Trouble in Paradise? PRL clubs threaten to play during World Cup

Well, all that peace and harmony between the PRL & RFU didn't last long! This is why sport doesn't do too well - business is now everything!

---

Tension between Premiership Rugby and the RFU could be about to boil over with frustrated clubs threatening to play during next year's World Cup unless a deal can be struck.

Premiership Rugby, angered by the RFU's refusal to consult it over any bid for the World Cup, is demanding a £14m compensation package in return for shutting down the league next Autumn while the tournament is played out.

Suspending play in September and October 2015 would leave England's 12 top-flight clubs without match-day income for five months, with projections suggesting each will lose £1.2m.

The RFU however, has so far failed to meet Premiership Rugby's demands over a compensation package. According to the Rugby Paper, the governing body has offered £6m, but on the condition that players are released for further home Tests - with more money to follow as part of a new agreement between the RFU and clubs due for renewal in 2016.

That offer is likely to fall short of Premiership Rugby's demands, with officials at England's top clubs refusing to be held to ransom over a new post-World Cup deal.

"Until suitable compensation is agreed we should look to play through the World Cup," Leicester Tigers chief executive Simon Cohen said. "There are ongoing talks between Premiership Rugby and the RFU, but the World Cup was an agreement between the IRB and RFU to which weren't a party, so to simply expect us to close down our businesses is simply not acceptable.

"It's like going back to the bad old days of serfdom and everybody is extremely angry that this agreement was entered into with an expectation that we would shut down. So if there isn't going to be adequate compensation, we should play through."

That could jeopardise the staging of the World Cup, with the agreement between the RFU and IRB stating that no elite club rugby will be played during the tournament.

"That's not our problem because both of them entered into an agreement without consulting us in any way, shape or form," Cohen added. "Why should Leicester as a club be concerned about that?

"Presumably the Premiership playing through the World Cup would be a breach of the IRB regulations, but those regulations are almost certainly a restraint of trade and therefore probably unenforceable."

Cohen's words were echoed by another of the Premiership's heavyweight officials, with Saracens chairman Nigel Wray insisting the RFU only has itself to blame.

"Certain terms have been offered that don't seem very attractive to me," Wray said. "The RFU are in a pretty embarrassing position because nobody in any other business would sign a binding contract without having spoken to the other people.

"There is no question that we would ever stop a young man playing for his country in a World Cup, but what the RFU shouldn't do is take advantage of that fact. They should agree proper compensation."

Read more at http://www.espnscrum.com/2015-rugby-world-cup/rugby/story/238737.html#qfVUZtR5dP1WyZRc.99

http://www.espn.co.uk/2015-rugby-world-cup/rugby/story/238737.html

"It's like going back to the bad old days of serfdom".

Seriously??!

Will Welsh clubs play? By the rules they should not as MS is hosting matches.


Also was such a sarcastic and aggressive title(ie Trouble in Paradise) really designed to create debate or just fuel your continued anti English diatribes?


Personally I feel the league should be allowed to continue (thought NPC did in 2011?) but not co-incide with WRC matches. Would be an amazing time for all Rugby fans. But the rules were set when bidding happened - and really the RFU should ensure that the clubs do not lose money from England hosting the event. As things stand they will.

[quote="LondonTiger"]

Also was such a sarcastic and aggressive title(ie Trouble in Paradise) really designed to create debate or just fuel your continued anti English diatribes?/quote]

We're told continually here of what a great relationship the PRL have with the RFU, so I guess the title is very apt as there seem to be a bit of a storm brewing.

I'd imagine the situation with the new European Cup isn't helping either because without a French TV deal and few sponsors, the PRL (&LNR) are definately going to be down funds since they have guaranteed the Pro12 League 20m. So far that would leave about 12 million to run the competition, the admin expenses, merit payments etc. That isn't going to leave a whole lot over for the clubs in the English & French leagues.

LondonTiger wrote:Will Welsh clubs play? By the rules they should not as MS is hosting matches.


Also was such a sarcastic and aggressive title(ie Trouble in Paradise) really designed to create debate or just fuel your continued anti English diatribes?


Personally I feel the league should be allowed to continue (thought NPC did in 2011?) but not co-incide with WRC matches. Would be an amazing time for all Rugby fans. But the rules were set when bidding happened - and really the RFU should ensure that the clubs do not lose money from England hosting the event. As things stand they will.

ITM Cup finished on the 4th of September 2011. About 6 weeks earlier than normal. I agree totally that if the IRB want to shut rugby down in a country they should pay compensation to the clubs.

Doesn't make the way the PRL do business any classier though.

As predicted. give them an bit and they always want more.

LondonTiger wrote:Will Welsh clubs play? By the rules they should not as MS is hosting matches.

The Welsh Regions could just play away games in the PRO12 (which would not affect attendance at any matches).

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Will Welsh clubs play? By the rules they should not as MS is hosting matches.


Also was such a sarcastic and aggressive title(ie Trouble in Paradise) really designed to create debate or just fuel your continued anti English diatribes?


Personally I feel the league should be allowed to continue (thought NPC did in 2011?) but not co-incide with WRC matches. Would be an amazing time for all Rugby fans. But the rules were set when bidding happened - and really the RFU should ensure that the clubs do not lose money from England hosting the event. As things stand they will.

ITM Cup finished on the 4th of September 2011. About 6 weeks earlier than normal. I agree totally that if the IRB want to shut rugby down in a country they should pay compensation to the clubs.

Doesn't make the way the PRL do business any classier though.

According to the Rugby Paper, the governing body has offered £6m, but on the condition that players are released for further home Tests - with more money to follow as part of a new agreement between the RFU and clubs due for renewal in 2016.

In future, World Cup should only be awarded to nations who are in full control of their clubs. The French clubs acted up the time it was in France and now the English clubs are putting the screw on the RFU.

espn wrote:

"That's not our problem because both of them entered into an agreement without consulting us in any way, shape or form," Cohen added. "Why should Leicester as a club be concerned about that?

Anyone see the irony here in light of the PRL entering into a Contract for European Rugby with BT a short while ago.

You couldn't make it up.

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

espn wrote:

"That's not our problem because both of them entered into an agreement without consulting us in any way, shape or form," Cohen added. "Why should Leicester as a club be concerned about that?

Anyone see the irony here in light of the PRL entering into a Contract for European Rugby with BT a short while ago.

You couldn't make it up.

Cohen is probably peed off because the RFU didn't give Tigers a game to host.

The amazing thing is though that they will still play the same number of leagues games - just 6 weeks later

They are out to make a killing on the world cup. Not very patriotic.

Sin é wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Also was such a sarcastic and aggressive title(ie Trouble in Paradise) really designed to create debate or just fuel your continued anti English diatribes?/quote]

We're told continually here of what a great relationship the PRL have with the RFU, so I guess the title is very apt as there seem to be a bit of a storm brewing.

I'd imagine the situation with the new European Cup isn't helping either because without a French TV deal and few sponsors, the PRL (&LNR) are definately going to be down funds since they have guaranteed the Pro12 League 20m. So far that would leave about 12 million to run the competition, the admin expenses, merit payments etc. That isn't going to leave a whole lot over for the clubs in the English & French leagues.

I thought we were ALL guarenteed zillions from the reconfigured european cup - that was the promise wasn't it?

Sin é wrote:

Cohen is probably peed off because the RFU didn't give Tigers a game to host.

On one hand, that is possibly fair enough as they have a good capacity ground there that is dedicated to Rugby, on the other The RFU may have been afraid to upset the other 11 Prem clubs by singling out Leicester.

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Cohen is probably peed off because the RFU didn't give Tigers a game to host.

On one hand, that is possibly fair enough as they have a good capacity ground there that is dedicated to Rugby, on the other The RFU may have been afraid to upset the other 11 Prem clubs by singling out Leicester.

Tricky one - you wouldn't want to be beholden to any of that PRL lot - safer to go for soccer grounds.

I wonder what happens to their Season Tickets money? Cashflow should not be a problem for clubs like Tigers (who had sold 12K season tickets by March this year).

Sin é wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

espn wrote:

"That's not our problem because both of them entered into an agreement without consulting us in any way, shape or form," Cohen added. "Why should Leicester as a club be concerned about that?

Anyone see the irony here in light of the PRL entering into a Contract for European Rugby with BT a short while ago.

You couldn't make it up.

Cohen is probably peed off because the RFU didn't give Tigers a game to host.

The amazing thing is though that they will still play the same number of leagues games - just 6 weeks later  

They are out to make a killing on the world cup. Not very patriotic.

Leicester were not awarded games because the IRB deemed the pitch not to be large enough.

I don't where the idea that the clubs and RFU are in some sort of paradise. The relationship between the two has always been at odds. Compromise has always been the way of things since the game went pro.

The fact that a workable agreement is usually reached is generally welcomed. But don't think that everything is rosy. In any compromise, some parties will not be happy behind the scenes.

To my mind the IRB are complete control freaks. They are more interested in selling tickets, hence they want to shut down our domestic rugby, with the clear intent of forcing fans to attend games if they want to watch some live rugby.

'I don't where the idea that the clubs and RFU are in some sort of paradise'

Sin e cal

Hound of Harrow wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

espn wrote:

"That's not our problem because both of them entered into an agreement without consulting us in any way, shape or form," Cohen added. "Why should Leicester as a club be concerned about that?

Anyone see the irony here in light of the PRL entering into a Contract for European Rugby with BT a short while ago.

You couldn't make it up.

Cohen is probably peed off because the RFU didn't give Tigers a game to host.

The amazing thing is though that they will still play the same number of leagues games - just 6 weeks later  

They are out to make a killing on the world cup. Not very patriotic.

Leicester were not awarded games because the IRB deemed the pitch not to be large enough.

I don't where the idea that the clubs and RFU are in some sort of paradise. The relationship between the two has always been at odds. Compromise has always been the way of things since the game went pro.

The fact that a workable agreement is usually reached is generally welcomed. But don't think that everything is rosy. In any compromise, some parties will not be happy behind the scenes.

To my mind the IRB are complete control freaks. They are more interested in selling tickets, hence they want to shut down our domestic rugby, with the clear intent of forcing fans to attend games if they want to watch some live rugby.

If that is the case (and it is well known that Leicester's pitch is small) why all the bitching and moaning about it?

We have been frequently told here about how well the RFU & PRL get on and what a great bloke Ian Richie is. The Welsh Regions have held up the RFU as an example of how a Union should treat their clubs.

I'm not sure the IRB give two fecks about selling tickets as they are guaranteed a hosting fee by the eRFU which the eRFU is trying to recoup by flogging tickets.

However, there may be sponsorship issues (i.e., the world cup sponsors may have insurance brokers sponsoring events who are in competition with Aviva).

If they do play league games over the world cup it wont be England who suffer but the tier 2 nations etc who have players in the league. It wont happen though.

Who are the eRFU?

Cyril wrote:Who are the eRFU?

The English Rugby Football Union.

Sin é wrote:

Cyril wrote:Who are the eRFU?

The English Rugby Football Union.

No, that's the RFU. No need for an 'e'.

eRFU should withdraw the £6m offer to the clubs, and just let them play through. Call their bluff.

Cyril wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Cyril wrote:Who are the eRFU?

The English Rugby Football Union.

No, that's the RFU. No need for an 'e'.

Do you have a problem with them being referred to as English? Would you prefer not to be associated with them.

I never liked the way the RWC completely disrupts our season in Europe.

Time for a global season for both hemisphere's. And fix the mess of a season we have here while we're at it. It's all over the place. Leagues first. Then European Cup. Then 6 Nations. With both hemisphere's in sync the World Cup can be scheduled to be much less disruptive to our season.

Sin RFU is their name. But you could have capitalized the 'e' at least, you rascal.

Sin é wrote:

Cyril wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Cyril wrote:Who are the eRFU?

The English Rugby Football Union.

No, that's the RFU. No need for an 'e'.

Do you have a problem with them being referred to as English? Would you prefer not to be associated with them.

It's just not the title of the governing body. Why do you feel you need to change it? Everybody knows who the RFU are.

Anyway, this is pointless

Re. the article. I'm sure this is just more posturing and will be resolved. There's certainly plenty of it going on across Europe at the moment.

I think the club's would happily play through. Tigers will draw bigger crowds than the small time games that have been awarded to the local football ground. Considering rugby clubs aren't well off to be told they are getting bugger all in exchange for losing two months of tickets. The fact they are trying to tie it in to a new PRL/RFU deal is really taking the proverbial. A lot of discussions went in to arranging the original EPS deal.

Incidentally the rumours are that Tigers were dropped from the list of stadiums due to their representives work on the EPS and ERC deals. The whole dead ball areas not being a regulation size a thinly veiled insult. Other clubs have had their grounds selected but most overlooked for football grounds.

This will be working out pretty quick. The RFU always do their best to low ball the clubs and act all tough and efficient but it generally comes unwound quickly. The PRL are generally more savvy and will get a fair deal and all will be well for another four years.

Feckless Rogue wrote:I never liked the way the RWC completely disrupts our season in Europe.

Time for a global season for both hemisphere's. And fix the mess of a season we have here while we're at it. It's all over the place. Leagues first. Then European Cup. Then 6 Nations. With both hemisphere's in sync the World Cup can be scheduled to be much less disruptive to our season.

Sin RFU is their name. But you could have capitalized the 'e' at least, you rascal.

There is a reason why a lot of games are played when they are (very little competition for viewers from soccer for the Six Nations for example).

I thought eRFU was just cool (you know, like iPhone etc.)

formerly known as Sam wrote:I think the club's would happily play through. Tigers will draw bigger crowds than the small time games that have been awarded to the local football ground. Considering rugby clubs aren't well off to be told they are getting bugger all in exchange for losing two months of tickets. The fact they are trying to tie it in to a new PRL/RFU deal is really taking the proverbial. A lot of discussions went in to arranging the original EPS deal.

Incidentally the rumours are that Tigers were dropped from the list of stadiums due to their representives work on the EPS and ERC deals. The whole dead ball areas not being a regulation size a thinly veiled insult. Other clubs have had their grounds selected but most overlooked for football grounds.

This will be working out pretty quick. The RFU always do their best to low ball the clubs and act all tough and efficient but it generally comes unwound quickly. The PRL are generally more savvy and will get a fair deal and all will be well for another four years.

They are not losing 2 months tickets. The fixtures will be filled.

As for why Welford Rd was not used - wasn't Ian Richie in PRL's pocket over this whole saga? Why would he punish Tigers?

This isn't news. It's been a known issue since the RWC was awarded, but one that both sides deferred resolving because the European rugby issue needed sorting first.

For a professional league that isn't primarily funded by its union, the loss of one third of the season was always going to be a big deal. It was also always going to need negotiation. The last time the bulk of the RWC was in England, the game was amateur and there was no issue. There's no precedent and the IRB's approach is actively unhelpful: the tournament is shoved in right at the start of the NH season, and the IRB's need for cash (to refill its coffers after a tournament in NZ that was always going to be lossmaking) has put the RFU in a position where it has to maximise revenue during the tournament. (By the way, for exactly that reason, the IRB is always likely to come back to England or France to host every other RWC; they are the only two countries that can guarantee the revenue it needs, at least until the US becomes a major rugby nation).

In practical terms, several AP venues will be unavailable for part or all of the tournament. I doubt permission would be granted by the local authority for The Stoop to hold any games during the period. Kingsholm and Sandy Park are also being used for some RWC matches (Welford Road was excluded from consideration because its run-off areas aren't large enough to support the media setup the IRB needs), and it's likely that Leicester, Sale, Newcastle and possibly Sarries would face restrictions on some dates.

Given that only a couple of AP teams are consistently profitable, the lost revenue from the disrupted season will be large. However lucrative the EPRC deal is, tv companies are not going to pay for games that don't take place, and you don't get ticket revenues for them either.

The RFU knows all this. It also knows that it has to renegotiate its hard-won agreement with the PRL after 2015, and it knows that McCafferty is a canny negotiator [waits for him to be dismissed as arrogant / naive / evil / stupid - but he got what he set out to get from last year's big wrangle]. No doubt this will drag on, and the IRB might even get dragged into it, and the newspapers (and Sin e) will undoubtedly make a meal of it.

But it will get resolved, to the general disgruntlement of most. If I had to guess right now, I would think that something could be thrashed out with the IRB and RFU whereby the PRL teams get partial compensation but are allowed to play a partial schedule of games during the pool stages.

Sin é wrote:
They are not losing 2 months tickets. The fixtures will be filled.

As for why Welford Rd was not used - wasn't Ian Richie in PRL's pocket over this whole saga? Why would he punish Tigers?

When will they be filled? What slot in the schedule magically opens up to allow two months of games to be played? You can get 4 LV weekends back, but only at the cost of losing the revenue from them. The AP plays through the AIs (and 6N), so you get nothing back for not having AIs that year. Even if you could do that without losing any games, there's a fairly serious cashflow issue and it's a fair bet that both gates and tv revenue could be affected by the congestion.

So please do explain how you would get 8 weeks of fixture space back without compromising revenue?

Pourpour - the games are not cancelled, they are just delayed. Toulouse won the Top 14 in 2008. Their season started at the end of October that season and finished in the middle of June (so no tours that summer).

As for cashflow - do you not pay for your season tickets at the end of the previous season. Tigers posted on their website that they had sold 12K season tickets by March this year. Thats half their stadium sold out for the season 6 months before a ball is kicked.

With cheap air travel nowadays, any of the 6Ns countries would be a success to host the world cup. Its as easy nowadays to get to Dublin from London as it is to get from London to Manchester.

I also think that SA can produce a fairly profitable world cup - as profitable as either England or France. I actually think Ireland will produce a very profitable world cup as well.

The IRB looks for bids to host the world cup. The IRB did not loose money on having it in New Zealand - thought it cost the NZ taxpayer a bit as their goverment had to invest in stadia etc. The Italians lost to England by 2 votes I believe.

TJ wrote:As predicted.  give them an bit and they always want more.

What 'more' do they want? They want to be compensated for loss of income. They do not want extra money just not to lose money.

It really does beggar belief that the IRB and RFU agreed to close down twelve businesses for a substantial period but did not see fit to consult them first. The sooner rugby is taken out of the hands of the blazers at the unions and put in the hands of the professional clubs the better.

Poorfour wrote:

Sin é wrote:
They are not losing 2 months tickets. The fixtures will be filled.

As for why Welford Rd was not used - wasn't Ian Richie in PRL's pocket over this whole saga? Why would he punish Tigers?

When will they be filled? What slot in the schedule magically opens up to allow two months of games to be played? You can get 4 LV weekends back, but only at the cost of losing the revenue from them. The AP plays through the AIs (and 6N), so you get nothing back for not having AIs that year. Even if you could do that without losing any games, there's a fairly serious cashflow issue and it's a fair bet that both gates and tv revenue could be affected by the congestion.

So please do explain how you would get 8 weeks of fixture space back without compromising revenue?

The French managed to do it in 2007 and they have more games to play with 14 teams.

Since the LV Cup is a development Cup, perhaps you could play that during the weekends or do something like what the Irish Provinces do with the B&I Cup - have it on Heineken Cup weekends when the first team is away from home.

Well no matter what the out come i do hope they get Mallinder's opinion on it.

This is the best bit...from the top dog of humour over in PRLand.

"Certain terms have been offered that don't seem very attractive to me," Wray said. "The RFU are in a pretty embarrassing position because nobody in any other business would sign a binding contract without having spoken to the other people."

Oh the irony of it all. Bet he was smirking up his jumper as he muttered that morsel of wisdom.

It'll get sorted. The only thing they are arguing about is the amount of compensation.

Not much to see here.

And the RFUs contract with the IRB was presumably concluded before newboy Ian Ritchie took over? Which makes me fairly confident he will get this sorted with no problem.

This is a molehill next to the mountain that was the Heineken cup.

funnyExiledScot wrote:"It's like going back to the bad old days of serfdom".

Seriously??!

Is there anything more cringeworthy than hearing rich, white men who own rugby clubs complaining about 'serfdom'?

SecretFly wrote:This is the best bit...from the top dog of humour over in PRLand.

"Certain terms have been offered that don't seem very attractive to me," Wray said. "The RFU are in a pretty embarrassing position because nobody in any other business would sign a binding contract without having spoken to the other people."

Oh the irony of it all. Bet he was smirking up his jumper as he muttered that morsel of wisdom.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. What bizarre double standards.

Sin é wrote:Pourpour - the games are not cancelled, they are just delayed. Toulouse won the Top 14 in 2008. Their season started at the end of October that season and finished in the middle of June (so no tours that summer).

As for cashflow - do you not pay for your season tickets at the end of the previous season. Tigers posted on their website that they had sold 12K season tickets by March this year. Thats half their stadium sold out for the season 6 months before a ball is kicked.

With cheap air travel nowadays, any of the 6Ns countries would be a success to host the world cup. Its as easy nowadays to get to Dublin from London as it is to get from London to Manchester.

I also think that SA can produce a fairly profitable world cup - as profitable as either England or France. I actually think Ireland will produce a very profitable world cup as well.

The IRB looks for bids to host the world cup. The IRB did not loose money on having it in New Zealand - thought it cost the NZ taxpayer a bit as their goverment had to invest in stadia etc. The Italians lost to England by 2 votes I believe.

1. Nice theory, but the RFU has committed (back in 2010) to a tour of Australia in 2016. Next idea?

2. Season tickets are about 1/3 of total ticket revenue (~50% of total seats, but at a steep discount). The lost revenue from the other half of the seats for 1/3 of the season would be 50% of the total season ticket revenue. And then there's matchday revenue (programmes, beer, food, merch) - which is probably worth about the same again. That's a big hole to fill when you don't get to stop paying salaries.

3. Cheap air travel might get you the handful of die hard fans who will travel for the whole tourament and a decent number of people who will go for one game. But most people can't afford to take 8 weeks off or repeatedly fly back and forth. To fill stadia, you need two things: lots of local people who will go to those stadia and, erm, stadia. Italy might be able to do that, but it's a big gamble for both them and the IRB that they could fill out the stadia. Wales or Scotlan could only do it with help from England, and I doubt Ireland could do it at all. South Africa might, but I am not sure they could stand the ticket prices that the IRB tournament fees demand.

4. Sorry, you're right on NZ being profitable, but having looked it up, the profits (which are the IRB's primary source of revenue) were essentially static compared to France 2007 - but after a period in which the IRB has scaled up its activities and price inflation has been substantial. England promised a 50% boost in IRB revenues, apparently 20% more than any other bid - including South Africa.

What does it matter? IF clubs want to play without out there test players there loss.
Surely in a RWC country before club rule applies.

Notch wrote:

SecretFly wrote:This is the best bit...from the top dog of humour over in PRLand.

"Certain terms have been offered that don't seem very attractive to me," Wray said. "The RFU are in a pretty embarrassing position because nobody in any other business would sign a binding contract without having spoken to the other people."

Oh the irony of it all. Bet he was smirking up his jumper as he muttered that morsel of wisdom.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. What bizarre double standards.

I think you'll find that the PRL had spoken extensively to their ERC peers before they signed the binding contract. The issue was that no-one was listening. They had also served notice on the ERC, so were under no obligation to anyone (aside from the technical point about whether the tv rights had reverted to the RFU, which was debatable and ultimately proved to be a non-issue). And the ERC also sold tv rights they arguably no longer owned.

There's a big difference between making an agreement that effectively says "we won't enter a future tournament without certain conditions" and entering into an agreement that says "we're going to cut off 1/3 of the revenue of a current tournament of one of our key partners".

Poorfour wrote:

1. Nice theory, but the RFU has committed (back in 2010) to a tour of Australia in 2016. Next idea?

Send the kids. Leave at home anyone who is involved in the playoffs.

2. Season tickets are about 1/3 of total ticket revenue (~50% of total seats, but at a steep discount). The lost revenue from the other half of the seats for 1/3 of the season would be 50% of the total season ticket revenue. And then there's matchday revenue (programmes, beer, food, merch) - which is probably worth about the same again. That's a big hole to fill when you don't get to stop paying salaries.

The money is not 'lost' - just arriving 6 weeks later. You probably could start playing your games in the middle of October once the groups are over.

3. Cheap air travel might get you the handful of die hard fans who will travel for the whole tourament and a decent number of people who will go for one game. But most people can't afford to take 8 weeks off or repeatedly fly back and forth. To fill stadia, you need two things: lots of local people who will go to those stadia and, erm, stadia. Italy might be able to do that, but it's a big gamble for both them and the IRB that they could fill out the stadia. Wales or Scotlan could only do it with help from England, and I doubt Ireland could do it at all. South Africa might, but I am not sure they could stand the ticket prices that the IRB tournament fees demand.

I would think that a large number of people will be flying in and out for games. That was the challenge with New Zealand - you couldn't do that. I seriously doubt that there will be many people staying in England for 8 weeks of the world cup.

You should read up about Ireland hosting the Special Olympics and how that went. (The 2003 Special Olympics World Summer Games were held in Dublin, Ireland, the first Summer Games ever held outside of the United States. The world's largest sporting event in 2003 featured 7,000 athletes from more than 150 countries participating in 21 sports). The Rugby World Cup would be a piece of cake after that.

4. Sorry, you're right on NZ being profitable, but having looked it up, the profits (which are the IRB's primary source of revenue) were essentially static compared to France 2007 - but after a period in which the IRB has scaled up its activities and price inflation has been substantial. England promised a 50% boost in IRB revenues, apparently 20% more than any other bid - including South Africa.

It will all depend on the bids. Perhaps if the RFU were not so anxious to host the world cup, there might be a bit more money left over to bribe the PRL clubs to actually support the event. Hard for the IRB to tell the ERFU that they might be over stretching themselves.

Poorfour wrote:

Notch wrote:

SecretFly wrote:This is the best bit...from the top dog of humour over in PRLand.

"Certain terms have been offered that don't seem very attractive to me," Wray said. "The RFU are in a pretty embarrassing position because nobody in any other business would sign a binding contract without having spoken to the other people."

Oh the irony of it all. Bet he was smirking up his jumper as he muttered that morsel of wisdom.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. What bizarre double standards.

I think you'll find that the PRL had spoken extensively to their ERC peers before they signed the binding contract. The issue was that no-one was listening. They had also served notice on the ERC, so were under no obligation to anyone (aside from the technical point about whether the tv rights had reverted to the RFU, which was debatable and ultimately proved to be a non-issue). And the ERC also sold tv rights they arguably no longer owned.

There's a big difference between making an agreement that effectively says "we won't enter a future tournament without certain conditions" and entering into an agreement that says "we're going to cut off 1/3 of the revenue of a current tournament of one of our key partners".

em, McCafferty was Chairman of the ERC Commerical Committee with lots of other people from clubs on that committee. Mick Dawson, CEO of Leinster said he was in cloud cockoo land (and is now being proven correct). The PRL were BT's stooge to get at Sky. Thats all.

I'd say that England and France (or any country with private clubs) will never be allowed host a world cup again. All they are is trouble.

Without those non union clubs we would only have NZ/SA/AUS/ENG/FRA/ITA/WAL/IRE players playing professionally & wouldn't that be great for the expansion of the game we love.
Edit forgot Japan as pro as well

broadlandboy wrote:Without those non union clubs we would only have NZ/SA/AUS/ENG/FRA/ITA/WAL/IRE players playing professionally & wouldn't that be great for the expansion of the game we love.

England, France and Wales would be the only nations excluded. The Japanese are probably fine as their league isn't important enough. Countries that would be able to host the world cup (you only need one nation every 4 years) are Argentina, Australia, Canada, Ireland, Italy, South Africa, USA, New Zealand, Scotland.

What is interesting is that people were claiming that the PRL would target the international game once they got what they wanted in europe, I just never thought they would have the gaul to hold the RFU to ransom so soon, and over something as big as the RWC.

It seems the PRL have found a trick that will work, 'Give us what we want or we'll sue you/disrupt your tournament etc'

It would be amazing now if they enter into a new contract with BT for the sole viewing rights of the RWC, and rename it the Super Duper Rugby Championship.

Does anyone know what the problem is with clubs playing during world cup?

If, as so many on here say, international rugby is superior and far more important then presumably the fans will watch the RWC anyway. So what is the issue?

Poorfour wrote:

Notch wrote:

SecretFly wrote:This is the best bit...from the top dog of humour over in PRLand.

"Certain terms have been offered that don't seem very attractive to me," Wray said. "The RFU are in a pretty embarrassing position because nobody in any other business would sign a binding contract without having spoken to the other people."

Oh the irony of it all. Bet he was smirking up his jumper as he muttered that morsel of wisdom.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. What bizarre double standards.

I think you'll find that the PRL had spoken extensively to their ERC peers before they signed the binding contract. The issue was that no-one was listening. They had also served notice on the ERC, so were under no obligation to anyone (aside from the technical point about whether the tv rights had reverted to the RFU, which was debatable and ultimately proved to be a non-issue). And the ERC also sold tv rights they arguably no longer owned.There's a big difference between making an agreement that effectively says "we won't enter a future tournament without certain conditions" and entering into an agreement that says "we're going to cut off 1/3 of the revenue of a current tournament of one of our key partners".

I think you'll find that's all a nicebunch of PRL propaganda.  Nope, the truth is old Wray was stifling a muffled can of laughter as best he could when he was delivering that line that I quoted.  He's smart enough to know he hit irony gold.

Exiledinborders wrote:Does anyone know what the problem is with clubs playing during world cup?

If, as so many on here say, international rugby is superior and far more important then presumably the fans will watch the RWC anyway. So what is the issue?

I have to agree, If I was the IRB I would just tell the clubs to play if they want to and keep the money. Club attendances would be a little lower but it would be no different from the 6 nations.

The issue I suspect is that if there was no rugby at all, the IRB would be more likely to get improved attendances at the 'smaller' games. Although frankly seeing as the top price for Samoa vs Italy is £150 for example, I doubt too many season ticket fans will be that tempted!

Neutralee wrote:It seems the PRL have found a trick that will work, 'Give us what we want or we'll sue you/disrupt your tournament etc'

It would be amazing now if they enter into a new contract with BT for the sole viewing rights of the RWC, and rename it the Super Duper Rugby Championship.

AND... I wouldn't be amazed that RFU would support that attempted coup.  The RFU will never learn that they are being eaten from the inside out.  They will do when the cinematic moment finally arrives and the PRL pop out of their stomach.

I for one don't want the clubs to stop playing just because the RWC is taking place, Club rugby is the bread and butter of our game and the fans will still turn up to watch it, just because a few big names and journeymen won't be playing so what!

Ideal time to try some of the youngsters out.

Just get on with it and run it side by side unless of course the IRB are afraid that fans won't part with their hard earned money to watch over-priced lower grade rugby?

As for eRFU!
Get a grip Fella.

Hmmm ...over-priced lower grade rugby = WC I assume.

So.........under-priced high grade rugby = AP?

Oh the bollickses! They promised us all they wanted to cut out all the under-pricing of quality when they were looking for the new European World Order of BT! They fooled us all.