money or they all want to give back to their local club and community,it will vary with each individual.

mystiroakey wrote: they are not out there for any monetary return on investment- There are out for wins and success

SecretFly wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

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?

Imo it's because the Scots,Welsh and Italians have got nothing to do with us,if you want to argue that they deserve fewer places because of their poor showing then do so,they can fight their own corner but leave the Irish out of it.Our provinces have more than justified their inclusion and having 6 French or English teams no matter how strong or weak and then whinging that Ireland has 4 just doesn't make sense.

Pre-cisely and con-cisely!

They've justified their inclusion of 3 - not 2, not 1.  3.

Sin é wrote:Even with all the money sloshing around the Premier Football league, most of them are reliant on rich benefactors to keep them afloat. Exactly the same will happen to rugby if McCaff & co get their way. The only ones who will do well out of this are the players.

Sin é wrote:

Even Camou is saying that it was the Irish provinces who made the Heineken Cup.

SecretFly wrote:No.  Meritocracy means that if you have a European competition of 24 or 20, then you have to be one of the 24 or 20 best sides.  That's the only truth that applies to 'meritocracy' in Europe.

The rest is schmaltz attached to a battle for supremecy of a European contest and excuses for the battle.

If the top 20 best sides in Europe ( lets say in 2017) happen to be 10 French ones and 10 Pro12 ones, then why should we still see 6 English sides there?  No meritocracy used to get them there only something meaningless to the others - an Internal contest that decides the 'best' of the AP itself.  Again, I repeat, that internal battle (AP) is meaningless to the rest of us until the rest of us meet the supposedly top 6 of that AP.

So no - Meritocracy is a nice party trick when you're trying to impress the audience.  It's meaningless though, as the competition itself determines Best.  It is not for the PRL to decide on who shall be classed Best - it is for the competition designed to unearth the Best.

Poorfour wrote:

SecretFly wrote:No.  Meritocracy means that if you have a European competition of 24 or 20, then you have to be one of the 24 or 20 best sides.  That's the only truth that applies to 'meritocracy' in Europe.

The rest is schmaltz attached to a battle for supremecy of a European contest and excuses for the battle.

If the top 20 best sides in Europe ( lets say in 2017) happen to be 10 French ones and 10 Pro12 ones, then why should we still see 6 English sides there?  No meritocracy used to get them there only something meaningless to the others - an Internal contest that decides the 'best' of the AP itself.  Again, I repeat, that internal battle (AP) is meaningless to the rest of us until the rest of us meet the supposedly top 6 of that AP.

So no - Meritocracy is a nice party trick when you're trying to impress the audience.  It's meaningless though, as the competition itself determines Best.  It is not for the PRL to decide on who shall be classed Best - it is for the competition designed to unearth the Best.

OK. Follow that to its logical conclusion. Let's say we have a 20 team tournament featuring the "Best" teams. How do you define "Best"? The implication of "the Irish and French are the top of the pools so they must be Best" argument is that you'd put the teams who do best in the HEC this season in to next year's tournament. That would in effect be the teams filling the 1st 2nd and 3rd places in the tables, plus the two best 4th place finishers.

But now they're in the tournament, how does anyone else get in? The 20 who are in the tournament will by definition fill the top 20 slots.

To my mind (and a lot of other minds, across multiple sports), the whole point of a cross-border cup competition is that you take the best performers from the various domestic competitions in the previous year and pit them against each other to see who is really the best. That's not perfect, because teams and form change from season to season, but at least it means that you are taking recent performance into account rather than gifting teams entry on historical grounds.

Poorfour wrote:

OK. Follow that to its logical conclusion. Let's say we have a 20 team tournament featuring the "Best" teams. How do you define "Best"? The implication of "the Irish and French are the top of the pools so they must be Best" argument is that you'd put the teams who do best in the HEC this season in to next year's tournament. That would in effect be the teams filling the 1st 2nd and 3rd places in the tables, plus the two best 4th place finishers.

But now they're in the tournament, how does anyone else get in? The 20 who are in the tournament will by definition fill the top 20 slots.

To my mind (and a lot of other minds, across multiple sports), the whole point of a cross-border cup competition is that you take the best performers from the various domestic competitions in the previous year and pit them against each other to see who is really the best. That's not perfect, because teams and form change from season to season, but at least it means that you are taking recent performance into account rather than gifting teams entry on historical grounds.

Poorfour wrote:
To my mind (and a lot of other minds, across multiple sports), the whole point of a cross-border cup competition is that you take the best performers from the various domestic competitions in the previous year and pit them against each other to see who is really the best. That's not perfect, because teams and form change from season to season, but at least it means that you are taking recent performance into account rather than gifting teams entry on historical grounds.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

OK. Follow that to its logical conclusion. Let's say we have a 20 team tournament featuring the "Best" teams. How do you define "Best"? The implication of "the Irish and French are the top of the pools so they must be Best" argument is that you'd put the teams who do best in the HEC this season in to next year's tournament. That would in effect be the teams filling the 1st 2nd and 3rd places in the tables, plus the two best 4th place finishers.

But now they're in the tournament, how does anyone else get in? The 20 who are in the tournament will by definition fill the top 20 slots.

To my mind (and a lot of other minds, across multiple sports), the whole point of a cross-border cup competition is that you take the best performers from the various domestic competitions in the previous year and pit them against each other to see who is really the best. That's not perfect, because teams and form change from season to season, but at least it means that you are taking recent performance into account rather than gifting teams entry on historical grounds.

To my mind he whole point of a cross-border competition is to take the best teams from all the countries that the cross-border competition encompasses and pit them against each other.Jamming a huge amount of teams from one country into the comp makes it lobsided.

Notch wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

OK. Follow that to its logical conclusion. Let's say we have a 20 team tournament featuring the "Best" teams. How do you define "Best"? The implication of "the Irish and French are the top of the pools so they must be Best" argument is that you'd put the teams who do best in the HEC this season in to next year's tournament. That would in effect be the teams filling the 1st 2nd and 3rd places in the tables, plus the two best 4th place finishers.

But now they're in the tournament, how does anyone else get in? The 20 who are in the tournament will by definition fill the top 20 slots.

To my mind (and a lot of other minds, across multiple sports), the whole point of a cross-border cup competition is that you take the best performers from the various domestic competitions in the previous year and pit them against each other to see who is really the best. That's not perfect, because teams and form change from season to season, but at least it means that you are taking recent performance into account rather than gifting teams entry on historical grounds.

To my mind he whole point of a cross-border competition is to take the best teams from all the countries that the cross-border competition encompasses and pit them against each other.Jamming a huge amount of teams from one country into the comp makes it lobsided.

Not to mention the strangeness of one cross-border European competition deciding who should play in another.

broadlandboy wrote:Ok Notch you want to know the number of sides. As England have 50% of their top level teams in, Ireland can have 50% (2). How will that suit you?

thebandwagonsociety wrote:
But format, governance, meritocracy has already been virtually sorted by the cartel.  The only problem that remains is the PRL's deal with BT. 

Sin é wrote:Hammer, the Sky deal has been signed. The RFU & LNR (plus the rest of the Unions) approved the deal at Board level.

SecretFly wrote:

thebandwagonsociety wrote:
But format, governance, meritocracy has already been virtually sorted by the cartel.  The only problem that remains is the PRL's deal with BT. 

All those things were 'decided' as a solution to the problems according to five of the six Unions.  Given that the English decided they still didn't like that solution, I can't see how it is still considered a solution - as it was designed as a solution for all - not for some.

Indeed, I think it was a proposal put forward that the five Unions knew very well would be turned down - thus all the issues about RFU not being invited and suspicions about spies being in each other's camps.

So - I can't see how format, governance and meritcoracy issues 'decided' upon can now go ahead next season as 6 sides and an entire League will be missing.  

That was the compromise proposals btw - and they were turned down - bluntly.  So I don't see why the compromise proposals should still be on offer to anybody who decides that they want to return to the fold at a later date.  You can't just bank what you've 'gained' in absentia and then try to get even more through the next number of months/years.  No - if PRL want to re-negotiate their return, then the return will need new negotiations.

Sin é wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

SecretFly wrote:No.  Meritocracy means that if you have a European competition of 24 or 20, then you have to be one of the 24 or 20 best sides.  That's the only truth that applies to 'meritocracy' in Europe.

The rest is schmaltz attached to a battle for supremecy of a European contest and excuses for the battle.

If the top 20 best sides in Europe ( lets say in 2017) happen to be 10 French ones and 10 Pro12 ones, then why should we still see 6 English sides there?  No meritocracy used to get them there only something meaningless to the others - an Internal contest that decides the 'best' of the AP itself.  Again, I repeat, that internal battle (AP) is meaningless to the rest of us until the rest of us meet the supposedly top 6 of that AP.

So no - Meritocracy is a nice party trick when you're trying to impress the audience.  It's meaningless though, as the competition itself determines Best.  It is not for the PRL to decide on who shall be classed Best - it is for the competition designed to unearth the Best.

OK. Follow that to its logical conclusion. Let's say we have a 20 team tournament featuring the "Best" teams. How do you define "Best"? The implication of "the Irish and French are the top of the pools so they must be Best" argument is that you'd put the teams who do best in the HEC this season in to next year's tournament. That would in effect be the teams filling the 1st 2nd and 3rd places in the tables, plus the two best 4th place finishers.

But now they're in the tournament, how does anyone else get in? The 20 who are in the tournament will by definition fill the top 20 slots.

To my mind (and a lot of other minds, across multiple sports), the whole point of a cross-border cup competition is that you take the best performers from the various domestic competitions in the previous year and pit them against each other to see who is really the best. That's not perfect, because teams and form change from season to season, but at least it means that you are taking recent performance into account rather than gifting teams entry on historical grounds.

Whats the obsession with seeding anyway? Some Cup competitions don't have seedings (i.e., FA Cup). They don't have to be seeded.

SecretFly wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Ok Notch you want to know the number of sides. As England have 50% of their top level teams in, Ireland can have 50% (2). How will that suit you?

Then why not 7 French?

SecretFly wrote:I agree - about your last bit - and I'm one of the few on the 'other' side who admit that's probably what the offer was.  But then again, they were on the recieving end of a lot of leaked comments themselves and being made look a right shower of gobshytes

(I know - I know! - A lot of you still think they're a shower of gobshytes )

But psychological warfare was taking place in the media from both sides.  Anyway, my point is that if PRL ever want to return to play against all of us (nevermind the ERC) - all of us - then it will require a new negotiation, not just walking in on banked promises from two, three or four years previously.  

That's not how business battles work.  Positions will have changed, attitudes certainly will have changed, trust will be rare, and the balance of powers within Europe will have changed. Nothing can be banked for some date down the line.

quinsforever wrote:
seeding is required in pool-based tournaments by the broadcasters firstly. and secondly, it is necessary when not all teams qualify on merit, ie if a random draw you could have all 4 irish teams in 1 pool, and 2 italian and 2 scots in another pool. now that would be embarrassing and a commercial disaster.

HammerofThunor wrote:It's not a pan-European competition. It's a 6 nations competition with a couple of invited guests.

And the English already have about 30% of the ERC competitors. One of the issues is that half of them are dumped in to the ACC, a competitions that at least half of the controlling unions don't give a Poopie about.

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:
seeding is required in pool-based tournaments by the broadcasters firstly. and secondly, it is necessary when not all teams qualify on merit, ie if a random draw you could have all 4 irish teams in 1 pool, and 2 italian and 2 scots in another pool. now that would be embarrassing and a commercial disaster.

Well, the seeding was only introduced in 2007, are you sure about that being a requirement from broadcasters? They just made sure that the nations were mixed up (and teams from the same countries were kept separate). It was a bit of a joke that Biarritz always got the Italian team actually!

Countries nominated their teams. Its only recently that Ireland have used the league positioning.

HammerofThunor wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I agree - about your last bit - and I'm one of the few on the 'other' side who admit that's probably what the offer was.  But then again, they were on the recieving end of a lot of leaked comments themselves and being made look a right shower of gobshytes

(I know - I know! - A lot of you still think they're a shower of gobshytes )

But psychological warfare was taking place in the media from both sides.  Anyway, my point is that if PRL ever want to return to play against all of us (nevermind the ERC) - all of us - then it will require a new negotiation, not just walking in on banked promises from two, three or four years previously.  

That's not how business battles work.  Positions will have changed, attitudes certainly will have changed, trust will be rare, and the balance of powers within Europe will have changed. Nothing can be banked for some date down the line.

Out of curiosity, what leaked comments are you talking about? Always looking for things take back up preconceived ideas but must have missed those ones.

Edit: agree about the negotiations starting again. Anything else would be silly.

Notch wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:It's not a pan-European competition. It's a 6 nations competition with a couple of invited guests.

And the English already have about 30% of the ERC competitors. One of the issues is that half of them are dumped in to the ACC, a competitions that at least half of the controlling unions don't give a Poopie about.

And what are we meant to do? Make 12 English places for the Heineken Cup?

Listen, you can't have 12 English sides and 14 French sides competing in European competitions and getting meaningful fixtures every weekend. Sending 3 or 4 more sides from the Unions involved in the Pro12 into the Amlin isn't going to make it much stronger.

You have too many sides. The pot is split too many ways. There isn't enough money to go around 12 sides, there isn't enough competition to give them all top-class rugby every European weekend and there isn't enough talent for you to be real contenders every year in Europe when its spread that thinly. It certainly works very well for you domestically but it's always going to be more problematic in Europe. You've chosen that route and fair enough- it has its advantages and it has its disadvantages just like our more focused approach. It's not our responsibility to deal with that, we shouldn't be telling each other how to run our own affairs, but we're not going to allow you to change the very basis of European competition to disadvantage everyone else. Because thats what this is; you've chosen to walk a path that has certain advantages and disadvantages and now you want to change the system to better suit you, to nullify those disadvantages. Well if there is European Rugby, it because there is collaboration between all sides and its because several nations come together with a compromise. We're not going to let one or two nations run things because they feel like they can bully everyone else into submission. You don't even have the approval of your unions.

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I agree - about your last bit - and I'm one of the few on the 'other' side who admit that's probably what the offer was.  But then again, they were on the recieving end of a lot of leaked comments themselves and being made look a right shower of gobshytes

(I know - I know! - A lot of you still think they're a shower of gobshytes )

But psychological warfare was taking place in the media from both sides.  Anyway, my point is that if PRL ever want to return to play against all of us (nevermind the ERC) - all of us - then it will require a new negotiation, not just walking in on banked promises from two, three or four years previously.  

That's not how business battles work.  Positions will have changed, attitudes certainly will have changed, trust will be rare, and the balance of powers within Europe will have changed. Nothing can be banked for some date down the line.

Out of curiosity, what leaked comments are you talking about? Always looking for things take back up preconceived ideas but must have missed those ones.

Edit: agree about the negotiations starting again. Anything else would be silly.

Leaked comments coming from English club heads talking about who wants what behind the scenes - about all sides now almost being with them, a few little tailend issues to be sorted and everything will be ready to go on RCC.  That was propaganda used to unsettle the Unions and create tensions between them, designed to make them suspicious that they were saying things to each other and secretly saying other things to PRL.

Mind games.  They were all over the media - not for days, for months.  Now if you didn't see those designed interviews and rapid-fire responses and put-downs then you haven't really been listening to the debate too closely.

If there had been true sincerity about listening to ERC proposals then chatting in public before any ERC decisions were made wouldn't be seen as productive.  But as you already admit, the PRL weren't serious about listening to anything coming from ERC - they'd already signed dotted lines with BT - and the thing is that the ERC knew that.

So it was a nice show for all of us but neither side could do business with each other.

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I agree - about your last bit - and I'm one of the few on the 'other' side who admit that's probably what the offer was.  But then again, they were on the recieving end of a lot of leaked comments themselves and being made look a right shower of gobshytes

(I know - I know! - A lot of you still think they're a shower of gobshytes )

But psychological warfare was taking place in the media from both sides.  Anyway, my point is that if PRL ever want to return to play against all of us (nevermind the ERC) - all of us - then it will require a new negotiation, not just walking in on banked promises from two, three or four years previously.  

That's not how business battles work.  Positions will have changed, attitudes certainly will have changed, trust will be rare, and the balance of powers within Europe will have changed. Nothing can be banked for some date down the line.

Out of curiosity, what leaked comments are you talking about? Always looking for things take back up preconceived ideas but must have missed those ones.

Edit: agree about the negotiations starting again. Anything else would be silly.

Leaked comments coming from English club heads talking about who wants what behind the scenes - about all sides now almost being with them, a few little tailend issues to be sorted and everything will be ready to go on RCC.  That was propaganda used to unsettle the Unions and create tensions between them, designed to make them suspicious that they were saying things to each other and secretly saying other things to PRL.

Mind games.  They were all over the media - not for days, for months.  Now if you didn't see those designed interviews and rapid-fire responses and put-downs then you haven't really been listening to the debate too closely.

If there had been true sincerity about listening to ERC proposals then chatting in public before any ERC decisions were made wouldn't be seen as productive.  But as you already admit, the PRL weren't serious about listening to anything coming from ERC - they'd already signed dotted lines with BT - and the thing is that the ERC knew that.

So it was a nice show for all of us but neither side could do business with each other.

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:
seeding is required in pool-based tournaments by the broadcasters firstly. and secondly, it is necessary when not all teams qualify on merit, ie if a random draw you could have all 4 irish teams in 1 pool, and 2 italian and 2 scots in another pool. now that would be embarrassing and a commercial disaster.

Well, the seeding was only introduced in 2007, are you sure about that being a requirement from broadcasters? They just made sure that the nations were mixed up (and teams from the same countries were kept separate). It was a bit of a joke that Biarritz always got the Italian team actually!

Countries nominated their teams. Its only recently that Ireland have used the league positioning.

re broadcasters, yes, and its no coincidence that the TV money really took off since 2007. broadcasters always try to implement what they see working in other sports and formats that they cover elsewhere.