New European cup. (Or whatever it's called) Qualification agreed? Part 2

First topic message reminder :

A continuation of the previous thread. For everyone with more to say.

Munchkin wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:I think the word 'competitive' is getting people confused.  In most of the articles I have seen I have always seen it as being competitive with regards to income, and most the time it is about trying to remain competitive with the French/English.  As opposed to having a stronger league with harder matches.  A bit like when the say about meaningful competitions, I have always taken it as financially meaningful competitions.

The WalesOnline article makes it very clear what RRW means by competitive. They mean competitive in terms of giving Rabo games more of an edge. I take your point though. Competitive may also be in terms of revenue within a certain context. The thing is, if the regions had been more competitive in the Rabo, and more competitive in the HEC, in the sense of competing on the field, then an increase in revenue may have followed for the regions with success.

A competition worth taking part in financially I think, Munch.
After all, points mean prizes as Brucey used to say.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:I think the word 'competitive' is getting people confused.  In most of the articles I have seen I have always seen it as being competitive with regards to income, and most the time it is about trying to remain competitive with the French/English.  As opposed to having a stronger league with harder matches.  A bit like when the say about meaningful competitions, I have always taken it as financially meaningful competitions.

Agreed.

Cardiff Dave wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:I think the word 'competitive' is getting people confused.  In most of the articles I have seen I have always seen it as being competitive with regards to income, and most the time it is about trying to remain competitive with the French/English.  As opposed to having a stronger league with harder matches.  A bit like when the say about meaningful competitions, I have always taken it as financially meaningful competitions.

The WalesOnline article makes it very clear what RRW means by competitive. They mean competitive in terms of giving Rabo games more of an edge. I take your point though. Competitive may also be in terms of revenue within a certain context. The thing is, if the regions had been more competitive in the Rabo, and more competitive in the HEC, in the sense of competing on the field, then an increase in revenue may have followed for the regions with success.

A competition worth taking part in financially I think, Munch.
After all, points mean prizes as Brucey used to say.

I agree on both points you make, but the article does speak about competition in terms of adding more of an edge on the field:

“There was already a battle between the four Welsh teams for the three places available in the European Cup next season,” said backs coach Darren Edwards.

“But, if it is a 20-team tournament with three of the seven places from the Pro12 being decided on finishing positions in the table, it will certainly intensify. It would bring a real edge to the end of the season which would be good for players, coaches, supporters and our league."

Points do win prizes, and winning prizes puts bums on seats. Success on the field increases ticket sales, increases viewing figures, increases merchandise sales, increases revenue.

"Celtic Rugby Statement on the future of Italian teams in the PRO12

A positive meeting took place today in London between the IRFU, SRU, WRU and FIR to discuss future Italian participation in the PRO12.
The meeting was very constructive with progress made by all parties."

http://www.rabodirectpro12.com/news/14188.php#.UvzeJPuWlv0

Munchkin wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:I think the word 'competitive' is getting people confused.  In most of the articles I have seen I have always seen it as being competitive with regards to income, and most the time it is about trying to remain competitive with the French/English.  As opposed to having a stronger league with harder matches.  A bit like when the say about meaningful competitions, I have always taken it as financially meaningful competitions.

The WalesOnline article makes it very clear what RRW means by competitive. They mean competitive in terms of giving Rabo games more of an edge. I take your point though. Competitive may also be in terms of revenue within a certain context. The thing is, if the regions had been more competitive in the Rabo, and more competitive in the HEC, in the sense of competing on the field, then an increase in revenue may have followed for the regions with success.

That would seem to describe the case of the Irish provinces, Munchkin? Success on the field leads to improved finances

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:I think the word 'competitive' is getting people confused.  In most of the articles I have seen I have always seen it as being competitive with regards to income, and most the time it is about trying to remain competitive with the French/English.  As opposed to having a stronger league with harder matches.  A bit like when the say about meaningful competitions, I have always taken it as financially meaningful competitions.

The WalesOnline article makes it very clear what RRW means by competitive. They mean competitive in terms of giving Rabo games more of an edge. I take your point though. Competitive may also be in terms of revenue within a certain context. The thing is, if the regions had been more competitive in the Rabo, and more competitive in the HEC, in the sense of competing on the field, then an increase in revenue may have followed for the regions with success.

That would seem to describe the case of the Irish provinces, Munchkin?  Success on the field leads to improved finances

If you look at my previously posted quote taken from the WalesOnline article; it is speaking of a more competitive edge on the field for the regions, but yes, I fully agree, success on the field leads to, or should do, improved revenue.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/10637587/TV-giants-BT-and-Sky-close-to-historic-deal-to-share-coverage-of-European-club-rugby.html

This is suggesting split coverage over BT and Sky for Europe, which would make a lot more sense than all Sky, who drop the AI, which are giving to BT.

But still nothing official over the "  " statement

The BBC saying the same thing on Radio 4 this morning - they are, usually, cautious on this sort of thing.

It always made sense to me that, if there was a rugby agreement in place, then it should be presented to the broadcasters to see how they would respond - neither Sky nor BT would care to be seen as the one who would scupper a compromise.

The only concern is that rugby ends up with less money than would have been on offer with a properly negotiated deal because both broadcasters feel they are conceding ground.

We'll see how less money is on offer.  But it does get tiring how many rugby fans start talking like club owners in defence of their club/National positions.

Most fans were happy with the product before the storm.  They weren't worried about more money, less money, more equally distributed money, TV contracts, sponsorship deals and their worth.  They didn't worry about it because 99% of the time it doesn't concern them - the sport does.

But because chief executives brought their board-room speak into the public eye and started talking about profit margins and commercial self-sufficiency etc etc - the fans followed suit.  It began to be a big business debate...and the rugby played on the field was left behind.  

No surprises there - execs are execs - they want money.  Money confirms them to be good at their job.  Generating more of it helps thems sell themselves up the corporate ladder in later years.  They don't care about the sport, they care about Product... any product - shampoo, perfume, rugby, cornflakes, holidays.  It's all the same to them, profit.

Lovely stuff it was too over the months of endless boardroom chit chat.  Now let's get back to rugby.  Teams on a field - winning or losing.  Sport.

I'd very happy with split broadcasters. The only downside that I can see is that all of your games might not (probably wouldn't) be on one channel. So you either need to fork out extra subscription or go to the game or go to the pub, etc.

The benefit is that if the split is for both tiers of the competition there may be more ACC (equivalent) games at a reasonable time (not Thursday evening), which means more supporters can get to the games (especially for the away fans). Also there will potentially be more AAC (equivalent) games on TV anyway, potentially raising interest.

SecretFly wrote:We'll see how less money is on offer.  But it does get tiring how many rugby fans start talking like club owners in defence of their club/National positions.

Most fans were happy with the product before the storm.  They weren't worried about more money, less money, more equally distributed money, TV contracts, sponsorship deals and their worth.  They didn't worry about it because 99% of the time it doesn't concern them - the sport does.

But because chief executives brought their board-room speak into the public eye and started talking about profit margins and commercial self-sufficiency etc etc - the fans followed suit.  It began to be a big business debate...and the rugby played on the field was left behind.  

No surprises there - execs are execs - they want money.  Money confirms them to be good at their job.  Generating more of it helps thems sell themselves up the corporate ladder in later years.  They don't care about the sport, they care about Product... any product - shampoo, perfume, rugby, cornflakes, holidays.  It's all the same to them, profit.

Lovely stuff it was too over the months of endless boardroom chit chat.  Now let's get back to rugby.  Teams on a field - winning or losing.  Sport.

#businesswankers

I floated this idea months ago:

BT have a contract for English teams home games in the RCC
SKY have a contract for everyone else who were prepared to play in any ERC comp.

So just keep it as is:

BT get all AP teams homes games. They will certainly expect to pay less as they don't have exclusive rights and they may of wanted the away games too (although that was always very unlikely)

SKY get the rest and should probably offer more as the comp will now include the English teams.

Added together and with separate deals for France, the R.O.I and Italy to come, they should make the extra 50% needed over the SKY only deal to guarantee no loss of income for the RABO.

BT said they had exclusive rights to the English games not all games and they would only show the English ones. So if they retain the English home games they would be paying the same as what they had announced.

It's also funny that everyone seems to be so happy with a double deal between the big two broadcasters when all along many of you were saying having all rugby (domestic and European) on one platform was best for the sport and best for the fans.  It was a fight of the fittest and BT were taking over Sky's crown, having outbid the big bad Sky by so much.

Welcome to the World of Pro12, kids.  European rugby is looking more and more like it every year that passes.  Why don't you all just join up?  We'll tell you where to sit though  

I don't think I every said that. Hopefully BT will have all the English home games which would be good for me, although I would miss out on the English away games. I may even contrive to visit the in-laws in time to watch an Ospreys game against an English team (depending on the team and whether they exist).

Has anyone who said it needed to be one broadcaster said they're happy with two broadcasters? Or are you projecting the thoughts of one group of people on to another? (similar the idea that Welsh fans are fickle over Gatland, more a case of he has his haters who get loud when he does bad and quiet when he does well, and vis versa)

So good you said it twice hammer You old modest rogue you.....

Don't forget RRW also negotiated a deal with BT which would have an extra £1M per team per year and there would be extra in that deal for the Irish and Scots.

SecretFly wrote:We'll see how less money is on offer.  But it does get tiring how many rugby fans start talking like club owners in defence of their club/National positions.

Most fans were happy with the product before the storm.  They weren't worried about more money, less money, more equally distributed money, TV contracts, sponsorship deals and their worth.  They didn't worry about it because 99% of the time it doesn't concern them - the sport does.

But because chief executives brought their board-room speak into the public eye and started talking about profit margins and commercial self-sufficiency etc etc - the fans followed suit.  It began to be a big business debate...and the rugby played on the field was left behind.  

No surprises there - execs are execs - they want money.  Money confirms them to be good at their job.  Generating more of it helps thems sell themselves up the corporate ladder in later years.  They don't care about the sport, they care about Product... any product - shampoo, perfume, rugby, cornflakes, holidays.  It's all the same to them, profit.

Lovely stuff it was too over the months of endless boardroom chit chat.  Now let's get back to rugby.  Teams on a field - winning or losing.  Sport.

Easy to say when you have the better end of the deal & why we are were we are. If the unions had been prepared to listen to the clubs concerns rather than saying it's the status quo,take it or leave it things would have been different. Also those fans whose teams were in the Amlin (sorry just remembered that isn't of interest to you as your team wouldn't play in it until the knockout stages) didn't seem too happy. You say about the clubs execs talking about profit when only 3 or 4 clubs in the PRL actualy make a profit, it is more a case of the clubs want the ability to break even & become sustainable buisinesses rather than rely on owners having to keep putting their money (which they have put an awful lot of) in.

broadlandboy wrote:

SecretFly wrote:We'll see how less money is on offer.  But it does get tiring how many rugby fans start talking like club owners in defence of their club/National positions.

Most fans were happy with the product before the storm.  They weren't worried about more money, less money, more equally distributed money, TV contracts, sponsorship deals and their worth.  They didn't worry about it because 99% of the time it doesn't concern them - the sport does.

But because chief executives brought their board-room speak into the public eye and started talking about profit margins and commercial self-sufficiency etc etc - the fans followed suit.  It began to be a big business debate...and the rugby played on the field was left behind.  

No surprises there - execs are execs - they want money.  Money confirms them to be good at their job.  Generating more of it helps thems sell themselves up the corporate ladder in later years.  They don't care about the sport, they care about Product... any product - shampoo, perfume, rugby, cornflakes, holidays.  It's all the same to them, profit.

Lovely stuff it was too over the months of endless boardroom chit chat.  Now let's get back to rugby.  Teams on a field - winning or losing.  Sport.

Easy to say when you have the better end of the deal & why we are were we are. If the unions had been prepared to listen to the clubs concerns rather than saying it's the status quo,take it or leave it things would have been different. Also those fans whose teams were in the Amlin (sorry just remembered that isn't of interest to you as your team wouldn't play in it until the knockout stages) didn't seem too happy. You say about the clubs execs talking about profit when only 3 or 4 clubs in the PRL actualy make a profit, it is more a case of the clubs want the ability to break even & become sustainable buisinesses rather than rely on owners having to keep putting their money (which they have put an awful lot of) in.

Absolutely correct - the Amlin doesn't interest me as we have three less automatic sides each year in HEC than the English have .... each year.  

Absolutely correct - the Amlin doesn't raise an eyebrow with me...not until we get around to having an equal number of teams in HEC to England and France.  But that won't happen of course as we're not as big a Nation , are we?  And after all, we've already been downgraded to only One auto place now with the new 'fairer' system....as England and France keep their Six auto places apiece.  The sweet smell of a fair deal wafts through Europe

So correct, I couldn't give a f**k about Amlin.  Is that honest enough for you, broadbandboy?

SecretFly wrote:So good you said it twice hammer  You old modest rogue you.....

I wanted people to have twice the oppotunity to bask in my wisdom.

SecretFly wrote:Most fans were happy with the product before the storm...They didn't worry about it because 99% of the time it doesn't concern them - the sport does.

This seems to me to be a false dichotomy. Most top rugby players love the sport but they still want a salary and have agents to help them get the best deals.

Similarly, most fans of all professional sport are fully aware of the role money plays, and it doesn't undermine or invalidate their passion. Even in the amateur era, we all knew the club bar takings and raffles went to pay the bills. If anything, the way lottery money helped fund our Olympic medal winners has only reinforced the knowledge that resources need to be well-marshalled to achieve success.

Rugby is a professional sport operating in a very competitive environment for professional sports. I don't have to turn into an accountant to understand what that means for my team.

SecretFly wrote:It's also funny that everyone seems to be so happy with a double deal between the big two broadcasters when all along many of you were saying having all rugby (domestic and European) on one platform was best for the sport and best for the fans.  It was a fight of the fittest and BT were taking over Sky's crown, having outbid the big bad Sky by so much.

Welcome to the World of Pro12, kids.  European rugby is looking more and more like it every year that passes.  Why don't you all just join up?  We'll tell you where to sit though  

why wouldnt they be happy, we have a chance of actually having a european competition. Yeah sure one broadcaster would be better imo but two is better than none.

nathan wrote:

SecretFly wrote:It's also funny that everyone seems to be so happy with a double deal between the big two broadcasters when all along many of you were saying having all rugby (domestic and European) on one platform was best for the sport and best for the fans.  It was a fight of the fittest and BT were taking over Sky's crown, having outbid the big bad Sky by so much.

Welcome to the World of Pro12, kids.  European rugby is looking more and more like it every year that passes.  Why don't you all just join up?  We'll tell you where to sit though  

why wouldnt they be happy, we have a chance of actually having a european competition. Yeah sure one broadcaster would be better imo but two is better than none.

I don't care how many broadcasters show a European event.  

That's my very point above that Rugby Fan has issues with.  I couldn't care less how many broadcasters have coverage or rights.  That's business - if everyone is getting a slice of whatever pie then everyone will be reasonable and relatively happy.  Not my concern.  

I was pointing out that others here were making arguments based around the idea that who televised what and had rights to what should so deeply influence the future of European rugby.  It shouldn't.  But the money men are pushing and pushing the idea that Business rights should dictate which teams are part, which teams should sacrifice themselves, and which teams should be allowed grow to super-teams as other teams must accept the 'business reality' that they'll be pushed down the rankings to some lesser contests.

No - I've always said - TV rights has no meaning to me - competition rules do - who is in, who is out, who has auto places, who hasn't.  Rugby teams and the rights of Nations..not TV companies dictating the future of the Rules of European rugby.

Well it became important because of the conflicting deals.

Munchkin wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:I think the word 'competitive' is getting people confused.  In most of the articles I have seen I have always seen it as being competitive with regards to income, and most the time it is about trying to remain competitive with the French/English.  As opposed to having a stronger league with harder matches.  A bit like when the say about meaningful competitions, I have always taken it as financially meaningful competitions.

The WalesOnline article makes it very clear what RRW means by competitive. They mean competitive in terms of giving Rabo games more of an edge. I take your point though. Competitive may also be in terms of revenue within a certain context. The thing is, if the regions had been more competitive in the Rabo, and more competitive in the HEC, in the sense of competing on the field, then an increase in revenue may have followed for the regions with success.

That would seem to describe the case of the Irish provinces, Munchkin?  Success on the field leads to improved finances

If you look at my previously posted quote taken from the WalesOnline article; it is speaking of a more competitive edge on the field for the regions, but yes, I fully agree, success on the field leads to, or should do, improved revenue.

The Beano or the Dandy would be equally informative.

SecretFly wrote:

nathan wrote:

SecretFly wrote:It's also funny that everyone seems to be so happy with a double deal between the big two broadcasters when all along many of you were saying having all rugby (domestic and European) on one platform was best for the sport and best for the fans.  It was a fight of the fittest and BT were taking over Sky's crown, having outbid the big bad Sky by so much.

Welcome to the World of Pro12, kids.  European rugby is looking more and more like it every year that passes.  Why don't you all just join up?  We'll tell you where to sit though  

why wouldnt they be happy, we have a chance of actually having a european competition. Yeah sure one broadcaster would be better imo but two is better than none.

I don't care how many broadcasters show a European event.  

That's my very point above that Rugby Fan has issues with.  I couldn't care less how many broadcasters have coverage or rights.  That's business - if everyone is getting a slice of whatever pie then everyone will be reasonable and relatively happy.  Not my concern.  

I was pointing out that others here were making arguments based around the idea that who televised what and had rights to what should so deeply influence the future of European rugby.  It shouldn't.  But the money men are pushing and pushing the idea that Business rights should dictate which teams are part, which teams should sacrifice themselves, and which teams should be allowed grow to super-teams as other teams must accept the 'business reality' that they'll be pushed down the rankings to some lesser contests.

No - I've always said - TV rights has no meaning to me - competition rules do - who is in, who is out, who has auto places, who hasn't.  Rugby teams and the rights of Nations..not TV companies dictating the future of the Rules of European rugby.

I was giving you a reason why people are now happy with two broadcasters, do you always talk in riddles?

SecretFly wrote:I don't care how many broadcasters show a European event.  

That's my very point above that Rugby Fan has issues with.

That wasn't my point. I don't care how many broadcasters show it either.

I take issue with the idea that caring about how our game is financed and run is antithetical to being a passionate rugby supporter.

Cardiff Dave wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:I think the word 'competitive' is getting people confused.  In most of the articles I have seen I have always seen it as being competitive with regards to income, and most the time it is about trying to remain competitive with the French/English.  As opposed to having a stronger league with harder matches.  A bit like when the say about meaningful competitions, I have always taken it as financially meaningful competitions.

The WalesOnline article makes it very clear what RRW means by competitive. They mean competitive in terms of giving Rabo games more of an edge. I take your point though. Competitive may also be in terms of revenue within a certain context. The thing is, if the regions had been more competitive in the Rabo, and more competitive in the HEC, in the sense of competing on the field, then an increase in revenue may have followed for the regions with success.

That would seem to describe the case of the Irish provinces, Munchkin?  Success on the field leads to improved finances

If you look at my previously posted quote taken from the WalesOnline article; it is speaking of a more competitive edge on the field for the regions, but yes, I fully agree, success on the field leads to, or should do, improved revenue.

The Beano or the Dandy would be equally informative.

Then why are you arguing an your interpretation of it?

[quote="SecretFly"Absolutely correct - the Amlin doesn't interest me as we have three less automatic sides each year in HEC than the English have .... each year.  

Absolutely correct - the Amlin doesn't raise an eyebrow with me...not until we get around to having an equal number of teams in HEC to England and France.  But that won't happen of course as we're not as big a Nation , are we?  And after all, we've already been downgraded to only One auto place now with the new 'fairer' system....as England and France keep their Six auto places apiece.  The sweet smell of a fair deal wafts through Europe

So correct, I couldn't give a f**k about Amlin.  Is that honest enough for you, broadbandboy?[/quote]

So by that logic, a fair solution would be for the Irish, Welsh, Scottish and Irish teams to have 6 HEC places each. That's twice as many places as you collectively have top flight pro teams.

So how would that work? Would you each enter development teams to make up the remaining places? What a quality competition that would be. And you still wouldn't give a flying wotsit about the Amlin, because all your available pro players would be busy playing their automatically guaranteed HEC games.

This is about equality of opportunity. As long as some teams have to work less hard to secure their qualification than others, those other teams will have an issue with that. The proposed solution still gives the Rabo teams a slightly better chance to qualify than the French or English clubs, but it's a far more similar chance than today.

When Ireland, or any other Rabo nation, can support more top flight pro teamsthan they do today, there's a case for rebalancing things again. I hope the agreement includes provision for that.

It's also very disingenuous to claim we were all happy with the previous arrangement or that there is something wrong with business considerations getting in the way. I for one understand a lot more about the current arrangement now than I did at the start of this, and the more I know, the less happy I am with the status quo. Ignorance is bliss, I guess. And while I would love if we lived in a "post-scarcity" society like Iain M. Banks's Culture, where money is irrelevant and people can afford to play, coach and broadcast rugby for the love of the game and nothing more, we don't.

Rugby is a professional game, and that means that someone has to foot the bill. At the moment, only a handful of teams in the game are financially self-sufficient. Club rugby isa loss-making business. So most clubs rely on what are, in any economic sense, subsidies whether they come from the relevant union or from a rich backer. TV deals matter because getting the best deals can move more clubs towards self-sufficiency. Aligning the sharing of revenue by team rather than union matters because the costs of playing the game are largely at team rather than union level. If you don't align revenue that way, then the English and French clubs' backers are effectively subsidising the Rabo teams - they are shouldering a higher proportion of the costs, while taking a lower proportion of the revenue..

If I want pro rugby, I have to accept that the commercial side of it is important. I want my team, Harlequins, to have the best chance of surviving and thriving. If the current commercial model threatens that, then of course I am going to argue for one that is fairer. But I am also aware enough of the commercial realitites for other teams, and the need for those teams to be viable as well, to recognise that some level of compromise is needed. What infuriates me is the proportion of Rabo fanson here who refuse even to acknowledge that there is any case to discuss.

Apart from the TV deal issue the DT are talking about the new Euro deal being conditional on a new governing body being created out of Ireland & the other 6N countries.
Sounds like a sensible move to me.
Haven't got the link sorry.

BT and Sky are talking.  That can't be a bad sign.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/10637587/TV-giants-BT-and-Sky-close-to-historic-deal-to-share-coverage-of-European-club-rugby.html

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:Apart from the TV deal issue the DT are talking about the new Euro deal being conditional on a new governing body being created out of Ireland & the other 6N countries.
Sounds like a sensible move to me.
Haven't got the link sorry.

Gavin Mears fails to inform on his source. Guesswork? wishful thinking? or PRL whispering in his ear? If PRL, and as issues of governance have yet to be resolved, then maybe PRL are trying to use it as leverage. If not as leverage then perhaps they see a move from Dublin as an advantage to them in some other way?

Probably just Mears, being the professional he is, attempting to get some more hits on his blogs.

Like a bunch of kids.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/26190252
Offers Wheeler's viewpoint

broadlandboy wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/26190252
Offers Wheeler's viewpoint

It's great to see blokes like Wheeler finally see some common sense and look towards an amicable future setting self interest aside.

This is the way forward.

Pity it took getting to this position for the Unions(other than RFU as they have a good working relationship with the PRL)to realize it. Better to work with rather than try to force. Can still see problems between FFR & LNR if the clubs feel forced into the agreement that they are in now.

Better to get the best deal for your own interests - period.  I guess everyone will say that's what they got.  The truth will be in the playing of whatever new competition hits us...then we'll see if there are any more 'unfair' elements hindering some and not others.
All I hope is that if this is a final agreement that not everyone is happy with, that it's a short deal and doesn't bind people in for too long.
My feelings are that this will need another negotiation not many years into the future.

I would have thought anything agreed now is for one year? The 5N agreed an interim tourney for next year based on a 20 team tourney and a clean sheet negotiation for the longer term. I would expect any ongoing negotiation over the entry of the english is within this structure?

Gents, it appears that finally everything is on the table and finally being negotiated in good (enough) faith. Isn't it amazing what can happen once everyone is faced with losing significant money and time has just about run out? And even more so with the Celtic League faced with the real possibility of losing half their teams (the Italians and the Welsh).

Guess we will find out the details soon. Hopefully the final agreement has enough in it so everyone is reasonably happy.

broadlandboy wrote:Pity it took getting to this position for the Unions(other than RFU as they have a good working relationship with the PRL)to realize it. Better to work with rather than try to force. Can still see problems between FFR & LNR if the clubs feel forced into the agreement that they are in now.

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but surely when it comes to 'better to work with rather than try to force' it equally applies to the PRL approach? As for singling out the RFU from the other unions........not convinced this demonstrates a guiding light, more just a case of them being between a rock and a hard place.

maestegmafia wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/26190252
Offers Wheeler's viewpoint

It's great to see blokes like Wheeler finally see some common sense and look towards an amicable future setting self interest aside.

This is the way forward.

  yes because every other party was looking out for everyone elses interests, not there own...

nathan wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/26190252
Offers Wheeler's viewpoint

It's great to see blokes like Wheeler finally see some common sense and look towards an amicable future setting self interest aside.

This is the way forward.

  yes because every other party was looking out for everyone elses interests, not there own...

There their they're.

I would have thought that was fairly obvious. Most of the other parties to the discussions had the good of rugby at both club and international level in mind.   

St John The Enforcer wrote:

nathan wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/26190252
Offers Wheeler's viewpoint

It's great to see blokes like Wheeler finally see some common sense and look towards an amicable future setting self interest aside.

This is the way forward.

  yes because every other party was looking out for everyone elses interests, not there own...

There their they're.

I would have thought that was fairly obvious. Most of the other parties to the discussions had the good of rugby at both club and international level in mind.   

ok thanks Mrs Bridge.

Mrs who now?

St John The Enforcer wrote:Mrs who now?

was my english teacher. she used to always correct me. Apparently she didn't do a very go job.

Never would have got that one. I was wondering was she someone who was known for having the greater good at heart.

St John The Enforcer wrote:Never would have got that one. I was wondering was she someone who was known for having the greater good at heart.

Christ you really think alot of yourself don't you.

Does the greater good involve contributing only 5m Euros a year to televise European rugby yet taking 16m Euros out of it?

Chunky Norwich wrote:

St John The Enforcer wrote:Never would have got that one. I was wondering was she someone who was known for having the greater good at heart.

Christ you really think alot of yourself don't you.

Does the greater good involve contributing only 5m Euros a year to televise European rugby yet taking 16m Euros out of it?

Well, if you keep making the knock-outs, winning home QFs, semis and Finals and actually winning the thing, even Wales could take out 16m out of the competition (though I think you are wrong on that figure, its more like 10m from European competition).

Some countries are picking up close to the same money and never make it out of the group stages (i.e., produce nothing to televise).

Sin é wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

St John The Enforcer wrote:Never would have got that one. I was wondering was she someone who was known for having the greater good at heart.

Christ you really think alot of yourself don't you.

Does the greater good involve contributing only 5m Euros a year to televise European rugby yet taking 16m Euros out of it?

Well, if you keep making the knock-outs, winning home QFs, semis and Finals and actually winning the thing, even Wales could take out 16m out of the competition (though I think you are wrong on that figure, its more like 10m from European competition).

Some countries are picking up close to the same money and never make it out of the group stages (i.e., produce nothing to televise).

Six nations PLUS ERC = 16m Euros.

Nothing to do with how successful a team is. Irish rugby is a leech.

A new low