European rugby, the interest just isn't there

First topic message reminder :

I know I will get a bashing off some quarters on here, but sorry it has to be said, looking at the crowds for the two semi-finals on the weekend, it would seem the interest is not there. The aggregate figure for the two games was a paltry 38,968 people, there was more people than that for the Cardiff Blues V Leicester semi final a few years ago 44,212 turned up that day.

This proves that the greedy club owners have ruined a once prestigious competition, admired by thousands and getting better year on year. Where are all these new massive sponsorship deals ? Where is all this money we are supposed to be swimming in ? 

All I saw on the weekend was empty seats, the future of the European club competition for me looks bleak, dwindling crowds, the same teams ALL the time in the knockout stages, lack of interest, the French already consider their own league a priority, for me something drastic needs to be done as it would seem the writing is on the wall for one of our favourite club competitions, it's sad, as it's been well and truly ruined by the greedy club owners.

Take a read of some of these, you might find them interesting:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2016/04/25/empty-seats-as-saracens-and-racing-92-won-through-must-be-a-wake/
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/much-better-europe-champions-cup-11238143

marty2086 wrote:

Maybe just trying hard to suppress something there

...for Barnes??? Well.................... maybe. It's the gruff distinctive voice what does it.   Oh my!!!

Sin é wrote:they [BT] declined to tender for the PRO12 media rights

IRFU blocked the tender. They said all their shares were in SKY and Guinness.

IRFU money from Europe fell due to the performance related element of the pot that was up for grabs.

The fixed amount per pro12 team is I believe unchanged in the new cup

quinsforever wrote:IRFU money from Europe fell due to the performance related element of the pot that was up for grabs.

The fixed amount per pro12 team is I believe unchanged in the new cup

They changed the merit payments. Leinster (who got to a semi last season) got 150K less than what Munster got the season before for reaching a semi.

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:IRFU money from Europe fell due to the performance related element of the pot that was up for grabs.

The fixed amount per pro12 team is I believe unchanged in the new cup

They changed the merit payments. Leinster (who got to a semi last season) got 150K less than what Munster got the season before for reaching a semi.

That doesn't add up to 600k. 

The decrease is due two factors - performance and revised competition structures.

quinsforever wrote:but still less than pro12. but the gaps a lot narrower than it was

All three leagues are getting €20m each.

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:english clubs and french clubs are getting more money

I'd love to know what the breakdown between the games for the Aviva Premiership and HCup that BT splashed the cash on.

I'd say it was significant because they were very willing to spend considerable sums of money on the sponsorship in Scotland and Wales - i.e., 6 new sponsorships of PRO12 teams and that was just after they declined to tender for the PRO12 media rights

Can't you work it out from the reported increase in the new deal?

PhilBB wrote:

quinsforever wrote:but still less than pro12. but the gaps a lot narrower than it was

All three leagues are getting €20m each.

Are they? Have you seen the accounts for last year?

Sin é wrote:
Are they? Have you seen the accounts for last year?

No.

Have you seen a report that notes the minimum hasn't been received by the PrO'12?

PhilBB wrote:

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:english clubs and french clubs are getting more money

I'd love to know what the breakdown between the games for the Aviva Premiership and HCup that BT splashed the cash on.

I'd say it was significant because they were very willing to spend considerable sums of money on the sponsorship in Scotland and Wales - i.e., 6 new sponsorships of PRO12 teams and that was just after they declined to tender for the PRO12 media rights

Can't you work it out from the reported increase in the new deal?

We have never been given a breakdown for some strange reason.

Sin é wrote:
We have never been given a breakdown for some strange reason.

Are you an Irish rugby follower bemoaning a lack of transparency?

PhilBB wrote:

Sin é wrote:
Are they? Have you seen the accounts for last year?

No.

Have you seen a report that notes the minimum hasn't been received by the PrO'12?

But we were promised more than the minimum. PRO12 are first in line to get anything over the minimum amount.

If it helps, Competition Income was down £800,000 in the WRU accounts for the first year of EPRC.

Sin é wrote:
But we were promised more than the minimum. PRO12 are first in line to get anything over the minimum amount.

Yep. My comment was on the minimum.

What was the figure distributed by ERC in its final year?

PhilBB wrote:If it helps, Competition Income was down £800,000 in the WRU accounts for the first year of EPRC.

And no Roger Lewis to blame for it neither.

SecretFly wrote:

PhilBB wrote:If it helps, Competition Income was down £800,000 in the WRU accounts for the first year of EPRC.

And no Roger Lewis to blame for it neither.

Well, in fairness, he was part of the PrO'12 set up that was involved in these horrific TV deals.

PhilBB wrote:

Sin é wrote:
But we were promised more than the minimum. PRO12 are first in line to get anything over the minimum amount.

Yep. My comment was on the minimum.

What was the figure distributed by ERC in its final year?

The company is in liquidation. For its final year it looks like they distributed 50m, retaining 2m (possibly to wind up company).

PhilBB wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

PhilBB wrote:If it helps, Competition Income was down £800,000 in the WRU accounts for the first year of EPRC.

And no Roger Lewis to blame for it neither.

Well, in fairness, he was part of the PrO'12 set up that was involved in these horrific TV deals.

Don't think Lewis was on the Commerical Board. McCafferty was though.

Sin é wrote:
The company is in liquidation. For its final year it looks like they distributed 50m, retaining 2m (possibly to wind up company).

So if the new company have distributed €50,000,001 then it's already more successful than ERC?

We know that the four year TV deals were worth £173.8m, which is a 60% increase on what ERC managed.

£173.8m / 4 = £43.45m. That's in sterling. In today's rate that's about €55m, so the new company is already 10% ahead.

That's right, isn't it?

Sin é wrote:

Don't think Lewis was on the Commerical Board. McCafferty was though.

The Vet?

PhilBB wrote:

We know that the four year TV deals were worth £173.8m, which is a 60% increase on what ERC managed.

... and two years in still looking a decent Sponsor?

SecretFly wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

We know that the four year TV deals were worth £173.8m, which is a 60% increase on what ERC managed.

... and two years in still looking a decent Sponsor?

It was always the idea to have a panel of sponsors, not a headline sponsor.

So far its Turkish Airlines and Heineken.

But you agree that they are already ahead of ERC in terms of income generation, yes?

PhilBB wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

We know that the four year TV deals were worth £173.8m, which is a 60% increase on what ERC managed.

... and two years in still looking a decent Sponsor?

It was always the idea to have a panel of sponsors, not a headline sponsor.

It was always a bad idea, yes - from people who knew nothing of how to run a multi-National event.  Thus the crickets chirping in the long grass as the competition counts its profits in empty stadiums.

SecretFly wrote:

It was always a bad idea, yes - from people who knew nothing of how to run a multi-National event.  Thus the crickets chirping in the long grass as the competition counts its profits in empty stadiums.

Yeah, so bad that the Champions League do it.

Oh.

You're aware that the original Board of EPRC had Blazers from ERC on it, right?

If so, that's two dumb comments in one post.

PhilBB wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

It was always a bad idea, yes - from people who knew nothing of how to run a multi-National event.  Thus the crickets chirping in the long grass as the competition counts its profits in empty stadiums.

Yeah, so bad that the Champions League do it.

Oh.

You're aware that the original Board of EPRC had Blazers from ERC on it, right?

If so, that's two dumb comments in one post.

The Champions League is a football contest? No?

The ERC Blazers are being conducted by their New Master... the people who know nothing about how to run a multi-National event.... and count their profits in empty stadiums.

PhilBB wrote:

Sin é wrote:
The company is in liquidation. For its final year it looks like they distributed 50m, retaining 2m (possibly to wind up company).

So if the new company have distributed €50,000,001 then it's already more successful than ERC?

We know that the four year TV deals were worth £173.8m, which is a 60% increase on what ERC managed.

£173.8m / 4 = £43.45m. That's in sterling. In today's rate that's about €55m, so the new company is already 10% ahead.

That's right, isn't it?

Do we know what the new company has distributed? Do they publish accounts?

The 52m was for ERC's last year of trading (up to June 2014). We don't know what the new TV deal would have been.

The €5m will be swallowed up by 35% increase in costs of basing in Switzerland rather than Dublin. Then there is the tax implication - they will have pay tax in Switzerland as the new company is not a not-for-profit company.

It looks like lose-lose here - but those old codger blazers in the PRO12 knew what they were doing getting the 20m guarantee and if/when they ever earn more than 60m, the PRO12 has first call on it  

Except if the old ERC arrangement was used to divide the new TV revenues, pro12 would be getting 60% more money rather than the same.

So yes they got a minimum guarantee at the same level. But English and french clubs got roughly a doubling of their euro cup revenues. So now they nearly get as much as the pro12 clubs each...

Much fairer all round don't ya think?

quinsforever wrote:Except if the old ERC arrangement was used to divide the new TV revenues, pro12 would be getting 60% more money rather than the same.

So yes they got a minimum guarantee at the same level. But English and french clubs got roughly a doubling of their euro cup revenues. So now they nearly get as much as the pro12 clubs each...

Much fairer all round don't ya think?

How was the old system unfair? Each union was given the same amount and the RFU choose their way of distributing it.

It was what it was. But now it's fairer.

If it had been fair before then why did it get changed?

The reason it got changed is ultimately English and french clubs had had enough of subsidising pro12 Unions. And alls fair in love and war.

quinsforever wrote:It was what it was. But now it's fairer.

If it had been fair before then why did it get changed?

In what way is it fairer?

quinsforever wrote:The reason it got changed is ultimately English and french clubs had had enough of subsidising pro12 Unions. And alls fair in love and war.

They did what now??

One thing is sure is there is more interest in this thread than in all the QF and SF threads combined!

quinsforever wrote:It was what it was. But now it's fairer.

If it had been fair before then why did it get changed?

The Unions had agreed to do it per leagues which you seem to forget. Your worse than Phil trying to compare a tv deal made 4 years previously with the new one.

VinceWLB wrote:One thing is sure is there is more interest in this thread than in all the QF and SF threads combined!

The unions alone would never have changed anything. Because 4 of them were in 1 league. It took English and french clubs pulling out to even get the topic discussed.

quinsforever wrote:The unions alone would never have changed anything. Because 4 of them were in 1 league. It took English and french clubs pulling out to even get the topic discussed.

What exactly needed to be changed? Genuinely curious

Lmao. U need to improve your wum technique.

Nothing was wrong with the old HC. It was fair. In every respect. But such is the commercial clout of the french and English clubs that we have skewed it massively in our favour henceforth.

Watch and learn grasshopper

quinsforever wrote:Lmao. U need to improve your wum technique.

Nothing was wrong with the old HC. It was fair. In every respect. But such is the commercial clout of the french and English clubs that we have skewed it massively in our favour henceforth.

Watch and learn grasshopper

That's probably the first comment I've read on this thread that reflects reality. 

The English clubs were smarter in getting the deal they wanted - it suits them.   

That's the business of sport. And if the Irish, Welsh or Scottish clubs had been in a similar strong position, they'd have done the same.

PhilBB wrote:If it helps, Competition Income was down £800,000 in the WRU accounts for the first year of EPRC.

Interesting.  It's also down in IRFU accounts - by €600k

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

quinsforever wrote:Except if the old ERC arrangement was used to divide the new TV revenues, pro12 would be getting 60% more money rather than the same.

So yes they got a minimum guarantee at the same level. But English and french clubs got roughly a doubling of their euro cup revenues. So now they nearly get as much as the pro12 clubs each...

Much fairer all round don't ya think?

How was the old system unfair? Each union was given the same amount and the RFU choose their way of distributing it.

If I remember correctly, the English and French got double what the other unions got. I think it was something like 25% England and France, 13% Wales and Ireland, 12% Italy and Scotland. So they were already doing alright.

The Eng/Fre Unions may have been getting Double but each Team was getting Half what the Pro 12 teams were getting, or should the teams in the lower comp get nothing?

If the money was divided between the12 AP sides (not sure it was, think it was 10?) they would be getting less, but not by half as much. Maybe around 2/3

broadlandboy wrote:The Eng/Fre Unions may have been getting Double but each Team was getting Half what the Pro 12 teams were getting, or should the teams in the lower comp get nothing?

It was up to the English and French unions to divide the money.


Isn't it amazing how perceptions can be altered.
Supposing there was no Pro12 and Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy all used their club sides. What happens then? They would each have about 12 teams to support. How much should English and French clubs get in that scenario?

What sort of comp would there be if Eng/Fra entered 2 teams like Ita/Sco?

profitius - there are 12 english and 14 french teams playing in europe.

how many pro12? 12.

europe is not just the champs cup. it is both competitions.

quinsforever wrote:profitius - there are 12 english and 14 french teams playing in europe.

how many pro12? 12.

europe is not just the champs cup. it is both competitions.

You're ignoring the fact that each union still decides how money is split amongst teams.  France divides it amongst top 14 and Div 1.  RFU gives it to PRL who split it how many ways?  Does it include original shareholding teams?

IRFU gets it and allocates different amounts to provinces. 

WRU does something different. 

Etc etc 

I suspect that teams do not get the same allocation in any country

Getting back to the original point, and title, is the competition as popular this year as it was in the past? Are the viewing figures the same or higher on tv? Clearly the attendances are down and people have put forward reasons other than popularity for this so what's the viewing figures saying?

What about general interest? Since there were English and French teams in the semi's were more people talking about the semis in the media and in general and were viewing figures in these countries this year than previous years?

we need to wait for viewing figures.

but, i suspect they are down on two years ago. and think that having two broadcasters is the main reason. neither is really aggressively promoting their coverage as each only sees half the benefit.

maybe people are also a bit rugby weary after the world cup then 6 nations. RWC was expensive thats for sure. and lots of talismanic players are missing this year vs 2 years ago. all might be contributing something, but as i said i feel the split broadcasting is the main culprit.

I do feel weary at this point. Ulster still in the playoff race but with the World Cup warm-ups in August I've gotten to the point where I have big game fatigue, and its just diminishing returns. Enjoyed todays excellent match very much, but can't say I'm disappointed its the last home match of our season.

Indeed I've never been less sorry to see the off-season coming up, and the thought of a three-game tour to South Africa after the Pro12 is over... talk about over saturation! That can't be laid at the foot of the EPCR. 6-9 games is about right. Less league games and less tests than we have in a RWC year would be better. Ireland will have played 17 test matches by the end of the season, which is absurd, but thats the RWC... there should not be a full tour the next summer. There's too much rugby all round. You'd have to be a real glutton to be getting excited about games that don't affect you at this stage of the season. Bring on the summer.