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?

In fact, scrap all that. BT announced they had English football rights in June 2012. Did the ERC not know that BT were moving into sports broadcast? Did they approach them and see if they were interested or just hang back and wait to see who came to them?

They can't have contacted Bt themselves as they would have used this during the fall out, "we approached Bt but they turned us down".

HammerofThunor wrote:How am I not engaging with you?

Do you not agree that the ERC may have refused to consider shared TV rights for the UK and Ireland?

Do you not agree that the ERC may have refused to move to a new broadcaster for a relatively small increase in money?

Do you not agree that complaints about the ERC being too conservative could indicate either of the two events possible?

You said that BT didn't deal with the ERC, I'm trying to give potential events where they did. Nothing I have said it's ridiculous (IMO), and if anything could easily have been the catalyst for the English and French to give notice, since they all would have happened around the same time.

1st point may or may not have happened,it's pure conjecture and there is no reason to believe it up except as a straw clutching exercise to explain the PRL double dealing.

2nd point may or may not have happened,again pure conjecture.What's the point of this speculation?

3rd point may or may not be correct,the complaints about ERC being too conservative could indicate anything,you're pulling this stuff out of thin air and while it all could be correct there is absolutely nothing to indicate that it is.

All of this avoids my initial point which is that Exiledinborders is wrong when he says "the PRL have shown that they were right in saying that ERC were not maximising income "

The ERC never had the chance to have a bidding war between Sky and BT since BT weren't around when the earlier TV deals were done.

You then came in with this gem "How do you know BT didn't approach ERC and were turned away due to the 'special' relationship with Sky?"which I have said is ridiculous because it's an a ludicrous hypothetical situation.This is the only point I have been addressing and you still haven't give me a good reason to take seriously the idea that ERC would turn down BT's money just because they have a 'special' (whatever that means) relationship with Sky.

So the fact the ERCC got significantly more for the TV deals than the ERC is only because of BT which doesn't count because BT weren't into Sport 20 years ago?

BT were into sport when the last ERC TV contract was negotiated

Hammer the market for sports rights is moving on very swiftly, viz the silly money for the last wendyball deal, the ERC could easily have matched what has happened so far and probably have bettered it in France. But if believing this is all a PRL masterstroke keeps you happy, then I won't dispel that thought.

justified sinner wrote:Hammer the market for sports rights is moving on very swiftly, viz the silly money for the last wendyball deal, the ERC could easily have matched what has happened so far and probably have bettered it in France. But if believing this is all a PRL masterstroke keeps you happy, then I won't dispel that thought.

Yet they failed to do so when agreeing deals 12 months ago.

LondonTiger wrote:

justified sinner wrote:Hammer the market for sports rights is moving on very swiftly, viz the silly money for the last wendyball deal, the ERC could easily have matched what has happened so far and probably have bettered it in France. But if believing this is all a PRL masterstroke keeps you happy, then I won't dispel that thought.

Yet they failed to do so when agreeing deals 12 months ago.

I refer you to my 'moving on very swiftly' quote PRL nipped in and well done. I still can't help feeling that ERC would have got a better overall deal. Anyway it's done now let's move on.

HammerofThunor wrote:So the fact the ERCC got significantly more for the TV deals than the ERC is only because of BT which doesn't count because BT weren't into Sport 20 years ago?

BT were into sport when the last ERC TV contract was negotiated

BT declined to tender for the Pro12 media rights (according to the CEO when announcing the Pro12 Sky deal).

Really strange as they have since now decided to sponsor most or all the teams or their grounds that play in the PRO12 who are in the UK.

Having several broadcasters involved can cause an awful lot of hassle in cross border competitions - something obviously the PRL have just discovered.

Exiledinborders wrote:

Sin é wrote:Bruce Craig ....

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/oct/10/champions-cupbruce-craig-bath-european-club-tournament

It seems the RFU are paying the new chumps cup 5m to stage it in Twickers

Oh, and the French are the baddies in all of this ....
Well, the latest Entente Cordiale didn't last long.

Its going to be some fun when Craig gets his way for 32 man match day squads  

I see the ant-PRZl crew are changing track. Up till a couple of weeks ago they were telling us that the new competition woukd be a financial disaster. Now that the PRL have shown that they were right in saying that ERC were not maximising income they have changed tack.

Regarding the comments regarding the French Craig is correct. Craig's problem is not with LNR but with FFR and Bernard Lapasset at IRB.

From what I can see the finances look pretty much the same as they were as what the ERC were getting last year (at the end of their 4 year deal).

Nigel Craig is telling porkies from what I can see (for instance, claiming that the revenue for 2014 was 47m euro when in fact according to the ERC the revenue was 54m Euro

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/european-rugby/11157197/European-Rugby-Champions-Cup-should-produce-fireworks-from-the-start.html

Sense from Mr Moore as usual. Bring on next week.

Brian Moore: "The old Home Unions influence is gone and with it the ability of the Unions to foist their historic international alliances on to the clubs. The full effects of this will not be seen immediately and the results will have to be carefully monitored as they have the potential to do harm to some parts of rugby if left unfettered

"All this said, a large caveat ought to be made at this point. The overwhelming majority of rugby people, from whatever club or country, know that international rugby is the pinnacle and they do not want to see that change. If Bruce Craig, the Bath owner and self‑confessed major mover in the new European club movement, has any notions of replicating the situation in football, where club tournaments like the Champions League or even the English Premier League are seen as viable or even better alternatives, he should be swiftly disabused of this notion and intent. The Champions Cup is the only transition from club to international rugby in the northern hemisphere and as such rugby cannot afford for it to go wrong.

However, though all should want it succeed, it cannot be allowed to be any more than a stepping stone."

Well, he's bang on the button on those two counts anyway - especially the highlighted bits.  And Note too that both paragraphs are intrinsically linked.  One warning by Moore in the first paragraph has implications for his wishing a success to the new European contest in the second paragraph.  However he words it, he finds himself coming to the same conclusions as Irish moaners
He admits that European Club rugby is inextricably linked to .......................... International....... successes and hopes.  He himself mentions the undercurrent that exists in the mutterings of people like Bruce Craig and warns against such ambitions.  
These people don't see International as something above them or out of their sphere of influence, ironically they simply see International as a mere competitor for hearts and minds, and they themselves (the Bruce Craigs and PRL/LNR chiefs) have already tried and succeeded in Influencing the business interests of what they see as a competitor.  
So much for the principle called for that club should look after its business exclusively and International should look after its concerns exclusively.  Fantastical bunk of course (and always was) as the same players and fans inhabit both worlds and they all have dual interests operating at all times in a real world.  Brian Moore is just another example of that truth.  He wants to hail the success of common sense and club rugby maturing to run its own show, but he can't quite divest himself of his thinly veiled degree of suspicion and mistrust of the longterm motivations behind the clubs.

So there you go.  It's strange that so many Irish people here have highlighted the same arguments and concerns but only when Brian Moore articulates those concerns - finally - that Big Trev sees 'sense' in the argument Brian Moore is a wise man - he reads wise opinions in the Irish press and then modifies them to sound like his own.

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:So the fact the ERCC got significantly more for the TV deals than the ERC is only because of BT which doesn't count because BT weren't into Sport 20 years ago?

BT were into sport when the last ERC TV contract was negotiated

BT declined to tender for the Pro12 media rights  (according to the CEO when announcing the Pro12 Sky deal).

Really strange as they have since now decided to sponsor most or all the teams or their grounds that play in the PRO12 who are in the UK.

Having several broadcasters involved can cause an awful lot of hassle in cross border competitions - something obviously the PRL have just discovered.

Although I fail to see the relevance to Europe, they wanted the English rights. Doesn't it make a lot of sense that if you're not going to broadcast some games that you sponsor the teams themselves to get the message across? Sky didn't go for the Pro12 when they had the English rights either. Nothing suspicious about that.

BT and Sky are false enemies.  The marketing is designed to create the fiction of friction and therefore create that absolute in money-making terms - yep, a field game of two teams and two sets of supporters.  

That's what the 'seeming' battle between SKY and BT has been - a market carve up, producing two teams who are playing the same game  It's win, win for both. That was how it was always meant to be.  The punter was duped yet again.

I feel a 'merger' coming down the line in say about 7 or 8 years:  BTSKY.  Believing... in YOU.  Cue big music.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:So the fact the ERCC got significantly more for the TV deals than the ERC is only because of BT which doesn't count because BT weren't into Sport 20 years ago?

BT were into sport when the last ERC TV contract was negotiated

BT declined to tender for the Pro12 media rights  (according to the CEO when announcing the Pro12 Sky deal).

Really strange as they have since now decided to sponsor most or all the teams or their grounds that play in the PRO12 who are in the UK.

Having several broadcasters involved can cause an awful lot of hassle in cross border competitions - something obviously the PRL have just discovered.

Although I fail to see the relevance to Europe, they wanted the English rights. Doesn't it make a lot of sense that if you're not going to broadcast some games that you sponsor the teams themselves to get the message across? Sky didn't go for the Pro12 when they had the English rights either. Nothing suspicious about that.

My point is that a Union owned organisation (Celtic Rugby Ltd) asked BT to tender for the PRO12 along with Sky and they declined. This would be an indication that another Dublin based Union owned organisation like ERC Ltd would not be adverse to asking BT (along with Sky) to tender for the UK & Ireland rights to the Heineken Cup if it was possible at the time.

BT wanted to stay prinmarily joined to Team England, innit?!!!!

When was that? Was it before the English deal was announced or after? Was it a "bloody hell they flashing the cash I wants some of that" or "hmm, these BT boys seem to be getting into sport, I think we'll investigate that avenue".

If the ERC DID talk to BT then why haven't we heard about it? It's been pointed out that the idea of having confidenciality clauses in these discussions is laughable. You'd have thought a little, "hold on, we contacted BT about broadcasting the HEC and they said they weren't interested", would have been forthcoming.

And I still don't see why you keep bringing up the fact these companies are into tax avoidance like it's a good thing.

HammerofThunor wrote:And I still don't see why you keep bringing up the fact these companies are into tax avoidance like it's a good thing.

Now, now Hammer.  One man's tax avoidance is another man's excessive Governmental contribution to the coffers of a Private foreign company............................................

So will we talk evil Apple'n'Ireland or that French Nuclear Outfit (EDF) that seem to be getting a nice little inducement to build a nice little Power Plant at Hinkley Point.

Everyone is equal but some..................... well you know the rest

HammerofThunor wrote:When was that? Was it before the English deal was announced or after? Was it a "bloody hell they flashing the cash I wants some of that" or "hmm, these BT boys seem to be getting into sport, I think we'll investigate that avenue".

If the ERC DID talk to BT then why haven't we heard about it? It's been pointed out that the idea of having confidenciality clauses in these discussions is laughable. You'd have thought a little, "hold on, we contacted BT about broadcasting the HEC and they said they weren't interested", would have been forthcoming.

And I still don't see why you keep bringing up the fact these companies are into tax avoidance like it's a good thing.

PRL announced deal with BT to broadcast all Aviva & English ERC games on 12th Sept 2012 from the 13-14 season. BT Sport wasn't launched until August 2013.

Its pretty plain to see that BT approached the PRL with a view to having a go at Sky's monopoly on rugby.

HammerofThunor wrote:
And I still don't see why you keep bringing up the fact these companies are into tax avoidance like it's a good thing.

Its not tax avoidance. Its a sporting tax exemption.

Their profit is based on events that occur in the UK, Ireland, France and Italy. The money generated is funnelled through an Ireland based company to avoid higher taxes in these countries (other than Ireland)...how is that not tax avoidance?

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:When was that? Was it before the English deal was announced or after? Was it a "bloody hell they flashing the cash I wants some of that" or "hmm, these BT boys seem to be getting into sport, I think we'll investigate that avenue".

If the ERC DID talk to BT then why haven't we heard about it? It's been pointed out that the idea of having confidenciality clauses in these discussions is laughable. You'd have thought a little, "hold on, we contacted BT about broadcasting the HEC and they said they weren't interested", would have been forthcoming.

And I still don't see why you keep bringing up the fact these companies are into tax avoidance like it's a good thing.

PRL announced deal with BT to broadcast all Aviva & English ERC games on 12th Sept 2012 from the 13-14 season. BT Sport wasn't launched until August 2013.

Its pretty plain to see that BT approached the PRL with a view to having a go at Sky's monopoly on rugby.

BT announced they had the rights to English premiership football in June 2012. I think that might have been a clue they were getting into sport. I would also expect that it would have been known that BT were looking at sporting rights before the football deal had be closed.

HammerofThunor wrote:Their profit is based on events that occur in the UK, Ireland, France and Italy. The money generated is funnelled through an Ireland based company to avoid higher taxes in these countries (other than Ireland)...how is that not tax avoidance?

Is it not simply availing of the legal tax benefits accruing in one of those nations? Does a company, any company, have an obligation to choose to pay their taxes in the nation that chooses to tax them highest IF events take place in UK, Ireland, France and Italy. No, I'd say they have the right to be astute business people and pay those taxes where least tax is paid.
Plus, you mention TAX in some quasi-universal sense, Hammer, as though the takings/benefits of tax are spread across all nations no matter where the tax is taken. You seem to imply that we'd all benefit from all companies paying their taxes in nations where taxes are highest?

HammerofThunor wrote:Their profit is based on events that occur in the UK, Ireland, France and Italy. The money generated is funnelled through an Ireland based company to avoid higher taxes in these countries (other than Ireland)...how is that not tax avoidance?

So which country would you suggest they should pay their tax in? There are a number of countries involved.

UK - 21% corporate tax rate
France - 33.3% corporate tax rate
Germany - 29.58%
Italy - 31.4%
Switzerland - 17.92% (Neuchâtel's corporate tax rate will be 5% from 2016)
Ireland - 12.5% (with a sporting tax exemption).

Better to use a country's low tax rate that has nothing to do with the competition other than share a border with 2 of the countries involved?

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:When was that? Was it before the English deal was announced or after? Was it a "bloody hell they flashing the cash I wants some of that" or "hmm, these BT boys seem to be getting into sport, I think we'll investigate that avenue".

If the ERC DID talk to BT then why haven't we heard about it? It's been pointed out that the idea of having confidenciality clauses in these discussions is laughable. You'd have thought a little, "hold on, we contacted BT about broadcasting the HEC and they said they weren't interested", would have been forthcoming.

And I still don't see why you keep bringing up the fact these companies are into tax avoidance like it's a good thing.

PRL announced deal with BT to broadcast all Aviva & English ERC games on 12th Sept 2012 from the 13-14 season. BT Sport wasn't launched until August 2013.

Its pretty plain to see that BT approached the PRL with a view to having a go at Sky's monopoly on rugby.

BT announced they had the rights to English premiership football in June 2012. I think that might have been a clue they were getting into sport. I would also expect that it would have been known that BT were looking at sporting rights before the football deal had be closed.

And I'm sure BT had a plan to divide and conquer well before that time as they had signed a deal very shortly afterwards with the PRL which included the English rights to European competition.

You hardly think BT were going to bid against themselves, do you?

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Their profit is based on events that occur in the UK, Ireland, France and Italy. The money generated is funnelled through an Ireland based company to avoid higher taxes in these countries (other than Ireland)...how is that not tax avoidance?

Is it not simply availing of the legal tax benefits accruing in one of those nations?  Does a company, any company, have an obligation to choose to pay their taxes in the nation that chooses to tax them highest IF events take place in UK, Ireland, France and Italy.  No, I'd say they have the right to be astute business people and pay those taxes where least tax is paid.
Plus, you mention TAX in some quasi-universal sense, Hammer, as though the takings/benefits of tax are spread across all nations no matter where the tax is taken.  You seem to imply that we'd all benefit from all companies paying their taxes in nations where taxes are highest?

Actually people would benefit if companies actually paid their taxes in the country that the profit was generated.

It may be astute business to create dummy charges and filter the profits to a low tax country - but it is highly immoral, and perhaps soon illegal. Of course a lot depends on whether the EC win their case against the Irish Government.



Th

LondonTiger wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Their profit is based on events that occur in the UK, Ireland, France and Italy. The money generated is funnelled through an Ireland based company to avoid higher taxes in these countries (other than Ireland)...how is that not tax avoidance?

Is it not simply availing of the legal tax benefits accruing in one of those nations?  Does a company, any company, have an obligation to choose to pay their taxes in the nation that chooses to tax them highest IF events take place in UK, Ireland, France and Italy.  No, I'd say they have the right to be astute business people and pay those taxes where least tax is paid.
Plus, you mention TAX in some quasi-universal sense, Hammer, as though the takings/benefits of tax are spread across all nations no matter where the tax is taken.  You seem to imply that we'd all benefit from all companies paying their taxes in nations where taxes are highest?

Actually people would benefit if companies actually paid their taxes in the country that the profit was generated.

It may be astute business to create dummy charges and filter the profits to a low tax country - but it is highly immoral, and perhaps soon illegal. Of course a lot depends on whether the EC win their case against the Irish Government.

So where are the European Rugby Cup's profits generated?

The EU are not taking a case against the Irish Government, they are investigating Apple. It could mean that Apple will have to pay the Irish Goverment between 100 & 800m back tax by the way.

Sin é wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Their profit is based on events that occur in the UK, Ireland, France and Italy. The money generated is funnelled through an Ireland based company to avoid higher taxes in these countries (other than Ireland)...how is that not tax avoidance?

Is it not simply availing of the legal tax benefits accruing in one of those nations?  Does a company, any company, have an obligation to choose to pay their taxes in the nation that chooses to tax them highest IF events take place in UK, Ireland, France and Italy.  No, I'd say they have the right to be astute business people and pay those taxes where least tax is paid.
Plus, you mention TAX in some quasi-universal sense, Hammer, as though the takings/benefits of tax are spread across all nations no matter where the tax is taken.  You seem to imply that we'd all benefit from all companies paying their taxes in nations where taxes are highest?

Actually people would benefit if companies actually paid their taxes in the country that the profit was generated.

It may be astute business to create dummy charges and filter the profits to a low tax country - but it is highly immoral, and perhaps soon illegal. Of course a lot depends on whether the EC win their case against the Irish Government.

So where are the European Rugby Cup's profits generated?

The EU are not taking a case against the Irish Government, they are investigating Apple. It could mean that Apple will have to pay the Irish Goverment between 100 & 800m back tax by the way.

Yes, it could be a real win-win for the Irish govt. Low taxes to attract Apple in the first place with all the jobs and kudos that comes with it and then a big windfall anyway.

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Their profit is based on events that occur in the UK, Ireland, France and Italy. The money generated is funnelled through an Ireland based company to avoid higher taxes in these countries (other than Ireland)...how is that not tax avoidance?

Is it not simply availing of the legal tax benefits accruing in one of those nations?  Does a company, any company, have an obligation to choose to pay their taxes in the nation that chooses to tax them highest IF events take place in UK, Ireland, France and Italy.  No, I'd say they have the right to be astute business people and pay those taxes where least tax is paid.
Plus, you mention TAX in some quasi-universal sense, Hammer, as though the takings/benefits of tax are spread across all nations no matter where the tax is taken.  You seem to imply that we'd all benefit from all companies paying their taxes in nations where taxes are highest?

But that IS tax avoidance. Using every legal oppotunitiy to minimise the amount of tax a company has to pay.

I'm [EDIT: not] 100% on how it works but don't they get taxed after the money has been divved up? So it's on a few 100k rather than the millions generated. Also the money is paid out to bodies who are then in turn taxed by the country then run in. So they should only get taxed once.

I didn't mean to imply everyone would benefit the same. For example, in Ireland it seems there is significant sporting tax exemptions so that the Irish Government wouldn't benefit much at all.  In UK less so the UK government would get more tax.  That's up to the local populous to vote the representatives to choose the tax regime best for them (or whatever the local system is). But a portion of the money generated by the company is in the UK, from TV rights, tickets for later stages if relevant, etc, and it should be taxed accordingly.

Although, if they only get taxed after most of the money has been given out then cool beans. But also it makes little difference whether it's based in Ireland either, as there is little to tax.

I serious haven't a clue about any of this. I just have the PAYE thing sort it out. I even don't both claiming back for professional registration fees because I can't be arsed with it all.

LondonTiger wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Their profit is based on events that occur in the UK, Ireland, France and Italy. The money generated is funnelled through an Ireland based company to avoid higher taxes in these countries (other than Ireland)...how is that not tax avoidance?

Is it not simply availing of the legal tax benefits accruing in one of those nations?  Does a company, any company, have an obligation to choose to pay their taxes in the nation that chooses to tax them highest IF events take place in UK, Ireland, France and Italy.  No, I'd say they have the right to be astute business people and pay those taxes where least tax is paid.
Plus, you mention TAX in some quasi-universal sense, Hammer, as though the takings/benefits of tax are spread across all nations no matter where the tax is taken.  You seem to imply that we'd all benefit from all companies paying their taxes in nations where taxes are highest?

Actually people would benefit if companies actually paid their taxes in the country that the profit was generated.

It may be astute business to create dummy charges and filter the profits to a low tax country - but it is highly immoral, and perhaps soon illegal. Of course a lot depends on whether the EC win their case against the Irish Government.



Th

Of course the attempt is to make it illegal.  Without question - correct.  
So the 'perhaps' bit is moot.  Germany, the UK and France want these big comp-media companies with their headquarters in their sphere's of influence. Simple. And they don't want to have to competitively lower their corporate rates to get them either. And they don't like little pudding-fart countries like Ireland 'stealing' them.  So by any means necessary, they'll make little pudding-fart countries 'illegal' in time - correct.  It's all the rage these days, it's the new black. And it'll be one of those 'illegal' rulings that makes little schye countires illegal in Europe that will once again cause another lovely little European war of the Worlds. But try tellin'em that? The architects of Empire never listen to the warning of war until they're busy fighting them.

Meanwhile, before all that, and back at the ranch, as I alluded to earlier, they've just 'legalised' a heavy handed National governmental hand-out to a company to build a new Nuclear plant in England - something which is against most rules on fair practice market force economics in the EU Empire?  

It's a pick and choose morality world we live in, ain't it.

Sin é wrote:

The EU are not taking a case against the Irish Government, they are investigating Apple. It could mean that Apple will have to pay the Irish Goverment between 100 & 800m back tax by the way.

Actually the Irish Govt have been charged with illegally subsidising a business - so they have also been charged.

As have Luxembourg re Amazon.



Any way this is indeed all moot - rich people will continue to find ways to pay a lower percentage in tax than poor people. That is the way of the world - the rich feck over the poor.

SecretFly wrote:
It's a pick and choose morality world we live in, ain't it.

Indeed - as you have amply demonstrated throughout the thread.

LondonTiger wrote:

SecretFly wrote:
It's a pick and choose morality world we live in, ain't it.

Indeed - as you have amply demonstrated throughout the thread.

Thanks, Tiger, I do live in the real world -yes. Duplicitousness is the virtue of evolution. It'll all be settled by a new World War, third installment of that Super League. Don't you worry about it, Tiger - the confusion of 'Independent' Nations in a Dictatorship of Europe will correct itself in time. Evolution will find its safety value for that particular brand of madness.

SecretFly wrote:Brian Moore: "The old Home Unions influence is gone and with it the ability of the Unions to foist their historic international alliances on to the clubs. The full effects of this will not be seen immediately and the results will have to be carefully monitored as they have the potential to do harm to some parts of rugby if left unfettered

"All this said, a large caveat ought to be made at this point. The overwhelming majority of rugby people, from whatever club or country, know that international rugby is the pinnacle and they do not want to see that change. If Bruce Craig, the Bath owner and self‑confessed major mover in the new European club movement, has any notions of replicating the situation in football, where club tournaments like the Champions League or even the English Premier League are seen as viable or even better alternatives, he should be swiftly disabused of this notion and intent. The Champions Cup is the only transition from club to international rugby in the northern hemisphere and as such rugby cannot afford for it to go wrong.

However, though all should want it succeed, it cannot be allowed to be any more than a stepping stone."

Well, he's bang on the button on those two counts anyway - especially the highlighted bits.  And Note too that both paragraphs are intrinsically linked.  One warning by Moore in the first paragraph has implications for his wishing a success to the new European contest in the second paragraph.  However he words it, he finds himself coming to the same conclusions as Irish moaners
He admits that European Club rugby is inextricably linked to .......................... International....... successes and hopes.  He himself mentions the undercurrent that exists in the mutterings of people like Bruce Craig and warns against such ambitions.  
These people don't see International as something above them or out of their sphere of influence, ironically they simply see International as a mere competitor for hearts and minds, and they themselves (the Bruce Craigs and PRL/LNR chiefs) have already tried and succeeded in Influencing the business interests of what they see as a competitor.  
So much for the principle called for that club should look after its business exclusively and International should look after its concerns exclusively.  Fantastical bunk of course (and always was) as the same players and fans inhabit both worlds and they all have dual interests operating at all times in a real world.  Brian Moore is just another example of that truth.  He wants to hail the success of common sense and club rugby maturing to run its own show, but he can't quite divest himself of his thinly veiled degree of suspicion and mistrust of the longterm motivations behind the clubs.

So there you go.  It's strange that so many Irish people here have highlighted the same arguments and concerns but only when Brian Moore articulates those concerns - finally - that Big Trev sees 'sense' in the argument  Brian Moore is a wise man - he reads wise opinions in the Irish press and then modifies them to sound like his own.

Cherry picking but...
Yes you maybe surprised but I agree. There will need to be checks and balances along the way but it is still an overall improvement in every sense.
However, there is a big difference in saying 'Irish people have highlighted the same arguments' & others that clearly want the new agreements to fail.

LondonTiger wrote:

Sin é wrote:

The EU are not taking a case against the Irish Government, they are investigating Apple. It could mean that Apple will have to pay the Irish Goverment between 100 & 800m back tax by the way.

Actually the Irish Govt have been charged with illegally subsidising a business - so they have also been charged.

As have Luxembourg re Amazon.

Any way this is indeed all moot - rich people will continue to find ways to pay a lower percentage in tax than poor people. That is the way of the world - the rich feck over the poor.

Charged suggests that they will be punished if the 'charge' proves successful. Facts are that its Apple who will have to pay the Irish Gov. back for any 'illegal' dealings that they are probing.

I don't know why you guys are so worried bearing in mind you want out of the EU in the first place.

Big Trev, If this competition works for Irish rugby interests (and there are two - Provincial rugby first of all and International in primary position)... IF this new competition works for Irish rugby interests then why possibly would I wish it to fail? And I expect that other people from England, France, Wales etc, would share my view for their own clubs and nations. If it works for us rather than against us, it'll be good.

I don't wish anything to fail, I simply want it defined more on the tongues of advocates that none of us - None of Us (Irish, Welsh, English, Scottish, Italian or French rugby) - should "fail" as an accepted prerequisit for the hightened success of 'some' of the participants. None of us should be in this thing to sacrifice ourselves to it for the 'greater good'.  
And if the new structure witnesses the dramatic 'failure' of certain partners then all I'd seek if for present advocates to admit that such a result would not only be morally wrong but it would be selfishly repugnant and that they'd openly say so and stand up for right (as Moore says he would) when they see the future going wrong.

That's reasonable, that logical, there is no natural inclination to call 'failure' - but the new competition Will be a failure if it grinds away the competitiveness of club and/or International in any of the areas under its influence...and there are six of those areas, not three.

Moore agrees with me.  It's not the other way around.  I'm not suddenly agreeing with him.  He is suddenly agreeing with people like me, who have been saying what he said well in advance of him saying it...well in advance.

Secret Im not saying you do want it to fail. But the main criticism of the new structures have come from the Irish people and the Irish Press.
Now that the agreement is in place lets all get behind it and wish it success. It has already had an effect on the intensity of matches in the Pro12 which has to be a good thing.
The slimmed down version will also add intensity to the pool games, although as Moore acknowledges those teams that have Treviso in their group should count their blessings.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:Secret Im not saying you do want it to fail. But the main criticism of the new structures have come from the Irish people and the Irish Press.
Now that the agreement is in place lets all get behind it and wish it success. It has already had an effect on the intensity of matches in the Pro12 which has to be a good thing.
The slimmed down version will also add intensity to the pool games, although as Moore acknowledges those teams that have Treviso in their group should count their blessings.

Look, its complete rubbish that the English press claim that one of the good things about this new competition is that it has made the Pro12 competitive.

I also think that this competition will not be as successful because eventually the French & English will be at each others throats and the whole thing will implode because the revenues of this competition are based on an inflated value of the Aviva Premiership by BT.

The French are just trying to kill the competition off so that their Top 14 will be the premier European competition.

SecretFly wrote: None of Us (Irish, Welsh, English, Scottish, Italian or French rugby) - should "fail"

Can I ask what you would class as failure? No participation in the business end of the European competition? Well that already applies to Wales, Scotland and Italy. Poorer international results? How many times have Scotland or Italy won the Six Nations? If you are referring to financial failure, where are Border Reivers, Celtic Warriors and Aironi? I am sure there are examples from England and France I could also find. Does the old ERC organisation take responsibility for their failure? There was plenty of financial failure during the Heineken Cup too.

SecretFly wrote:  And if the new structure witnesses the dramatic 'failure' of certain partners then all I'd seek if for present advocates to admit that such a result would not only be morally wrong but it would be selfishly repugnant and that they'd openly say so and stand up for right (as Moore says he would) when they see the future going wrong.

And if it is a success all round, with players and governors/ owners coming out and saying the new structure is much better, I hope the opponents of this will also openly say they were wrong.

Anyway, I have just been planning what to watch on Saturday, what do people think will be better - Glasgow V Bath or Sarries V Clermont?

I'd judge it to be a financial failure if they are not achieving revenues similar to the 6Ns company (100m per annum) in the next 3 years.

I will also judge it to be a failure if fans lose interest in the competition if they fail to have sell-outs for the finals.

I will judge it to be a failure if they lose tv audiences (quite likely since BeIN have about 2m subscribers compared to Canal+'s 7 or 8 million (and the main reason why the LNR wanted to stay with Canal+ rather than more money from BeIN).

Also, the end will never justify the means.

MichaelT wrote:

SecretFly wrote: None of Us (Irish, Welsh, English, Scottish, Italian or French rugby) - should "fail"

Can I ask what you would class as failure? No participation in the business end of the European competition? Well that already applies to Wales, Scotland and Italy. Poorer international results? How many times have Scotland or Italy won the Six Nations? If you are referring to financial failure, where are Border Reivers, Celtic Warriors and Aironi? I am sure there are examples from England and France I could also find. Does the old ERC organisation take responsibility for their failure? There was plenty of financial failure during the Heineken Cup too.

SecretFly wrote:  And if the new structure witnesses the dramatic 'failure' of certain partners then all I'd seek if for present advocates to admit that such a result would not only be morally wrong but it would be selfishly repugnant and that they'd openly say so and stand up for right (as Moore says he would) when they see the future going wrong.

And if it is a success all round, with players and governors/ owners coming out and saying the new structure is much better, I hope the opponents of this will also openly say they were wrong.

Anyway, I have just been planning what to watch on Saturday, what do people think will be better - Glasgow V Bath or Sarries V Clermont?

I'll take a stab at clarifying for you, Michael.

What do I consider failure? Implosion and the end - brought about by rules rather than private funding mayhem or cocaine loaded boardroom orgies .  That's what I consider failure.  A failure to thrive - like a plant that doesn't get enough water.  A crumbling and a dying from within by virtue of rule changes.  That's failure.  

Now you list off as many sides that imploded and died as you wish in advance of this year...I'll still see 6 English and 6 French sides when I turn on the TV to watch ERCC.  It won't matter how many current English and French sides might theoretically get relegated from their own Leagues and subsequently fail to show in the new Euro contest.  It won't matter how many of them go out of business, go bust, lose their best players.  By law, there'll still be six (at least) of each that will show each and every year.  
I'd say that's a pretty reasonable safety net against the word 'failure' in a European context for them.  If the four very best sides in the AP one year shockingly fall away dramatically the following year?  It won't matter - six English sides will still pop up with six English chances to win the title the following year.  If four Welsh sides lose form dramatically... that's only one chance they get at the ERCC the following year.  The Welsh will pay the price for bad form, England and France pay no price.... 6 each every year.  So tell me, even now, that I'm wrong in that truth.  

Now back to Scotland, Wales and Italy (that you seem to have a specific concern for) and their lack of presence at the 'business end' of the HEC?  So your judgement is that if they never were at the business end of HEC, they won't miss the downgrading of the number of opportunities available to them each year to get to the business end of the ERCC?
So how many of the English or indeed French sides get to the business end?  There are teams in England and France that seem to perenially have as good a chance of never making the business end of a European Cup as teams in Wales, Scotland and Italy.  But those teams (6 of them each year) are still gifted the 'potential' to do so each year. Unlike the Welsh, Scottish and Italian teams, that will now potentially suffer the consequences of not being 'business end' operators. 

It's about potential to get there - having a raffle ticket - having a deck of cards to play with - being at the table.  Even if you lose all your money, you were at the table and had a chance.  It's legal potential accorded that evaluates failure in this context.  
England and France continually gift themselves to at least 6 chances a year. Ireland and Wales and Scotland and Italy have been downgraded to at least one place per year.
Neither Wales, nor Scotland, nor Italy (players, teams or fans) benefit from having Irish teams at the 'business end' of Europe.  So here too the potential of failure is relative to the national presence in a competition designed to furnish nations with their International stars.  Six teams represent England and France's hopes in this regard - every year - regardless of ability or merit - always six.  Only one each from the other four.  Potential for implosion and failure much greater in Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy.  Tell me I'm wrong there and that, Internationally, the English and French are paying as high a potential price as Wales, Italy, Scotland and Ireland under the new competition rules.  

If club teams or even nations collapse under their own mismanagement, so be it.  If they collapse by virtue of their potential routes to success being closed off by competition 'rules' then no, that's much more fundamental.  "Border Reivers, Celtic Warriors and Aironi" collapsed.... the rules didn't ban them.

And to your final comments.  IF the new competition is a success you'll expect people to say they were wrong?  If I feel the competition has become a success, I'll feel it all around me.......... in the Provinces and in my national team  But I won't feel it only there.  I'll feel it in the enthusiasm for it in Wales, in Scotland and in Italy.  The feeling that none of us are being short-changed either in club rugby or International by any smart dealing by the big boys in AP and Top14.  That'll be the mark of success.  Right now I don't see how the present structure can bring about such a Utopia.
Are you certain we'll all feel happy over the next few years, Michael - all six of us?  Or will you be getting ready to say "okay, so I meant if it was a success for some not all"

MichaelT wrote:Glasgow V Bath or Sarries V Clermont?

Glasgow v Bath.

You play in 1 league though should be treated as 1. The NE of England isnt represented should Newcastle be guaranteed a spot. No!

No 7&1/2 wrote:You play in 1 league though should be treated as 1. The NE of England isnt represented should Newcastle be guaranteed a spot. No!

Much and all as the Geordies like to think of themselves as a nation (like Scotland, Wales etc), they are not.

It doesnt matter this is a competition between leagues. It doesnt matter if Italy arent represented as long as the Pro 12 is. It s up to the Pro 12 to help develop its own teams to compete if those in charge care. Having a Welsh/Irish etc team is no more important than having a Newcastle/ London/Cornish one.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You play in 1 league though should be treated as 1. The NE of England isnt represented should Newcastle be guaranteed a spot. No!

That's the only opt-out clause you got in the debate though, No 7.   Not directing that at you alone.  But in the entire debate, that's the only call back on the fairness debate that PRL has left their supporters.  "It's a League event not a Union event."

But it never works.

Does the North of England have a specifically Northern England International side?  Do they play in the 6N?  Do they play against SH International sides in the Autumn and collect IRB points (or lose them) by doing so?

No...there is only one senior male England in Rugby.  And that's the same for France, Wales, Scotland, Ireland and Italy.  
Nations by definition of the term used to describe them come the 6N.  

I didn't invent the idea.  The idea was around before I got born.  Rugby 'Nations'.  You accept them when you move to International mental mode during the 6N and WCs - so accept that the concept exists even in club season.  

Certainly Lancaster and all the England coaches before him did.  RFU works closely with PRL.... it doesn't work closely with Irish provinces, Welsh regions or French clubs...it works with PRL.  It works with PRL because of the mutual interest that both organisations are English based and English orientated and for the best interests of English rugby (club and International)

You keep evading that one but it'll still always be there.  6 guaranteed places for English clubs at the highest European club rugby event served the cause of English rugby much more than one single guaranteed place at the same highest European club event will now serve either Welsh, Scottish, Irish or Italian rugby.

It's a boon for the English and French.  It's a leg-up in preferential terms...it might be even easily considered an unfair advantage..... but it certainly isn't close to being anything called Equality for All.

Its a comp for leagues/clubs though and not for nations. We already have the 6Ns. This is about the best clubs in the best leagues nothing more.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Its a comp for leagues/clubs though and not for nations. We already have the 6Ns. This is about the best clubs in the best leagues nothing more.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It doesnt matter this is a competition between leagues. It doesnt matter if Italy arent represented as long as the Pro 12 is. It s up to the Pro 12 to help develop its own teams to compete if those in charge care. Having a Welsh/Irish etc team is no more important than having a Newcastle/ London/Cornish one.

I don't say this often but rubbish No 7.  Only recently the RFU seems to have asked for Toulon to 'loan' Armitage to an English side until after 2015.  It was being debated on another thread.  I can't say how authentic that story is but it didn't seem that the English guys there were debating the accuracy of it.

So?.................  What excuse would the RFU have for looking for Armitage to go to an English club if English Union interests were not served by English based clubs?  Why didn't the RFU suggest Armitage go to a New Zealand side?

If National boundaries have nothing to do with League rugby then why should RFU have any distinct interest in AP club rugby?

RFU DO have a distinct interest in all 12 sides in AP.  That affords them an advantage when six sides from that list play in the top European event each and every year, regardless of overall European form.  Six chances, six opportunities to meet and play against the other best players in Europe (and from further afield - SH) players they might meet in International - each and every year. Good learning and 'getting to know you' curve.

You might say that is a meaningless equation..I'm TELLING you it isn't.  I'm saying that gives your English International side (and the French) and unfair advantage in International preparation of players over Wales, Scotland, Italy and Ireland.

You don't need to see the link - you're looking at the link from inside the tent - you don't want to see or acknowledge that advantage.  But that's okay - because I'm telling you that I see it.  And that's enough for me to say it exists and is real.

So continue with the theory, but the theory won't kill the 'unfair advantage' that both English and French rugby have given themselves in this new 'negotiated' competition.

Say you re correct and the reason for this club comp is to make the international sides better rather than find the best team in Europe. Why let foreigners play? How did Scotland and Italy improve under the old system? Throw France in there as well as they seem to be going backwards. Frankly Idont give 2 hoots you can end up with a French team with jack all French players because it isnt nation vs nation. Letting a team not good enough play because they tick an equality box while a better team have to sit out is unfair to me. We renot going to agree though so we ll just have to try and enjoy the rugby!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Say you re correct and the reason for this club comp is to make the international sides better rather than find the best team in Europe. Why let foreigners play? How did Scotland and Italy improve under the old system? Throw France in there as well as they seem to be going backwards. Frankly Idont give 2 hoots you can end up with a French team with jack all French players because it isnt nation vs nation. Letting a team not good enough play because they tick an equality box while a better team have to sit out is unfair to me. We renot going to agree though so we ll just have to try and enjoy the rugby!

But even Brian Moore doesn't agree with you No 7. And he's God in some places over there as wise opinioniser. Even he says we gotta keep a firm eye on these clubs lest they try to do a fancy shuffle and turn what is a stepping stone to International (I'm paraphrasing him there) into a blunt rival to International.

So even Moore, who would be no friend to the Pro12ers, is cautious about the motives of Club rugby. Go read the article that was posted up a while back.

Yes, it's true. We won't agree. McCafferty saw 'unfairness' everywhere when the ERC was in operation - a lot of us now see plenty of unfairness written into the new deal.

Secretfly, thanks for replying, however I do disagree. You have a problem with 6 automatic entries for England, saying we will always have 6 chances of winning and thats not fair - other countries won't have that. That does slightly make sense, but if you're really wanting the chances of winning to be fair per country, then shouldn't the most teams any country can enter be 2 to match Scotland? Who are you going to leave out from Ireland? And who would pay to watch 12 teams in the European Cup with 2 from each country? I can't see that lasting too long. If a countries rugby set up is based on the European competition, then it is really putting all its eggs in one basket. Domestic competitions are definitely the way to go in my opinion for developing your players. Make Europe part of the season, not the season. I think I said that last week.

England and France have vastly superior populations, and therefore can sustain more teams. That is the way it is. Having a small population doesn't stop New Zealand being the best in the world though with 5 teams in Super Rugby and a successful domestic competition. And thats on a population of 4.2 million. Nearly 50% less than Ireland (in rugby terms - ROI & NI). Or stopped Wales from winning 4 Six Nations in the last 10 years.

The only way to really make it 'fair' is as I have said above, or have a FA Cup style knock out/ progression competition. No seeding, every team from every country involved, random draw - you win, you go through until the final. Actually I think that sounds like a great idea.

Oh, and I agree - Bath V Glasgow is looking to be great.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Say you re correct and the reason for this club comp is to make the international sides better rather than find the best team in Europe. Why let foreigners play? How did Scotland and Italy improve under the old system? Throw France in there as well as they seem to be going backwards. Frankly Idont give 2 hoots you can end up with a French team with jack all French players because it isnt nation vs nation. Letting a team not good enough play because they tick an equality box while a better team have to sit out is unfair to me. We renot going to agree though so we ll just have to try and enjoy the rugby!

He is correct. The Heineken Cup was the brainchild of Tommy Kiernan (an Irishman). The English & Scots wanted nothing to do with it initially and didn't participate in the first season.

The Celtic League wasn't established until the early '00s and up to recently (about 4 years ago) the Italians played in their own league and probably would have been entitlted to 2 spots if they had remained there. Romania had a team in the early years of the competition.

Scotland have gone backwards as an international team (but that could be down to the Welsh & the Irish improving a lot) but I think Italy has improved greatly as a national team. It doesn't help their league when Leicester recruit a lot of their players by the way.

Even the Champions League give weaker leagues a chance to get into the competition and they have a lot more countries to accommodate who play football and have their own leagues.