Italians quitting the Pro12?

First topic message reminder :

http://rugby1823.blogosfere.it/2013/12/affari-italiani-il-futuro-in-pro-12-i-celtici-lo-mettono-in-dubbio-e-in-italia.html

For the first time in the British press about a possible tournament to 10 teams, while we Zebras and Treviso are considering the pros and cons of a future as a professional.

One thing he had noticed in recent months regarding the renewal of the contract between Italy on the Celtic League , namely the RaboDirect Pro 12 . And it was the silence of the Irish and British press , that while facing the European crisis and the Welsh seemed to take for granted the status quo italics.

A silence that you could , on the outside, read in two ways: on the one hand a lack of interest in the fate of Zebras and Treviso , as if their presence at the tournament Celtic was marginal and uninteresting , then a non- news for the British press on the other could make people believe that in Ireland , Wales and Scotland will give confirmation for the next four years for granted , or because you had news to us denied, or because it was obvious the Italian brand .

Yesterday , however, on the pages of The Guardian has published an extensive article on the crisis oval of Wales, in which they discussed various issues concerning the Pro 12 and Heineken Cup and a paragraph was dedicated to Italy . " Then there is the Pro 12 , which in addition to need a new title sponsor ( RaboDirect leave at season's end , ed . ) Could also be reduced to 10 teams , with the FIR he is thinking whether to keep his two professional teams , Treviso and Zebras, in the tournament. agreement with the three federations will expire at the end of the Celtic year and the negotiations for the renewal are at a dead end , "writes Paul Rees, connects very versed in matters Celtic .

In short, for the first time the British press can clearly speaks of Italian goodbye and "dead " in negotiations . And the problems are many to deal with. On the one hand, there is the actual discussion between the Fir and federations Celtic , with President Gavazzi who wants to not having to pay the fee of three million Euros annually to Celtic , but on the other there are the two club.

Zebras . The Zebras, as you well remember, were born a year and a half ago as a stopgap after the chaos Herons , with then president Dondi who repeatedly said he did not want a federal exemption and that it was only a temporary solution . Well, Gavazzi has also repeatedly said that the Zebras will be privatized next year , but now you do not know anything and are deprived so eager to jump into an adventure that has few positives. Zero public , media visibility zero , zero results on the field , the experience Zebras is not one of those that encourage investing , let alone in times of crisis.

In fact, zero return , under too many points of view. And many millions spent four years in the early Celtic . A situation that also moves in Treviso , where Benetton has more than a doubt about his Celtic future . In the first four years of Pro 12 , in fact, the Venetian family has put into the pot over twenty million euro , getting little in return . Benetton will want to continue and , if so, under what conditions? Certainly not the current .

How do you see the future of Italian in Europe is increasingly black and points of demand increases instead of decreasing . And meanwhile , time goes by and the hourglass empties more . And the mistakes of the past four years, today , are becoming a tragedy oval .

Actually he may not even be Welsh, so I apologize for that assumption.  Regardless of what he is its sad to see these guys on a rugby board, they aren't rugby fans.

broadlandboy wrote:Munchkin get it correct. It was once ERC signed an exclusive deal with SKY, after the PRL/BT deal, that PRL teams could not return to an ERC run comp.

I have it completely right. Once PRL signed the contract with BT it excluded AP teams from entering the HEC. ERC signing the SKY deal, or not signing it, wouldn't have made a difference. The AP teams could not have signed up to HEC again unless PRL broke their contract with BT. AP teams could not enter European competition again unless the Unions agreed to PRL demands of joining their beakaway competition. The LNR had no intention of joining PRL in their new venture. It was simply used by LNR as leverage in their FFR negotiations.

My point stands. Once the BT contract was signed there was nothing to discuss outside of the Unions abandoning HEC.

Munchkin wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Munchkin get it correct. It was once ERC signed an exclusive deal with SKY, after the PRL/BT deal, that PRL teams could not return to an ERC run comp.

I have it completely right. Once PRL signed the contract with BT it excluded AP teams from entering the HEC. ERC signing the SKY deal, or not signing it, wouldn't have made a difference. The AP teams could not have signed up to HEC again unless PRL broke their contract with BT. AP teams could not enter European competition again unless the Unions agreed to PRL demands of joining their beakaway competition. The LNR had no intention of joining PRL in their new venture. It was simply used by LNR as leverage in their FFR negotiations.

My point stands. Once the BT contract was signed there was nothing to discuss outside of the Unions abandoning HEC.

What are you basing that on? The press release for the BT deal was that it covered any European games after 2014 for 3 years.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Munchkin get it correct. It was once ERC signed an exclusive deal with SKY, after the PRL/BT deal, that PRL teams could not return to an ERC run comp.

I have it completely right. Once PRL signed the contract with BT it excluded AP teams from entering the HEC. ERC signing the SKY deal, or not signing it, wouldn't have made a difference. The AP teams could not have signed up to HEC again unless PRL broke their contract with BT. AP teams could not enter European competition again unless the Unions agreed to PRL demands of joining their beakaway competition. The LNR had no intention of joining PRL in their new venture. It was simply used by LNR as leverage in their FFR negotiations.

My point stands. Once the BT contract was signed there was nothing to discuss outside of the Unions abandoning HEC.

What are you basing that on? The press release for the BT deal was that it covered any European games after 2014 for 3 years.

I'm basing it on the statements from PRL. There's enough to choose from, Hammer. The PRL have signed their contract with BT, and certain of the PRL have stated quite clearly that they cannot now enter HEC due to their signing the BT contract. They have also stated that they will not enter ERC HEC.

That's because the ERC have sold ALL games in HEC to Sky. It doesn't mean there is a weird anti-ERC clause in the BT deal.

PRL have only said they won't play in an ERC competition AFTER the ERC did the Sky deal.

HammerofThunor wrote:That's because the ERC have sold ALL games in HEC to Sky. It doesn't mean there is a weird anti-ERC clause in the BT deal.

PRL have only said they won't play in an ERC competition AFTER the ERC did the Sky deal.

Who claimed there was any 'weird anti-ERC clause'? Me? Don't think so. The invention of the supposed RCC was completely anti-ERC by the way.
PRL were already committed to pulling out of ERC HEC on signing the BT deal by handing in their 2 years notice. Are you attempting to claim that had ERC agreed to abandon SKY, and HEC, that PRL would have agreed to have them run this RCC? I might be wrong, but if so then nonsense.

Munchkin wrote:I have it completely right. Once PRL signed the contract with BT it excluded AP teams from entering the HEC.

This reads like you're suggesting there was something in the contract. Otherwise they COULD have continued with the HEC as long as the ERC were happy with BT broadcasting the English games for X in the pot. However when the ERC signed the Sky deal there was no way back.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Munchkin wrote:I have it completely right. Once PRL signed the contract with BT it excluded AP teams from entering the HEC.

This reads like you're suggesting there was something in the contract. Otherwise they COULD have continued with the HEC as long as the ERC were happy with BT broadcasting the English games for X in the pot. However when the ERC signed the Sky deal there was no way back.

Hey, I know as much about the details of that contract as you do. Next to nothing. What I do know is that the comment was made recently that AP teams cannot agree to entering HEC now due to the BT contract being signed. If you want any clarity on that I suggest you take it up with PRL.
So yes, there may well be something within that contract which prevents them from signing up with HEC. It doesn't have to be this Weird anti-ERC clause you imagined.
Hammer, do you believe that the BT contract was signed by PRL with a view to remaining within ERC HEC?

Munshkin the PRL/BT deal had BT showing PRL teams in any european comp. As soon as ERC's deal for exclusivity with SKY signed it made it nigh on impossible for PRL teams to be invovled in an ERC comp, if ERC hadn't sold exclusive rights to SKY PRL teams could have been involved in an ERC run comp.

Its a very strange line of argument broadlandboy. The reason the PRL signed the deal was because they were washing their hands of the ERC for good. Leading figures from the PRL camp have said as much in public and it's been borne out by their refusal to attend meetings of stakeholders and negotiations aimed at preserving European competition under the ERC.

So complaining that the ERC have sold rights for anything to anyone is rather strange... they washed their hands of them. They wanted nothing to do with them. Now the ERC is to blame for trying to ensure a future after the departure of the English clubs? The backdoor wasn't left open but the ERC were told categorically you wouldn't be back. We were told it was impossible for PRL teams to continue with ERC before their departure- and now the complaint is that the ERC has made it impossible for the PRL to be part of ERC competitions? Isn't this what they wanted?

broadlandboy wrote:Munshkin the PRL/BT deal had BT showing PRL teams in any european comp. As soon as ERC's deal for exclusivity with SKY signed it made it nigh on impossible for PRL teams to be invovled in an ERC comp, if ERC hadn't sold exclusive rights to SKY PRL teams could have been involved in an ERC run comp.

The point being that PRL should never have signed that contract on the incredible assumption that ERC would agree to it after the deed had been done. PRL/BT screwed up. Not ERC. For them it was business as usual with SKY, and without having been informed by PRL of their intention prior to the signing, and without having access to exactly what the terms and conditions within the contract are, who could blame them.
The moment PRL signed that contract they signed away any future AP participation within HEC.

broadlandboy wrote:Sin é believe what you want but as has been shown on numerous threads the evidense is different. PRL/LNR were pushed to do what they did with the FFR still forcing LNR to do what they want rather than working with them.

Nope. Not true. The French were only using it as a negotiating tool.

People reading this must be questioning why 15 months on we’ve still had no progress. But I read (Bath owner and Premiership rugby negotiator) Bruce Craig make a statement which is kind of revealing and unfortunate.

“He said when they started discussions, the French clubs weren’t really on the same page as the English clubs because the French clubs believed they could find a solution within the current structures. The English clubs had already decided to terminate dealing with the ERC and do their own thing effectively. So there were decisions perhaps made that they didn’t really intend to negotiate, that there was always an effort to go elsewhere.

Anyway, how could the French or Welsh sign off on the agreement if they hadn't signed their agreements with their clubs. The French were 6 months over the due date. What was the PRL's hurry 2 years back?

Munchkin wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Munshkin the PRL/BT deal had BT showing PRL teams in any european comp. As soon as ERC's deal for exclusivity with SKY signed it made it nigh on impossible for PRL teams to be invovled in an ERC comp, if ERC hadn't sold exclusive rights to SKY PRL teams could have been involved in an ERC run comp.

The point being that PRL should never have signed that contract on the incredible assumption that ERC would agree to it after the deed had been done. PRL/BT screwed up. Not ERC. For them it was business as usual with SKY, and without having been informed by PRL of their intention prior to the signing, and without having access to exactly what the terms and conditions within the contract are, who could blame them.
The moment PRL signed that contract they signed away any future AP participation within HEC.

The PRL signed the BT contract on the basis they won't continue with the HEC unless it's on their terms. No negotiations happened until after the sky deal was signed so that was it. The reforms the unions have agreed to could have happened to the HEC as was, including the English. The extra, that wasn't willing, was a reformation of the ERC board so that team representatives sat on it. All that could have happened in the ERC, until the Sky was signed.

And yes, the French just did what they did to get rid of the Amlin and lose English sides from the HEC. That was their plan all along. The FFR threat of blocking the MASSIVE TV deal (which was progressing nicely up until this point) had nothing to do with it. Don't get me wrong, the English and French clubs weren't skipping downtown he road, arms linked, but that had similar issues. Also remember that the French involvement in the HEC Mk2 doesn't appear to be sorted yet. The European Cup is small potatoes to them when compared with their domestic TV rights. Just as if this was happening in 2016 and the RFU did the same with the PRL.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Munshkin the PRL/BT deal had BT showing PRL teams in any european comp. As soon as ERC's deal for exclusivity with SKY signed it made it nigh on impossible for PRL teams to be invovled in an ERC comp, if ERC hadn't sold exclusive rights to SKY PRL teams could have been involved in an ERC run comp.

The point being that PRL should never have signed that contract on the incredible assumption that ERC would agree to it after the deed had been done. PRL/BT screwed up. Not ERC. For them it was business as usual with SKY, and without having been informed by PRL of their intention prior to the signing, and without having access to exactly what the terms and conditions within the contract are, who could blame them.
The moment PRL signed that contract they signed away any future AP participation within HEC.

The PRL signed the BT contract on the basis they won't continue with the HEC unless it's on their terms. No negotiations happened until after the sky deal was signed so that was it. The reforms the unions have agreed to could have happened to the HEC as was, including the English. The extra, that wasn't willing, was a reformation of the ERC board so that team representatives sat on it. All that could have happened in the ERC, until the Sky was signed.

And yes, the French just did what they did to get rid of the Amlin and lose English sides from the HEC. That was their plan all along. The FFR threat of blocking the MASSIVE TV deal (which was progressing nicely up until this point) had nothing to do with it. Don't get me wrong, the English and French clubs weren't skipping downtown he road, arms linked, but that had similar issues. Also remember that the French involvement in the HEC Mk2 doesn't appear to be sorted yet. The European Cup is small potatoes to them when compared with their domestic TV rights. Just as if this was happening in 2016 and the RFU did the same with the PRL.

I think we agree for the most part, however, my belief is that PRL signed the BT contract in the knowledge that they would not be participating in an ERC run competition after this seasons ending. That the BT contract empowered them to do so, or so it was thought at the time, and from then onwards their sole aim was to push through with this RCC, and the destruction of the HEC as it now is. I don't believe for a moment had ERC agreed to their BT deal, or on issues of meritocracy etc, that PRL would have accepted an ERC run competition.
Maybe some reforms could have been agreed at the time, but then according to HEC history it is the custom to wait until the last moment before agreeing compromise. Both PRL and LNR have used the threat of withdrawing from HEC to gain leverage in negotiations before. The ERC had drawn a line in the sand on the issue of governance, and have since refused to budge from that position. Rightly so, I believe, but unfortunately it leaves things as they are now.
I still have hope for the future though  

The PRL used the threat of pulling out before but because they didn't give the notice they couldn't.

I just don't see why the PRL wouldn't stay in the ERC if the same changes were applied and board was changed. Doesn't make sense. The ERC was a no go once the ERC sold the exclusive rights the their competition to Sky after the PRL had already sold any potential European games to BT.

It happened so close together there no way of knowing the original intent. But once the Sky deal was done the English couldn't be involved in that competition.

HammerofThunor wrote:The PRL used the threat of pulling out before but because they didn't give the notice they couldn't.

I just don't see why the PRL wouldn't stay in the ERC if the same changes were applied and board was changed. Doesn't make sense. The ERC was a no go once the ERC sold the exclusive rights the their competition to Sky after the PRL had already sold any potential European games to BT.

It happened so close together there no way of knowing the original intent. But once the Sky deal was done the English couldn't be involved in that competition.

True, but cry wolf often enough, and all that. The big difference here for me wasn't so much the giving notice, but more the signing of the BT contract. It gave power to their threats.
Change of board? Maybe, but only if it was reformed along the lines of what they have been proposing for the RCC. That was never going to be acceptable to the Unions, or the IRB. That's the line in the sand.
Whatever the timing of events, the ERC Unions had to act in what they believed to be in the best interests of those Unions, and European rugby. Otherwise it's the tail wagging the dog. If PRL had honest intent then why not inform those of ERC prior to signing any BT contract? and if they truly had the interests of European rugby at heart then why not encourage ERC to negotiate with BT as a whole before they had a chance to sign the SKY contract? The fact that they didn't allows me to believe that their real aim was to break away from ERC HEC, and form a new competition. They just didn't take into account the resolve of the Unions, and IRB. They also fell for the LNR ruse of agreeing to the plans of RCC.

Did they not encourage the ERC to look at BT? Previously there were various comments amount revenue generation leading to ERC financial guy saying something along the lines of "there isn't more money out there, people say there is until they have to find it".

As you said the BT was their line in the sand. They believe(d) that the rights were theirs to sell (the press release for EPS deals suggests the same, but it's not the contract). Now at that point the ERC could have said, ok, we'll go with that deal but we're not changing format or governance. Not saying the PRL would have gone for it, there was still room to move. Once the Sky deal was signed that was that. Regarding whether they could have come to an agreement at all...well that simply means to agreement was going to be found from way before the BT deal.

And crying wolf isn't really apt. The first time they did actually leave for a year. The second time they were told they couldn't leave due to contracts. The next time, they gave notice and, unless the French go French, won't involved next year.

And not another one talking about the French "ruse". The main things they care about was the league TV deal. That wasn't under threat until the FFR put it there. What did the French get out the new European competition? Only 6 teams involved, no English sides, gained the 4th Welsh team. The idea that the new 5 unions competition is what they always wanted is rather bizarre. The RCC was never going to happen without the FFR approval. What 'should' have happened is they both left Europe completely. But the French were forced into the Freltic Cup on threat of losing the new TV deal.

Have a good new year.

HammerofThunor wrote:Did they not encourage the ERC to look at BT? Previously there were various comments amount revenue generation leading to ERC financial guy saying something along the lines of "there isn't more money out there, people say there is until they have to find it".

As you said the BT was their line in the sand. They believe(d) that the rights were theirs to sell (the press release for EPS deals suggests the same, but it's not the contract). Now at that point the ERC could have said, ok, we'll go with that deal but we're not changing format or governance. Not saying the PRL would have gone for it, there was still room to move. Once the Sky deal was signed that was that. Regarding whether they could have come to an agreement at all...well that simply means to agreement was going to be found from way before the BT deal.

And crying wolf isn't really apt. The first time they did actually leave for a year. The second time they were told they couldn't leave due to contracts. The next time, they gave notice and, unless the French go French, won't involved next year.

And not another one talking about the French "ruse". The main things they care about was the league TV deal. That wasn't under threat until the FFR put it there. What did the French get out the new European competition? Only 6 teams involved, no English sides, gained the 4th Welsh team. The idea that the new 5 unions competition is what they always wanted is rather bizarre. The RCC was never going to happen without the FFR approval. What 'should' have happened is they both left Europe completely. But the French were forced into the Freltic Cup on threat of losing the new TV deal.

Well they certainly didn't encourage ERC to look at the BT contract. They of course encouraged ERC to abandon HEC in favour of RCC, but that was after the deal was done. Not before.
We don't know what happened before the SKY deal was signed, but it's safe to assume that whatever happened the Unions believed signing the SKY deal was the right thing to do.
I'm not convinced that PRL had the right to sign the BT contract outside of informing ERC prior to that signing. Again, if it was so innocent then why not at least present it to ERC prior to signing? and why not encourage BT to negotiate with ERC directly?
As for the ruse? Well that's coming from Goze. It isn't something I've made up. According to Goze siding with PRL on the RCC was a means to an end, the FFR negotiations, and nothing more. As for PRL, and LNR both leaving Europe? That was always a possibility, but as far as the French were concerned very unlikely. It wasn't the French that got it so badly wrong. It was PRL.
Where have I said that the 5 Nations competition was what LNR always wanted? I didn't. Unfortunately the HEC minus AP teams was the only viable solution due to PRL refusal to take part.
Yes, PRL walked away before, but came back the following year. I don't believe ERC would have been too concerned about the threat, but then BT coming in under the radar changed things dramatically.
At the end of the day PRL had given their notice, had signed their deal, and would not have budged on their issue of governance. The latter is evident after the 5 Nations offered their compromise, yet was rejected out of hand by PRL as it didn't offer them what they really wanted - governance. It can be argued that PRLs hands are tied due to the BT contract, but then there are those, including Richie who has seen the contract, that believe there are ways around that.
Anyway, Hammer, have a great New Year yourself, and hopefully it will be a good year for European rugby.

Well the 1 year French-Celtic Cup is now dead. Pierre Camou stormed out of negotiations after the Unions refused to commit to new structures under FIRA-AER in 2015/16.

The French are going it alone, the English want to go it alone and the Welsh want to to go with them. The biggest loser? NH Test rugby. Whilst the SANZAR Unions have been able to set up an elite competition to prepare players for test level, we meander on with likely nothing and the Unions have ceded the power to make changes to our calendar and competitions to private interests. Don't expect the gap to have closed any at the 2015 RWC.

You can't individually sell TV rights to a collective competition. That's not even done in UEFA competitions. If it's a collective competition you collectively sell the rights, not individually behind even your own unions back.

You can't then bundle up your European TV rights with your domestic competition and then tell everyone most of it was for your domestic competition. How the heck would anyone know you're telling the truth?

You can't decline to show the details of the contract to any of your partners and expect them to leave the best competition in rugby and sign up to a new one on your terms.

I realize the PRL were frustrated for a long time with unions saying no with one voice to any changes and they decided they had to do something. But when it comes to the BT deal, could English posters please stop trying to portray the PRL as the victim.

The BT deal was a massive mistake. The PRL should have told the other unions there was interest from BT and then told them they would not be playing in Europe until a new settlement was reached. If a settlement was reached they could collectively accept bids from Sky and BT. What happened was BT used PRL to take European rugby from Sky without a bidding war. Now everything's messed up.

So the HC is dead Money ruins everything good. Once the irish players start leaving for France I will stop watching rugby alltogther.

Feckless Rogue wrote:You can't individually sell TV rights to a collective competition. That's not even done in UEFA competitions. If it's a collective competition you collectively sell the rights, not individually behind even your own unions back.

You quite clearly can. Whether or not it is a good idea is a different thing as selling collectively you should get a better price. However, the PRL cubs did not sell their rights individually, they bundled their home European matches in with their AP matches and so got a good price. Presumably the pro 12 could have bundled their Rabo matches in with their European home matches and got a good price also.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:So the HC is dead :(Money ruins everything good. Once the irish players start leaving for France I will stop watching rugby alltogther.

Are you not a rugby supporter after all LF4l? Just a fair weather fan?

The after-shocks an tsunamis seem to be stronger than the initial Franglo earthquake itself.

Happy New Year mate.
I'm just as devastated as you (only for very different reasons - and that ain't for any love of the PRL&Co).  

LeinsterFan4life wrote:So the HC is dead :(Money ruins everything good. Once the irish players start leaving for France I will stop watching rugby alltogther.

LeinsterFan4life = "I will stop watching rugby alltogther"   

You can't say that!   

Don't despair Leinsterfan4life. The provinces will be alright when all this settles down. Even if our millionaire businessmen friends from across the water manage to build a future where they can take the majority of money and therefore our best players (if that is even their intention), we'll just have to produce enough talent to still beat them, or at least give them a bloody nose. I'll always support Leinster no matter what.

Like Notch has said before, it's the state of European test rugby we should really be worried about if the private interests take over our game.

A bit more news on this. An eight team domestic league, I think it is the best way forward to Italy.

http://www.espn.co.uk/rabodirect-pro12-2013-14/rugby/story/211009.html

JayMaster3000 wrote:A bit more news on this. An eight team domestic league, I think it is the best way forward to Italy.

http://www.espn.co.uk/rabodirect-pro12-2013-14/rugby/story/211009.html

Hopefully something can be worked out as I do fear for the future of Italian rugby as the national team have been really struggling since the 6n. They don't bring a whole lot to the league except for an extra home game for each team as of now but if they didn't have to pay the fee for entering the teams into the P12 then maybe they could bring in some quality foreign players.

I actually agree JM and I'd welcome the chance to have a 10-team league which doesn't run during international windows- a higher percentage of games will feature first choice sides and in the long term make for a more meaningful and valuable product.

It does add some new spice to the qualification debate for Europe! I would say 6/6/6/1 plus an extra place for a side from the nation who wins the competition.

I don't have anything against the Italians, its just that in the long term I really don't see how having two teams in small towns being run by the Union as loss-leading ventures is going to popularise club rugby in Italy. I also don't see what they bring to the league in terms of broadcasting rights or sponsorship at the present time. I think 10 teams is the right size for a league like this with a much higher percentage of international players per side.

Really weird... I looked on here because I wanted to see an update on the shameful treatment of the Italians by the Rabo and found yet another PRL bashing thread. 

Who da thunk!

This is just talk. They want two teams in the Rabo as partners, no fees. Italy is moving forward steadily and i don't want to see them fall back.

We have seen how poorly Scottish teams did with no money and players leaving compared to how well they are doing now with investment. 1.5m for each team is 5 top players each.

If Italy go it alone I assume the PRL/NRL would be happy to give them their 50% of teams quailifing for the top table.

Anyway deal will be done, FIR will pay no money, and set up the academies in the regions to grow future teams ala North Wales

It makes me laugh, that when all this HC stuff kicked off, certain fans were saying the PRL would destroy Italian rugby. Now that it suits these fans there not that bothered about it!

That ESPN article merely outlines a bargaining position. Making the itlains pay to play is cleraly wrong and will have to be changed. Once it is changed they will settle back in happily.

TJ wrote:That ESPN article merely outlines a bargaining position.  Making the itlains pay to play is cleraly wrong and will have to be changed.  Once it is changed they will settle back in happily.

Have to agree. The other three unions need the FIR. Italy are bring through some nice youngsters and having 4 academies would help grow italian rugby.

nathan wrote:It makes me laugh, that when all this HC stuff kicked off, certain fans were saying the PRL would destroy Italian rugby. Now that it suits these fans there not that bothered about it!

I think that the Italians are actually better off going for more clubs and trying to build a large support base. I don't think they are getting very much out of the status quo with regards to the Pro12. Its causing their Union to haemorrage money and in four years they haven't increased crowd sizes or attracted any meaningful domestic broadcast rights- sustainability for the two pro sides is a long, long way off even compared to the other 'poor men' of European professional rugby.

If they aren't allowed a fair representation in European tournaments and a fair share of the profits, that will indeed damage Italian rugby. I don't see how that has changed? Or how it will change in the future- it does illustrate the folly of allocating places to the Pro12 when the Pro12 is just a competition that various parties negotiate participation in much like the ERC competitions, as opposed to a domestic league overseen by one union. A competition based on set quotas of various sides from each union would be much more stable because when we sign up to the Pro12 providing seven sides or whatever- the Pro12 could be the Pro10 or the Pro8 or the Pro14 by the end of that agreement and then you have to consider how qualification of teams from nations who might leave the Pro12 works out.

It'll be interesting to see how the European cup endgame influences this decision. But there a fair bit of chat at the time that would damage Italian rugby overall (joining pro12). Focusing all resources into a couple of teams, one of which is just a club. Probably better for the international team, which in term could lead to more national interest but in the mean time the club game starves. The FIR will, no doubt, do what they think is best for Italian rugby.

nathan wrote:It makes me laugh, that when all this HC stuff kicked off, certain fans were saying the PRL would destroy Italian rugby. Now that it suits these fans there not that bothered about it!

Where did you read that? On these forums?

There is certainly a concern that should Zebre, and Treviso, miss out on European competition, that rugby union in Italy could be set back years in terms of development. The national team has benefited from the two teams participating in Rabo, and HEC, but if there's an alternative to that which will provide more in terms of development for Italian rugby then that should at least be explored. Personally, I would much prefer Treviso, and Zebre, to remain with Rabo, as I really enjoy the passion, and aggression, they bring to games, but what I prefer may not be best for them.

Notch wrote:

nathan wrote:It makes me laugh, that when all this HC stuff kicked off, certain fans were saying the PRL would destroy Italian rugby. Now that it suits these fans there not that bothered about it!

I think that the Italians are actually better off going for more clubs and trying to build a large support base. I don't think they are getting very much out of the status quo with regards to the Pro12. Its causing their Union to haemorrage money and in four years they haven't increased crowd sizes or attracted any meaningful domestic broadcast rights- sustainability for the two pro sides is a long, long way off even compared to the other 'poor men' of European professional rugby.

If they aren't allowed a fair representation in European tournaments and a fair share of the profits, that will indeed damage Italian rugby. I don't see how that has changed? Or how it will change in the future- it does illustrate the folly of allocating places to the Pro12 when the Pro12 is just a competition that various parties negotiate participation in much like the ERC competitions, as opposed to a domestic league overseen by one union. A competition based on set quotas of various sides from each union would be much more stable.

I agree there are strong advantages to the Italians leaving the league. There is no other advantage other than the gate for the rest of the Celtic teams. But I think in the long run a professional league in Italy would be much better for Italy. In Wales the folk north of the M4 complain at the lack of pro rugby close to them, so it must be awful in Italy. How can they grow the game anywhere else if they have only two teams in the North. 8 teams spread out with 8 academies is going to be a lot more productive and beneficial to Italy. Lets be honest the two teams have done very little in the league, could perhaps even argue that they undermine it with their empty stadiums and more or less guaranteed 5 points when playing outside of Italy.

Also, the argument that Italy without the H-Cup would be a disaster is one that I am unsure about. Surely what can teams, players and fans learn and enjoy from taking a hammering. Treviso being smashed 48-0 is a good example. Surely them playing in the Amlin would be much better. Even more so if they got to the knock out stages, then they can learn to control and close out games. Also, a good run in the Amlin helped Connacht build a solid fan base, so why not the Italians? Treviso would actually have a chance, and it would be well earned with the H-Cup teams dropping down to play in the quarters. But this has never been done, so there is way to judge. We are all just guessing, perhaps educated guesses but still.

Another poster here also highlighted the fact that Italy have better facilitates, more clubs and more players than Wales, current 6 Nations champions. Which means, in my mind, that the FIR are doing enough to utilise their position. If they did establish a 8 team league, even then up to 10, and have a knock out cup with the Pro D2 teams, that would help Italian rugby more than flying every other weekend to get smashed.

How could the Italians fund 8 teams and how could they find enough pro players for 8 teams?

You really don't think exposure to top flight rugby has done them no good?

How much interst would there be in a semi pro 8 team league? What would TV pay?

Their results have improved in all comps including the 6N since this exposure. IMO its absolutly essential to continue to have exposure to the top level. Waht yo suggest gives them a glass ceiling they can never get thru.

Personally I feel the way forward is a pro12 division 2.

The Italian team has definitely improved since joining the Rabo. The most obvious improvement is that they generally play for 80 minutes now without falling apart in the last quarter. I don't know if that's improved fitness or more exposure to better, faster players or what. But it's something I've definitely noticed.

The question is would it be better in the long run for them to have their own, lower quality league, which may gather more support, and their best players would be picked up by French teams.

Wasn't that what the situation was before?

I think the Italians would be more competitive in the Pro12 if they entered 1 side instead of 2 sides. With potentially a bigger budget than Treviso/Zebre currently have; this side, IMO, would be in a good financial position to attract Italian Qualified players like Martin Castrogiovanni (Toulon), Joshua Furno (Biarritz), Sergio Parisse (Stade Francais), Tito Tebaldi (Ospreys), Kristopher Burton (Dragons), Tommaso Allan (Perpignan), Tommaso Benvenuti (Perpignan) and others back to Italy.

Maybe... but Treviso have their fan base and there's little room for growth across the rest of Europe. People complain about the Welsh regions being super clubs- imagine there was just one team in Wales, and it was based out of the 64th largest town in Wales. Not much room for getting people around the country interested!

Then you could go with a new team thats not Treviso. That would pish off the only town in Italy that actually was actually bothered enough about professional rugby to provide a big fan base before they entered the Pro12, while having all the problems of building up a supporter base elsewhere.

I think the Italians need more than two top-flight sides but there's no way they can finance three or four teams in the Pro12 right now and no way we can possibly expand beyond 12 teams in the league.

An 8-team Italian league with the Champions competing in whatever competition succeeds the Heineken Cup each year would allow them to keep the fan bases of traditional clubs like Treviso, Calvisano, Mogliano etc. and set up new sides in Rome, Milan etc.

Their leading club would still get the European glamour ties, and there would be much more local interest and fans would being able to travel to follow their team more.

It would cost more than what they have perhaps, but they aren;t getting anything out of the Pro12- even if they don't have to fork over the money they did to get a foothold in the league I still don't think its the way forward.

If they went back to a domestic Italian league wouldnt all their good players just leave for France or England again? Say what you want about the standard of rugby in the pro 12 but in their domestic league it would be really poor. Not exactly appealing to players wanting to play against the best.

international197 wrote:I think the Italians would be more competitive in the Pro12 if they entered 1 side instead of 2 sides. With potentially a bigger budget than Treviso/Zebre currently have; this side, IMO, would be in a good financial position to attract Italian Qualified players like Martin Castrogiovanni (Toulon), Joshua Furno (Biarritz), Sergio Parisse (Stade Francais), Tito Tebaldi (Ospreys), Kristopher Burton (Dragons), Tommaso Allan (Perpignan), Tommaso Benvenuti (Perpignan) and others back to Italy.

They could call the team Italy, and bring in a 'don't play in Rabo don't play international' rule. Then come 6Ns they would have a huge advantage over the rest of us, as they would have played together all season.

Mr bongo bongo use to fund a strong Milan team around 2000 so money is there some bit. Also they have got big crowds up north.

I think them structuring their teams in the S10 to tie in with the two current Rabo teams would help. They also could set it up to build new regions

As it is players leave italy for the money swept shores of Wales. If they go to 8 teams at the top expect Italy to be just like Agrentina or georgia where young players get picked up.