Ian Ritchie, saviour of the European club rugby competition

HammerofThunor wrote:But why would it mean the French will get away with more eye gouging now? Unless you think that having it in Dublin does effect these rulings.

It has been reported that in an email announcing his resignation from the panel to the IRB’s executive committee Boyle wrote: “The contents of this letter were a total fabrication and lie — no such meeting had even taken place.

“Following further inquiries it has emerged the recruitment agent agreed the final four candidates with the chairman and they were notified to attend a meeting in London on May 4 and 5 without reference to the other panel members.”

Lapasset and Hoskins rejected Boyle's assertions about a lack of integrity, reportedly responding to the accusations in an email to the executive committee. They said Boyle's resignation should be accepted to get "the critical search back on track".

HammerofThunor wrote:I may have the wrong end of the stick but that article seems to be suggesting that the current IRB chairman and vice chairman behaved without integrity and resulted in the IRFU guy resigning from the interview panel.....in what way is that suggesting that closer involvement with these guys would be a good thing? Surely it suggests the current IRB chairman is a bit dodgy.

And still has little to do with your claim that by basing the discipline panels in Switzerland will result in the discipline panels letting players get away with gouging. It's Jeff Blackett who put a lot of those gouging bans in and he did it in the Premiership the same as in ERC

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:I may have the wrong end of the stick but that article seems to be suggesting that the current IRB chairman and vice chairman behaved without integrity and resulted in the IRFU guy resigning from the interview panel.....in what way is that suggesting that closer involvement with these guys would be a good thing? Surely it suggests the current IRB chairman is a bit dodgy.

And still has little to do with your claim that by basing the discipline panels in Switzerland will result in the discipline panels letting players get away with gouging. It's Jeff Blackett who put a lot of those gouging bans in and he did it in the Premiership the same as in ERC

Yep, he is power hungry. Might is right.  Bill Beaumont is a bit dodgy as well.

Not just gouging. I bet we'll start seeing a blind eye being shown to some with regard to registrations, injury cover etc.

Interesting that there was no question by the Pro12 countries about who would supply their representative  

HammerofThunor wrote:But why? Why does moving it Switzerland affect the discipline in Europe? You've made some vague claim about proximity to the IRB but I fail to see why having them based close together has any impact on their relationship. Why would this be the case?

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:I may have the wrong end of the stick but that article seems to be suggesting that the current IRB chairman and vice chairman behaved without integrity and resulted in the IRFU guy resigning from the interview panel.....in what way is that suggesting that closer involvement with these guys would be a good thing? Surely it suggests the current IRB chairman is a bit dodgy.

And still has little to do with your claim that by basing the discipline panels in Switzerland will result in the discipline panels letting players get away with gouging. It's Jeff Blackett who put a lot of those gouging bans in and he did it in the Premiership the same as in ERC

Yep, he is power hungry. Might is right.  Bill Beaumont is a bit dodgy as well.

Not just gouging. I bet we'll start seeing a blind eye being shown to some with regard to registrations, injury cover etc.

Interesting that there was no question by the Pro12 countries about who would supply their representative   

Might is right, apparently.

Sin é wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:I may have the wrong end of the stick but that article seems to be suggesting that the current IRB chairman and vice chairman behaved without integrity and resulted in the IRFU guy resigning from the interview panel.....in what way is that suggesting that closer involvement with these guys would be a good thing? Surely it suggests the current IRB chairman is a bit dodgy.

And still has little to do with your claim that by basing the discipline panels in Switzerland will result in the discipline panels letting players get away with gouging. It's Jeff Blackett who put a lot of those gouging bans in and he did it in the Premiership the same as in ERC

Yep, he is power hungry. Might is right.  Bill Beaumont is a bit dodgy as well.

Not just gouging. I bet we'll start seeing a blind eye being shown to some with regard to registrations, injury cover etc.

Interesting that there was no question by the Pro12 countries about who would supply their representative   

Might is right, apparently.

What might has the Irish clubs got? The really powerful ones are the Scots who sunk everyone by selling out to BT.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:I may have the wrong end of the stick but that article seems to be suggesting that the current IRB chairman and vice chairman behaved without integrity and resulted in the IRFU guy resigning from the interview panel.....in what way is that suggesting that closer involvement with these guys would be a good thing? Surely it suggests the current IRB chairman is a bit dodgy.

And still has little to do with your claim that by basing the discipline panels in Switzerland will result in the discipline panels letting players get away with gouging. It's Jeff Blackett who put a lot of those gouging bans in and he did it in the Premiership the same as in ERC

Yep, he is power hungry. Might is right.  Bill Beaumont is a bit dodgy as well.

Not just gouging. I bet we'll start seeing a blind eye being shown to some with regard to registrations, injury cover etc.

Interesting that there was no question by the Pro12 countries about who would supply their representative   

Might is right, apparently.

What might has the Irish clubs got? The really powerful ones are the Scots who sunk everyone by selling out to BT.

Like the Ulster branch of IRFU and WRFU?

Recwatcher wrote:Moving to Switzerland has more likely something to do with being away from the six nations generally. France will have more allies with FIRA as it generally feels outnumbered most of the time and will be the start of something much bigger than the home countries,  potentially.

A discipline conspiracy is just a red herring and is an irritant rather than a motivation to the French.

Who is the Pro12 representative ? Does it matter ? Will the Pro12 Unions still take the cash regardless ? Will the Pro12 ever become self sufficient ?

Do I care ? No not really, so long as my club teams continue to beat Glaws and Tigers and with a bit of luck Brizzle next season,  then I am happy.

I think I am done with the euro debates. Enjoy.

Sin é wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:I may have the wrong end of the stick but that article seems to be suggesting that the current IRB chairman and vice chairman behaved without integrity and resulted in the IRFU guy resigning from the interview panel.....in what way is that suggesting that closer involvement with these guys would be a good thing? Surely it suggests the current IRB chairman is a bit dodgy.

And still has little to do with your claim that by basing the discipline panels in Switzerland will result in the discipline panels letting players get away with gouging. It's Jeff Blackett who put a lot of those gouging bans in and he did it in the Premiership the same as in ERC

Yep, he is power hungry. Might is right.  Bill Beaumont is a bit dodgy as well.

Not just gouging. I bet we'll start seeing a blind eye being shown to some with regard to registrations, injury cover etc.

Interesting that there was no question by the Pro12 countries about who would supply their representative   

Might is right, apparently.

What might has the Irish clubs got? The really powerful ones are the Scots who sunk everyone by selling out to BT.

Like the Ulster branch of IRFU and WRFU?

No. Ulster's main sponsor is Bank of Ireland, not BT.

It was the SRU who decided to support the new cup in the PRO12 (on the advice of their non-executive directors) which sunk the Pro12.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:I may have the wrong end of the stick but that article seems to be suggesting that the current IRB chairman and vice chairman behaved without integrity and resulted in the IRFU guy resigning from the interview panel.....in what way is that suggesting that closer involvement with these guys would be a good thing? Surely it suggests the current IRB chairman is a bit dodgy.

And still has little to do with your claim that by basing the discipline panels in Switzerland will result in the discipline panels letting players get away with gouging. It's Jeff Blackett who put a lot of those gouging bans in and he did it in the Premiership the same as in ERC

Yep, he is power hungry. Might is right.  Bill Beaumont is a bit dodgy as well.

Not just gouging. I bet we'll start seeing a blind eye being shown to some with regard to registrations, injury cover etc.

Interesting that there was no question by the Pro12 countries about who would supply their representative   

Might is right, apparently.

What might has the Irish clubs got? The really powerful ones are the Scots who sunk everyone by selling out to BT.

Like the Ulster branch of IRFU and WRFU?

No. Ulster's main sponsor is Bank of Ireland, not BT.

It was the SRU who decided to support the new cup in the PRO12 (on the advice of their non-executive directors) which sunk the Pro12.

So IRFU only sold out Ulster's shoulders, and WRU only their 7's, whilst Glasburgh's chests constitutes a total sellout?

Sin é wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:I may have the wrong end of the stick but that article seems to be suggesting that the current IRB chairman and vice chairman behaved without integrity and resulted in the IRFU guy resigning from the interview panel.....in what way is that suggesting that closer involvement with these guys would be a good thing? Surely it suggests the current IRB chairman is a bit dodgy.

And still has little to do with your claim that by basing the discipline panels in Switzerland will result in the discipline panels letting players get away with gouging. It's Jeff Blackett who put a lot of those gouging bans in and he did it in the Premiership the same as in ERC

Yep, he is power hungry. Might is right.  Bill Beaumont is a bit dodgy as well.

Not just gouging. I bet we'll start seeing a blind eye being shown to some with regard to registrations, injury cover etc.

Interesting that there was no question by the Pro12 countries about who would supply their representative   

Might is right, apparently.

What might has the Irish clubs got? The really powerful ones are the Scots who sunk everyone by selling out to BT.

Like the Ulster branch of IRFU and WRFU?

No. Ulster's main sponsor is Bank of Ireland, not BT.

It was the SRU who decided to support the new cup in the PRO12 (on the advice of their non-executive directors) which sunk the Pro12.

So IRFU only sold out Ulster's shoulders, and WRU only their 7's, whilst Glasburgh's chests constitutes a total sellout?

Can you not get that the SRU are more dependent on BT sponsorship than either Ulster or the WRU? The SRU are the ones who broke ranks with the other Pro12 Unions, not the WRU or IRFU.

BT have a long standing small sponsorship of Ulster which they are not dependent on.

Sin é wrote:Exactly. France wanted out of Dublin because they want to get away from the IRB Civil Service who they think treat them badly and gang up against them. None of the 6Nations countries supported Lapassat in the election for the IRB chairmanship.

So why are they moving again. They don't mind the strong discipline issued by the ERC (i.e., not inclined to bend the rules)?  

....  First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist  etc. etc.    

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:I may have the wrong end of the stick but that article seems to be suggesting that the current IRB chairman and vice chairman behaved without integrity and resulted in the IRFU guy resigning from the interview panel.....in what way is that suggesting that closer involvement with these guys would be a good thing? Surely it suggests the current IRB chairman is a bit dodgy.

And still has little to do with your claim that by basing the discipline panels in Switzerland will result in the discipline panels letting players get away with gouging. It's Jeff Blackett who put a lot of those gouging bans in and he did it in the Premiership the same as in ERC

Yep, he is power hungry. Might is right.  Bill Beaumont is a bit dodgy as well.

Not just gouging. I bet we'll start seeing a blind eye being shown to some with regard to registrations, injury cover etc.

Interesting that there was no question by the Pro12 countries about who would supply their representative   

Might is right, apparently.

What might has the Irish clubs got? The really powerful ones are the Scots who sunk everyone by selling out to BT.

Like the Ulster branch of IRFU and WRFU?

No. Ulster's main sponsor is Bank of Ireland, not BT.

It was the SRU who decided to support the new cup in the PRO12 (on the advice of their non-executive directors) which sunk the Pro12.

So IRFU only sold out Ulster's shoulders, and WRU only their 7's, whilst Glasburgh's chests constitutes a total sellout?

Can you not get that the SRU are more dependent on BT sponsorship than either Ulster or the WRU? The SRU are the ones who broke ranks with the other Pro12 Unions, not the WRU or IRFU.

BT have a long standing small sponsorship of Ulster which they are not dependent on.

I don't know the different values of the BT sponsorships, nor the relative dependencies on them of the Unions involved - I'd be grateful to find out, though.

I could do with some clarification on whether it was the BT influence or the non-executive directors that led SRU to "break ranks", and also whether "break ranks" means failing to support IRFU/Pro12, or if it means protecting their own interests? What led FIR to "break ranks" by negotiating down their fee/subsidy/travel costs to the other Pro12 Unions? What led RRW to "break ranks"?

Were there actually any ranks to break?

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:Exactly. France wanted out of Dublin because they want to get away from the IRB Civil Service who they think treat them badly and gang up against them. None of the 6Nations countries supported Lapassat in the election for the IRB chairmanship.

So why are they moving again. They don't mind the strong discipline issued by the ERC (i.e., not inclined to bend the rules)?  

....  First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist  etc. etc.    

Sorry, but I'm being simple again. They want to move away from the IRB...which has a French chairman...who none of the home nations (the other main players in Europe) voted for? Sorry but why does this mean they want to move away from the IRB.

The French have claimed they think the ERC is generally biased against the French. This has been scoffed at as nonsense. Are you saying it's true (as in the location of the organisation would impact on it's decisions)?

But that's your thinking then over that claim? The French wanted it moved therefore it must mean they will get away with gouging? Because that's pretty weak.

Sin é wrote:It was reported in the press that the more commercially minded directors of Scottish rugby were the ones who encouraged the SRU to support the McCaff Cup (i.e., at one stage they supported the ERC managed European cup, then they changed to support the McCaff Cup).

HammerofThunor wrote:Set up a new IRB civil service? Where the hell have you got that from? In what way is the IRB moving? In what way have they indicated they want to move away (metophorically) the IRB?

Oh so when you said they'll be getting away with gouging more you actually meant something completely different? Sorry, my bad missing that very clear and obvious point.

And now are you saying the IRB are corrupt? If so surely it's good to move away from them (or in their case stay close because they have a deal going on).

How does ANY of this have anything to do with the organisation that governs the future European Cup moving from Dublin to Switzerland? What does that have to do with IRB Civil Service (I don't understand the relevance of the bolding but thought I'd keep it in case it's important.

Could you quickly summerise your points because they seem to be flittering around and have little obvious connection to the original one (perhaps I missed another obvious non-literal point).

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:It was reported in the press that the more commercially minded directors of Scottish rugby were the ones who encouraged the SRU to support the McCaff Cup (i.e., at one stage they supported the ERC managed European cup, then they changed to support the McCaff Cup).

Link?

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:It was reported in the press that the more commercially minded directors of Scottish rugby were the ones who encouraged the SRU to support the McCaff Cup (i.e., at one stage they supported the ERC managed European cup, then they changed to support the McCaff Cup).

Link?

I didn't make that bit up. Do a google search for it. Lots of the papers did a summary of what happened.

quinsforever wrote:This thread has turned into conspiracy-drivel.

ERC is dead. Long live the new thingy in Switzerland. Can't be any worse than the previous pile of vested interest cr4p.

Sin é wrote:It is well known that Lapassat & Camou want to set up a body like FIFA/UEFA to run rugby. Their big obstacle is the 6 Nations countries. Surely you have read this before on this message board. Quins has been going on about it forever.

that the French controlled ERC will more than likely be much more lax about discipline than the ERC controlled Heineken Cup. I used the example of the gouging because it was an example of why they feel they have been hard done by when it came to being penalised for gouging and such like.

They're not corrupt yet - Swiss law is much more lax than EU law. (note the antics of FIFA etc. who are all HQed in Switzerland.

come up with a good reason as to why they want to move it to Neuchatal, in a country that has no experience of professional rugby over 200km from an international airport and where the administration costs will go up by 33%?

Read Neil Francis's article - its got all the main points in it.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:It was reported in the press that the more commercially minded directors of Scottish rugby were the ones who encouraged the SRU to support the McCaff Cup (i.e., at one stage they supported the ERC managed European cup, then they changed to support the McCaff Cup).

Link?

I didn't make that bit up. Do a google search for it. Lots of the papers did a summary of what happened.

Someone makes a claim I expect them to back it up if they expect anyone to give any credence whatsoever. I'm not doing your donkey work for you. Until you reference it you have effectively made it up.

There was division among the Rabo unions. The WRU and the Irish Rugby Football Union argued strongly for ERC to continue, a stance they were maintaining at the end of January, but the SRU took a more pragmatic view. Its board includes independent non-executive directors and they took a business position rather than quoting International Rugby Board regulations about the supremacy of unions.

The SRU used to be the most conservative union in the world, quick to upbraid anyone if it felt amateurism was being breached, but it appreciated far quicker than the IRFU and the WRU that to cling on to a principle even if it meant potential financial ruin was not good governance.

The SRU, which not long ago refused to negotiate with clubs, only their unions, ended on the side of Premiership Rugby and the regions, a key reason why agreement was eventually reached. The position of Scotland and Italy is protected under the formula the Pro 12 has agreed for financial distribution.

And Dodson [SRU CEO] hopes any future European tournament will still be run by ERC and not by the clubs. He added: "If the ERC had been a failure, you would think about moving on. But when you look at the track record of success, why would you want to ditch a tournament that the fans love, the players love, and is growing in value year on year?

"What it might need is a certain amount of tweaking to make it even better and fairer and more equitable, but I'm certain the Heineken Cup is where we should be."

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:It is well known that Lapassat & Camou want to set up a body like FIFA/UEFA to run rugby. Their big obstacle is the 6 Nations countries. Surely you have read this before on this message board. Quins has been going on about it forever.

They want the FIRA-AEr to run all European competitions (which makes sense if we want real 'pan' european competitions) in the long term.  In what way is this less beholden to the IRB then the ERC was? Were the ERC communicating via notes passed between offices and without that it would be a free for all?

It would make sense, except that FIRA-AER is France's fifedom. And yes, the French thought the ERC were far too cosy being all together in Dublin.

Fira-Aer has little or no experience of running competitions. Its made of sports who don't have professional rugby in their countries. It seems stupid to throw the child out with the bathwater (ie., 20 years of running this competition is being jettisoned).

that the French controlled ERC will more than likely be much more lax about discipline than the ERC controlled Heineken Cup. I used the example of the gouging because it was an example of why they feel they have been hard done by when it came to being penalised for gouging and such like.

Why is it suddenly French controlled? Because it's not in Dublin? I thought it was the evil clubs in control...in fact I thought nothing had changed as the Monty Python nod suggested.

Yes. It is the evil clubs in control (but you saw how the French treated the PRL when it suited them). They just look out for themselves.

They're not corrupt yet - Swiss law is much more lax than EU law. (note the antics of FIFA etc. who are all HQed in Switzerland.

Right, ok. In what way the IRB moving to Switzerland? You mean the neo-ERC? The one that has a majority of non-French representatives?

The IRB are not moving to Switzerland just yet . . . but watch this space.

come up with a good reason as to why they want to move it to Neuchatal, in a country that has no experience of professional rugby over 200km from an international airport and where the administration costs will go up by 33%?

Because they wanted it away from Dublin because they think it was biased against them. They are, most likely, wrong and exactly the same thing will happen because exactly the same people will be handling the discipline.

Read Neil Francis's article - its got all the main points in it.

I read it. If that covers all your points I think I understand where I'm getting lost.

HammerofThunor wrote:See, that wasn't too hard was it? didn't say you were making it up, just that if you don't reference I (if you could give a toss what I think) will take it as made up.

Although a Paul Rees Guardian article without quotes   might as well have made it up (at least that's what I've been given to understand)

The Second quote says that Dodson doesn't think the ERC had been a failure and doesn't think they should move on. He thinks some tweeks should be made (this was after the mediator meeting where the unions proposed these tweeks).  I don't think it says what you think it says (or am I missing the metophorical meaning?)

And to be clear, the only reference you have that says that the SRU scuppered the others' plans is a piece by Paul Rees without any quotes, the sort of thing that had been rubbished for 2 years by certain posters on here?

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:This thread has turned into conspiracy-drivel.

ERC is dead. Long live the new thingy in Switzerland. Can't be any worse than the previous pile of vested interest cr4p.

Heineken Cup did us proud, and we it
It will be interesting to see if ERC’s replacement body can also double their competition turnovers in just five years




Gerry Thornley

 

Tue, Apr 22, 2014, 06:00

First published: Tue, Apr 22, 2014, 06:00
 
The main casualties are the ERC themselves though. Credit toward them has been in increasingly short supply across the water in latter times, but the organising body of the Heineken Cup and Amlin Challenge Cup have overseen the spectacular growth of both competitions.

Revenues grew
ERC’s annual revenues grew from €14 million per annum in 1999 to €54 million in 2014. There has been a 147 per cent increase in revenues from 2004 to 2013/14, and the 2012/13 revenue of €51.7 million is double the 2005/06 figure. Over 15 million fans have attended Heineken Cup games.

It remains to be seen whether ERC’s replacement body, European Professional Club Rugby (EPCR), will double the tournaments’ turnovers in five years. Even if they do, it’s also worth noting the stakeholders (the six Unions/Federations, PRL, LNR and the Welsh regions) will remain the same.

They and the clubs themselves, were slower to embrace growth than the ERC, who often had to cajole and incentivise them to move matches to new and bigger venues. It was the stakeholders who opted for a seventh final in Cardiff and their over-priced hotels, compared to four in London, three in Dublin and France, and just one in Edinburgh (and none in Italy).

So it is the RFU opted for Twickenham as next Saturday’s venue for the Saracens-Clermont semi-final, and with it the rental of €120,000 or so, rather than say the MK Dons, which has hosted big knock-out matches.

Part of the problem with London is it doesn’t have a secondary rugby stadium below Twickenham, but while ERC will no doubt cop flak for not emulating the Saracens’ model of giving away tens of thousands of tickets for next to nothing, or indeed nothing, the choice of Twickenham was not an ERC decision.

The Heineken Cup has been the success story of the professional era in European rugby, and the ERC did well, though they mightn’t receive much credit for it.

Full article here:

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/heineken-cup-did-us-proud-and-we-it-1.1769243?page=2

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:This thread has turned into conspiracy-drivel.

ERC is dead. Long live the new thingy in Switzerland. Can't be any worse than the previous pile of vested interest cr4p.

Heineken Cup did us proud, and we it
It will be interesting to see if ERC’s replacement body can also double their competition turnovers in just five years




Gerry Thornley

 

Tue, Apr 22, 2014, 06:00

First published: Tue, Apr 22, 2014, 06:00
 
The main casualties are the ERC themselves though. Credit toward them has been in increasingly short supply across the water in latter times, but the organising body of the Heineken Cup and Amlin Challenge Cup have overseen the spectacular growth of both competitions.

Revenues grew
ERC’s annual revenues grew from €14 million per annum in 1999 to €54 million in 2014. There has been a 147 per cent increase in revenues from 2004 to 2013/14, and the 2012/13 revenue of €51.7 million is double the 2005/06 figure. Over 15 million fans have attended Heineken Cup games.

It remains to be seen whether ERC’s replacement body, European Professional Club Rugby (EPCR), will double the tournaments’ turnovers in five years. Even if they do, it’s also worth noting the stakeholders (the six Unions/Federations, PRL, LNR and the Welsh regions) will remain the same.

They and the clubs themselves, were slower to embrace growth than the ERC, who often had to cajole and incentivise them to move matches to new and bigger venues. It was the stakeholders who opted for a seventh final in Cardiff and their over-priced hotels, compared to four in London, three in Dublin and France, and just one in Edinburgh (and none in Italy).

So it is the RFU opted for Twickenham as next Saturday’s venue for the Saracens-Clermont semi-final, and with it the rental of €120,000 or so, rather than say the MK Dons, which has hosted big knock-out matches.

Part of the problem with London is it doesn’t have a secondary rugby stadium below Twickenham, but while ERC will no doubt cop flak for not emulating the Saracens’ model of giving away tens of thousands of tickets for next to nothing, or indeed nothing, the choice of Twickenham was not an ERC decision.

The Heineken Cup has been the success story of the professional era in European rugby, and the ERC did well, though they mightn’t receive much credit for it.

Full article here:

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/heineken-cup-did-us-proud-and-we-it-1.1769243?page=2

yes, goebbels thornley the irfu mouthpiece playing the funeral dirge for ERC. Appropriate.

french and english club rugby revenues are up much more than ERC's over the last 10 years. a rising tide floats all boats. who knows how much more money might have been generated by ERC with a more competitive format, better average matches, more sponsors, actual competitive tenders for tv rights, etc, etc, rather than the prawn sandwich and blazer gravy train it became...

quinsforever wrote:french tv rights have gone from EUR32m per annum in 2011 to EUR72m per annum starting next season. thats 125% in 3 years.

in 2007-10 Canal+ was paying EUR26m per season.

dont know what they were getting in 2004 but it's safe to assume it's less than 2007-2010, upon which their current deal is a c180% improvement...

quinsforever wrote:and you cant compare turnovers. you can only compare TV rights and sponsorship deals. turnover includes ERC's ticket receipts for semis and finals.

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:and you cant compare turnovers. you can only compare TV rights and sponsorship deals. turnover includes ERC's ticket receipts for semis and finals.

Who says you can only compare tv rights and sponsorship deals. Income, is income.

quinsforever wrote:sin e your grasp of business is a bit tenuous. debt is actually a sign of health and confidence in most companies. because banks like to lend to good business or good credit-risks. and companies like using debt because it is the cheapest form of financing available. cost of equity is c 7-8%, cost of debt is c 3-4%.

charities, and not-for-profits (like ERC, IRFU, WRU) will only generally be able to borrow against assets (stadiums or advance sales of debentures for example) as they are not going concerns.

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:sin e your grasp of business is a bit tenuous. debt is actually a sign of health and confidence in most companies. because banks like to lend to good business or good credit-risks. and companies like using debt because it is the cheapest form of financing available. cost of equity is c 7-8%, cost of debt is c 3-4%.

charities, and not-for-profits (like ERC, IRFU, WRU) will only generally be able to borrow against assets (stadiums or advance sales of debentures for example) as they are not going concerns.

The PRL have no assets and all but 3 or 4 of the PRL clubs are losing money and so are a better credit risk than the Union backed ERC?  You really are a chancer Quinns   

quinsforever wrote:top14 TV rights in 2004 were worth EUR18m per annum to Canal+.

top14 TV rights are now worth EUR 72m per annum.

thats a 400% increase.

and didnt ERC negotiate their 2014 SKY extension of the HC with ABSOLUTELY ZERO EXTRA MONEY?!?How's about that for commercial acumen!

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:This thread has turned into conspiracy-drivel.

ERC is dead. Long live the new thingy in Switzerland. Can't be any worse than the previous pile of vested interest cr4p.

Heineken Cup did us proud, and we it
It will be interesting to see if ERC’s replacement body can also double their competition turnovers in just five years




Gerry Thornley

 

Tue, Apr 22, 2014, 06:00

First published: Tue, Apr 22, 2014, 06:00
 
The main casualties are the ERC themselves though. Credit toward them has been in increasingly short supply across the water in latter times, but the organising body of the Heineken Cup and Amlin Challenge Cup have overseen the spectacular growth of both competitions.

Revenues grew
ERC’s annual revenues grew from €14 million per annum in 1999 to €54 million in 2014. There has been a 147 per cent increase in revenues from 2004 to 2013/14, and the 2012/13 revenue of €51.7 million is double the 2005/06 figure. Over 15 million fans have attended Heineken Cup games.

It remains to be seen whether ERC’s replacement body, European Professional Club Rugby (EPCR), will double the tournaments’ turnovers in five years. Even if they do, it’s also worth noting the stakeholders (the six Unions/Federations, PRL, LNR and the Welsh regions) will remain the same.

They and the clubs themselves, were slower to embrace growth than the ERC, who often had to cajole and incentivise them to move matches to new and bigger venues. It was the stakeholders who opted for a seventh final in Cardiff and their over-priced hotels, compared to four in London, three in Dublin and France, and just one in Edinburgh (and none in Italy).

So it is the RFU opted for Twickenham as next Saturday’s venue for the Saracens-Clermont semi-final, and with it the rental of €120,000 or so, rather than say the MK Dons, which has hosted big knock-out matches.

Part of the problem with London is it doesn’t have a secondary rugby stadium below Twickenham, but while ERC will no doubt cop flak for not emulating the Saracens’ model of giving away tens of thousands of tickets for next to nothing, or indeed nothing, the choice of Twickenham was not an ERC decision.

The Heineken Cup has been the success story of the professional era in European rugby, and the ERC did well, though they mightn’t receive much credit for it.

Full article here:

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/heineken-cup-did-us-proud-and-we-it-1.1769243?page=2

Sin é wrote:Gerry Thornley wrote the same in the Irish Times about the SRU changing their minds. BT was also trying to bribe sponsor all the PRO 12 teams at one stage (think they may be going to sponsor the Welsh Regions).

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:top14 TV rights in 2004 were worth EUR18m per annum to Canal+.

top14 TV rights are now worth EUR 72m per annum.

thats a 400% increase.

and didnt ERC negotiate their 2014 SKY extension of the HC with ABSOLUTELY ZERO EXTRA MONEY?!?How's about that for commercial acumen!

The Top 14 will be getting 72m NEXT SEASON - not this season which is the period we are discussing.

I don't recall hearing what the Sky deal was, but I did hear that they are secured 57m for next year (which excluded the French deal which wasn't yet negotiated).

What have the New Co secured for next year Quinns?

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:sin e your grasp of business is a bit tenuous. debt is actually a sign of health and confidence in most companies. because banks like to lend to good business or good credit-risks. and companies like using debt because it is the cheapest form of financing available. cost of equity is c 7-8%, cost of debt is c 3-4%.

charities, and not-for-profits (like ERC, IRFU, WRU) will only generally be able to borrow against assets (stadiums or advance sales of debentures for example) as they are not going concerns.

The PRL have no assets and all but 3 or 4 of the PRL clubs are losing money and so are a better credit risk than the Union backed ERC?  You really are a chancer Quinns   

wheres the link top the PRL 2013 numbers? because of course PRL has no assets, they, like ERC, are a company that merely channels payments to its beneficiaries. So i suspect the liabilities are related to a timing delay in distribution of payments. it will be abundantly clear in their financial report so can you post the link please?

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:top14 TV rights in 2004 were worth EUR18m per annum to Canal+.

top14 TV rights are now worth EUR 72m per annum.

thats a 400% increase.

and didnt ERC negotiate their 2014 SKY extension of the HC with ABSOLUTELY ZERO EXTRA MONEY?!?How's about that for commercial acumen!

The Top 14 will be getting 72m NEXT SEASON - not this season which is the period we are discussing.

I don't recall hearing what the Sky deal was, but I did hear that they are secured 57m for next year (which excluded the French deal which wasn't yet negotiated).

What have the New Co secured for next year Quinns?

wrong. ERC initially extended the SKY contract for ZERO INCREASE. it was only after PRL signed with BT and things deteriorated that SKY made a small increase. Nothing changes the fact the the ERC folk were clearly underselling the product.

to claim that it "excluded the French deal" proves my point that ERC's boat was lifted on the tide of professional club rugby's success in the top14 and AP in growing the audience and commercial value.

you can wriggle all you like about this season vs next season for top14 revenues, and pretend that the top14 isnt going to get the EUR72m per annum but that does look more than a tad myopic.