Peter Jackson, hitting the nail on the head.

First topic message reminder :

Why should Zebre qualify for the CC ? It is a joke, and it is a scourge on the league that a team that can ship 160 points in 4 away games can get to play in the top level European competition. 


[size=30]Peter Jackson column: Stripe me! How can this Zebre side be Champions?[/size]

Zebre have lost their last four away matches by scores that could double up as opening stands at the T20 World Cup – 52-0, 32-0, 47-0 and 29-0. It adds up to a cumulative score of 0-160.
Despite those results, Zebre are on course to take their place in what Europe’s clubs call the Champions’ Cup, a grandiose description for a tournament supposedly reserved for the crème de la crème.
Edinburgh stand to suffer more than their Welsh rivals, ironically so given that they duly followed Leinster, Ulster and Munster in taking maximum-point advantage of the depleted Italians at Murrayfield on Friday night.  Scotland’s capital team may have lost a few games too many but they stand alone as the only club to have done the double over the champions, Glasgow.
Ospreys, twice crowned Pro 12 champions with not one but two Grand Final victories over Leinster in Dublin to their credit, supplied the Lions with five players for their last tour and may well supply five more for the next one, to New Zealand next year.  Despite their proven quality and ever-presence on the starting grid for Europe’s premier competition over the last 13 seasons, the Swansea-based side will be disqualified from the Champions’ Cup even if they recover sufficiently to finish seventh.
Some will say serve them right for a season of under-achievement, that nobody gets a free ride into Europe because it’s a competitive world – except that argument doesn’t apply when it comes to rewarding one Italian team for avoiding bottom place.
The same fate awaiting Edinburgh or the Ospreys could also very easily apply to a third club, Cardiff Blues. They are in the same boat and therefore in much the same danger of running aground despite having scored the most tries and most points going into the weekend round of matches.
Although seven places are available to Pro 12 teams in the Champions’ Cup, seventh gets whoever finishes there nowhere.  Rules are rules and the multi-national dimension of the Pro 12 requires that all four countries must be represented, including Italy, irrespective of where their two teams finish.
Treviso qualified from second last place because they lost only 18 of their 22 matches against Zebre’s 19.  Both are still in the bottom two except that Zebre have reversed the roles on the strength of a Christmas double over their compatriots.
Connacht were sacrificed last season although their seventh place did earn them entry to an abortive play-off series involving Gloucester and Bordeaux.      The intrusion of the World Cup leaves no room this season for any play-offs. Whoever finishes seventh – Ospreys, Edinburgh or the Cardiff Blues – will go straight into the secondary European Challenge Cup along with all those stranded in the nether regions of the Premiership, Top 14 and Pro 12.
Altruism is a noble quality. Guaranteeing Italy a place at the top table of the club game gives some reason for using the word European in the context of the Champions’ Cup.
It seemed a good idea at the time, one agreed on the basis that the Italian teams would become more competitive. Instead they have become less competitive, jammed in the same reverse gear as the national team.
If the tournament organisers, European Professional Club Rugby, are not already under pressure to review the Italian arrangement, it can be but a matter of time before they are.
The rules, as agreed by the Pro 12 as well as everyone else, dictate that the first four Pro 12 places go to the highest ranked team from Ireland, Italy, Scotland and Wales. If, for argument’s sake, the top eight finish in the same positions as they were on Friday morning, Connacht (1st), Zebre (11th), Glasgow (6th) and Scarlets (3rd) would fill those four positions.
That leaves three more to be filled by the remainder of the top six – Leinster (2nd), Munster (4th) and Ulster (5th). Ireland, therefore, face the happy prospect of all four provinces making the Champions’ Cup for the first time. Wales face the grim one of their representation being halved to one.
For the chosen few, Europe’s supreme club event brings prestige and commercial clout.  In a true meritocracy nobody qualifies for losing four matches out of every five even if that means narrowing the horizon of the tournament and renaming it the FIB (French, Irish, British) Cup.

Munchkin wrote:

Teams come and go, as with promotion and relegation, but it's more important that teams remain and grow, within PRO12. The Welsh infighting has been a factor that threatened stability, but honestly don't think it's a real threat looking forward. A lot of bluster, and the aim of a few like Phil. They want an unstable PRO12. They want it to fail, and try to create a sense of failing with all their conspiracy theories, and prophesies of doom and gloom. The truth is that PRO12 is a growing success, and one that is presently exploring ways to improve the product, expand the appeal, and increase the revenue. I don't know if there's any truth in SKY wanting sole broadcasting rights but, if true, they would have to pay a significant amount more than the present PRO12 deals provide. Might effect our Friday games though

The PrO'12 has already failed. It's why the MD wants changes. If it was a growing success then the radical changes on the table wouldn't be required.

Sky want a team in Bristol and a team in Reading in the PrO'12. Good luck getting that, I say.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Why would the PRL want that? No money there. Weakens the Pro 12 as well, thus weakening Europe (which could be seen as good thing increasing the chances of English progression) but also a lesser comp. And losing 4 English clubs from the prem. I can see why some Wlesh would like that, why would the English?

Because PRL have a long working relationship with the Welsh teams, because the Welsh teams have the same ownership model and because there is no Union ownership.

There's lots of money in the potential of combining what is already one trading market. The four Welsh teams are in easy travel distance for a number of PRL teams.

Nobody has mentioned losing English teams from the Prem. There you go again fabricating stuff.
It won't weaken Europe. Another fabrication.

And who cares about the PrO'12? it's broken. Even the new MD can see that.

Who cares about the Welsh? I understand the Welsh are jealous of the money but theres no reason to share. You couldn't just add 4 teams, too many games.

If Sky were to take on the full rights I don't think it would affect Ulster that much beyond the current levels, in the past they have mostly kept Ulster on Friday nights except for playing French teams in Europe and the odd game in the league which they already take the rights to.

I hope theres at least scraps for free to air to pick up, a highlights program and a better build up to games

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

How is it irrelevant that that are 12 teams getting £x each? Are you saying x stays the same if the Welsh join? Is there extra income coming from somewhere?

The possible changes in France is relevant because if they are playing less games that means a greater opportunity to prepare for the ERCC games, coupled with a possible new player welfare system for a core group of French players like the IRFU have, a greater focus on how many games they play. You think this won't affect the competiveness?

Nothing has been fabricated as these are plausible scenarios, if they are then that would mean you argument over the IRFU suing the Regions was fabricated too

Nobody would agree to any changes if the £x remained the same or become less. That's bloody obvious and has been mentioned before.

The discussions in France won't negatively affect the likelihood of a change in the league that PRW play in.

You yourself agreed to the point on breach of contract, so that final sentence is really odd. Childlike and odd.

You didn't tell us where the extra income is coming from to stop the amount the existing teams in the AP would need to welcome the Regions

The mention of France was regarding the AP and extra fixtures so why are you talking about PRW?

And I was trying to show you how a hypothetical works, your mention of the IRFU suing PRW was hypothetical as were the arguments I made. Is that too complex for you?

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Are you saying that Wales also provide the £2.8m, on top of the £3.2m, to make your half?

Are you denying that under the previous deal, 70% of your broadcasting fees weren't paid back to the Regions?

Why on earth do you think none would block? You live in your own little world of made-up facts. RFU may well have ceded control to PRL, but bringing in clubs, from across the border would need the agreement of both the RFU and the WRU.

Love when you get all angry when your facts are shown to be nothing more than weak opinions

£2.8m + £3.2m = £6m. Half of £10m is £5m. So why are you asking about £2.8m?

The key words in your second sentence are "previous deal". Do you have any evidence for the existing deal? If so, I'd love to read it.

Sure a new competition / augmented competition would require both Unions agreement, under the present set up of laws, but I'd just pointed out to you that neither has a reason to not agree.

When you consider the response, that final sentence of yours doesn't half make you look stupid.

You're right. £1.8 million, if it's true that £10m is the total sum.

I would love to read yours. You are the one claiming the Regions make up half the broadcasting fees, not me. I deal in facts, not fantasy, as you do. So all I have to go on are claims of 70% being paid back to the Regions in a previous deal. This is something that you are aware of, but neglect to say as it would mean arguing against yourself.

So Phil, show me the money. Where is your proof?

"Neither has a reason not to agree".... that's your facts? Do you ever read your own comments? So just after spouting about RFU ceding power to PRL, as a response to me telling you a fact, the fact being any inclusion would need the agreement of both the RFU and WRU, you come up with this gem...

In your own words Phil; What the hell are you talking about?

My final sentence was completely correct. Your own final sentence shows a great lack in understanding irony on your part, but very entertaining all the same

P.s answer my question; Are you claiming that the Regions are paid an extra £1.8m (revised) on top of the £3.2m? Is this your claim, or were you presenting weak opinions as fact, yet again?

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Who cares about the Welsh? I understand the Welsh are jealous of the money but theres no reason to share. You couldn't just add 4 teams, too many games.

You could if you lost the LV cup.

marty2086 wrote:
You didn't tell us where the extra income is coming from to stop the amount the existing teams in the AP would need to welcome the Regions

The mention of France was regarding the AP and extra fixtures so why are you talking about PRW?

And I was trying to show you how a hypothetical works, your mention of the IRFU suing PRW was hypothetical as were the arguments I made. Is that too complex for you?

The broadcasters.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Who cares about the Welsh? I understand the Welsh are jealous of the money but theres no reason to share. You couldn't just add 4 teams, too many games.

You could if you lost the LV cup.

So play the youngsters vs the Welsh. No there's not enough room at a time where the amount of games needs a serious look.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
You didn't tell us where the extra income is coming from to stop the amount the existing teams in the AP would need to welcome the Regions

The mention of France was regarding the AP and extra fixtures so why are you talking about PRW?

And I was trying to show you how a hypothetical works, your mention of the IRFU suing PRW was hypothetical as were the arguments I made. Is that too complex for you?

The broadcasters.

So they are going to stump up more money just because?

Munchkin wrote:

You're right. £1.8 million, if it's true that £10m is the total sum.

I would love to read yours. You are the one claiming the Regions make up half the broadcasting fees, not me. I deal in facts, not fantasy, as you do. So all I have to go on are claims of 70% being paid back to the Regions in a previous deal. This is something that you are aware of, but neglect to say as it would mean arguing against yourself.

So Phil, show me the money. Where is your proof?

"Neither has a reason not to agree".... that's your facts? Do you ever read your own comments? So just after spouting about RFU ceding power to PRL, as a response to me telling you a fact, the fact being any inclusion would need the agreement of both the RFU and WRU, you come up with this gem...

In your own words Phil; What the hell are you talking about?

My final sentence was completely correct. Your own final sentence shows a great lack in understanding irony on your part, but very entertaining all the same

P.s answer my question; Are you claiming that the Regions are paid an extra £1.8m (revised) on top of the £3.2m? Is this your claim, or were you presenting weak opinions as fact, yet again?

PRW bring £3.2m to the table from BBC Wales. They only need to bring 1/3 of the Sky payment to the table to make up half of the TV income for the PrO'12. It's that simple. Sion Barry thinking they get 70% back is no proof for me, sorry.

I'm sorry that the basic English in the post confused you, of course. Your point was that both the WRU and RFU would have to allow such a move and I pointed out that neither has a reason to block it.

It seems that comprehending basic English is where you struggle.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
So play the youngsters vs the Welsh. No there's not enough room at a time where the amount of games needs a serious look.

The English play through the international window. The easiest thing, of course, is to reduce the window.

marty2086 wrote:
So they are going to stump up more money just because?

Well, if they don't then nothing will happen.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
So play the youngsters vs the Welsh. No there's not enough room at a time where the amount of games needs a serious look.

The English play through the international window. The easiest thing, of course, is to reduce the window.

Reduce the international window? No, not a serious option.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Reduce the international window? No, not a serious option.

Oh, I don't know. 2020 is coming.

2020?

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
So they are going to stump up more money just because?

Well, if they don't then nothing will happen.

And why would they want something to happen?

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
So they are going to stump up more money just because?

Well, if they don't then nothing will happen.

And why would they want something to happen?

Because they think it will make them more money.

As ever, this is solely reliant on broadcasters. What they want, they get. You should have learned that after the pasting the IRFU took over ERC.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
So they are going to stump up more money just because?

Well, if they don't then nothing will happen.

And why would they want something to happen?

Because they think it will make them more money.

As ever, this is solely reliant on broadcasters. What they want, they get. You should have learned that after the pasting the IRFU took over ERC.

And where is the money in it?

No 7&1/2 wrote:2020?

Are you really that badly informed that you have to ask?

marty2086 wrote:

And where is the money in it?

That's for the broadcaster to decide, obviously. If you're asking me to tap into BT Sport's business plan then you're asking the wrong man, sorry.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:2020?

Are you really that badly informed that you have to ask?

I must be.

North Korea.............. via Saracens and wot was that other one or two AP clubs that managed to cover up the illegal payments...that wot didn't get covered up too well because we all know about it???

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

And where is the money in it?

That's for the broadcaster to decide, obviously. If you're asking me to tap into BT Sport's business plan then you're asking the wrong man, sorry.

Funny you seem to know everything else

Phill you do amuse me

The Ostrich is still strong amongst the Irish rugby follower despite their lesson over ERC.

Now that's the funny bit.

2020?

No 7&1/2 wrote:2020?

Mate, Google it. It's been in the rugby news recently. Bring something knowledgeable to this discussion, please.

Can't see anything. Would be quicker for you to just say to be honest, you've replied twice now which is probably taking up more time for you than just say what you mean.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Can't see anything. Would be quicker for you to just say to be honest, you've replied twice now which is probably taking up more time for you than just say what you mean.

True, but in the meantime I'm learning a lot about your exposure to the topics that you comment on.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Can't see anything. Would be quicker for you to just say to be honest, you've replied twice now which is probably taking up more time for you than just say what you mean.

What else would you expect from out rotund, Norfolk based colleague.

Ha, help me out LT i'm obviously missing something obvious!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ha, help me out LT i'm obviously missing something obvious!

I had to read back to work out the context.

Maybe he is referring to Steve Tew's comments that the current schedule does not work for them so they will do their own thing if a global season is not agreed by 2020.

That wouldn't be about reducing the international window though surely; if anything extending it for extra money to NZ if they don't generally get paid more. Can't see them throwing a hissy fit anyway as they still need the quality opposition unless they want to be the new Harlem Globetrotters.

No 7&1/2 wrote:That wouldn't be about reducing the international window though surely; if anything extending it for extra money to NZ if they don't generally get paid more. Can't see them throwing a hissy fit anyway as they still need the quality opposition unless they want to be the new Harlem Globetrotters.

I doubt that would work, that'd require them operating outside World Rugby and other teams would be punished for it

They already arrange some games outside the window as top ups for money.

Overall Phil, you win, I have no idea what point you were trying to make you're going to have to elaborate.

I know but that's done with World Rugbys agreement and authorisation, going it alone wouldn't be

Just look at the attempt to set up a league in America a few years ago before the PRO League

NZRU have in recent years utilised PRL negotiating tactics (or maybe PRL copied them?). Certainly their refusal to participate in RWC15 unless the start was put back to suit them had the desired effect.

LondonTiger wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Can't see anything. Would be quicker for you to just say to be honest, you've replied twice now which is probably taking up more time for you than just say what you mean.

What else would you expect from out rotund, Norfolk based colleague.

That Norfolk chap was a different Gwlader from me, dumbo.

Going to have to assume you have no real point on 2020 then.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Going to have to assume you have no real point on 2020 then.

It seems Phils MO these days is to come on, tell everyone they are wrong, call them names and then disappear when he's proven to be wrong.

A child with ego and anger issues

See what you have to remember about phill is he is like a man playing darts in a pitch black room shouting bullseye every time he throws a dart, but refuses to turn the light on so anyone can check. He will never give a proper answer as he has none, so he sticks with his comedy I know more than you routine.

He lives in hope that one day he will actually hit the board so he can dance around shouting I told you so.

carpet baboon wrote:See what you have to remember about phill is he is like a man playing darts in a pitch black room shouting bullseye every time he throws a dart, but refuses to turn the light on so anyone can check. He will never give a proper answer as he has none, so he sticks with his comedy I know more than you routine.

He lives in hope that one day he will actually hit the board so he can dance around shouting I told you so.

I love the analogy

carpet baboon wrote:See what you have to remember about phill is he is like a man playing darts in a pitch black room shouting bullseye every time he throws a dart, but refuses to turn the light on so anyone can check. He will never give a proper answer as he has none, so he sticks with his comedy I know more than you routine.

He lives in hope that one day he will actually hit the board so he can dance around shouting I told you so.

Having read through this drivel I propose we use the new term 'Philbomb' for when someone writes multiple different and equally stupid replies in a row.

lostinwales wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:See what you have to remember about phill is he is like a man playing darts in a pitch black room shouting bullseye every time he throws a dart, but refuses to turn the light on so anyone can check. He will never give a proper answer as he has none, so he sticks with his comedy I know more than you routine.

He lives in hope that one day he will actually hit the board so he can dance around shouting I told you so.

Having read through this drivel I propose we use the new term  'Philbomb' for when someone writes multiple different and equally stupid replies in a row.

We could just reply with ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY every time he posts

carpet baboon wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:See what you have to remember about phill is he is like a man playing darts in a pitch black room shouting bullseye every time he throws a dart, but refuses to turn the light on so anyone can check. He will never give a proper answer as he has none, so he sticks with his comedy I know more than you routine.

He lives in hope that one day he will actually hit the board so he can dance around shouting I told you so.

Having read through this drivel I propose we use the new term  'Philbomb' for when someone writes multiple different and equally stupid replies in a row.

We could just reply with ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY every time he posts

PhilBB Taylor?

marty2086 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Going to have to assume you have no real point on 2020 then.

It seems Phils MO these days is to come on, tell everyone they are wrong, call them names and then disappear when he's proven to be wrong.

A child with ego and anger issues

Marty hitting the nail on the head

Hey Phill - isn't that special Welsh tv deal dead now? And if it isn't it is affecting what the PRO12 could get from Sky for exclusive UK coverage?

Interesting to see that the great and mighty ERCC have sold 36K tickets for both Champ Cup semis in England (3 England and 1 French) so it looks like the English clubs have a similar problem to the Welsh clubs with regard to fan attendance at games. Leinster v Munster in the PRO12 got more than that.

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

You're right. £1.8 million, if it's true that £10m is the total sum.

I would love to read yours. You are the one claiming the Regions make up half the broadcasting fees, not me. I deal in facts, not fantasy, as you do. So all I have to go on are claims of 70% being paid back to the Regions in a previous deal. This is something that you are aware of, but neglect to say as it would mean arguing against yourself.

So Phil, show me the money. Where is your proof?

"Neither has a reason not to agree".... that's your facts? Do you ever read your own comments? So just after spouting about RFU ceding power to PRL, as a response to me telling you a fact, the fact being any inclusion would need the agreement of both the RFU and WRU, you come up with this gem...

In your own words Phil; What the hell are you talking about?

My final sentence was completely correct. Your own final sentence shows a great lack in understanding irony on your part, but very entertaining all the same

P.s answer my question; Are you claiming that the Regions are paid an extra £1.8m (revised) on top of the £3.2m? Is this your claim, or were you presenting weak opinions as fact, yet again?

PRW bring £3.2m to the table from BBC Wales. They only need to bring 1/3 of the Sky payment to the table to make up half of the TV income for the PrO'12. It's that simple. Sion Barry thinking they get 70% back is no proof for me, sorry.

I'm sorry that the basic English in the post confused you, of course. Your point was that both the WRU and RFU would have to allow such a move and I pointed out that neither has a reason to block it.

It seems that comprehending basic English is where you struggle.

And the bit you completely fail to comprehend is that without the opposition the rest of the pro12 provide PRW would get none of that money! Its not a quuestion of "getting the money back" - its about sharing out of the money fairly - the money that is generated by all.

Myself I think there is a case for using the TV money to eventhings up - lower placed teams get more money - a bit like the americanfootball draft system. Just think how well the itallians might do if they had as much money as the middle of the pack teams like glasgow? 4 seasons ago Glasgow and Edinburgh had the smallest playing budgets in the pro 12 ( maybe more than Aironi) Now with playing budgets in the middle of the pack they are doing much better.

I missed his reply, TJ. Thanks for highlighting it

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

You're right. £1.8 million, if it's true that £10m is the total sum.

I would love to read yours. You are the one claiming the Regions make up half the broadcasting fees, not me. I deal in facts, not fantasy, as you do. So all I have to go on are claims of 70% being paid back to the Regions in a previous deal. This is something that you are aware of, but neglect to say as it would mean arguing against yourself.

So Phil, show me the money. Where is your proof?

"Neither has a reason not to agree".... that's your facts? Do you ever read your own comments? So just after spouting about RFU ceding power to PRL, as a response to me telling you a fact, the fact being any inclusion would need the agreement of both the RFU and WRU, you come up with this gem...

In your own words Phil; What the hell are you talking about?

My final sentence was completely correct. Your own final sentence shows a great lack in understanding irony on your part, but very entertaining all the same

P.s answer my question; Are you claiming that the Regions are paid an extra £1.8m (revised) on top of the £3.2m? Is this your claim, or were you presenting weak opinions as fact, yet again?

PRW bring £3.2m to the table from BBC Wales. They only need to bring 1/3 of the Sky payment to the table to make up half of the TV income for the PrO'12. It's that simple. Sion Barry thinking they get 70% back is no proof for me, sorry.

I'm sorry that the basic English in the post confused you, of course. Your point was that both the WRU and RFU would have to allow such a move and I pointed out that neither has a reason to block it.

It seems that comprehending basic English is where you struggle.

Basic English, I understand. Your English, not so much:

"Because the IRFU would just allow four teams to leave the PrO'12, whilst under contract and whilst supply at least half of the TV money, without recourse at all, would they?........."

So you were claiming; 'and whilst supply of half the TV money', not that the Regions contribute a third (around 50% of the SKY deal)..... The issue here is obvious, Phil, and it isn't my lack of comprehension.

So, you rubbish the 70% claim, because it isn't proof to you Funny that. Seems that you are very willing to accept the opinions of boys in a pub, as proof, or some Twitter waffle, when it fits your agenda.