Anyone think the new pan european tournament looks a little... lopsided?

First topic message reminder :

Just had a look at the groups, and well it looks less like a representitive tournament than PRL/LNR invitational.

Now i'm not having a go, or have any vested interest, but surely so many games every year involving either 2 English teams or 2 french teams playing each other in the group stage detracts from the competition.

I prefer a tournament that has Europes and rugbys interest in mind, and like this tournament less now I know it's an elitist version of a once great spectacle.

What is wrong with allowing 2 Scottish teams, 2 Italian teams and maybe Spanish, Russian national representitives?

LordDowlais wrote:

Cyril wrote:There's a lot of talk about the French sides dominating Europe. At present Toulon are dominating (by a distance) but I don't see any of the other French sides showing any signs of taking over regardless of big spending. The likes of Racing, Montpelier, Clermont, Toulouse etc are certainly well beatable by the likes of Sarries, Munster etc.

Yes but these clubs only need to flash the cash as and when if they feel they need to keep up.

They have been spending heavily. It's no guarantee. There's more to Toulon's recent success than just bringing in some excellent players.

Cyril wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Cyril wrote:There's a lot of talk about the French sides dominating Europe. At present Toulon are dominating (by a distance) but I don't see any of the other French sides showing any signs of taking over regardless of big spending. The likes of Racing, Montpelier, Clermont, Toulouse etc are certainly well beatable by the likes of Sarries, Munster etc.

Yes but these clubs only need to flash the cash as and when if they feel they need to keep up.

They have been spending heavily. It's no guarantee. There's more to Toulon's recent success than just bringing in some excellent players.

Yes, but the oppertunity to spend is still there, for example, if Racing Metro decided they need a decent fullback, and he would make a difference, they could offer Liam Williams twice what he would get at the Scarlets and there is nothing that the Scarlets could do about it, perhaps if we brought in transfer fees or compensation money for the cost of player development that might deter certain clubs.

LordDowlais wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Seems to me as if the question is - are the PRL clubs prepared to sacrifice competitiveness in the AP in order to try to dominate in Europe. The answer is pretty simple, in that the domestic league generates more money. Europe is important but not as important as the day to day stuff.

I wonder if that attitude is reversed amongst the pro12, or at least some of it, and that this is driving some of the fear for the future

That is exactly what it is, I can easily see a future when almost all the Welsh national squad is not playing in Wales.

Also, if your own league is more important than the European tournament, then why the feck did the clubs and the PRL cause a holy uproar about the way the Pro 12 sides qualified for the damn thing ?

It's not all or nothing you know. It's not "European rugby is the most important thing or it is nothing". European rugby is important, it's a good competition that draws interest from outside and can help to grow the game. But it's not as important as the domestic league, and the league is not worth ruining to improve the European competition. It is however, more important than the Anglo-welsh, which is largely a development-returning-injuried-confidence-boost competition.

LordDowlais wrote:

Cyril wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Cyril wrote:There's a lot of talk about the French sides dominating Europe. At present Toulon are dominating (by a distance) but I don't see any of the other French sides showing any signs of taking over regardless of big spending. The likes of Racing, Montpelier, Clermont, Toulouse etc are certainly well beatable by the likes of Sarries, Munster etc.

Yes but these clubs only need to flash the cash as and when if they feel they need to keep up.

They have been spending heavily. It's no guarantee. There's more to Toulon's recent success than just bringing in some excellent players.

Yes, but the oppertunity to spend is still there, for example, if Racing Metro decided they need a decent fullback, and he would make a difference, they could offer Liam Williams twice what he would get at the Scarlets and there is nothing that the Scarlets could do about it, perhaps if we brought in transfer fees or compensation money for the cost of player development that might deter certain clubs.

I thought you said decent? The trick is to give them more than money. Support with developing themselves for after rugby, support through injuries, generally looking after them (and of course a reasonable wage). There is also the carrot of international rugby.

HammerofThunor wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Seems to me as if the question is - are the PRL clubs prepared to sacrifice competitiveness in the AP in order to try to dominate in Europe. The answer is pretty simple, in that the domestic league generates more money. Europe is important but not as important as the day to day stuff.

I wonder if that attitude is reversed amongst the pro12, or at least some of it, and that this is driving some of the fear for the future

That is exactly what it is, I can easily see a future when almost all the Welsh national squad is not playing in Wales.

Also, if your own league is more important than the European tournament, then why the feck did the clubs and the PRL cause a holy uproar about the way the Pro 12 sides qualified for the damn thing ?

It's not all or nothing you know. It's not "European rugby is the most important thing or it is nothing". European rugby is important, it's a good competition that draws interest from outside and can help to grow the game. But it's not as important as the domestic league, and the league is not worth ruining to improve the European competition. It is however, more important than the Anglo-welsh, which is largely a development-returning-injuried-confidence-boost competition.

100% agree, although the English clubs do take it a little more seriously than the Welsh regions do, I would not be disappointed to see it go altogether, but there is too much money in it to just scrap it.

LordDowlais wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Seems to me as if the question is - are the PRL clubs prepared to sacrifice competitiveness in the AP in order to try to dominate in Europe. The answer is pretty simple, in that the domestic league generates more money. Europe is important but not as important as the day to day stuff.

I wonder if that attitude is reversed amongst the pro12, or at least some of it, and that this is driving some of the fear for the future

That is exactly what it is, I can easily see a future when almost all the Welsh national squad is not playing in Wales.

Also, if your own league is more important than the European tournament, then why the feck did the clubs and the PRL cause a holy uproar about the way the Pro 12 sides qualified for the damn thing ?

Because
1) See Poorfour's excellent post above
2) Having a stronger 2nd tier tournament gives more meaningful games for clubs ranked 7-12 in the AP.
3) and what Hammer say..

HammerofThunor wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Cyril wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Cyril wrote:There's a lot of talk about the French sides dominating Europe. At present Toulon are dominating (by a distance) but I don't see any of the other French sides showing any signs of taking over regardless of big spending. The likes of Racing, Montpelier, Clermont, Toulouse etc are certainly well beatable by the likes of Sarries, Munster etc.

Yes but these clubs only need to flash the cash as and when if they feel they need to keep up.

They have been spending heavily. It's no guarantee. There's more to Toulon's recent success than just bringing in some excellent players.

Yes, but the oppertunity to spend is still there, for example, if Racing Metro decided they need a decent fullback, and he would make a difference, they could offer Liam Williams twice what he would get at the Scarlets and there is nothing that the Scarlets could do about it, perhaps if we brought in transfer fees or compensation money for the cost of player development that might deter certain clubs.

I thought you said decent? The trick is to give them more than money. Support with developing themselves for after rugby, support through injuries, generally looking after them (and of course a reasonable wage). There is also the carrot of international rugby.

Wales will still pick players no matter where they are playing, I could not imagine a Wales without George North, John Davies, Leigh Halfpenny ect, and for all your prior points, the regions do care about the players welfare, but sadly the bold brass in France out weighs it all, at the moment the regions are at their limit, they cannot spend anymore, hopefully these new dual contracts will help, but if clubs in other leagues can offer more, they will go, France now is a given, there will be no stopping their clubs, my only worry is, if the English go the same way, then there will be another league that can do it aswell, and we will have no hope what so ever of keeping our best players at the regions.

lostinwales wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Seems to me as if the question is - are the PRL clubs prepared to sacrifice competitiveness in the AP in order to try to dominate in Europe. The answer is pretty simple, in that the domestic league generates more money. Europe is important but not as important as the day to day stuff.

I wonder if that attitude is reversed amongst the pro12, or at least some of it, and that this is driving some of the fear for the future

That is exactly what it is, I can easily see a future when almost all the Welsh national squad is not playing in Wales.

Also, if your own league is more important than the European tournament, then why the feck did the clubs and the PRL cause a holy uproar about the way the Pro 12 sides qualified for the damn thing ?

Because
1) See Poorfour's excellent post above
2) Having a stronger 2nd tier tournament gives more meaningful games for clubs ranked 7-12 in the AP.
3) and what Hammer say..

How can playing teams, that are not good enough to qualify for the HC be more meaningful to the lesser English clubs ? They would be in the same situation as they always were.

As that ancient sage Splenetic might say:

'But please remember to allow the less conscientious the emotional and physical space on this forum to work through their devised demons and grow as people and rugby supporters.'.


So let's do a tally since last time I said something at about 1 o'clock yesterday:

That's around 56 individual posts.  2 of them Irish, 1 of them French based, 21 of them Welsh and 32 English.

I might be one or two out on that count but yep, Splenetic was a dab hand at the philosophical psychological profiling on this topic

LordDowlais wrote:How can playing teams, that are not good enough to qualify for the HC be more meaningful to the lesser English clubs ? They would be in the same situation as they always were.

Because they're currently playing the 2nd tier of Italy and 5 try thrashings are common. Unless you think that Blues, Zebre and Edinburgh are worse than them, it's a clear improvement.

HammerofThunor wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:How can playing teams, that are not good enough to qualify for the HC be more meaningful to the lesser English clubs ? They would be in the same situation as they always were.

Because they're currently playing the 2nd tier of Italy and 5 try thrashings are common. Unless you think that Blues, Zebre and Edinburgh are worse than them, it's a clear improvement.

Those teams are still involed are'nt they ?

The best two are, from the qualifying competition (Rovigo Delta and București Wolves).  Side note, no-one got a TBP against the Wolves last year and their points difference was only -11. It'll be good to see how they get on. (EDIT: there were three teams with more than -200 points difference)

Look, we all know how the argument about Europe started, people on here who are hiding behind the fact that it was about getting more money for everybody, or making the second tier comp more interesting are forgetting one thing, the real reason. It all started when Munster and Leinster were dominating this competition, then the final nail came when Edinburgh got to the semi's one year but were bottom of the Pro 12, there were cries from England about how unfair it was that the Celts could rest their best players in the league and concentrate more on Europe, they should be made to change how they qualify they said, it's not fair to us they said as our league is more demanding, OK fine, the English clubs and the PRL had a point, now that this argument has gone, when they are still not winning the HC they will need another excuse, and for people to tell me that their own league is more important, I will take that with a pinch of salt, as if that was the case, then none of this grizzling would have happened in the first place, trust me, their will be more to come, and the English supporters on here can spin it all they like, but the next gripe will be, now that the Pro12 resting players is gone, that they cannot compete because they are not allowed to spend as much money, OK, it will be just a few to start with, just like before, but when the noise will not go away, then you will have to face reality, and the fact of the matter is, to compete with a country who can spend what they like, then the only way to match them is to do the same, the English clubs WILL NOT accept playing second fiddle to France forever.

LordDowlais wrote:Look, we all know how the argument about Europe started, people on here who are hiding behind the fact that it was about getting more money for everybody, or making the second tier comp more interesting are forgetting one thing, the real reason. It all started when Munster and Leinster were dominating this competition, then the final nail came when Edinburgh got to the semi's one year but were bottom of the Pro 12, there were cries from England about how unfair it was that the Celts could rest their best players in the league and concentrate more on Europe, they should be made to change how they qualify they said, it's not fair to us they said as our league is more demanding, OK fine, the English clubs and the PRL had a point, now that this argument has gone, when they are still not winning the HC they will need another excuse, and for people to tell me that their own league is more important, I will take that with a pinch of salt, as if that was the case, then none of this grizzling would have happened in the first place, trust me, their will be more to come, and the English supporters on here can spin it all they like, but the nest gripe will be, now that the Pro12 resting players is gone, that they cannot compete because they are not allowed to spend as much money, OK, it will be just a few to start with, just like before, but when the noise will not go away, then you will have to face reality, and the fact of the matter is, to compete with a country who can spend what they like, then the only way to match them is to do the same, the English clubs WILL NOT accept playing second fiddle to France forever.

Nope. Its about the money. But I dont think there is anything we can say that will convince you otherwise, and your arguments fail to convince me.

And don't worry. I am sure the (well funded and managed) Irish teams will be competitive for some time to come.

lostinwales wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Look, we all know how the argument about Europe started, people on here who are hiding behind the fact that it was about getting more money for everybody, or making the second tier comp more interesting are forgetting one thing, the real reason. It all started when Munster and Leinster were dominating this competition, then the final nail came when Edinburgh got to the semi's one year but were bottom of the Pro 12, there were cries from England about how unfair it was that the Celts could rest their best players in the league and concentrate more on Europe, they should be made to change how they qualify they said, it's not fair to us they said as our league is more demanding, OK fine, the English clubs and the PRL had a point, now that this argument has gone, when they are still not winning the HC they will need another excuse, and for people to tell me that their own league is more important, I will take that with a pinch of salt, as if that was the case, then none of this grizzling would have happened in the first place, trust me, their will be more to come, and the English supporters on here can spin it all they like, but the nest gripe will be, now that the Pro12 resting players is gone, that they cannot compete because they are not allowed to spend as much money, OK, it will be just a few to start with, just like before, but when the noise will not go away, then you will have to face reality, and the fact of the matter is, to compete with a country who can spend what they like, then the only way to match them is to do the same, the English clubs WILL NOT accept playing second fiddle to France forever.

Nope. Its about the money. But I dont think there is anything we can say that will convince you otherwise, and your arguments fail to convince me.

And don't worry. I am sure the (well funded and managed) Irish teams will be competitive for some time to come.

To be fair the Irish use most of their money to KEEP their Irish international in Ireland.

Also, perhaps we should all forget about the massive bust up that took place as regards to how the Pro12 sides qualified and how they could rest their players in the league then shall we ?

lostinwales wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Look, we all know how the argument about Europe started, people on here who are hiding behind the fact that it was about getting more money for everybody, or making the second tier comp more interesting are forgetting one thing, the real reason. It all started when Munster and Leinster were dominating this competition, then the final nail came when Edinburgh got to the semi's one year but were bottom of the Pro 12, there were cries from England about how unfair it was that the Celts could rest their best players in the league and concentrate more on Europe, they should be made to change how they qualify they said, it's not fair to us they said as our league is more demanding, OK fine, the English clubs and the PRL had a point, now that this argument has gone, when they are still not winning the HC they will need another excuse, and for people to tell me that their own league is more important, I will take that with a pinch of salt, as if that was the case, then none of this grizzling would have happened in the first place, trust me, their will be more to come, and the English supporters on here can spin it all they like, but the nest gripe will be, now that the Pro12 resting players is gone, that they cannot compete because they are not allowed to spend as much money, OK, it will be just a few to start with, just like before, but when the noise will not go away, then you will have to face reality, and the fact of the matter is, to compete with a country who can spend what they like, then the only way to match them is to do the same, the English clubs WILL NOT accept playing second fiddle to France forever.

Nope. Its about the money. But I dont think there is anything we can say that will convince you otherwise, and your arguments fail to convince me.

And don't worry. I am sure the (well funded and managed) Irish teams will be competitive for some time to come.

The PRL said it was about the money,the teams at the bottom of the Premiership were struggling to survive and needed the extra money so they wouldn't be running at a loss.However within months of the new European competition being brought in the Premiership increases the salary cap and creates a 2nd spot for a player in each side to operate outside the cap.

Is it so hard to see that this will immediately wipe out any benefit the extra money the PRL have got for each team.The weaker teams will have to spend all that extra money just to stand still and they'll still be operating with huge losses each year.

It was a question of different value and differential treatment.

The domestic league will always be the bread and butter for a commercial rugby setup (which may not be the case where the relevant union provides substantial funding or other financial support). There are more games, which means more bums on seats, more merch and catering, and week-in, week-out tv revenue.

However, European competition adds a number of additional elements:
- Prestige
- Variety
- Regular top tier appearances makes it easier to attract good players
- A platform to grow the game (casual fans will watch big European games and some will conver to regular fans).

Under the old setup, several PRL (and LNR) clubs claimed that they made less money per game on HEC games than domestic games - despite increased ticket revenue - because of the way the commercial rights had been developed and they way the revenues were shared. They were also finding it increasingly hard to sell tickets for games versus the likes of Zebre. The benefits of playing in the tournament were out of line with the importance of it - which is why so many French clubs didn't take it seriously for so long.

The new structure should make it a more valuable and competitive tournament for all involved, but in terms of the sheer amount of revenue it can generate, it is likely to remain secondary to the domestic league (which I think is still the case even in soccer - even though there's tons of tv cash in the Champions' League, it doesn't match the basic Premiership revenue because it has far fewer games).

You can all bookmark what I am saying, go on bookmark this:-

Within the next three years there will be arguments in England over increasing/scrapping the salary cap so that the clubs can compete in Europe.

LordDowlais wrote:Look, we all know how the argument about Europe started...It all started when Munster and Leinster were dominating this competition...

The French and English clubs were asking for change well before that. Details in a post I made almost exactly two years ago:

https://www.606v2.com/t35838p200-european-rugby-talks-end-with-no-solution-to-impasse#1605730

Rugby Fan wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Look, we all know how the argument about Europe started...It all started when Munster and Leinster were dominating this competition...

The French and English clubs were asking for change well before that. Details in a post I made almost exactly two years ago:

https://www.606v2.com/t35838p200-european-rugby-talks-end-with-no-solution-to-impasse#1605730

The French have never really cared about Europe, do not really know if they still do. But you cannot pretend that the massive hooraah about how the Celts qualified and treated their league as a warm up to Europe never happened.

LordDowlais wrote:[Y}ou cannot pretend that the massive hooraah about how the Celts qualified and treated their league as a warm up to Europe never happened.

I'm not. Your mistake is thinking that argument started later than it did.

Poorfour wrote:
The new structure should make it a more valuable and competitive tournament for all involved, but in terms of the sheer amount of revenue it can generate, it is likely to remain secondary to the domestic league (which I think is still the case even in soccer - even though there's tons of tv cash in the Champions' League, it doesn't match the basic Premiership revenue because it has far fewer games).

Try telling something like that to Manchester - a club not short on cash but one that went into virtual mental financial shock at the loss of Euro participation  (heads had to roll, a new leader was needed to steady the ship and most especially get a side who thinks they deserve to be at the 'highest' table, back to that highest table.)  

They know what Europe means - it means, yes, the image of greatness at being a big player in the top European event - but it more importantly means cold hard cash as fans prefer to spend their money (game attendances, merchandise, etc etc) - thoughout the world mind you, not just in Manchester and not just in England - following a side that excels in both League and Europe.  
The marketing attractiveness of any side in the Premiership rises markedly the bigger the presence they acheive in Europe.  
The revenues themselves come from REPUTATION - not simply League and not simply Europe, but from the sustained success levels in both.  If you're a good League side but always rather impotent in Europe then you don't attract sufficient attention from potential shirt buyers.

So - the PRL know all that - they know that dynamic - football is the blueprint for them, whether they like to admit it or not.  That is unlimited funds, potential new owners for clubs with even deeper pockets than present owners, potential exotic owners that might push the interest in clubs out to other parts of the world - player buying power informed by the ending of falsely containing salary caps.  
That's the future wished for in certain circles of club rugby in Europe.  Unlimited funds, unlimited spending ability, the emergence of non-apologetic Super-clubs that have an eternal advantage over lesser sides by virture of the money they can amass and the lack of any contraints in spending that money to buy up Europe's (and the SH's) best players.
That might be an inviting future for certain fans in England and France (not all of them).  But the rest of us aren't dumb enough to think that's a future designed with our best interests at heart.  It patently isn't.  So we say so.  That's the simple bit.  The future isn't designed for us... it's designed as a carve up for biggest English and French sides.

Rugby Fan wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Look, we all know how the argument about Europe started...It all started when Munster and Leinster were dominating this competition...

The French and English clubs were asking for change well before that. Details in a post I made almost exactly two years ago:

https://www.606v2.com/t35838p200-european-rugby-talks-end-with-no-solution-to-impasse#1605730

Two years ago? That's well within the time frame of Munster and Leinster dominating.

SecretFly wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Look, we all know how the argument about Europe started...It all started when Munster and Leinster were dominating this competition...

The French and English clubs were asking for change well before that. Details in a post I made almost exactly two years ago:

https://www.606v2.com/t35838p200-european-rugby-talks-end-with-no-solution-to-impasse#1605730

Two years ago?  That's well within the time frame of Munster and Leinster dominating.

Two years ago is when I made that post, not when the French and English clubs started asking for change.

SecretFly wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Look, we all know how the argument about Europe started...It all started when Munster and Leinster were dominating this competition...

The French and English clubs were asking for change well before that. Details in a post I made almost exactly two years ago:

https://www.606v2.com/t35838p200-european-rugby-talks-end-with-no-solution-to-impasse#1605730

Two years ago?  That's well within the time frame of Munster and Leinster dominating.

Did you bother to read the post? The post was made two years ago but included quotes going back as far as 2006 which was before the period of Irish success.

Rugby Fan wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Look, we all know how the argument about Europe started...It all started when Munster and Leinster were dominating this competition...

The French and English clubs were asking for change well before that. Details in a post I made almost exactly two years ago:

https://www.606v2.com/t35838p200-european-rugby-talks-end-with-no-solution-to-impasse#1605730

Two years ago?  That's well within the time frame of Munster and Leinster dominating.

Two years ago is when I made that post, not when the French and English clubs started asking for change.

More than two years ago is still within the range, Rugby Fan.

Exiledinborders wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Look, we all know how the argument about Europe started...It all started when Munster and Leinster were dominating this competition...

The French and English clubs were asking for change well before that. Details in a post I made almost exactly two years ago:

https://www.606v2.com/t35838p200-european-rugby-talks-end-with-no-solution-to-impasse#1605730

Two years ago?  That's well within the time frame of Munster and Leinster dominating.

Did you bother to read the post? The post was made two years ago but included quotes going back as far as 2006 which was before the period of Irish success.

It was spot on the year of Irish 'success', Exiled. It was a wave the former dominant nations (England/Fance) saw coming. Munster didn't just arrive with the Win in...2006. (mighty fine timing wasn't it? - they had been threatening at the door for some time before then.)

SecretFly wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Look, we all know how the argument about Europe started...It all started when Munster and Leinster were dominating this competition...

The French and English clubs were asking for change well before that. Details in a post I made almost exactly two years ago:

https://www.606v2.com/t35838p200-european-rugby-talks-end-with-no-solution-to-impasse#1605730

Two years ago?  That's well within the time frame of Munster and Leinster dominating.

Did you bother to read the post? The post was made two years ago but included quotes going back as far as 2006 which was before the period of Irish success.

It was spot on the year of Irish 'success', Exiled.  It was a wave the former dominant nations (England/Fance) saw coming. Munster didn't just arrive with the Win in...2006. (mighty fine timing wasn't it? - they had been threatening at the door for some time before then.)

The quote came earlier in the year. In fact before the quarter finals. Unless you think Blanco is a clairvoyant who knew the result in advance of not only that competition but the next few years results as well your post makes no sense.

Also it is odd that if preventing Irish dominance was the objective that the recent ructions started as the Irish dominance appears to have come to an end.

In truth the big three Irish teams were never the target of the changes. The Big three Irish teams justified their presence in rugby terms and commercially too. The target was the poor quality teams such as the Italians and generally most of the Welsh and Scottish teams. They were not justifying their position in rugby terms evidenced by them dominating the bottom places in the pools. They were also a financial drain as they do not attract sufficient audiences, live or TV. There is a risk that one or more of the big three Irish teams do not qualify but that is the fault of the Pro12 for insisting on a place for a team from each country.

SecretFly wrote:More than two years ago is still within the range, Rugby Fan.

I think you've been distracted by my comment about two years. My fault. It was just interesting to me that I was about to make a point that I suddenly realized I'd made almost exactly two years ago.

My point in a nutshell: the English and French didn't start getting upset about the Heineken set-up when the Irish provinces started winning. They had the same complaints while they were on top.

LordDowlais wrote:You can all bookmark what I am saying, go on bookmark this:-

Within the next three years there will be arguments in England over increasing/scrapping the salary cap so that the clubs can compete in Europe.

Is this supposed to be taken as amazing insight? Those arguments are ongoing and have been going on since it was first introduced and will continue to go on. Kind of like predicting the sun will come up tomorrow. Point is it is in internal argument in the PRL and there has been no sign of scrapping the Cap. And, as has been said time and again, the Cap is liked to central income and will rise and fall with that. Inflation being what it is will mean the Cap will almost certainly go up. Just as player salaries have gone up.

LordDowlais wrote:
perhaps if we brought in transfer fees or compensation money for the cost of player development that might deter certain clubs.

Oh god I certainly hope not. I really don't know what it is about sport that allows some people to accept restrictions on the freedom of a worker that they would ordinarily never accept in any other business. I've seen staunchly liberal rugby followers who would be perfectly fine with ridiculous things like banning players from ever playing for any another club than the one they developed in, such is the desire for their supported team to do well. Seriously could you imagine the damage it would have to your ability to work and maximise your worth if a new company couldn't hire you without giving a big chunk of cash to your previous employers, even after your contract with them has expired? As I say, no idea why in sport this is fine, I believe they have a system like the one you propose in football.

I know we're passionate fans who really want our teams (be they national or club) to do well but sometimes I feel we'd be better off stepping back and viewing them as critically as we would any business. Remember if a club feels a player isn't quite up to it - and a better alternative exists - then it's fine for them to ditch the player. If a player feels like the club isn't good enough and has a better opportunity elsewhere they are often pilloried for their disloyalty and simply exercising the same right to choose as you and I.

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:
perhaps if we brought in transfer fees or compensation money for the cost of player development that might deter certain clubs.

Oh god I certainly hope not. I really don't know what it is about sport that allows some people to accept restrictions on the freedom of a worker that they would ordinarily never accept in any other business. I've seen staunchly liberal rugby followers who would be perfectly fine with ridiculous things like banning players from ever playing for any another club than the one they developed in, such is the desire for their supported team to do well. Seriously could you imagine the damage it would have to your ability to work and maximise your worth if a new company couldn't hire you without giving a big chunk of cash to your previous employers, even after your contract with them has expired? As I say, no idea why in sport this is fine, I believe they have a system like the one you propose in football.

I know we're passionate fans who really want our teams (be they national or club) to do well but sometimes I feel we'd be better off stepping back and viewing them as critically as we would any business. Remember if a club feels a player isn't quite up to it - and a better alternative exists - then it's fine for them to ditch the player. If a player feels like the club isn't good enough and has a better opportunity elsewhere they are often pilloried for their disloyalty and simply exercising the same right to choose as you and I.

The thing is the Welsh regions are cash strapped, they cannot go out and sign world class players, what they do seem to be good at though is developing their own world class players, the regions have invested a lot of money in players like George North, Leigh Halfpenny, John Davies, Richard Hibbard, and others, just because a club could offer them more, and take the easy route and not develope their own, should the region/club who made these players what they are be made to suffer ? Likewise if the player is not deemed good enough, the region/club have spent money on him, so they have taken that player to the standard he is at, so it is not like slavery, I am fed up with the elite clubs in England and France circling like vultures over players they have not spent a penny on developing.

Well then we'll just have to agree to disagree - in part because i've now read through this thread and it's clear you ignore most of what people say. You think it's fine and reasonable to place artificial restrictions on what company someone can work for purely because you want to see one particular team throw a ball about on a field better than another. I would say that is selfish and petty, do you agree with my summary?

There are more important things than sport mate, an individual's livelihood and self-determination being good examples.

SecretFly wrote:

Poorfour wrote:
The new structure should make it a more valuable and competitive tournament for all involved, but in terms of the sheer amount of revenue it can generate, it is likely to remain secondary to the domestic league (which I think is still the case even in soccer - even though there's tons of tv cash in the Champions' League, it doesn't match the basic Premiership revenue because it has far fewer games).

Try telling something like that to Manchester - a club not short on cash but one that went into virtual mental financial shock at the loss of Euro participation  (heads had to roll, a new leader was needed to steady the ship and most especially get a side who thinks they deserve to be at the 'highest' table, back to that highest table.)  

They know what Europe means - it means, yes, the image of greatness at being a big player in the top European event - but it more importantly means cold hard cash as fans prefer to spend their money (game attendances, merchandise, etc etc) - thoughout the world mind you, not just in Manchester and not just in England - following a side that excels in both League and Europe.  
The marketing attractiveness of any side in the Premiership rises markedly the bigger the presence they acheive in Europe.  
The revenues themselves come from REPUTATION - not simply League and not simply Europe, but from the sustained success levels in both.  If you're a good League side but always rather impotent in Europe then you don't attract sufficient attention from potential shirt buyers.

So - the PRL know all that - they know that dynamic - football is the blueprint for them, whether they like to admit it or not.  That is unlimited funds, potential new owners for clubs with even deeper pockets than present owners, potential exotic owners that might push the interest in clubs out to other parts of the world - player buying power informed by the ending of falsely containing salary caps.  
That's the future wished for in certain circles of club rugby in Europe.  Unlimited funds, unlimited spending ability, the emergence of non-apologetic Super-clubs that have an eternal advantage over lesser sides by virture of the money they can amass and the lack of any contraints in spending that money to buy up Europe's (and the SH's) best players.
That might be an inviting future for certain fans in England and France (not all of them).  But the rest of us aren't dumb enough to think that's a future designed with our best interests at heart.  It patently isn't.  So we say so.  That's the simple bit.  The future isn't designed for us... it's designed as a carve up for biggest English and French sides.

Do you ever argue with yourself in an empty room, Fly? I explicitly made the point that European participation is important to grow the overall revenue, albeit more concisely than you did. And you have also reiterated my point that being involved in European competition generates less money than the domestic competition.

The only new(ish) point you've made is an unsubstantiated claim that certain clubs want unlimited funds and unlimited spending, miraculously conjured from the pockets of exotic owners.

Got anything remotely resembling evidence for that?

It could happen, but why would it? The most exotic club owner in the AP today is South African, unless you count the proportion of Leicester's Asian diaspora who are members of Tigers. In France, Mourad Boudjellal has a funny name but he's Toulonnais through and through.

Rugby just doesn't hold the lure for Russian oligarchs, American sports entrepreneurs or Asian oil barons that soccer does, and it's unlikely to as long as there are football clubs that can be bought. Football's got a 100 year head start on professionalism and a global audience many times the size of rugby. It's simply a better business opportunity and/or a better toy. Your best bet is probably an Argentinian billionaire looking to get some capital out of his troubled economy, and there aren't too many of those around.

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:Well then we'll just have to agree to disagree - in part because i've now read through this thread and it's clear you ignore most of what people say. You think it's fine and reasonable to place artificial restrictions on what company someone can work for purely because you want to see one particular team throw a ball about on a field better than another. I would say that is selfish and petty, do you agree with my summary?

There are more important things than sport mate, an individual's livelihood and self-determination being good examples.

Firstly I have ignored nothing, secondly, of course I want to see the teams I support throw a ball around better than another, you show me any supporter of a team that does not want this . Also, this is not about the individual, this is about the sum of the whole thing, if the Ospreys spend a millions over years developing and paying the idividual, pouring time and resources into his well being and putting him onto the next level, then why is it fair that, Toulon or Northampton can come along and offer that person a few quid more, and take the player that another "company" has invested so much into without paying a bean for him ? Let's not forget, these "companies" should be developing their own stars rather than picking off the best that others have worked hard to put them where they are.

Well your first sentence is so far wide of the point I was making that it's not really worth reading on. If you think it was a criticism that you want your team to play better than the opposition, rather than a criticism of any attempt to restrict a player moving elsewhere because of this, then there's either a big problem with my writing or your reading. Whether you are unwilling or unable to understand posts that don't match your agenda I don't know, but it's a trend with your posts. Either way there is little to be achieved from further discussion.

I'm sure if we were in a pub or something there could be a constructive debate to be had, but forums are a rather poor substitute for face to face chats.

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:Well your first sentence is so far wide of the point I was making that it's not really worth reading on. If you think it was a criticism that you want your team to play better than the opposition, rather than a criticism of any attempt to restrict a player moving elsewhere because of this, then there's either a big problem with my writing or your reading. Whether you are unwilling or unable to understand posts that don't match your agenda I don't know, but it's a trend with your posts. Either way there is little to be achieved from further discussion.

I'm sure if we were in a pub or something there could be a constructive debate to be had, but forums are a rather poor substitute for face to face chats.

We can talk more when the PRL announce that their clubs are raisng their salry caps again, and adding a little extra for another marquee signing.

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:Well then we'll just have to agree to disagree - in part because i've now read through this thread and it's clear you ignore most of what people say. You think it's fine and reasonable to place artificial restrictions on what company someone can work for purely because you want to see one particular team throw a ball about on a field better than another. I would say that is selfish and petty, do you agree with my summary?

There are more important things than sport mate, an individual's livelihood and self-determination being good examples.

What needs to be done then, as in business, is for Rugby Players (& footballers) to pay for their education in a provincial or club academy.

An MBA costs about 40K I think from a decent college.

Well Lord I'm pleased you are now talking about PRL raising the cap instead of constantly asserting that they are going to scrap it, despite all the evidence to the contrary. 'Trust me, it will happen' is a nice little catchphrase. At least it looks like you've taken some of it on board.

Sin é wrote:

What needs to be done then, as in business, is for Rugby Players (& footballers) to pay for their education in a provincial or club academy.

An MBA costs about 40K I think from a decent college.

Well if we're allowed to get silly then how about all clubs/provinces have to offer complete job security for all players taken on by the academy until retirement. No discarding of the many, many players who aren't good enough.

Edit: OT

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:Well Lord I'm pleased you are now talking about PRL raising the cap instead of constantly asserting that they are going to scrap it, despite all the evidence to the contrary. 'Trust me, it will happen' is a nice little catchphrase. At least it looks like you've taken some of it on board.

Sin é wrote:

What needs to be done then, as in business, is for Rugby Players (& footballers) to pay for their education in a provincial or club academy.

An MBA costs about 40K I think from a decent college.

Well if we're allowed to get silly then how about all clubs/provinces have to offer complete job security for all players taken on by the academy until retirement. No discarding of the many, many players who aren't good enough.
Edit: OT

What about, they get a lot of money spent on them, and if they cut the mustard, then they can get a bit more money spent on them, if they cut the mustard, but choose to go elsewhere, the club that spent a lot of money on them get some compensation for making them what they are.

Its you who are being silly. Regard being in an academy as place where you get your education. Let players pay for their education like they do for other walks of life.

The bottom line is the money to develop players has to come from somewhere. If clubs can just buy whatever talent is available, how long do you think clubs will continue to develop players?

edit: look at army personnel. If they send you to college, you have to stay in for so many years. Anyone in the US who got their education through the military can be called up to serve at any time even though they have long left. (I know one bloke in his mid forties who was working in a university as a lecturer who was sent off to Iraq for 2 years).

Sin é wrote:

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:Well then we'll just have to agree to disagree - in part because i've now read through this thread and it's clear you ignore most of what people say. You think it's fine and reasonable to place artificial restrictions on what company someone can work for purely because you want to see one particular team throw a ball about on a field better than another. I would say that is selfish and petty, do you agree with my summary?

There are more important things than sport mate, an individual's livelihood and self-determination being good examples.

What needs to be done then, as in business, is for Rugby Players (& footballers) to pay for their education in a provincial or club academy.

An MBA costs about 40K I think from a decent college.

Well, that's an option. But I think you'd see a lot of potential players just go and do a degree instead. A better option might be to offer longer contracts and intangibles that make it harder to leave. Quins seem to have achieved good loyalty among their Academy prospects through showing loyalty to them and creating an environment and ethos they want to be part of. Sarries say that they don't pay that much but achieve loyalty by treating their players "unbelievably well".

It's also worth noting that there have been comparatively few defections from Wales and Ireland to England. What's the current roster? North, Hibbard, Henson, Hook? It's the LNR that have been flashing the cash - and the RFU have provisions in place to encourage high (and increasing) proportions of EQPs in matchday squads. I don't have the stats to hand but I think we are heading towards 70% on average and a couple of teams regularly manage 85%+

Teams develop players for their own purpose. They pay players to do a job, i.e. play for them. If you want to keep a player for longer...contract them for longer. It seems some people want the teams to be protected but not the players.

Sin é, what benefit does the university get from the student? Other than the money? These players are working for their team, it's about mutual benefit. If players are moving for a "few more quid" it says a lot about their loyalty to their team and how bought in they are. Perhaps that's the side that needs working on?

Sin é wrote:Its you who are being silly. Regard being in an academy as place where you get your education. Let players pay for their education like they do for other walks of life.

The bottom line is the money to develop players has to come from somewhere. If clubs can just buy whatever talent is available, how long do you think clubs will continue to develop players?

But its not the same really is it? In a standard education all the benefit is on you. Where the institution also receives a benefit of sorts, as is often the case with PhDs, the person can receive a substantial wage for doing one. Importantly at the end of either of these the person can go out and look for work without ever having to worry about being devalued by their future employers having to fork out money for the previous employers. Really though I'm just humouring you here because I feel the comparison isn't strictly relevant.

Poorfour wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:Well then we'll just have to agree to disagree - in part because i've now read through this thread and it's clear you ignore most of what people say. You think it's fine and reasonable to place artificial restrictions on what company someone can work for purely because you want to see one particular team throw a ball about on a field better than another. I would say that is selfish and petty, do you agree with my summary?

There are more important things than sport mate, an individual's livelihood and self-determination being good examples.

What needs to be done then, as in business, is for Rugby Players (& footballers) to pay for their education in a provincial or club academy.

An MBA costs about 40K I think from a decent college.

Well, that's an option. But I think you'd see a lot of potential players just go and do a degree instead. A better option might be to offer longer contracts and intangibles that make it harder to leave. Quins seem to have achieved good loyalty among their Academy prospects through showing loyalty to them and creating an environment and ethos they want to be part of. Sarries say that they don't pay that much but achieve loyalty by treating their players "unbelievably well".

It's also worth noting that there have been comparatively few defections from Wales and Ireland to England. What's the current roster? North, Hibbard, Henson, Hook? It's the LNR that have been flashing the cash - and the RFU have provisions in place to encourage high (and increasing) proportions of EQPs in matchday squads. I don't have the stats to hand but I think we are heading towards 70% on average and a couple of teams regularly manage 85%+

To be fair, you are right, France are the problem, for everybody at the moment, but I can see a time where the English clubs will not play second fiddle to the French anymore, and they will want to either raise their salary cap, or scrap it, or add little bits on for extra marquee players, or however you want to dress it, then we will get the elite English clubs + the French clubs raiding our players, as for the current roster, just look at Bristol, they are not even in the top flight and they can pay more for our players. Off the top of my head, Welsh players in England:-

Matthew Morgan
Gareth Maule
Ryan Jones
Dwayne Peel
Owen Williams
James Hook
Paul James
George North
Richard Hibbard
Gavin Henson

There are probably more, I just cannot be bothered to go through them all, then if you add the one's in France as well, if the elite English clubs had more to spend, on top of what the French can do now, the thought is quite sobering.

What makes you think they would go for Welsh players if they had more money though? They go for Welsh players now because they're cheap, with the Regions in shambles there are a lot of players looking elsewhere (forgetting the fact the regions tightened their belts a few years ago and massively cut the player budget). If the money comes in they'll be going for the top kiwi's and south Africans...not Gareth Maule and Gavin Henson.

The only big players off that list are North (part of the games between RRW and WRU), Hibbard and James.

Also no salary cap in the championship so I don't see how relevant it is.

What Hammer said.

Yes, there could arise a situation where the PRL want to hike the salary cap. However, do bear in mind that if they are right about the potential to develop the European tournaments commercially then everyone will benefit to the same absolute amount - which will be proportionally more valuable to the Pro 12, taking into account cost of living and cost of operations.

If the Pro 12 teams can't develop commercially as fast as the PRL or LNR, it's not for want of opportunity. While you have a smaller domestic audience, the Sky deal gives access to a larger audience than BT currently has, and the level of union subsidy and so on exceeds what's available to the PRL.

It should be a doddle. Sin e and Fly have been fond of telling us that the Irish teams are the major commercial draw for the European comps, and with a larger stage for your domestic games you should be coining it in...

HammerofThunor wrote:What makes you think they would go for Welsh players if they had more money though? They go for Welsh players now because they're cheap, with the Regions in shambles there are a lot of players looking elsewhere (forgetting the fact the regions tightened their belts a few years ago and massively cut the player budget).  If the money comes in they'll be going for the top kiwi's and south Africans...not Gareth Maule and Gavin Henson.

The only big players off that list are North (part of the games between RRW and WRU), Hibbard and James.

Also no salary cap in the championship so I don't see how relevant it is.

Yeah, right, so I suppose if the elite clubs had extra money, they would not be interested in:-

Warburton
Tipuric
Biggar
Webb
Gareth Davies
Rhys Patchell
Samson Lee

Those to name just a few. It's come to appoint now, whenever I here about contract negotiations in Wales, I dread to think who is interested in the said player.

Not particularly no. McCaw, Carter, O'Brien, Healy, etc these of the sort they'd be looking for if money was no option. Some of the lower clubs might go for the odd player to try and compete on the cheap.

HammerofThunor wrote:Teams develop players for their own purpose. They pay players to do a job, i.e. play for them. If you want to keep a player for longer...contract them for longer. It seems some people want the teams to be protected but not the players.

Sin é, what benefit does the university get from the student? Other than the money? These players are working for their team, it's about mutual benefit.  If players are moving for a "few more quid" it says a lot about their loyalty to their team and how bought in they are. Perhaps that's the side that needs working on?

Teams do develop players for their own purposes. But it costs them money. Do you suggest that they should strict rigidly to their own needs? Why should a club benefit from someone's investment - and there is considerable investment (unlike say doing a PhD) in the form of medical expenses, coaching fees, strength & Conditioning - while doing a PhD, you really do it on your own with the direction of a tutor.

What about all the expenses involved in playing other teams (I know Leicester U18 were at a tournament in Clermont this year (along with Munster u18s)?