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

First topic message reminder :

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

I may be misremembering, but I thought part of the issue was that the IRB prohibits club games in the host country during the tournament?

Sin é wrote:

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.)

You're thinking of the iRFU
(I'll get my coat).

This has started early, but it was always going to happen. The RWC is an IRB sanctioned event and Test players will have to be released if selected by their nations. The same number of matches will be played in the league for the season just not during the RWC weeks. If anything, a RWC with all it's advertising and media attention should boost gate and tv audiences for the rest of the Jeff season and be beneficial to the PRL. So it could be argued that the PRL clubs will make more money (just later in the season) as things stand even taken into account the time value of money. It is a good threat, but they lose out if they have to follow through and play games during the RWC, tickets to RWC games aren't cheap and a lot of fans won't be able to afford to go to RWC Test games and club matches during those weeks. Anybody on a season ticket has already paid for that ticket so the clubs have that cash before the season starts anyway.

I reckon the PRL end up with £1m a club out of this posturing. The only issue then will be do they stay content after this or do they raise a new 'issue' (seek more cash) closer to the start of the RWC. I reckon they are raising this a year out, so they have the opportunity to raise a new issue towards the end of the season to get another bite.

PRL is a private body looking out for their stakeholders. I personally don't like what they are doing but if I was a member I'd be annoyed if they weren't trying to maximise a return for me. They are a 'business' afterall.

True..it is business afterall; as Bernie Ecclestone knows only too well when a court allows him to pay a fee to escape a bribery court case!  Business.

It's all a bit awkward though, first the bullying in europe and within seconds they turn on the RFU.

Theres a bit of a running joke elsewhere about them signing all those lawyers on a long retainer...

This it should have been sorted out as part of the bid. All contracted up. Another example of the crap left over by the previous RFU boss who we're all grateful to be shot of.

And this is nothing new. It's been raised since the WC bid was accepted.

If the start of the league is delayed by 5 weeks then the end will have to be delayed by 5 weeks. Which would put a final date around the first week of July. Which would have the 3 test tour of Australia finishing around first week of August. With the main season supposedly starting a month later. It's abosultely pathetic that it wasn't sorted out back in 2009.

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.

That excuse is bollox as they are playing a load of games at footy grounds which have smaller pitches.

The in goal areas at grounds like Elland Road will be very small like RL ones!

I remember some loon from OZ in a stadium forum, insisting that Old Trafford (when it was still mooted to be hosting) should have it's pitchside rows removed to host a couple of RWC games

''ER 2015 said on Monday that its criteria was for a minimum pitch size of 95 metres by 68 metres. Welford Road’s pitch is 91m by 64.5m''

Elland Road is 105m x 65.

Welford Road is 4m too short and 3.5m too narrow.

That is a lot.

Never noticed it being that small before. I guess the distance between the 10 and 22M lines must be very small. Checked a photo and it is!

TBF, only Twickenham, the Millenium and possibly the Olympic Stadium can fit "full size" RU pitches in anyway.

Is the 68M width a Typo?? Nearly all the pitches in 2015 are narrow to fit that!

To be fair the IRB do not have a minimum pitch size

IRB regulation 1.2a reads that the pitch of play shall not “exceed 100 metres in length and 70 metres in width.” But there is no minimum requirement apart from a woolly caveat that the dimensions of the playing area should be as near as possible to those defined.

http://www.irb.com/mm/Document/LawsRegs/0/IRBLaws2009ENlores_7685.pdf

page 21

andyi wrote:Never noticed it being that small before. I guess the distance between the 10 and 22M lines must be very small. Checked a photo and it is!

TBF, only Twickenham, the Millenium and possibly the Olympic Stadium can fit "full size" RU pitches in anyway.

Is the 68M width a Typo??  Nearly all the pitches in 2015 are narrow to fit that!

I've have heard commentators (and players) commentating about how they have to really adjust their kicking from hand because of the narrow pitch. ROG knocked over a penalty from his own half in Welford Road to win a game, something he doesn't have the range for in any other pitch.

I don't know about the typo - I just cut and paste it from an article in the Telegraph.

I though this would be sorted, would it not make since that the league is pushed back and Englands summer tour is cancelled (shouldnt have been arranged in the first place)?

After all England will have played in a world cup and will have played plenty of games that season, resting the players makes sense and would avoid all these arguments.

Kingshu wrote:To be fair the IRB do not have a minimum pitch size

IRB regulation 1.2a reads that the pitch of play shall not “exceed 100 metres in length and 70 metres in width.” But there is no minimum requirement apart from a woolly caveat that the dimensions of the playing area should be as near as possible to those defined.

http://www.irb.com/mm/Document/LawsRegs/0/IRBLaws2009ENlores_7685.pdf

page 21

I think the organisers of the World Cup have different criteria. I'd imagine they would want all pitch sizes (as in pitch markings) to be the same for everyone competing in the world cup. Losing 3 metres in width makes it a bit easier to defend there. Here is the article from the Telegraph about why Welford Road was omitted.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/news/9597608/Rugby-World-Cup-organisers-urged-to-rethink-decision-to-leave-Welford-Road-off-2015-stadium-list.html

Most of the Football ones are 68M wide. Elland Road isn't (as mentioned above by sin é) but has the length, which Welford doesn't.

It does get brought up a bit about the size of Welford Road pitch, although usually it's the width rather than the length. Never realised how short it was.

Just found this, not verified but all the pitchs with widths have them at least 67m, with all but one 86m.

http://www.rugbynetwork.net/main/s103/st179380.htm?print=1

SK88 is a Tigers fan on another furom I think.

Kingshu wrote:I though this would be sorted, would it not make since that the league is pushed back and Englands summer tour is cancelled (shouldnt have been arranged in the first place)?

After all England will have played in a world cup and will have played plenty of games that season, resting the players makes sense and would avoid all these arguments.

There are no autumn internationals so not having a summer tour would probably bankrupt most Unions - certainly ARU will need the revenue.

Tigers have history on their side as the posts have been in the same position for over 100 years, how many clubs can say that.

This issue has been known for some time but it has also become slightly more complicated.

Qualification for the Olympic sevens will be decided by standings achieved in the 2014-15 IRB sevens series. Consequently, the IRB extended regulation 9 and now obliges all clubs to release players if they are selected for any of these tournaments.

Of course that affects all clubs worldwide, not just English sides. However, given that the Premiership teams felt excluded from the decisions being made on their behalf for the World Cup, you can be sure their mood was not improved when the IRB blithely ruled that they should now be prepared to lose some of their squad for up to nine weeks of the season.

Sin é wrote:

andyi wrote:Never noticed it being that small before. I guess the distance between the 10 and 22M lines must be very small. Checked a photo and it is!

TBF, only Twickenham, the Millenium and possibly the Olympic Stadium can fit "full size" RU pitches in anyway.

Is the 68M width a Typo??  Nearly all the pitches in 2015 are narrow to fit that!

I've have heard commentators (and players) commentating about how they have to really adjust their kicking from hand because of the narrow pitch. ROG knocked over a penalty from his own half in Welford Road to win a game, something he doesn't have the range for in any other pitch.

I don't know about the typo - I just cut and paste it from an article in the Telegraph.

I'm guessing the 68 is a typo, as 70 is the max, can't see it being 2m shorter than max

A compact pitch definitely compliments a more forwards orientated team set up. You see some coaches before games pacing out the length and width of the pitch before the warmup.

So at Welford road you could kick for goal from a penalty on the halfway line and it would be a 46m kick. While do I have the feeling the commentators always talk about it being a 50 metre kick? No wonder the likes of Pienaar is so confortable kicking from 'distance' when Ulster played there.

Rugby Fan wrote:This issue has been known for some time but it has also become slightly more complicated.

Qualification for the Olympic sevens will be decided by standings achieved in the 2014-15 IRB sevens series. Consequently, the IRB extended regulation 9 and now obliges all clubs to release players if they are selected for any of these tournaments.

Of course that affects all clubs worldwide, not just English sides. However, given that the Premiership teams felt excluded from the decisions being made on their behalf for the World Cup, you can be sure their mood was not improved when the IRB blithely ruled that they should now be prepared to lose some of their squad for up to nine weeks of the season.

Considering a couple of clubs like Goucester, Exeter & Sale (I think) grounds are being used and Leicester is in a hoff about Welford Road not being used, how do you think the league could have run with up to 4 clubs being used for the World Cup?

Another issue as well is that I believe some of the PRL club training facilities are being used by the 20 international teams participating in the world cup (which will be income for those clubs).

edit: its seems only London Irish are participating in this hosting Wales & Fiji.

oops ... Ireland are using Harlequin's training facilities.

Sin é wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:This issue has been known for some time but it has also become slightly more complicated.

Qualification for the Olympic sevens will be decided by standings achieved in the 2014-15 IRB sevens series. Consequently, the IRB extended regulation 9 and now obliges all clubs to release players if they are selected for any of these tournaments.

Of course that affects all clubs worldwide, not just English sides. However, given that the Premiership teams felt excluded from the decisions being made on their behalf for the World Cup, you can be sure their mood was not improved when the IRB blithely ruled that they should now be prepared to lose some of their squad for up to nine weeks of the season.

Considering a couple of clubs like Goucester, Exeter & Sale (I think) grounds are being used and Leicester is in a hoff about Welford Road not being used, how do you think the league could have run with up to 4 clubs being used for the World Cup?

I'm not sure that it should be run. I didn't really enjoy watching matches during the last World Cup because so many players were away, which led to anomalies like Leicester being way off the pace.

That doesn't stop me understanding why the clubs want a settlement. I don't have an idea of what a reasonable settlement is but I'm fairly certain the RFU wouldn't make their best offer first.

Some people seem confused about the deal that PRL struck with BT and how this differs from RFU not consulting PRL when making an agreement with IRB. That or it's being deliberately misrepresented to suit the poster's agenda, but surely not.

The PRL deal involved them, and only them. They would only sign up to a future European competition if they could give BT exclusive coverage of their home games essentially. This placed no restrictions on other bodies preventing them from doing whatever they wanted. Irony would only be present here if the PRL agreement had some kind of bizarre clause that prevented (for example) the SRU clubs from playing in any tournament whilst the PRL were playing. The difference should be obvious. Since it's only the Irish posters who seem to be getting this wrong I'll just go ahead and assume it's the usual Love sacks you get on here.

Sin é wrote:

Kingshu wrote:I though this would be sorted, would it not make since that the league is pushed back and Englands summer tour is cancelled (shouldnt have been arranged in the first place)?

After all England will have played in a world cup and will have played plenty of games that season, resting the players makes sense and would avoid all these arguments.

There are no autumn internationals so not having a summer tour would probably bankrupt most Unions - certainly ARU will need the revenue.

So the RFU are touring to put money into the hands to the ARU and in the process destroying the finances of their own clubs. Remind me who the RFU are there for. I thought it was for their members - the clubs.

Fuzzy, there is an IRB stiputation that all tv deals have to be approved by the country's Union. The PRL did not even tell the eRFU, let alone get approval to sign that contract.

As far as I can recall as well, when it comes to cross border competition take example, England playing New Zealand, England gets to call the shots when on home ground, but (out of courtesy) they are meant to consult with New Zealand before they flog off anything.

Exiledinborders wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Kingshu wrote:I though this would be sorted, would it not make since that the league is pushed back and Englands summer tour is cancelled (shouldnt have been arranged in the first place)?

After all England will have played in a world cup and will have played plenty of games that season, resting the players makes sense and would avoid all these arguments.

There are no autumn internationals so not having a summer tour would probably bankrupt most Unions - certainly ARU will need the revenue.

So the RFU are touring to put money into the hands to the ARU and in the process destroying the finances of their own clubs. Remind me who the RFU are there for. I thought it was for their members - the clubs.

The way it works is that England goes to play in Australia so that the ARU can earn some money. Then the ARU come to England so that RFU can earn some money. Simple.

The PRL will still play the number of matches they did last season so will not be destroying the finances of their own clubs - just the season will be starting 6 weeks later in a world cup year. However, the PRL continue money grabbing from the RFU, is probably preventing the recent Women's Rugby World Cup team from going fully professional. Imagine what even half of what the PRL are looking for was at their disposal?

i honestly couldnt care less about central contracts in women's rugby. complete distraction, fostered by the usual (and GB are the worst culprit here) obsession with olympic medals.

My only comment on this is that some clubs aren't owned by sugar daddies and this does affect them.

 Also lots of clubs are expanding there grounds soonish (Bath, Saints, Leicester I think some others) this will affect that, the fact of the matter is the RFU should have had a nailed down contract before hand. There a reason more Premiership teams are starting to make a profit and that is because business men are finally starting to run some clubs with a view of being self sustaining. Which imo is crucial to the leagues health.

 Also as said Women rugby needs better grassroots rugby not going fully pro.

Exiledinborders wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Kingshu wrote:I though this would be sorted, would it not make since that the league is pushed back and Englands summer tour is cancelled (shouldnt have been arranged in the first place)?

After all England will have played in a world cup and will have played plenty of games that season, resting the players makes sense and would avoid all these arguments.

There are no autumn internationals so not having a summer tour would probably bankrupt most Unions - certainly ARU will need the revenue.

So the RFU are touring to put money into the hands to the ARU and in the process destroying the finances of their own clubs. Remind me who the RFU are there for. I thought it was for their members - the clubs.

Quid Pro Quo arrangement, quite clearly. A big chunk of their income relies on the big SH nations playing them in the Autumn. Why jeopardise it?

I think they should just let them play through without funding them. How many regular Premiership grounds are actually being used in the World Cup? It's not at all feasible to pause the entire rugby season as its too overcrowded. Paying them to stop playing seems like a terrible outcome for everyone. Whats the point?

Sin é wrote:
The PRL will still play the number of matches they did last season so will not be destroying the finances of their own clubs - just the season will be starting 6 weeks later in a world cup year. However, the PRL continue money grabbing from the RFU, is probably preventing the recent Women's Rugby World Cup team from going fully professional. Imagine what even half of what the PRL are looking for was at their disposal?

You keep insisting that the season won't be truncated, but there's no guarantee of that. Given the Australia tour, I can only see three options to keep the season the same length:
1) Run the domestic season from November to July and tour in August. Which would make a mess of the Super 15 season, breach player welfare rules and make a mess of the subsequent AP season (truncated pre-season). Not gonna happen
2) Overlap the AP season partly with the RWC, so the season can end in June and send a tour squad composed of players not in the playoffs. This would need the blessing of the IRB (not a given) and isn't going to be too popular with the ARU, who'll have a harder job selling tickets
3) Play to July and agree a squad of plauers who can tour in June or July without compromising the AP too much. Which would mess things up in terms of player welfare, the AP, the ARU and probably also the JRWC.

On your other point, if you genuinely believe that, I presume you wouldn't mind if your employer arbitrarily and without consultation cut your salary and working week by 40% in order to take on an unemployed person? It's the same thing, after all. Anyway, the RFU has announced central contracts for the top 20 women's players, primarily to support the Olympic 7s ambitions. It's not ideal, but it's a start.

There is another way of looking at this: someone is going to make a ton of money from the RWC. The IRB definitely will, and it seems reasonable to assume that the RFU aren't doing it on a not-for-profit basis. (It's a lot of work to do just for the prestige). But in order for it to happen, it currently looks as if losses will be imposed on 3rd party businesses who were not party to the agreement. So the club owners are in effect being asked to subsidise the IRB's profits.

But taking a wild guess I imagine you're going to be as ok with that idea as you were with the idea of the PRL club owners subsidising the Rabo teams under the ERC.

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:Some people seem confused about the deal that PRL struck with BT and how this differs from RFU not consulting PRL when making an agreement with IRB. That or it's being deliberately misrepresented to suit the poster's agenda, but surely not.

The PRL deal involved them, and only them. They would only sign up to a future European competition if they could give BT exclusive coverage of their home games essentially. This placed no restrictions on other bodies preventing them from doing whatever they wanted. Irony would only be present here if the PRL agreement had some kind of bizarre clause that prevented (for example) the SRU clubs from playing in any tournament whilst the PRL were playing. The difference should be obvious. Since it's only the Irish posters who seem to be getting this wrong I'll just go ahead and assume it's the usual Love sacks you get on here.

Wow. Thats patronising.

The games they sold the rights to involved everyone, not just the English clubs. It affects coverage of the whole tournament and coverage of away games of teams from all the different camps. The other teams were not consulted about this despite it having a clear impact on all the other teams. It's not exactly the same thing as this, of course, but yeah it was a major business decision taken without consulting other parties who are affected by it.

[quote="Poorfour"]

Sin é wrote:
The PRL will still play the number of matches they did last season so will not be destroying the finances of their own clubs - just the season will be starting 6 weeks later in a world cup year. However, the PRL continue money grabbing from the RFU, is probably preventing the recent Women's Rugby World Cup team from going fully professional. Imagine what even half of what the PRL are looking for was at their disposal?

You keep insisting that the season won't be truncated, but there's no guarantee of that. Given the Australia tour, I can only see three options to keep the season the same length:
1) Run the domestic season from November to July and tour in August. Which would make a mess of the Super 15 season, breach player welfare rules and make a mess of the subsequent AP season (truncated pre-season). Not gonna happen.

How did the Top 14 manage in 2007 - they have 14 teams to accommodate, not 12? There will be approx. 30 players in the World Cup squad. The other 500 or so other players that play in the Premiership will have a later start to their season, so their welfare should be fine. Lancaster picks from 12 clubs, not just the finalists or semi finalists in the Aviva.

2) Overlap the AP season partly with the RWC, so the season can end in June and send a tour squad composed of players not in the playoffs. This would need the blessing of the IRB (not a given) and isn't going to be too popular with the ARU, who'll have a harder job selling tickets.

There are 31 weeks between the end of the world cup in Oct and the end of May. That would allow for 31 games to be played by the end of May - 22 weeks for Premiership, 6 for Rugby Chumps Cup and 3 for LV Cup - that should cover most clubs in the Aviva. I suggest that you play the LV cup (Development team) on the same weekends as the Rugby Champs Cup when your team 1st team is at their away game (like the Irish Provinces do in the B&I Cup using their A / Academy players).

3) Play to July and agree a squad of plauers who can tour in June or July without compromising the AP too much. Which would mess things up in terms of player welfare, the AP, the ARU and probably also the JRWC.

How it it going to be too much of a problem with player welfare. It only becomes a problem when teams get to the semis as they would have been touring anyway and would have played 3 or 4 games.

On your other point, if you genuinely believe that, I presume you wouldn't mind if your employer arbitrarily and without consultation cut your salary and working week by 40% in order to take on an unemployed person? It's the same thing, after all. Anyway, the RFU has announced central contracts for the top 20 women's players, primarily to support the Olympic 7s ambitions. It's not ideal, but it's a start.

Its not remotely the same thing. All my employer would be asking me to is take a rest before coming into work.
My point was about the women's team that won the world cup, not the 7s team. They deserve some reward for what they have achieved.


There is another way of looking at this: someone is going to make a ton of money from the RWC. The IRB definitely will, and it seems reasonable to assume that the RFU aren't doing it on a not-for-profit basis. (It's a lot of work to do just for the prestige). But in order for it to happen, it currently looks as if losses will be imposed on 3rd party businesses who were not party to the agreement. So the club owners are in effect being asked to subsidise the IRB's profits.

All profits go to the IRB which goes to developing and organising rugby worldwide. Where do you think RFU gets the money to pay the elite players, or run a ladies 7s team or build Twickenham or develop and train match day officials?

Funny that you mention money - but you do realise that the world cup is worth a couple of billion to businesses in England (and Wales)? Possibly even Aviva Premiership fans will make a fair few bob out of it. There is a reason why Goverments financially back these sporting events.

Then, there are the Premiership clubs who are leasing out their training facilities to world cup teams, I'm sure they are not doing it for free. Off the top of my head, Ireland are using Harlequins, Wales are using London Irish, Scotland are using Gloucsters and Samoa are using Exeters. Those clubs must have known that a world cup was going on and agreed to let the international teams use their facilities (so they are getting additional income out of the world cup).

But taking a wild guess I imagine you're going to be as ok with that idea as you were with the idea of the PRL club owners subsidising the Rabo teams under the ERC.

We have to take out 2 tv subscriptions in Ireland now if you want to even follow your own team, never mind watch any other team. How can the PRL clubs be subsidising us now? We're paying through the nose.

1) The Top 14 apparently doubled up on 6 Nations and HEC weekends. Not ideal, but also an option that's much easier to pursue when you have French squad sizes

2) Ha ha. Stop being disingenuous. 31 weeks (assuming no breaks) allows for regular season, but you need 7 extra weeks for playoffs. Even if you assume that there's no English involvement in the Champions Cup semis, you'd still need 5 weekends.

You keep glibly assuming that all the games can be played, when there are already regular issues fitting the fixture list into an non-RWC season. Until an alternative is proposed, the boundaries of the season are the RWC, ending in October and the June tours. The clubs are asking for compensation because they anticipate losing games. They didn't ask for compensation in 2007, because they could play through even without their internationals.

3) Nope. Doesn't work that way. The IRB does not fund the RFU. They are not mentioned as a source of revenue in the RFU's annual report. The IRB funds tier 2 nations (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Rugby_Board#Funding), but the tier 1 nations fend for themselves. I don't know the deal for RWC 2015 (doesn't seem to be easily available online) but the point I was making was that the IRB receives a guaranteed tournament fee and what looks like a profit share, but I can't see why the RFU (or any union) would agree to organise it on a not-for-profit basis.

The estimated attendance for RWC 2015 is around 2.9m, including 400k overseas visitors. If we assume 10% profit margin on what they spend, they'd have to be spending about £7,000 each to generate profit for the UK of a "couple of billion".

As for "leasing out training facilities" you might want to check how many teams actually own their own training facilities. From memory, only Tigers, Saints, Quins, Gloucester and Exeter even own their own grounds, and Quins train at Surrey Sports Park, which I am pretty sure they lease rather than own. Irish just announced their new lease on training facilities. Of the ones you listed, maybe Glaws and Exeter might make some cash but even so it's going to be peanuts compared to matchday revenue. A single 10k home game probably generates £300-500k in revenue all in.

4) Well, they're not any more. But I seem to recall that you were perfectly happy for 12 Pro12 teams to receive roughly half the revenue while in return for incurring less than 1/3 of the costs and generating even less than that in tv rights value. The tv subs issue is here in the UK too - we have to have Sky and BT to cover home and away games, and it's not ideal. But it takes two to tango - if the ERC hadn't sold rights it no longer owned, it might have been possible to thrash out a deal where only one sub was required. (Though I am far more bothered about the vast proportion of my subs that go to fund soccer with no option to turn it off if I want any rugby at all)

French top 14 didn't have a LV cup tornament aswell, going on.

Notch wrote:

Wow. Thats patronising.

The games they sold the rights to involved everyone, not just the English clubs. It affects coverage of the whole tournament and coverage of away games of teams from all the different camps. The other teams were not consulted about this despite it having a clear impact on all the other teams. It's not exactly the same thing as this, of course, but yeah it was a major business decision taken without consulting other parties who are affected by it.

It only affected the coverage of a hypothetical tournament, one which the other bodies had a completely free choice of whether or not they wanted to join. If the others didn't agree to this they were under no obligation whatsoever to get involved (as they very nearly did). If you can't appreciate the fundamental difference between this and two parties entering an agreement which wholly dictates to a third party what they can and can not do then we'll just have to agree to disagree and move on.

If the IRB wanted to consider going back on their rule that the only elite rugby in a host nation during a World Cup should be the tournament itself, they would need to renegotiate sponsorship contracts.

The condition is there to support attendance at the games but also to give sponsors a clear run at being associated with elite rugby. The IRB want to prevent any non-World Cup sponsors taking advantage of the tournament to promote their own brand alongside rugby. That's the same reason they want stadiums clear of advertising, which is the condition which scuppered New Zealand's involvement in 2003.

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:

Notch wrote:

Wow. Thats patronising.

The games they sold the rights to involved everyone, not just the English clubs. It affects coverage of the whole tournament and coverage of away games of teams from all the different camps. The other teams were not consulted about this despite it having a clear impact on all the other teams. It's not exactly the same thing as this, of course, but yeah it was a major business decision taken without consulting other parties who are affected by it.

It only affected the coverage of a hypothetical tournament, one which the other bodies had a completely free choice of whether or not they wanted to join. If the others didn't agree to this they were under no obligation whatsoever to get involved (as they very nearly did). If you can't appreciate the fundamental difference between this and two parties entering an agreement which wholly dictates to a third party what they can and can not do then we'll just have to agree to disagree and move on.

No, I understand completely the differences in the two situations. The quote was "nobody in any other business would sign a binding contract without having spoken to the other people" which is, you know, exactly what happened when the PRL sold broadcast rights for games which directly involve other people without consulting them. Thats why it's ironic. You see? No?

Well as I said then, agree to disagree and move on

Edit: Just to add (and I don't think this would go in circles like the previous discussion) the quote to me reads as him saying "nobody in any other business would sign a [contract that binds other people] without having spoken to [those] other people" - or something to that effect. Which the IRB - RFU contract did, and the BT-PRL did not.

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:Well as I said then, agree to disagree and move on

Edit: Just to add (and I don't think this would go in circles like the previous discussion) the quote to me reads as him saying "nobody in any other business would sign a [contract that binds other people] without having spoken to [those] other people" - or something to that effect. Which the IRB - RFU contract did, and the BT-PRL did not.

Really? The BT/PRL deal didn't effect others? Tell that to the ERC.

All deals effect others, the difference is that the BT/PRL deal didn't say that ERC had to stop from doing something. When ERC sold exclusive rights to SKY it made it impossible for PRL teams to participate.

Neutralee wrote:

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:Well as I said then, agree to disagree and move on

Edit: Just to add (and I don't think this would go in circles like the previous discussion) the quote to me reads as him saying "nobody in any other business would sign a [contract that binds other people] without having spoken to [those] other people" - or something to that effect. Which the IRB - RFU contract did, and the BT-PRL did not.

Really? The BT/PRL deal didn't effect others? Tell that to the ERC.

At the time it was signed, the deal committed the PRL to certain things, but only affected anyone else if they wanted the PRL clubs to be in a tournament with them. The ERC subsequently signed a deal with Sky that put them in direct conflict with the PRL - because in it the ERC promised to handover all the tv rights from all the home unions to Sky, including the English clubs' rights, which they knew at the time of signature had been promised to BT.

The whole episode was unpleasant and unedifying, but to lay all the blame at the feet of one side, as several Celtic posters are wont to do repeatedly and at every opportunity is either stupid, disingenuous or a deliberate WUM. The ERC's refusal to negotiate over the terms of the competition put the PRL in a position where it had to create a bargaining chip to force change. The strongest available chip was the tv rights. The PRL and LNR served notice to leave the ERC, and negotiated deals that gave them bargaining power in any subsequent tournament. Having created that situation (there was no public hint of any meaningful change in stance from the ERC prior to the BT deal), the ERC then signed the Sky deal, compounding the problem and ultimately leading to its own demise.

I won't get back into that argument, I don't have a horse in the race, but from what I've read there is a severe lack of open minds from either side.

my position is pretty strong, and no amount of apologists will convince otherwise, lets just move onto the new fight the PRL have started, against it's own governing body.

Its not a new fight, as been known about since RFU got the WC. It is just now that time is getting short to sort it out so that everyone knows what is going to happen in time

Neutralee wrote:I won't get back into that argument, I don't have a horse in the race, but from what I've read there is a severe lack of open minds from either side.

my position is pretty strong, and no amount of apologists will convince otherwise, lets just move onto the new fight the PRL have started, against it's own governing body.

broadlandboy wrote:Its not a new fight, as been known about since RFU got the WC. It is just now that time is getting short to sort it out so that everyone knows what is going to happen in time

OK sorry not new, renewed. Now the nasty business of owning the club game in europe is out of the way.

Even the biggest apologist has to smirk at some of the PRL's comments though, signing contracts without consultation?

HammerofThunor wrote:

Neutralee wrote:I won't get back into that argument, I don't have a horse in the race, but from what I've read there is a severe lack of open minds from either side.

my position is pretty strong, and no amount of apologists will convince otherwise, lets just move onto the new fight the PRL have started, against it's own governing body.

You do see why that makes you look a little silly don't you?

broadlandboy wrote:Its not a new fight, as been known about since RFU got the WC. It is just now that time is getting short to sort it out so that everyone knows what is going to happen in time

There is a bit of a pattern here with the PRL no one discusses anything with them (yet we have questions in parliament over Leicester not getting the opportunity to stage a World Cup game) and we now have the CEO of Leicester moaning that no one talks to them.

How did he think staging games in Welford Road was going to work out. How does he think it will work out for clubs like Gloucester, Exeter and Sale who facilities & pitch are being used by international teams for the world cup. Do the Ireland team train with Harlequins, the Welsh with London Irish - they are all going to be playing games at the weekends together.

Surely the time when no-one was talking to the PRL was when the RFU made the deal back in 2009 (or whenever it was). Their issue is that this deal, which directly heavily impacts on them, didn't include any discussion with them. I'm guessing Ireland didn't start discussing using Harlequins training ground until after the deal had been done. The original post specifically states that the PRL and RFU are in discussion, so I fail to see your point.

HammerofThunor wrote:Surely the time when no-one was talking to the PRL was when the RFU made the deal back in 2009 (or whenever it was).  Their issue is that this deal, which directly heavily impacts on them, didn't include any discussion with them. I'm guessing Ireland didn't start discussing using Harlequins training ground until after the deal had been done.  The original post specifically states that the PRL and RFU are in discussion, so I fail to see your point.

If the Premiership clubs failed to notice that the RFU were bidding to host the world cup, with the support of the British Government, they deserve to be ignored by everyone. The world cup is estimated to be worth 2.3 billion to the British economy. The South Africans were livid that they were not selected and they offered a similar deal.

Even if it was a previous management who didn't consult the PRL, bearing in mind how the RFU have broken their backs to look after the PRL, you would think they could put the interests of England and their worldwide reputation aside just once. I know if Ireland got an opportunity to host a world cup, we'd do everything in our power to make it a great event and there would be no whinging from anyone about how it might adversely inconvenience them for 6 weeks once in a lifetime.

Of course the PRL fail to acknowledge what this world cup can do for the promotion of the game in non-rugby areas in England. Might help bump up their next tv deal with BT if they gain fans from football.

As for where Ireland and Wales are training - there are 30 or so designated training venues by the organisers. I'd imagine that these venues would have tendered to hosts these 20 teams. Lancaster seems to be delighted that England managed to secure Pennyhill. The teams move around as well depending on where their games are. Ireland will also be using the facilities of Celtic Manor in Wales (and I think using the facilities of Wales' national training academy).

Of course they knew England were bidding for the World Cup, I'm sure they expected it would impact on them. But the point is there were no discussions on HOW it was going to impact on them and what was going to happen.

There were 100 applications to act as training grounds. 40 odd were accepted. No idea when these came in, you've imagined that it would have been part of the original tender. Maybe it was, maybe not. Still not really relevent to the fact the impact was not discussed.

As for Ireland all pulling together for a world cup, well yes. They probably would. Because the IRFU isn't a shower of Poopie like the RFU was. They've already been in discussions with the GAA and I doubt they'll not include the Celtic Rugby people in discussions over the impact on the league.

Sin é wrote:...I know if Ireland got an opportunity to host a world cup, we'd do everything in our power to make it a great event and there would be no whinging from anyone about how it might adversely inconvenience them for 6 weeks once in a lifetime...

Good for Ireland. However, when New Zealand had an opportunity to co-host the World Cup, they did kick up a fuss about the lost commercial opportunities. There were no privately-owned clubs disputing the terms offered, it was all the NZRU. As we know, their brinkmanship with the IRB saw the ARU ditch them in favour of a sole bid.

When New Zealand did succeed in being named as hosts for the 2011 Cup, just before the tournament kicked off, they decided to announce they were thinking of boycotting the 2015 Cup unless they got paid compensation for lost revenues.

It must be nice to think that unions would happily sacrifice everything for the honour of hosting and playing in the World Cup, and that only greedy clubs would ever consider playing hardball to win compensation for lost business. Sadly, the evidence does not support that fantasy.

NZ were not co-hosting the world cup in 2003, they had a similar arrangement with Australia that England have with Wales - an opportunity to host some games. The IRB's agreement was with the ARU and the sponsorship/purage could not vary between the 2 countries.

Looking for lost revenues is fair enough. The PRL competition will still have the same number of games, the same tv deal, the same sponsors and the sale of their season tickets to keep them going for the 6 weeks delay in the start of the Aviva. They will also have a 6 week non-stop free promotion campaign which is a great boost to the game (and their pockets) in England.