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:
I like how you failed to address the NZ issue again, wouldn't be like you when your in the wrong

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/74479195/Private-investors-take-control-of-Super-Rugby-champion-Highlanders

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Last time this came up you said I was scared about the Welsh actually getting into some sort of league with the English. When pressed on this you disappeared.

As I've explained before - there's a nice twitter button next to my posts. Click on that as I don't often use this board.

I thought that we'd danced to the end of this silly game before. In fact, we have.

So no answer still then. fair enough, I know you struggle to follow through when questioned.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
No you haven't explained anything, you have said that having to use other people assets for an event will lose them control

No, I didn't.

So not being able to play the blazer game meant what exactly?

This thread has been Philbombed...

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Last time this came up you said I was scared about the Welsh actually getting into some sort of league with the English. When pressed on this you disappeared.

As I've explained before - there's a nice twitter button next to my posts. Click on that as I don't often use this board.

I thought that we'd danced to the end of this silly game before. In fact, we have.

So no answer still then. fair enough, I know you struggle to follow through when questioned.

No answer to what?

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
No you haven't explained anything, you have said that having to use other people assets for an event will lose them control

No, I didn't.

So not being able to play the blazer game meant what exactly?

Blazers award the RWC

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
I like how you failed to address the NZ issue again, wouldn't be like you when your in the wrong

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/74479195/Private-investors-take-control-of-Super-Rugby-champion-Highlanders

Why are you posting that? I already told you they were licensed

marty2086 wrote:No actually Phil the Unions still retain control of all the Kiwi teams, while the name Franchise is used they are more licensed organisations though each have different setups with mixes of unions and private operators running the day to day operations

They are still owned by the NZRU

'NZR(U) retain ownership of the brands associated with each team and continue to fund player and head coach contracts, plus one assistant coach, from broadcasting and sponsorship revenue.'

Well this is awkward

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
No you haven't explained anything, you have said that having to use other people assets for an event will lose them control

No, I didn't.

So not being able to play the blazer game meant what exactly?

Blazers award the RWC

Maybe you should go back to your original point because how exactly Irish rugby changes after that point has yet to be explained by you

marty2086 wrote:
Why are you posting that? I already told you they were licensed

The license gives control.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Last time this came up you said I was scared about the Welsh actually getting into some sort of league with the English. When pressed on this you disappeared.

As I've explained before - there's a nice twitter button next to my posts. Click on that as I don't often use this board.

I thought that we'd danced to the end of this silly game before. In fact, we have.

So no answer still then. fair enough, I know you struggle to follow through when questioned.

No answer to what?

Why I should be scared of the Welsh playing in an English league. You dance around stuff so much. Like when you said that NZ wanted fewer international games!

PhilBB wrote:

Sin é wrote:
You do realise that in the recent world cup, the RFU only used one of their own assets - Twickenham. If the IRFU win the bid, we'll be using at least 3 of our own assets.

Yes.

What's your point?

The WRU, Manchester City FC, the FA were not regarded as cohosts, so why should the GAA be?

marty2086 wrote:
Well this is awkward

Why is that awkward? It's what I wrote earlier in the thread.

It doesn't give them control over the franchise.

Sin é wrote:
The WRU, Manchester City FC, the FA were not regarded as cohosts, so why should the GAA be?

What an odd question. How have you arrived at it? Nobody has claimed anywhere in this thread that the GAA should be regarded as cohosts.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Why I should be scared of the Welsh playing in an English league. You dance around stuff so much. Like when you said that NZ wanted fewer international games!

I didn't claim they wanted fewer international games.

I can see how Irish rugby followers, whose game is already struggling to keep up, wouldn't want their competitors to advance even further ahead of them in financial terms. That's pretty obvious.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
Well this is awkward

Why is that awkward? It's what I wrote earlier in the thread.

It doesn't give them control over the franchise.

No you wrote

The Kiwi model is not the same at all. They sold off their franchises whilst maintaining the player contracts. It is nowhere near the same as the Irish model.

They clearly didn't sell them off as they still own them, they are just operated by someone else

But you keep telling us its nothing like the Irish model

I have said before that when the PRL resigned from the HC they should have stuck to their guns and just left and let the French sort out what they started.

The AP should then have looked at their own league structure and expanded together with a knockout competition against the Championship sides who desperately need competition and profile.

The euro comps are not the be all and end all. The RFU however would have kittens on the basis of any potential threat to competitive nature on playing standards for their cash cow the 6N - which is despite their real focus being on their intended target, the SH..

The OZ cricket model that has been slavishly followed by Unions in the north is a financial dead end - the only question is how long it will take before the vested interests admit the failure of their professional model.

marty2086 wrote:

They clearly didn't sell them off as they still own them, they are just operated by someone else

But you keep telling us its nothing like the Irish model

You're right, I should have written 'sold off licences to control and run their franchises'. I had hoped it was clear, but I had forgotten the level I have to pitch the information at.

You show me how the Irish model allows Munster to be privately owned, even under licence.

No? Can't? Now that's awkward.

PhilBB wrote:

Sin é wrote:
The WRU, Manchester City FC, the FA were not regarded as cohosts, so why should the GAA be?

What an odd question. How have you arrived at it? Nobody has claimed anywhere in this thread that the GAA should be regarded as cohosts.

You claimed that the IRFU 'can't host it alone' (ie, the GAA will be needed for their stadia).

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

They clearly didn't sell them off as they still own them, they are just operated by someone else

But you keep telling us its nothing like the Irish model

You're right, I should have written 'sold off licences to control and run their franchises'. I had hoped it was clear, but I had forgotten the level I have to pitch the information at.

You show me how the Irish model allows Munster to be privately owned, even under licence.

No? Can't? Now that's awkward.

Well lets look past your insult and ask why would it be clear when the difference between the two is important or aren't you aware of it? A franchise would be privately owned operating under a name whereas a licensed team is still Union owned just privately operated but you fire the insults out to mask your ignorance on the subject.

Maybe you would like to read Philip Brownes interview on Irish Rugby a while back and answer that question then come back and tell me how awkward it is for you

Sin é IIRC the PRL/NLR wanted to discuss changes but the others said NO. It was only  at the last minute (18 months(of the 2 year period that was needed) after notice given) that the others said they would talk but by then PRL had signed the agreement with BT because they couldn't sit around & wait to see if anything in the Hec changed. The BT agreement was actually signed before the Sky deal with the HEC,this caused the problem & the solution was to split broadcasting.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Why I should be scared of the Welsh playing in an English league. You dance around stuff so much. Like when you said that NZ wanted fewer international games!

I didn't claim they wanted fewer international games.

I can see how Irish rugby followers, whose game is already struggling to keep up, wouldn't want their competitors to advance even further ahead of them in financial terms. That's pretty obvious.

You did. Why should I be scared? And I think the Irish members are fine.

lostinwales wrote:

Ah for the good old days doing business with a nod and a wink and the passing of a brown envelope over a few pints of black stuff...

Actually think that Rugby Fan's comments are very useful. In summary despite the oft heard complaints here the French and English didn't like the status quo.

Hopefully eventually we will end up with something that does work and is well run. It may not be happening now but neither was the previous version, not for some major stakeholders anyway.

Paragraph A: Of course they didn't like the status Quo. They weren't running it. They wanted to be bosses.
Paragraph B: 'Eventually we will end up with something that does work''?. So we're back to the 'Previous Version' already?

SecretFly wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Ah for the good old days doing business with a nod and a wink and the passing of a brown envelope over a few pints of black stuff...

Actually think that Rugby Fan's comments are very useful. In summary despite the oft heard complaints here the French and English didn't like the status quo.

Hopefully eventually we will end up with something that does work and is well run. It may not be happening now but neither was the previous version, not for some major stakeholders anyway.

Paragraph A:  Of course they didn't like the status Quo.  They weren't running it.  They wanted to be bosses.
Paragraph B:  'Eventually we will end up with something that does work''?.  So we're back to the 'Previous Version' already?

It is unlikely to be back to the previous version for the reasons that were stated before (i.e. most of the clubs playing in the competition not being happy with it). Time will tell what happens

broadlandboy wrote:Sin é IIRC the PRL/NLR wanted to discuss changes but the others said NO. It was only  at the last minute (18 months(of the 2 year period that was needed) after notice given) that the others said they would talk but by then PRL had signed the agreement with BT because they couldn't sit around & wait to see if anything in the Hec changed. The BT agreement was actually signed before the Sky deal with the HEC,this caused the problem & the solution was to split broadcasting.

Thats not what happened. McCafferty was on the Commerical Board of the ERC and would have been privy to the TV negotiations. He then went missing. Wheeler was still attending ERC board meetings as was Bill Beaumont. McCafferty had sold off the English team's rights to the ERC's competition which you say they were quitting

If they were quitting the competition because they couldn't get their way, why were they selling the English tv rights?

lostinwales wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Ah for the good old days doing business with a nod and a wink and the passing of a brown envelope over a few pints of black stuff...

Actually think that Rugby Fan's comments are very useful. In summary despite the oft heard complaints here the French and English didn't like the status quo.

Hopefully eventually we will end up with something that does work and is well run. It may not be happening now but neither was the previous version, not for some major stakeholders anyway.

Paragraph A:  Of course they didn't like the status Quo.  They weren't running it.  They wanted to be bosses.
Paragraph B:  'Eventually we will end up with something that does work''?.  So we're back to the 'Previous Version' already?

It is unlikely to be back to the previous version for the reasons that were stated before (i.e. most of the clubs playing in the competition not being happy with it). Time will tell what happens

Thats not true. They had some demands which were met (re distribution of finances and PRO12 meritocracy which has resulted in the Welsh & Scottish teams not being particularly well represented in the competition).

Sin é wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Ah for the good old days doing business with a nod and a wink and the passing of a brown envelope over a few pints of black stuff...

Actually think that Rugby Fan's comments are very useful. In summary despite the oft heard complaints here the French and English didn't like the status quo.

Hopefully eventually we will end up with something that does work and is well run. It may not be happening now but neither was the previous version, not for some major stakeholders anyway.

Paragraph A:  Of course they didn't like the status Quo.  They weren't running it.  They wanted to be bosses.
Paragraph B:  'Eventually we will end up with something that does work''?.  So we're back to the 'Previous Version' already?

It is unlikely to be back to the previous version for the reasons that were stated before (i.e. most of the clubs playing in the competition not being happy with it). Time will tell what happens

Thats not true. They had some demands which were met (re distribution of finances and PRO12 meritocracy which has resulted in the Welsh & Scottish teams not being particularly well represented in the competition).

Seeing as the PRL and french equivalents get their mandate from their member clubs and they were the ones driving the change in organisation it would appear that it is true.

lostinwales wrote:

Sin é wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Ah for the good old days doing business with a nod and a wink and the passing of a brown envelope over a few pints of black stuff...

Actually think that Rugby Fan's comments are very useful. In summary despite the oft heard complaints here the French and English didn't like the status quo.

Hopefully eventually we will end up with something that does work and is well run. It may not be happening now but neither was the previous version, not for some major stakeholders anyway.

Paragraph A:  Of course they didn't like the status Quo.  They weren't running it.  They wanted to be bosses.
Paragraph B:  'Eventually we will end up with something that does work''?.  So we're back to the 'Previous Version' already?

It is unlikely to be back to the previous version for the reasons that were stated before (i.e. most of the clubs playing in the competition not being happy with it). Time will tell what happens

Thats not true. They had some demands which were met (re distribution of finances and PRO12 meritocracy which has resulted in the Welsh & Scottish teams not being particularly well represented in the competition).

Seeing as the PRL and french equivalents get their mandate from their member clubs and they were the ones driving the change in organisation it would appear that it is true.

Did they need a simple majority to push it through or a supermajority?

Sin é wrote:If they were quitting the competition because they couldn't get their way, why were they selling the English tv rights?

They didn't sell rights to Heineken Cup games. The English clubs had left that competition, so there were no games to sell. They sold TV rights to fixtures in any future competition which could be agreed. At one point, it looked like English clubs might have no cross border competition. One of the reasons the BT deal was attractive is that it gave them a sufficient financial cushion to cope with that outcome.

lostinwales wrote:
Seeing as the PRL and french equivalents get their mandate from their member clubs and they were the ones driving the change in organisation it would appear that it is true.

That's true. Proof of the pudding. Some are happy being winners, some are p1ssed at being losers. And we still argue????

lostinwales wrote:

Sin é wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Ah for the good old days doing business with a nod and a wink and the passing of a brown envelope over a few pints of black stuff...

Actually think that Rugby Fan's comments are very useful. In summary despite the oft heard complaints here the French and English didn't like the status quo.

Hopefully eventually we will end up with something that does work and is well run. It may not be happening now but neither was the previous version, not for some major stakeholders anyway.

Paragraph A:  Of course they didn't like the status Quo.  They weren't running it.  They wanted to be bosses.
Paragraph B:  'Eventually we will end up with something that does work''?.  So we're back to the 'Previous Version' already?

It is unlikely to be back to the previous version for the reasons that were stated before (i.e. most of the clubs playing in the competition not being happy with it). Time will tell what happens

Thats not true. They had some demands which were met (re distribution of finances and PRO12 meritocracy which has resulted in the Welsh & Scottish teams not being particularly well represented in the competition).

Seeing as the PRL and french equivalents get their mandate from their member clubs and they were the ones driving the change in organisation it would appear that it is true.

French had signed up. It was just the English clubs who got themselves in an impossible situation which required Bill Beaumont getting down on his hands and knees and beg the others to keep the England clubs involved. Then the PRL approached the Welsh clubs to play some lucrative Anglo Welsh thingy which ended up with the Welsh withdrawing which is when it got messy. The ones to do best out of this whole thing are of course the Scots

Rugby Fan wrote:

Sin é wrote:If they were quitting the competition because they couldn't get their way, why were they selling the English tv rights?

They didn't sell rights to Heineken Cup games. The English clubs had left that competition, so there were no games to sell. They sold TV rights to fixtures in any future competition which could be agreed. At one point, it looked like English clubs might have no cross border competition. One of the reasons the BT deal was attractive is that it gave them a sufficient financial cushion to cope with that outcome.

The PRL didn't give the breakdown of what was European money and what was England league only money.

Everyone knows that BT wanted to oust Sky out of the Heineken Cup and BT paid the English and Scots well to do that.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Sin é wrote:If they were quitting the competition because they couldn't get their way, why were they selling the English tv rights?

They didn't sell rights to Heineken Cup games. The English clubs had left that competition, so there were no games to sell. They sold TV rights to fixtures in any future competition which could be agreed. At one point, it looked like English clubs might have no cross border competition. One of the reasons the BT deal was attractive is that it gave them a sufficient financial cushion to cope with that outcome.

Based on BT understanding that PRL would force a situation where there would be no 'open bidding' for that European Competition.

PRL and BT had already done the negotiations alone, isolated from their ERC partners, and absolutely were not going to undo their contract ....claiming at the same time to have gained enough on their own exclusive negotiation to satisfy 'everyone' in Europe.  Meaning, they felt they negotiated the New European Competition on everyone else's behalf.

So it was what it was - an aggressive take-over by PRL in cahoots with BT.  The only compromise.. letting SKY have a slice.

As opposed to the blunt refusal of four Unions to enter any negotiation, despite the resignation handed in 20 months previously. You reap what you sow is the expression I believe. Ho hum.

Yeah, you probably do reap what you sow.... and the world is long enough for everyone to get a chance of saying it at least once in a lifetime.

PS - the negotiation that the Unions refused to engage with?

"We want your jobs - non negotiable. What do you think?"
"We think we won't negotiate that deal until we have to. Thanks for the chat."

Yes that's certainly what it turned into.

The next round of negotiations will be interesting.

Oh and whilst we're talking of old bad Unions, let's not forget the Fairytale of 'The Union that Wasn't'.

Without the assistance of the 'Neutral' 'Honest Broker' Union - that didn't have a horse in the race and so could therefore see both sides of the argument on their 'merits' - without that Union that never Was, the whole New Way might never have happened.

So much thanks is owed to that Neutral Union that stayed out of the fight.

Recwatcher16 wrote:As opposed to the blunt refusal of four Unions to enter any negotiation, despite the resignation handed in 20 months previously. You reap what you sow is the expression I believe. Ho hum.

Indeed you do - the PRL are exposed as venal liars only interested in the bank balance of their clubs not the wider health of the game and the welsh regions as fickle and unreliable - an awful lot of goodwill squandered that will not be forgotten or forgiven - and the end result - a poorer competition with less money for the english and french clubs

Ha yes the RFU seemed to be a winner either way - either the PRL got their 'equal share' which made their own PRL eight year agreement less fraught or the Pro12 Unions kicked them out of Europe and the PRL would definitely also have been more maleable with their own Union.
Ultimately the Pro12 tried to bluff some buffers and blinked.

Recwatcher16 wrote:Ha yes the RFU seemed to be a winner either way - either the PRL got their 'equal share' which made their own PRL eight year agreement less fraught or the Pro12 Unions kicked them out of Europe and the PRL would definitely also have been more maleable with their own Union.
Ultimately the Pro12 tried to bluff some buffers and blinked.

That isn't true. Once PRL did their deal with BT, that was essentially game over. It wasn't a genius move by PRL/LNR. It was simply a move that none of the Unions could legally fight, and win. The Unions either had to comply or do without a Euro competition.

I find it interesting that the weakening of what was once a great competition is seen as some sort of victory, by some.

Yes once the BT deal was made public the Pro12 weak hand was exposed but it was the prior 20 odd months where the Pro12 tried to play hard ball with folk far more used to professional deal making - that caused the anger on the French and English side.

Recwatcher16 wrote:Yes once the BT deal was made public the Pro12 weak hand was exposed but it was the  prior 20 odd months where the Pro12  tried to play hard ball with folk far more used to professional deal making - that caused the anger on the French and English side.

Negotiations is a hard ball game, and they tend to run until the deadline, or past it. The demands of PRL were agreed to, as far as I'm aware, in the end, however, the PRL were not really that interested in coming to an agreement. The PRL wanted control, and they would have already been in negotiations with their new paymasters (BT), and BT would probably have been pushing PRL out of ERC, for their own gain.

I'm not buying this victim crap. The PRL were not the victims. The Euro competition is the real victim.

Recwatcher16 wrote:Yes once the BT deal was made public the Pro12 weak hand was exposed but it was the  prior 20 odd months where the Pro12  tried to play hard ball with folk far more used to professional deal making - that caused the anger on the French and English side.

What do you mean about the PRO12 tried to play hardball? The chair of the ERC was French. The reason the PRL could play hardball was down to England hosting the world cup and the PRL were not going to cooperate if they didn't get their own way. The French tried the same thing back in 2007.

Pity these folk who are so used deal making have been unable to sort out a few sponsors for their new competition

Remind me again, are Bath & Saracens financially successful?

Back to wang measuring. yeah! or not....

Visions of PRL trying to explain that its not the Pro12, its them. They feel that things have changed and need to move on. Then Pro12 turns into the mad stalker....

lostinwales wrote:Back to wang measuring. yeah! or not....

Visions of PRL trying to explain that its not the Pro12, its them. They feel that things have changed and need to move on. Then Pro12 turns into the mad stalker....

Only that's not how it happened. It was very much the PRL blaming ERC with cries of 'not fit for purpose'. Boot's on the other foot now, and it's not a comfortable fit for McCafferty and Co.

McCafferty was extremely vocal during all the bitching. You know, the one who promised the earth? Strange that he's so very quiet now.

Credit where credit is due.

Lord Dowlais sure knows how to create a long-running thread.

Where's your facts, Pot!? That's just more bluster from you.

If you can't give me the link, the quote, the stats, the payroll, the investment portfolio, the brown envelope or the specific documentation pertaining to the f**king facts - then shut it.

This is why PRL Imperialism can never be let triumph!

Does anyone on here know how many tickets have been sold for the finals?

Are there any freebies like last year?

SecretFly wrote:Where's your facts, Pot!?  That's just more bluster from you.  

If you can't give me the link, the quote, the stats, the payroll, the investment portfolio, the brown envelope or the specific documentation pertaining to the f**king facts - then shut it.  

This is why PRL Imperialism can never be let triumph!  

I don't have any facts, I goes by the length of the thread.

Feel me?

The length of the thread is a fact