Proposals for an Ireland/Scotland/Wales/England league...

First topic message reminder :

...to sit above the Celtic/Rabo and the Jeff (presumably).

Does anyone know if such plans are still being mooted? After extensive online research, the last links I can find are to (apparently sensible) suggestions made by Peter Tom, Leicester fella, in 2011.

Wolfe (LNR) said that they weren't considering a competition without the English. It's the same quote that said they weren't considering a competition without the celts. It was about September last year when they set the Christmas deadline.

Personally I hope the whole thing ends. We (the English) clearly don't bring anything to the competition and are pretty happy with the league, so everyone should be happy. Just leave it with the Pro12 unions and the French.

The HC does need a shake up to make it an 'elite' competition, because there are too many weak teams in it. Three teams (all Rabo) finished with won 0 - lost 6 records last season.

I've come to the conclusion that qualification should be 5 teams from each league, with each league stipulating its qualification criteria. Defending champions would also qualify.

Maybe those criteria would force some qualification negotiations within the Rabo unions themselves rather than sticking with their cosy cabal.

Failing any compromise from the Rabo teams/unions, I would like an Anglo-French-South African comp.

SA have already indicated they are thinking of withdrawing from SANZAR. Largely because they want 6 franchises in Super Rugby. But also possibly because of the distinct likelihood that the English and French clubs won't be in whatever is left of the HC.

The tv scheduling will be a lot easier for SA too.

South Africa will not leave SANZAR. They won't be able to leave Super Rugby and stay in RC and there is no way they'd leave the RC.

Personally I rather have an English cup with the championship. Just let everyone else get on with what they want. Not going to happen though.

If the Franglos turned their backs on the Rabo nations, it could potentially decimate the Rabo league of nations.

Equally on you other point, it would make loads of logical sense to partition the rugby globe into E/W hemispheres rather than N/S.

If you are delusional in thinking that the French are in an alliance with the English (and you are. The French will do what is best for them on the day) Then you are downright barking mad if you think there is the remotest chance of SA joining your immaginary band of merry pranksters.

HammerofThunor wrote:Wolfe (LNR) said that they weren't considering a competition without the English. It's the same quote that said they weren't considering a competition without the celts. It was about September last year when they set the Christmas deadline.

Personally I hope the whole thing ends. We (the English) clearly don't bring anything to the competition and are pretty happy with the league, so everyone should be happy. Just leave it with the Pro12 unions and the French.

Thanks, Thunor - from that paraphrasing, I wouldn't be counting on a rock steady FrAnglo alliance? Sounds more like a determination to find an all inclusive solution?

Hound of Harrow wrote:The HC does need a shake up to make it an 'elite' competition, because there are too many weak teams in it. Three teams (all Rabo) finished with won 0 - lost 6 records last season.

I've come to the conclusion that qualification should be 5 teams from each league, with each league stipulating its qualification criteria. Defending champions would also qualify.

Sadly I am not too sure that would help, the Scarlets were on of hte 'dross' in last seasons HEC that were thumped by all, however they would still make it in this season (finishing 4th in Rabo).

The English and French clubs having been talking to each other about their dissatisfaction on the current euro setup for coming up two years. They are not going to back down like last time in the negotiations.

It will be fascinating to see both the compromise reached and the subsequent language used by the two sides. The two issues are structure and money.  I suspect the R12 will compromise on structure and the clubs on money.

Alternatively I would love to see an English Rugby version of the FA cup, perhaps using the lucrative LV sponsorship,  which currently pays more than the HC to English clubs but expand the deal to include championship and the third divisions. Even the RFU would put funds into that.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Hound of Harrow wrote:The HC does need a shake up to make it an 'elite' competition, because there are too many weak teams in it. Three teams (all Rabo) finished with won 0 - lost 6 records last season.

I've come to the conclusion that qualification should be 5 teams from each league, with each league stipulating its qualification criteria. Defending champions would also qualify.

Sadly I am not too sure that would help, the Scarlets were on of hte 'dross' in last seasons HEC that were thumped by all, however they would still make it in this season (finishing 4th in Rabo).

16 teams would be super elite but lets look at it this way how many teams would be confident of pick up any wins home or away against one from each of thd following groups.
France - Toulon Clermount Toulouse
England - Sarries Tigers Quins
Ireland - Munster Ulster Leinster.

Most of the teams in the competition have and would lose home and away to these teams. With 5 from each league Munster would not have made it. No matter how you set up the competition there will be teams who dont win any games.
Year before last Edinburgh got to a semi and the following year got whitewashed. Scarlets came second in their group and got to the Amlin quarter but last yesr lost every game.

As a rabo fan it really frustrates be that the Irish and Os seem to be the only ones to anything in their groups.
Treviso are doing better each year and are improving in league and cup each year. But the others have a good year to little and they really don't help themselves. These same teams have been consistant in the league. When Ulster were poor in europe they were poor in the league.

Recwatcher wrote:The English and French clubs having been talking to each other about their dissatisfaction on the current euro setup for coming up two years. They are not going to back down like last time in the negotiations.

It will be fascinating to see both the compromise reached and the subsequent language used by the two sides. The two issues are structure and money.  I suspect the R12 will compromise on structure and the clubs on money.

Alternatively I would love to see an English Rugby version of the FA cup, perhaps using the lucrative LV sponsorship,  which currently pays more than the HC to English clubs but expand the deal to include championship and the third divisions. Even the RFU would put funds into that.

It does at the moment, Recwatcher, but unless LV= are insane, I would not assume that the same deal will be available going forward when most teams consider it as a second-rate competition, and an opportunity to both rest their front line stars and give some game time to their broader squad players? So, I wouldn't go counting on that in perpetuity tbh

Exactly right As Long, which is why a new competion might appeal to LV.

Bath having to travel to Cornish Pirates would be a mixture of excitement and fear. As a comparison to travelling to Leinster to play a squad, most of whom have experience of playing against the All Blacks is a morbid fascination, akin to watching formula 1 car crashes.....

The only real difference between the French and English on this up to now is that the English have looked into alternative competitions (just in case) whereas the French said they would only do this if negotiations broke down significantly.

Both have said they want an competition that includes all the current parties. Both have said change MUST happen.

The thing that kicked this all off was the French teams giving notice, which was primarily based on the Lux getting voted in as ERC chairman/president/whatever. The FFR have given the LNR 4 out of 5 votes in the ERC however they can recall them if it's in the 'national interest'. Basically the FFR let the LNR have the votes if they vote the right way, if not they pull them. This peed off the French clubs because none of them wanted Lux. Everything else is just gravy. The English just jumped in because the French movement was kind of in the same direction they want to go it. And that is for it to be a club competition run by clubs will only partial union involvement. As has been said before this would only really effect the Welsh (and possibly Treviso) as all the other PRO12 teams are effectively part of the union. So you would have representatives from the Irish Provinces who are in effect IRFU representatives. And so on.

So no, there is no Anglo-French alliance. Just that they want similar things. But there also isn't anything to suggest (that I've seen) that all the French want is fewer fixtures/change of dates, as has been said on here over an over.

NB I refuse to reference any of this. It is internet FACT. Make of it as you will.

also I don't think the LV does pay that well anymore. It was when it was the EDF cup and clubs made more from that than the HEC. Most of the French/english money comes from their leagues. Most of the Pro12 teams' money comes from international game. If it goes I don't think it will have THAT much impact generally on anyone. And without a shadow of a doubt we'll see other-cross border games crop up like the Anglo-Welsh did. In fact will that continue? Move it into the HEC slots and put out stronger teams.

HammerofThunor wrote:The only real difference between the French and English on this up to now is that the English have looked into alternative competitions (just in case) whereas the French said they would only do this if negotiations broke down significantly.

Both have said they want an competition that includes all the current parties. Both have said change MUST happen.

The thing that kicked this all off was the French teams giving notice, which was primarily based on the Lux getting voted in as ERC chairman/president/whatever. The FFR have given the LNR 4 out of 5 votes in the ERC however they can recall them if it's in the 'national interest'. Basically the FFR let the LNR have the votes if they vote the right way, if not they pull them. This peed off the French clubs because none of them wanted Lux. Everything else is just gravy. The English just jumped in because the French movement was kind of in the same direction they want to go it. And that is for it to be a club competition run by clubs will only partial union involvement. As has been said before this would only really effect the Welsh (and possibly Treviso) as all the other PRO12 teams are effectively part of the union. So you would have representatives from the Irish Provinces who are in effect IRFU representatives. And so on.

So no, there is no Anglo-French alliance. Just that they want similar things. But there also isn't anything to suggest (that I've seen) that all the French want is fewer fixtures/change of dates, as has been said on here over an over.

NB I refuse to reference any of this. It is internet FACT. Make of it as you will.

also I don't think the LV does pay that well anymore. It was when it was the EDF cup and clubs made more from that than the HEC. Most of the French/english money comes from their leagues. Most of the Pro12 teams' money comes from international game. If it goes I don't think it will have THAT much impact generally on anyone. And without a shadow of a doubt we'll see other-cross border games crop up like the Anglo-Welsh did. In fact will that continue? Move it into the HEC slots and put out stronger teams.

Interesting observation, Thunor. As I understand it, the key French issues are (i) bringing the date of the final forward; & (ii) the number of clubs (they'd prefer fewer). I'm sure we can add shekels to that as well. So I'm not convinced that those priorities match the PRL's, which to me is more about shekels than anything else (shekels, in order to secure profitability for all clubs, and in order to give greater freedom from the RFU). So it would be interesting to see what would happen if the Rabo countered with a 6+6+6+2 Cup winners suggestion, with a shortened timeframe - would the French bite?

They might, As. As might the PRL, because 6+6+6+2 would require qualification from the Rabo.

Then they'd just have to sort out the money. The PRL can't sign up to centrally negotiated tv rights, because they've already signed up with BT [1]. So then your options are to go ahead without the PRL or work out how to divide the money. It might just be possible to split the French away from the PRL (but is 9+9+2 really the elite tournament that they say they want?), but if that doesn't happen you probably have a choice between "everyone keeps their own" or "a more even distribution across teams", at which point the sheer amount of cash in the BT deal counts for a fair bit (as does needing to feed the Rabo teams that qualify for the lower tier cup).

[1] Remember that the PRL's stance on who had the right to negotiate for what over ERC tv rights essentially appears to be "yeah, we gave you the right to negotiate the ERC rights. But whatever comes after it won't be the ERC, it'll be a new setup, so anything you've negotiated after 2014 won't have any games associated with it."

ASBO - and if the French did bite, what would the Jeff sides think? It would be a win by the arguement it is all about the easy-ride in qualifying.

I expect it to end up as 6 JEff, 6 T14, and 6 Rabo (min one per nation), +2 winners (winners leagues, not nations).

ScarletSpiderman wrote:ASBO - and if the French did bite, what would the Jeff sides think?  It would be a win by the arguement it is all about the easy-ride in qualifying.

I expect it to end up as 6 JEff, 6 T14, and 6 Rabo (min one per nation), +2 winners (winners leagues, not nations).

Sorry, but I think the Anglo clubs care primarily about shekels, and everything after is a long way down the shopping list

beshocked wrote:jenifer you could interpret it as bullying or you could interpret it as trying to address issues with the current system. Personally I think the Pro12 sides have it too easy - too many spots for what they add to the HC collectively.

You obviously interpret this as bullying,money grabbing. Fair enough I suppose. Like the Pro12, the AP and Top 14 want to protect their interests.

The difference is that the AP and Top 14 clubs are much more focussed on the club competition - look at recruitment of players for example and also have bigger clout than the Pro12 clubs.



thebandwagonsociety I don't quite understand why Zebre or Edinburgh for example need the highest level of european rugby. I don't think losing all their games last season in the HC helped their development or confidence. In the Amlin they would be at a level which is more appropriate till they prove they are good enough. I don't see what is wrong with Zebre or Edinburgh qualifying by their own merits. If there is a danger they aren't good enough then standards should be improved to make them competitive.

If you hand someone a HC on a platter where's the incentive to improve?

Perhaps you don't believe the Amlin is a good enough competition - if that's the case it should be addressed.

beshocked, I see your point but don't necessarily agree with it.  Having HC with two Italian teams should be a carrot that allows each of them to bring back home their internationals who are playing abroad with the guarantee of top flight rugby.  Also, the revenue the get from this can cover those wages, prevent the export of talent to an extent, promote rugby in that country.

There is also an interesting point on the TV revenues and how they get divided up.  We know that England is a huge tv market and Ireland has a tiny population (and therefore much smaller market).  But if an Irish team plays an English team, it seems to be inferred that all the tv viewers in the UK are only watching because of the English team.  This is a flawed assumption as that kind of assumption would say that England v USA will get the same viewing figures as England v NZ.  The PRL tv deal seems to be pitched on this premise, that the BT deal is for PRL teams playing in Europe and the tv rights in UK. In truth the BT deal and the money paid is based on the expectation that those games will be PRL team playing Munsters/Ulster/ASM/Toulon/Toulouse/Ospreys/Leinster

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:ASBO - and if the French did bite, what would the Jeff sides think?  It would be a win by the arguement it is all about the easy-ride in qualifying.

I expect it to end up as 6 JEff, 6 T14, and 6 Rabo (min one per nation), +2 winners (winners leagues, not nations).

Sorry, but I think the Anglo clubs care primarily about shekels, and everything after is a long way down the shopping list

This is probably true, but the majority of the Official grumblings have been around the Rabo teams not needing to qualify and as such being at an advantage as they are fresher etc etc. I can't remember an official press statement about money. So if 666 was offered then I can't see how they could not agree to it without having to admit to their main driving force being cash above fairness.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:ASBO - and if the French did bite, what would the Jeff sides think?  It would be a win by the arguement it is all about the easy-ride in qualifying.

I expect it to end up as 6 JEff, 6 T14, and 6 Rabo (min one per nation), +2 winners (winners leagues, not nations).

Sorry, but I think the Anglo clubs care primarily about shekels, and everything after is a long way down the shopping list

This is probably true, but the majority of the Official grumblings have been around the Rabo teams not needing to qualify and as such being at an advantage as they are fresher etc etc.  I can't remember an official press statement about money.  So if 666 was offered then I can't see how they could not agree to it without having to admit to their main driving force being cash above fairness.

Smoke and mirrors, Spidey!!

This is exactly it.

All about money and control for French and English clubs.

The stuff about developing lower competitions and bring in more teams in them is pure waffle.

The fact that there are perhaps legitimate concerns that the lesser rabo teams do not have to qualify is just something the PRL and NLR are just playing upon to create a sense of injustice with the fans in their respective countries. (and it seems to be working)

It's all about the money It's all about the dum dum dikadumdum.(and power/control)

They will slice and dice it any which way you want if they end up with more power and control.

The fact that the unions hold sway with the rest of the nations is a good thing (imho) for the sake of rugby at all levels esp international.

The Clubs don't give a flying fock about the international game, in fact they would be just as happy to see it in the toilet, because it would give them more fans/power/money/control.

This would hurt French and English fans as well as fans of the other Unions teams/clubs

This whole ‘elite’ thing really bothers me. There seems to be an inference that the Pro12 teams are regarded as being inferior in standard to that of the Aviva Premiership / Top 14 sides. A lot of the comments regarding this generally point to the last Heineken Cup, where I will concede that the Pro12 sides did not perform.
This is not the case generally. If you look at the results of the lifetime of the competition you will find that the make-up of the number sides that have appeared in the quarterfinals is as follows;

Pro12/Celtic sides: 38%
Top14 sides: 35%
Aviva Premiership sides: 27%

If you take out the years that the Aviva Premiership sides did not participate in the competition the percentages change to the following:

Pro12/Celtic sides: 37%
Top14 sides: 34%
Aviva Premiership sides: 29%

If you only want to consider the years where the Pro12 has been in existence then the percentages change to:

Pro12 sides: 36%
Top14 sides: 33%
Aviva Premiership sides: 31%

If you think that past results are not a current reflection of things then if we only look at the number of quarterfinalists over the previous 5 years we get:

Pro12 sides: 40%
Top14 sides: 35%
Aviva Premiership sides: 25%

Past 3 years:

Pro12 sides: 38%
Top14 sides: 38%
Aviva Premiership sides: 25%

Winners of the Heineken Cup are evenly spread across the leagues.

Yes, the Rabo teams bring an audience (Celtic and English/French) to European games, but the English and French sides bring a market. English and French fans watch the tournament because it's a tournament with English or French teams in it. Within that, they will watch matches with no domestic involvement, especially if they're between good teams. But that interest would drop off very rapidly without domestic teams in the competition. The simple test of that is: what are the English viewing figures for, say, Leinster vs Ulster in the Rabo? I bet it's a lot less than watched them in the 2012 final. Similarly, I imagine that a HEC SF between two Rabo teams will attract far more English viewers than a Rabo SF between the same teams.

For a competition to attract significant numbers of English viewers, it needs English interest - even if it's only at the pool stages. Ditto for the French. Top quality Irish teams boost the viewing numbers for a portion of the matches, but it's a far less significant effect than having the English and French clubs in the competition in the first place.

But even ignoring that, the issue of shekels is much simpler: over half the money in European competition is shared between fewer than one third of the teams. You have to put aside performance in the competition and even whether teams are going into the HEC or Amlin. Professional rugby is not robust enough anywhere that you can adopt a "to the victor the spoils" approach. You also have to leave aside the issue of ownership and funding support. Only a handful of clubs are self-sufficient (Leicester, Exeter and maybe Saints in England) and the rest are all getting support from a sugar daddy of some kind - whether it's a businessman or a union.

The thing is, PRL are supporting 12 teams on 24% of the revenue. FFR 14 on 24%. I can't remember the splits for the Rabo but it adds up to 12 on 52%. Whatever the current negotiating position is, PRL are probably only aiming for parity - 2.6% per club - and are apparently bringing enough new cash that that can be done without reducing anyone's cash income.

Can anyone explain to me, in rational, economic terms and without appealing to the status quo, unions or issues of sovereignty, why that is such an unreasonable (and apparently grubby, given the repeated references to shekels) thing to want?

Poorfour wrote: Professional rugby is not robust enough anywhere that you can adopt a "to the victor the spoils" approach.

Can anyone explain to me, in rational, economic terms and without appealing to the status quo, unions or issues of sovereignty, why that is such an unreasonable (and apparently grubby, given the repeated references to shekels) thing to want?

Have you not just answered your own question?

If I (personally) was to embrace the "clubs are more important" stance, I would look at Leinster, Ulster and Munster and say "Grand. why do I give a fock how the Italian or Scottish teams do Let them stand on their own 2 feet Maybe we should pitch in with the French and English and make a few quid and fock the begrudgers"

Then in a few years when Scottish and Italian Rugby has gone down the Jax, I will be left going " Jaysus the 6 (sorry I mean 4) Nations is not as much fun any more is it?"

The sticking issue is going to be the BT "exclusive" deal for the English clubs, good luck to them signing a good deal from the domestic point of view at least money wise, it will be interesting to see the comparative viewing figures between BT and SKY and the possible long term affects on the lower level game of hiding it on a broadcaster with a comparativly low viewing base but selling your HEC cup rights singly was at best a two-fingered guesture towards the rest and at worst designed to provoke the Rabo teams to walk away.
It takes two teams to make a game and signing off exclusivity without consulting the other teams involved is either an act of great confidence or sheer folly.
Even the mega money Euro clubs recognise that the TV rights to the Champions League have to be made available to all broadcasters at a cost which they can afford to transmit as it's the TV audience that will get in the advertisers and sponsors money - are Heiniken or any other European wide brand going to spend money to sponsor an event that reaches into a tiny percentage of homes in the UK and depending on the negotiations may not even be shown elsewhere.
Also where will this exclusivity come in for their away games v Rabo teams - Ulster have a deal with BCC NI and similar deals exist for Wales and Scotland - so the game will be exclusively on BT in the UK apart from Northern Ireland where it will be on the Beeb and therefore on SKY across the UK?
I know BT are a huge company and can take a long term hit on their sports channels as its primary purpose is to act as a loss leader to get retain/gain broadband customers but longer term there's a distinct whiff of Setanta about this.

[quote="Poorfour"].

The thing is, PRL are supporting 12 teams on 24% of the revenue. FFR 14 on 24%. I can't remember the splits for the Rabo but it adds up to 12 on 52%.

Or you could say two countries get 48% of the revenue and four get 52%

Poorfour wrote:Yes, the Rabo teams bring an audience (Celtic and English/French) to European games, but the English and French sides bring a market. English and French fans watch the tournament because it's a tournament with English or French teams in it. Within that, they will watch matches with no domestic involvement, especially if they're between good teams. But that interest would drop off very rapidly without domestic teams in the competition. The simple test of that is: what are the English viewing figures for, say, Leinster vs Ulster in the Rabo? I bet it's a lot less than watched them in the 2012 final. Similarly, I imagine that a HEC SF between two Rabo teams will attract far more English viewers than a Rabo SF between the same teams.

For a competition to attract significant numbers of English viewers, it needs English interest - even if it's only at the pool stages. Ditto for the French. Top quality Irish teams boost the viewing numbers for a portion of the matches, but it's a far less significant effect than having the English and French clubs in the competition in the first place.

But even ignoring that, the issue of shekels is much simpler: over half the money in European competition is shared between fewer than one third of the teams. You have to put aside performance in the competition and even whether teams are going into the HEC or Amlin. Professional rugby is not robust enough anywhere that you can adopt a "to the victor the spoils" approach. You also have to leave aside the issue of ownership and funding support. Only a handful of clubs are self-sufficient (Leicester, Exeter and maybe Saints in England) and the rest are all getting support from a sugar daddy of some kind - whether it's a businessman or a union.

The thing is, PRL are supporting 12 teams on 24% of the revenue. FFR 14 on 24%. I can't remember the splits for the Rabo but it adds up to 12 on 52%. Whatever the current negotiating position is, PRL are probably only aiming for parity - 2.6% per club - and are apparently bringing enough new cash that that can be done without reducing anyone's cash income.

Can anyone explain to me, in rational, economic terms and without appealing to the status quo, unions or issues of sovereignty, why that is such an unreasonable (and apparently grubby, given the repeated references to shekels) thing to want?

Poorfour, not really as some of the issues you have highlighted are intrinsically linked.  The ERC is a union-organised competition for their clubs - as such, income is split along union lines, and on that basis tilted to the advantage of the larger unions already to reflect their larger markets.  Were it a club-organised competition, then your 2.6% each case would be supportable, but it is NOT.  Personally I blame the RFU and the FFR for allowing PRL and LNR anywhere near this - instead of sorting things out with their own clubs, the other unions IRFU, FIR, WRU and SRU are now having to sort out their mess

Irish Londoner wrote:
I know BT are a huge company and can take a long term hit on their sports channels as its primary purpose is to act as a loss leader to get retain/gain broadband customers but longer term there's a distinct whiff of Setanta about this.

Funny you should say that. BT Sport and ESPN are both available on Setanta over here at no extra cost. If you already have Setanta, you automatically get those as well.

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

Poorfour wrote: Professional rugby is not robust enough anywhere that you can adopt a "to the victor the spoils" approach.

Can anyone explain to me, in rational, economic terms and without appealing to the status quo, unions or issues of sovereignty, why that is such an unreasonable (and apparently grubby, given the repeated references to shekels) thing to want?

Have you not just answered your own question?

If I (personally) was to embrace the "clubs are more important" stance, I would look at Leinster, Ulster and Munster and say "Grand. why do I give a fock how the Italian or Scottish teams do Let them stand on their own 2 feet Maybe we should pitch in with the French and English and make a few quid and fock the begrudgers"

Then in a few years when Scottish and Italian Rugby has gone down the Jax, I will be left going " Jaysus the 6 (sorry I mean 4) Nations is not as much fun any more is it?"

That is the crux of it, Jen - ultimately if the French and English clubs (and their representative bodies) get their way, it is not hard to envisage a scenario in which the demise of rugby in several countries (mine included) is dramatically hastened - and that, quite frankly, is not good for anyone.  However, in the interests of compromise, I would be happy to see a smaller Heino competition, with an equally smaller and upgraded Amlin one, plus a new third tier competition in place for the remainder (Heino split = 7 for the French - largest league, and it will annoy McCafferty, 6 for AP, 6 for Rabo - split as Rabo unions see fit, plus previous year's Heino winner; nothing for Amlin winner, and nothing for winner of 3rd tier comp either, except glory!)

I was thinking more of the collapse of Setanta in the UK, I gather the brand is still operating in Ireland and some other places.

Swperb. No-one could reasonably argue that there aren't some very good sides in the Rabo who are among the best in Europe, and have performed very well (albeit with the structural advantage of not having to qualify - the % goes up after the Pro 12 was formed).

However, you're only looking at one half of the question. The Pro 12 punches slightly above its weight in supplying quarter finalists, but I also suspect it supplies more than its fair share of 3rd and 4th placed finishers in the pools. Certainly English and French fans have a little smile when they've drawn an Italian side, Edinburgh, Connacht or even the Scarlets or Dragons.

The French position seems to be that they want to ensure that the teams in the competition are the best in their respective leagues - albeit with the compromise of ensuring one per union.

As, two points:

1) The ERC is a union-organised competition. But what's being negotiated is something different. As of the end of this season, the ERC in its current form is no more.

2) You are joking, right? You really think that a club-based competition could and should be organised effectively by a union? That's just about doable where the union has sufficient control over the game at all levels that union and club interests align. But in the larger markets it's just not sustainable. In an ideal world it might be the ideal way to do it, but it simply doesn't fly in the real world for the unions to manage that large a base of players and teams.

Irish Londoner, you could say that. But it's not the flippin' countries who play in the competition, is it?

It comes down to this: if the countries were bearing the cost of competing and those costs were relatively even (which is kind-of how it was in the pre-Rabo era), then the current revenue distribution might be fair. But the clubs bear the cost of competing, and those costs are not evenly distributed. Some of the distortion is self-inflicted (differing salary caps and wage bills), which is why a strict revenue to cost allocation isn't appropriate. But a revenue to team allocation is much fairer than the current setup.

Poorfour wrote:Swperb. No-one could reasonably argue that there aren't some very good sides in the Rabo who are among the best in Europe, and have performed very well (albeit with the structural advantage of not having to qualify - the % goes up after the Pro 12 was formed).

However, you're only looking at one half of the question. The Pro 12 punches slightly above its weight in supplying quarter finalists, but I also suspect it supplies more than its fair share of 3rd and 4th placed finishers in the pools. Certainly English and French fans have a little smile when they've drawn an Italian side, Edinburgh, Connacht or even the Scarlets or Dragons.

The French position seems to be that they want to ensure that the teams in the competition are the best in their respective leagues - albeit with the compromise of ensuring one per union.

Ok, I'll look in to that to see what the percentages are. You may be right, but I'm bored so I'll work it out anyway.

Poorfour wrote:As, two points:

1) The ERC is a union-organised competition. But what's being negotiated is something different. As of the end of this season, the ERC in its current form is no more.

2) You are joking, right? You really think that a club-based competition could and should be organised effectively by a union? That's just about doable where the union has sufficient control over the game at all levels that union and club interests align. But in the larger markets it's just not sustainable. In an ideal world it might be the ideal way to do it, but it simply doesn't fly in the real world for the unions to manage that large a base of players and teams.

Irish Londoner, you could say that. But it's not the flippin' countries who play in the competition, is it?

It comes down to this: if the countries were bearing the cost of competing and those costs were relatively even (which is kind-of how it was in the pre-Rabo era), then the current revenue distribution might be fair. But the clubs bear the cost of competing, and those costs are not evenly distributed. Some of the distortion is self-inflicted (differing salary caps and wage bills), which is why a strict revenue to cost allocation isn't appropriate. But a revenue to team allocation is much fairer than the current setup.

Not joking at all.  Ultimately the union must accept and handle overall responsibility for the game of rugby union in their respective countries, not professional clubs who completely have their own separate agendas - see my (and various others') point above regarding hastening the demise of the game in certain countries thru a restricted player pool operating at the highest level.  For an inter-country/inter-union competition, I am more than happy to see the unions organise it.

As to choosing to ignore costs, as convenient as that might be to your case, I don't see how you can possibly ask us to consider revenue alone while conveniently ignoring cost - the top French clubs play with a meaningless salary cap that sees them operate to budgets that the rest of the clubs in Europe can only dream about. You're after a level-playing field on one measure, but quite happy to overlook it elsewhere? Makes no sense to me

Irish Londoner wrote:I was thinking more of the collapse of Setanta in the UK, I gather the brand is still operating in Ireland and some other places.

I know you were. And yes it is. Australia and the US are the biggest. It started here in Ireland (by a couple of guys who I vaguely know) and is still going strong.

They just got involved in premiership soccer and were in over their heads in the UK. Like many before them. Perhaps a salutary lesson for BT. (Which is where you came in I think)

Since the inception of the Pro12 the number of 3rd and 4th placed teams in the Heineken Cup is as follows:

Pro12: 47%
T14: 19%
AP: 22%

Italian club teams: 13%

Since the Italian franchise teams joined:

Pro12: 53%
T14: 19%
AP: 28%

As, you misunderstand me. I am not "conveniently ignoring cost". The current set up is.

Right now, the distribution of ERC revenue bears no relation to the cost of running rugby in the participant unions. The French and English in effect subsidise the smaller number of teams in the Rabo unions.

I am saying that you have to take salary caps out of the equation for the exact same reason that you are - they are set locally and there are wide disparities. However, the underlying cost of running a rugby team (ground, coaches, support staff etc) doesn't vary as much and the current way that ERC revenue is shared doesn't reflect that there are more teams to support in some participating countries than others. Hence, revenues shared on a per-team basis seems much fairer to me than the current arrangement.

I agree that unions should have overall responsibility for the health of the game, that the clubs' and unions' interests do (and should) differ, and that the unions should be able to put controls on what the clubs do to protect the wider interests of the game.

But demanding that unions protect the ERC status quo is effectively demanding that clubs play in a competition that is uneconomic for the majority of them, and what you appear to favour is effectively a quasi-nationalisation of a reasonably large industry in two countries. Which a) is pretty much impossible to achieve by force in a modern democracy and b) has been so successful in the past. Not.

Underlying a lot of the comments on these debates there seems to be an assumption that the backers of English and French clubs are moustache-twirling silent movie villains determined to use their vast wealth to destroy rugby. They're not. For the most part, they're guys who love rugby and who are prepared to pump vast amounts of cash into the game to try to make it sustainable as a professional support. While they hope to make some money out of it in the long term, most of them are carrying big losses today. And while they have self- and club-interest at heart, most of them are also sophisticated enough to realise that there needs to be a degree of "all-in-this-together" for the whole enterprise to succeed. It would have been very easy for the PRL club owners (plus Leicester) to decide to match the French salary cap, but they didn't because that would have destroyed the league in England, eventually. These guys are not, as far as I can see, trying to hasten the demise of anyone's rugby, but they are (not unreasonably) not keen to continue supporting a commercially inept organisation (ERC) in a format that distributes a disproportionate share of the value to teams in other countries.

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:I was thinking more of the collapse of Setanta in the UK, I gather the brand is still operating in Ireland and some other places.

I know you were. And yes it is. Australia and the US are the biggest. It started here in Ireland (by a couple of guys who I vaguely know) and is still going strong.

They just got involved in premiership soccer and were in over their heads in the UK. Like many before them. Perhaps a salutary lesson for BT. (Which is where you came in I think)

The difference is that BT are involved for wholly different reasons and with wholly different economics. They are essentially defending a huge revenue base in phone and broadband from Sky, and rugby (and content in general) is an important weapon in that. They can afford to make big medium term investments if it secures their subscriber base long term (just as sky did originally in football). There's no comparison with Setanta, who I believe only do content.

Swperb. Thank you. I take it my point is accepted?

If it is an elite competition they are after then the following makeup of teams would make sense.

Pro12: 8
AP: 5
Top14: 7

Bringing down the number of teams in the Pro12 by two would statistically bring them roughly on a par with teams from the AP in regards to 3rd or 4th placing’s in the group stages. (It is close to 3)

Bringing down the number of teams from the AP would make up for their relatively poor account in regards to the percentage of clubs qualifying for the quarter finals in comparison with both other leagues.

Bringing up the number of Top14 teams to reflect their good account for themselves in regards to quarterfinals appearances and 3rd / 4th placing’s in the group stages.

This would bring the total number to 20 with no automatic qualification from previous competition winners of both the Heineken Cup and the Amlin.

5 Groups of 4.

With Qualification needed by the Pro12 sides. Based on last year’s standings you would get:
7 French
5 English
4 Irish
2 Welsh
1 Scottish
1 Italian

A fair account and a reflection of ability with all nations represented. (This time)

Poorfour wrote:As, you misunderstand me. I am not "conveniently ignoring cost". The current set up is.

Right now, the distribution of ERC revenue bears no relation to the cost of running rugby in the participant unions. The French and English in effect subsidise the smaller number of teams in the Rabo unions.

I am saying that you have to take salary caps out of the equation for the exact same reason that you are - they are set locally and there are wide disparities. However, the underlying cost of running a rugby team (ground, coaches, support staff etc) doesn't vary as much and the current way that ERC revenue is shared doesn't reflect that there are more teams to support in some participating countries than others. Hence, revenues shared on a per-team basis seems much fairer to me than the current arrangement.

I agree that unions should have overall responsibility for the health of the game, that the clubs' and unions' interests do (and should) differ, and that the unions should be able to put controls on what the clubs do to protect the wider interests of the game.

But demanding that unions protect the ERC status quo is effectively demanding that clubs play in a competition that is uneconomic for the majority of them, and what you appear to favour is effectively a quasi-nationalisation of a reasonably large industry in two countries. Which a) is pretty much impossible to achieve by force in a modern democracy and b) has been so successful in the past. Not.

Underlying a lot of the comments on these debates there seems to be an assumption that the backers of English and French clubs are moustache-twirling silent movie villains determined to use their vast wealth to destroy rugby. They're not. For the most part, they're guys who love rugby and who are prepared to pump vast amounts of cash into the game to try to make it sustainable as a professional support. While they hope to make some money out of it in the long term, most of them are carrying big losses today. And while they have self- and club-interest at heart, most of them are also sophisticated enough to realise that there needs to be a degree of "all-in-this-together" for the whole enterprise to succeed. It would have been very easy for the PRL club owners (plus Leicester) to decide to match the French salary cap, but they didn't because that would have destroyed the league in England, eventually. These guys are not, as far as I can see, trying to hasten the demise of anyone's rugby, but they are (not unreasonably) not keen to continue supporting a commercially inept organisation (ERC) in a format that distributes a disproportionate share of the value to teams in other countries.

Poorfour, I see where you are coming from, my friend, but let me take your argument to the n-th degree if I may.  Let's have a European-wide, cross-union series of club competitions that are organised wholly in the interests of the participating clubs, i.e. revenue is allocated on a per participating club basis.  Scottish pro-district's combined share drops to 5.2%, being sensible business types we must cut our cloth to match the reduced income, so we take the scalpel to the largest part of our variable costs (i.e. wages), this in turn reduces our competitiveness, we have an unattractive product that reduces public interest still further, our national team plummets down the rankings, and soon the 6Ns becomes 5Ns - next Italy, and repeat, then Ireland or Wales and repeat, and before long you discover that the PRL and LNR acting in their own self-interests have crushed the sport in the NH - bravo!  

Now you will rightly say, that's just silly, that's not the intention at all, and yes, to a degree there is exaggeration in the bleak scenario that I have painted. But the point remains that if you want a competitive 6Ns and NH club game, then I'm afraid that the wealthy unions (by dint of population and their media rights) must support the smaller ones.  The moustache-twirling NOT-so-silent movie villains have shown themselves largely incapable of running a sports business (neither a sport, nor indeed a fully-fledged business) without recourse to their own deep pockets - pretty soon we'll end up in the same position as the roundball game, which doesn't appear to be all that healthy to me.  When these guys get bored, what's next?  They can have all the money, but they'll eliminate the competition, or they can be sensible and have competition (as swperb's figures have shown) and take a broader look at how the money is divvied up (i.e. as is now, somewhere between strictly along union lines and strictly along participating club lines).  I don't see any other way?

Swperb wrote:If it is an elite competition they are after then the following makeup of teams would make sense.

Pro12: 8
AP: 5
Top14: 7

Bringing down the number of teams in the Pro12 by two would statistically bring them roughly on a par with teams from the AP in regards to 3rd or 4th placing’s in the group stages. (It is close to 3)

Bringing down the number of teams from the AP would make up for their relatively poor account in regards to the percentage of clubs qualifying for the quarter finals in comparison with both other leagues.

Bringing up the number of Top14 teams to reflect their good account for themselves in regards to quarterfinals appearances and 3rd / 4th placing’s in the group stages.

This would bring the total number to 20 with no automatic qualification from previous competition winners of both the Heineken Cup and the Amlin.

5 Groups of 4.

With Qualification needed by the Pro12 sides. Based on last year’s standings you would get:
7 French
5 English
4 Irish
2 Welsh
1 Scottish
1 Italian

A fair account and a reflection of ability with all nations represented. (This time)

Swperb, an interesting way of looking at things, and certainly worthy of further thought and debate

I'm not really a prescriber to the whole ‘elite’ competition. It was just an exercise to see what the standings are / would be.

I’m a firm believer in representation for all unions. Perhaps a qualifying round for all involved would sort it out? With the loser ending up in the Amlin? I suggested something similar in a previous thread.
There could then be no claim that the teams involved being unworthy of a place.

Perhaps 4 automatic places based on league standings for each league and then a qualifying round for the next 4 teams from each league?

Swperb wrote:I'm not really a prescriber to the whole ‘elite’ competition. It was just an exercise to see what the standings are / would be.  

I’m a firm believer in representation for all unions. Perhaps a qualifying round for all involved would sort it out? With the loser ending up in the Amlin? I suggested something similar in a previous thread.
There could then be no claim that the teams involved being unworthy of a place.

That is true, but I don't think that is the real issue here for PRL clubs (as I mentioned above, I think the LNR is more concerned with the scale of the competition and playoff dates) - the PRL simply wants a bigger slice of the cake. They have shown themselves unable to balance their books thus far (apart from a v short handful of clubs), and their solution is to throw more money at the problem, money that currently is allocated to different unions altogether

Yes. I completely agree. I'm just mooting these proposals to see what the pro-PRL camp reaction is.

Swperb wrote:This whole ‘elite’ thing really bothers me. There seems to be an inference that the Pro12 teams are regarded as being inferior in standard to that of the Aviva Premiership / Top 14 sides. A lot of the comments regarding this generally point to the last Heineken Cup, where I will concede that the Pro12 sides did not perform.
This is not the case generally. If you look at the results of the lifetime of the competition you will find that the make-up of the number sides that have appeared in the quarterfinals is as follows;

Pro12/Celtic sides: 38%
Top14 sides: 35%
Aviva Premiership sides: 27%

If you take out the years that the Aviva Premiership sides did not participate in the competition the percentages change to the following:

Pro12/Celtic sides: 37%
Top14 sides: 34%
Aviva Premiership sides: 29%

If you only want to consider the years where the Pro12 has been in existence then the percentages change to:

Pro12 sides: 36%
Top14 sides: 33%
Aviva Premiership sides: 31%

If you think that past results are not a current reflection of things then if we only look at the number of quarterfinalists over the previous 5 years we get:

Pro12 sides: 40%
Top14 sides: 35%
Aviva Premiership sides: 25%

Past 3 years:

Pro12 sides: 38%
Top14 sides: 38%
Aviva Premiership sides: 25%

Winners of the Heineken Cup are evenly spread across the leagues.

I don't think it's reasonable to look at some of your stats this way. If each league had the same number of entrants it would be but they don't. I believe the English & French usually have 6/7 and the rabo around 11. This means the rabo teams have another 4/5 chances of making the knockout rounds. Teams through to the knockouts as a % of number of teams in the HC (by league) might be an interesting stat though?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Swperb wrote:I'm not really a prescriber to the whole ‘elite’ competition. It was just an exercise to see what the standings are / would be.  

I’m a firm believer in representation for all unions. Perhaps a qualifying round for all involved would sort it out? With the loser ending up in the Amlin? I suggested something similar in a previous thread.
There could then be no claim that the teams involved being unworthy of a place.

That is true, but I don't think that is the real issue here for PRL clubs (as I mentioned above, I think the LNR is more concerned with the scale of the competition and playoff dates) - the PRL simply wants a bigger slice of the cake.  They have shown themselves unable to balance their books thus far (apart from a v short handful of clubs), and their solution is to throw more money at the problem, money that currently is allocated to different unions altogether

Didn't the PRL come out and say that under their proposal altough the % split would change in cash terms each team would be getting more?

Toadfish - yes they did, which is why, As, I don't think your scenario is - as you admit - particularly realistic.

There's a balance to be struck. I guess my point is that at the moment it is too far in favour of the Celtic nations (from the point of view of the English and French clubs so far in favour of the Celts that they don't want to play under that format any more, which has to tell you something).

In practice, the thorny bit is that the bias favours different unions in different ways. The increased share of cash enables the Scottish, Welsh and Irish clubs to keep going; the benefits of automatic qualification have helped Irish sides to dominate the competition for some years.

As you might have worked out, I'm less opposed to a skewed distribution of money than I am to the current qualifying model - but the degree of skew needs to be sorted. At the moment, the Rabo teams get around twice as much cash from the ERC as the French and English, and there can't really be justification for that when most teams are struggling to hit breakeven. The cash from BT would, it seems, allow parity without anyone having to cut budgets - and that's before French, Irish, Welsh, Scottish and Italian home game tv rights are put into the mix. So it's possible that there will be enough for everyone.

In terms of ownership, I don't see that you should tar club owners any more thoroughly than unions or the ERC. No-one's spotless. The IRFU - I think - are doing a fairly good job with the provinces. The SRU, FIR and WRU don't look like they're making a great fist of it, and the ERC looks to me even more flawed than the RFU. Leicester (fan-owned) is profitable, as are Exeter (mainly through owning some juicy land, IIRC), Saints and a couple of French clubs. Quins have plans to get to breakeven in the next couple of years and so do a few others.

I've seen very little to suggest round-ball like behaviour among the owners. A couple have pulled out but only after several years of funding and usually triggered by something external (like failure of another business or of a strategic part of the plan). There's little sign of clubs ramping up massive debts (outside of France - and I would agree that their salary cap is excessive and unsustainable. We'll just have to tough it out), or sacking managers on a weekly basis.

Toadfish wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Swperb wrote:I'm not really a prescriber to the whole ‘elite’ competition. It was just an exercise to see what the standings are / would be.  

I’m a firm believer in representation for all unions. Perhaps a qualifying round for all involved would sort it out? With the loser ending up in the Amlin? I suggested something similar in a previous thread.
There could then be no claim that the teams involved being unworthy of a place.

That is true, but I don't think that is the real issue here for PRL clubs (as I mentioned above, I think the LNR is more concerned with the scale of the competition and playoff dates) - the PRL simply wants a bigger slice of the cake.  They have shown themselves unable to balance their books thus far (apart from a v short handful of clubs), and their solution is to throw more money at the problem, money that currently is allocated to different unions altogether

Didn't the PRL come out and say that under their proposal altough the % split would change in cash terms each team would be getting more?

Toadfish, I believe that was McCafferty's claim, but I haven't seen any numbers to support it and wouldn't dream of taking the word of that man

I should add for completeness that the ERC claim that their new Sky deal is worth more to all teams - again I remain a healthy sceptic till I see the evidence

Interestingly if this Hootsmon article is true (and bear in mind that their normal source is the the spoof daily Porridge), then it would seem that the SRU blazeratti have already completely caved in along the lines that you would like, Poorfour!!

http://m.scotsman.com/sport/rugby/latest/dodson-stands-firm-on-5m-heineken-cup-pot-for-sru-1-2969914