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.

How's the PhilBB V The Rest of the World going?

SecretFly wrote:How's the PhilBB V The Rest of the World going?

Hes still right, we're still wrong and a bunch of losers, idiots and whatever other names 12 year olds use

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:Haha phill falling back on put downs. I've noticed you seem to always go for the 14 year old angle. Now that's worrying

Only if you're of a certain psyche could that be at all worrying.

It's good to see that you've failed to support your assertion so have, by default, admitted to being a liar.

Nice work, Babs.

No self awareness then?

Enough to note that nobody has pointed to an assertion they can't see supported, so far.

Keep going, lads.

Your assertions? I could point to at least one

marty2086 wrote:
Ospreys haven't been successful for a while according to you yet they are getting financially healthier, Sarries are getting more successful yet have a bigger debt than Munster so your examples and statements fail to hold up to reality

Well that's a perfect example of why you don't understand the set up differences at each of the three you've mentioned.

Whilst Munster bleed dry the rest of the Irish game, Saracens are a plaything of the LLP that underwrite it and loan it money. They are, in effect, loaning themselves money. Hence their debt is only their own, so it's not a problem.

The Os get weaker on the pitch with no likelihood of getting relatively strong enough any time soon whilst playing in the PrO'12 as, in its present guise, it doesn't generate enough support interest or TV revenue interest.

Meanwhile, at Saracens, they have a lovely healthy TV deal and a deal with the Union on the table that nigh on doubles that part of their income.

Munster, on the other hand, have a huge debt, no chance of European knock out rugby, little control over their own squad (in order to tempt punters back or to increase performances), a poor TV deal and, therefore, little chance of paying in back.

So one is stable but on a relative downward slope, one is rolling in income and topping that up from its own pockets whilst the third is skint, sinking in debt and has no chance of paying it off.

Which do you think has the rosiest future?

Munchkin wrote:

Your assertions? I could point to at least one

Please do.

PhilBB wrote:

Which do you think has the rosiest future?

The side that virtually own European Rugby - with their pals BT?
The side that print money when needed and desired?
The side that do shady underhand deals, cheat on their own League colleagues, all but control the puppet PRL, get artificially propped up by wealthy friends?

We know who has the rosiest future.  We ain't dumb.

It's like asking a struggling factory floor worker do they realise the guy down the road from them, in the big flash car and mansion; do they know that he's well connected, has powerful contacts, is up to his neck in corruption and can't be touched because he has his paid-for alibis and his paid-for top legal advisors.  It's like sneering at the factory guy and saying "Ain't you got ambition like that?"

SecretFly wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Which do you think has the rosiest future?

The side that virtually own European Rugby - with their pals BT?
The side that print money when needed and desired?
The side that do shady underhand deals, cheat on their own League colleagues, all but control the puppet PRL, get artificially propped up by wealthy friends?

We know who has the rosiest future.  We ain't dumb.

It's like asking a struggling factory floor worker do they realise the guy down the road from them, in the big flash car and mansion; do they know that he's well connected, has powerful contacts, is up to his neck in corruption and can't be touched because he has his paid-for alibis and his paid-for top legal advisors.  It's like sneering at the factory guy and saying "Ain't you got ambition like that?"

What an odd comparison.

It's more like those who lived off inherited wealth seeing their ability to point at the peasants now disappear as the workers have overtaken them.

'Odd' because you have no answer for it.

Anything you can't dispense as nonsense you do the 'puzzled' act on.

So tell me - Saracens - your kind of multi-directional funded secret society *cough* club (so as the legal eagles can't keep an eye on everything at the same time)?

That's your kinda team?  Of course it is...you also curiously pretend to believe all the schmaltz that comes from Toulon.  The guy in the questionably purchased big house is your kinda guy

Phill I love the only move you have is to be condescending and try and act smarter than every one.

Over several threads I have asked you, politely without calling names to back up many many claims you have made.
Not once have you.
Everyone else on this forum has seen this.
Everyone else has called you on it.

On one post I even listed 7 or 8 things you had said and asked you to back any off them up. You just ignored it. As you do every time you have no answer.

Then you come out with the name calling and claims everyone else must be stupid not to agree with you.

I don't expect any different this time.

But why not try to just engage in debate with people rather than the name calling.
Your entitled to your opinion and so is everyone else.

Many on these boards don't see things the way I do but we still have cival debate.

Come on give it a go for once.
I honestly wish you well.

SecretFly wrote:'Odd' because you have no answer for it.

Anything you can't dispense as nonsense you do the 'puzzled' act on.

So tell me - Saracens - your kind of multi-directional funded secret society *cough* club (so as the legal eagles can't keep an eye on everything at the same time)?

That's your kinda team?  Of course it is...you also curiously pretend to believe all the schmaltz that comes from Toulon.  The guy in the questionably purchased big house is your kinda guy

I already did answer it, so its even odder to claim that I have no answer for it.

I like the club that carries its own risk. That's much better for competition that asking Daddy to pick a favourite sibling.

carpet baboon wrote:
On one post I even listed 7 or 8 things you had said and asked you to back any off them up. You just ignored it. As you do every time you have no answer.

Genuinely, I missed this. Where is it? Show me it and I'll back them up.

PhilBB wrote:Well that's a perfect example of why you don't understand the set up differences at each of the three you've mentioned.

Or maybe I chose them for a reason?

PhilBB wrote:Whilst Munster bleed dry the rest of the Irish game, Saracens are a plaything of the LLP that underwrite it and loan it money. They are, in effect, loaning themselves money. Hence their debt is only their own, so it's not a problem.

The Os get weaker on the pitch with no likelihood of getting relatively strong enough any time soon whilst playing in the PrO'12 as, in its present guise, it doesn't generate enough support interest or TV revenue interest.

Meanwhile, at Saracens, they have a lovely healthy TV deal and a deal with the Union on the table that nigh on doubles that part of their income.

Munster, on the other hand, have a huge debt, no chance of European knock out rugby, little control over their own squad (in order to tempt punters back or to increase performances), a poor TV deal and, therefore, little chance of paying in back.

So one is stable but on a relative downward slope, one is rolling in income and topping that up from its own pockets whilst the third is skint, sinking in debt and has no chance of paying it off.

Which do you think has the rosiest future?

Nice juggling of the 'facts' to try and suit your original premise ' if teams aren't successful (to a measure) it means that they aren't long for this world'

Ospreys have been able to turn around their finances despite you saying the revenue being lacking along with making last seasons play offs and narrowly missing out on the ERCC QFs despite getting more points than Clermont and the same as AP title challengers Exeter. Not too shabby, though you probably are clinging to their Pro 12 position aren't you?

Munsters current position is down to poor management within Munster, as for the little control over their own squad that's just a bad excuse and part of your continued whinge against the IRFU. They have the same control they had when they were winning HCs. Given that we don't know how Erasmus will affect Munster, what they will do regarding NIQ spots and what group they have next season in Europe, then saying they have little chance of knockout rugby is premature and ill thought out as the Challenge Cup may well be very winnable for them.

Sarries, despite success and increased revenues grew their debt rather than decreased it. Lets hope Nigel Wray doesn't go the way of Markus Liebharr

marty2086 wrote:
Nice juggling of the 'facts' to try and suit your original premise ' if teams aren't successful (to a measure) it means that they aren't long for this world'

Ospreys have been able to turn around their finances despite you saying the revenue being lacking along with making last seasons play offs and narrowly missing out on the ERCC QFs despite getting more points than Clermont and the same as AP title challengers Exeter. Not too shabby, though you probably are clinging to their Pro 12 position aren't you?

Munsters current position is down to poor management within Munster, as for the little control over their own squad that's just a bad excuse and part of your continued whinge against the IRFU. They have the same control they had when they were winning HCs. Given that we don't know how Erasmus will affect Munster, what they will do regarding NIQ spots and what group they have next season in Europe, then saying they have little chance of knockout rugby is premature and ill thought out as the Challenge Cup may well be very winnable for them.

Sarries, despite success and increased revenues grew their debt rather than decreased it. Lets hope Nigel Wray doesn't go the way of Markus Liebharr

They don't have the same control over their squad as when they were being bought HCs because they now don't have the power to spend to the market levels AND the Golden Generation is over. Also, they can no longer cherry pick so easily from Connacht. There's three major changes.

The Os have the potential for a strong basic XV when all are fit. When injuries or international call ups affect their squad, they are nowhere near good enough. That's why they will struggle to qualify for the top competition each year. That's why the spiral downwards starts.

For Welsh teams to pick up, we need to be playing in a competition that generates sufficient TV money and supporter interest. The PrO'12 in its present guise can do neither. That's the point.

Wray isn't even the major backer, so that distasteful analogy also fails.

PhilBB wrote:

SecretFly wrote:'Odd' because you have no answer for it.

Anything you can't dispense as nonsense you do the 'puzzled' act on.

So tell me - Saracens - your kind of multi-directional funded secret society *cough* club (so as the legal eagles can't keep an eye on everything at the same time)?

That's your kinda team?  Of course it is...you also curiously pretend to believe all the schmaltz that comes from Toulon.  The guy in the questionably purchased big house is your kinda guy

I already did answer it, so its even odder to claim that I have no answer for it.

I like the club that carries its own risk. That's much better for competition that asking Daddy to pick a favourite sibling.

Who is flipping wildly now trying to get semantics to help them out of a fix??   Answer the question put to you.

Just say "Yes - I prefer chancy, opportunistic, questionably funded Privately run rugby clubs".

All good shady dealers like 'risk'.  It's what propels them on - the adrenaline rush is that they actually might get caught.  Of course the 'shut up' wallet comes out then too.  So on the fun goes for a little while longer.  Any info on stock market activity in the year or so leading up to BT getting such special love from PRL?

As for the 'Daddy' allusion.............. odd.

SecretFly wrote:

Who is flipping wildly now trying to get semantics to help them out of a fix??    Answer the question put to you.

Just say "Yes - I prefer chancy, opportunistic, questionably funded Privately run rugby clubs".  

All good shady dealers like 'risk'.  It's what propels them on - the adrenaline rush is that they actually might get caught.  Of course the 'shut up' wallet comes out then too.  So on the fun goes for a little while longer.  Any info on stock market activity in the year or so leading up to BT getting such special love from PRL?

As for the 'Daddy' allusion.............. odd.

Yes, I unquestionably prefer privately funded rugby clubs.

The rest of your post is an exercise in writing lots of words but saying nothing. Not sure why the Daddy 'allusion' confuses you, either.

And so you look longingly, lovingly and jealously at the Aviva. Please sir can we eat off your plate!?

No 7&1/2 wrote:And so you look longingly, lovingly and jealously at the Aviva. Please sir can we eat off your plate!?

Yep.

Otherwise its crumbs of a Celtic plate that isn't set up to maintain professional domestic rugby.

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Your assertions? I could point to at least one

Please do.

So, you have asserted that the PRO12 get £10m in broadcasting fess. You have asserted that the Regions pay half of these fees (£5m). You have asserted that this £5m is made up of £3.2m + £1.8m. You haven't yet provided your source for the £1.8m. Neither have you explained why the broadcasting fees of the other nations are not taken into account.

PhilBB wrote:[

Yes, I unquestionably prefer privately funded rugby clubs.

The rest of your post is an exercise in writing lots of words but saying nothing. Not sure why the Daddy 'allusion' confuses you, either.

Half an answer is better than none, I guess. I'll wait patiently for the other half to come sometime in the future.

'Daddy' allusion: - confusion reason = odd.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:And so you look longingly, lovingly and jealously at the Aviva. Please sir can we eat off your plate!?

Yep.

Otherwise its crumbs of a Celtic plate that isn't set up to maintain professional domestic rugby.

Shame it'll never happen from your point of view then.

Munchkin wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Your assertions? I could point to at least one

Please do.

So, you have asserted that the PRO12 get £10m in broadcasting fess. You have asserted that the Regions pay half of these fees (£5m). You have asserted that this £5m is made up of £3.2m + £1.8m. You haven't yet provided your source for the £1.8m. Neither have you explained why the broadcasting fees of the other nations are not taken into account.

No, I have not asserted 'that the Regions pay half of these fees' at all.

I noted that PRW were worth half of the TV money based on the £3.2m from BBC Wales and 'at least a third of the Sky money of £5.5m' to equate to the £1.8m.

Thanks.

Next?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:And so you look longingly, lovingly and jealously at the Aviva. Please sir can we eat off your plate!?

Yep.

Otherwise its crumbs of a Celtic plate that isn't set up to maintain professional domestic rugby.

Shame it'll never happen from your point of view then.

We'll see.

SecretFly wrote:

PhilBB wrote:[

Yes, I unquestionably prefer privately funded rugby clubs.

The rest of your post is an exercise in writing lots of words but saying nothing. Not sure why the Daddy 'allusion' confuses you, either.

Half an answer is better than none, I guess.  I'll wait patiently for the other half to come sometime in the future.

'Daddy' allusion: - confusion reason = odd.

What other half? You asked a question, I answered it.

It's not odd to see the IRFU as Daddy.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:And so you look longingly, lovingly and jealously at the Aviva. Please sir can we eat off your plate!?

Yep.

Otherwise its crumbs of a Celtic plate that isn't set up to maintain professional domestic rugby.

Shame it'll never happen from your point of view then.

We'll see.

Lol, yeah thet're STILL in discussions!

PhilBB wrote:They don't have the same control over their squad as when they were being bought HCs because they now don't have the power to spend to the market levels AND the Golden Generation is over. Also, they can no longer cherry pick so easily from Connacht. There's three major changes.

Being bought HCs? The bitterness ever get to you?

As for cherry picking from Connacht, who did you have in mind? They had what 1 former Connacht player in their last HC winning team? They have about the same now.

They did have the same control over their squad, the system has just changed since then.

The loss of the Golden Generation is probably the biggest factor in Munster down turn

PhilBB wrote:The Os have the potential for a strong basic XV when all are fit. When injuries or international call ups affect their squad, they are nowhere near good enough. That's why they will struggle to qualify for the top competition each year. That's why the spiral downwards starts.

Or maybe the increased competiveness along with the loss of key players early on set them back and this year is a blip for them

PhilBB wrote:For Welsh teams to pick up, we need to be playing in a competition that generates sufficient TV money and supporter interest. The PrO'12 in its present guise can do neither. That's the point.

Ospreys home attendances for the ERCC and Pro 12 are pretty similar and peak with Welsh derbies and for Clermont which was a huge game, they will probably spike for the final weekend against Ulster too. So it seems it isn't a Pro 12 problem more a logistics problem for away fans travelling though Im sure you'll argue otherwise

PhilBB wrote:Wray isn't even the major backer, so that distasteful analogy also fails.

Maybe a crude way of making a point but still relevant as a plaything they are at the whim of someones ego and health, they lose their sugar daddy they are in a hole.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Lol, yeah thet're STILL in discussions!

Your reaction to the possibility is charming, fair play. The fear makes me giggle each time you post a reply.

Thanks for that.

marty2086 wrote:
Being bought HCs? The bitterness ever get to you?

As for cherry picking from Connacht, who did you have in mind? They had what 1 former Connacht player in their last HC winning team? They have about the same now.

They did have the same control over their squad, the system has just changed since then.

The loss of the Golden Generation is probably the biggest factor in Munster down turn

No, I don't feel bitter. I just chuckle at the deluded who can't see it for what it is.

I couldn't give you a list of their squad players who have moved from Connacht, sorry, off the top of my head but the upsurge in financing for Connacht is nicely timed with the downfall of Munster.

They don't have the same control over the squad for the three reasons I gave.

marty2086 wrote:
Or maybe the increased competiveness along with the loss of key players early on set them back and this year is a blip for them

The move from the days of Marshall, Holah, Tiatia and co to Leonard, Bernardo and Matevesi are no blip.

marty2086 wrote:
Ospreys home attendances for the ERCC and Pro 12 are pretty similar and peak with Welsh derbies and for Clermont which was a huge game, they will probably spike for the final weekend against Ulster too. So it seems it isn't a Pro 12 problem more a logistics problem for away fans travelling though Im sure you'll argue otherwise

There's no interest in going to the rugby any longer as the bread and butter of that habit, the PrO'12, is not an enticing prospect. The habit has gone.

marty2086 wrote:
Maybe a crude way of making a point but still relevant as a plaything they are at the whim of someones ego and health, they lose their sugar daddy they are in a hole.

It was disgusting and disgraceful more than crude. It was ignorant, too, as Wray isn't the main backer. Saracens don't have a sugar daddy singular.

PhilBB wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

PhilBB wrote:[

Yes, I unquestionably prefer privately funded rugby clubs.

The rest of your post is an exercise in writing lots of words but saying nothing. Not sure why the Daddy 'allusion' confuses you, either.

Half an answer is better than none, I guess.  I'll wait patiently for the other half to come sometime in the future.

'Daddy' allusion: - confusion reason = odd.

What other half? You asked a question, I answered it.

It's not odd to see the IRFU as Daddy.

Half an answer means another half is required. Take your time though, I'm going to have something to eat.

SecretFly wrote:

Half an answer means another half is required.  Take your time though, I'm going to have something to eat.

The question was answered. Spell it out again if you think that there is part of the answer missing.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
Maybe a crude way of making a point but still relevant as a plaything they are at the whim of someones ego and health, they lose their sugar daddy they are in a hole.

It was disgusting and disgraceful more than crude. It was ignorant, too, as Wray isn't the main backer. Saracens don't have a sugar daddy singular.

They have a team of them - correct. All contributing in their own unique way to keep the puppet PRL confused

PhilBB wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Half an answer means another half is required.  Take your time though, I'm going to have something to eat.

The question was answered. Spell it out again if you think that there is part of the answer missing.

Nope. You go back over it and do what you constantly invite others to do.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Lol, yeah thet're STILL in discussions!

Your reaction to the possibility is charming, fair play. The fear makes me giggle each time you post a reply.

Thanks for that.

You think I should be afraid?

The conclusion is that if 7&1/2 was genuinely afraid..... then that's a self induced foot-shot from the people in Wales wanting to link up with AP.
As 7&1/2 always asks: "what's in it for us?"
PhilBB has now finally said what's in it for AP fans - pain and humiliation

Nice sales technique

Does seem a strange argument!

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Your assertions? I could point to at least one

Please do.

So, you have asserted that the PRO12 get £10m in broadcasting fess. You have asserted that the Regions pay half of these fees (£5m). You have asserted that this £5m is made up of £3.2m + £1.8m. You haven't yet provided your source for the £1.8m. Neither have you explained why the broadcasting fees of the other nations are not taken into account.

No, I have not asserted 'that the Regions pay half of these fees' at all.

I noted that PRW were worth half of the TV money based on the £3.2m from BBC Wales and 'at least a third of the Sky money of £5.5m' to equate to the £1.8m.

Thanks.

Next?

Here is your original assertion:

"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?"

SKY wasn't mentioned, or that you were referring to the Regions slice of the SKY deal - one third, which is misleading without the mention of the SKY slice. Fair point if the Regions BBC deal was divided equally. It wasn't in the past, and it isn't now, according to at least one source. I just don't know exactly how much of the BBC deal goes to the Regions.

So unless you can provide the details of how your BBC deal is divided, your assertion that the Regions pay half, isn't supported. You would need to show that your BBC deal is divided equally. The fact is that Sky pay more than half (£5.5m) leaving £4.5m (according to the £10m pot you claim) paid by a combination of the other broadcasters. That's if your claim of £10m is in fact correct.

Next section of debate shall be on the meaning of two words:

"worth" and "supply".
Coming to a cinema near you Shortly............... *keeping an eye on my ticking clock*

Well phill may want to wait and see what the new deal between the PRL and the RFU has in it. I think it may make him cry just a little

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
Maybe a crude way of making a point but still relevant as a plaything they are at the whim of someones ego and health, they lose their sugar daddy they are in a hole.

It was disgusting and disgraceful more than crude. It was ignorant, too, as Wray isn't the main backer. Saracens don't have a sugar daddy singular.

Hold on a minute, why don't you park your righteous indignation. The fact is we all die, if thats something you are uncomfortable with then boohoo for you

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
Or maybe the increased competiveness along with the loss of key players early on set them back and this year is a blip for them

The move from the days of Marshall, Holah, Tiatia and co to Leonard, Bernardo and Matevesi are no blip.

And yet those players delivered one of their best European seasons?

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
Being bought HCs? The bitterness ever get to you?

As for cherry picking from Connacht, who did you have in mind? They had what 1 former Connacht player in their last HC winning team? They have about the same now.

They did have the same control over their squad, the system has just changed since then.

The loss of the Golden Generation is probably the biggest factor in Munster down turn

No, I don't feel bitter. I just chuckle at the deluded who can't see it for what it is.

I couldn't give you a list of their squad players who have moved from Connacht, sorry, off the top of my head but the upsurge in financing for Connacht is nicely timed with the downfall of Munster.

They don't have the same control over the squad for the three reasons I gave.

This is laughable, they poached players from Connacht yet you cant even cite one. Be honest you googled it and couldn't find any so now you are digging in.

They actually had two from Connacht in their 08 HC Final squad, Buckley and Flannery. A squad made up of something like 16 academy graduates is bought?

Not to mention Munster got an increase in funding from IRFU at the same time as Connacht, it was sharing the wealth from the 6Ns wins. Connacht dont exactly have a golden generation yet Munster not having one has hurt them? It seems you apply your logic in some places but not in others, trying to shoe horn your opinions in to the facts to back you up.