New European Rugby cup (or whatever it is called) - Qualification agreed

TJ wrote:What the PRL said.  They were saying how much the RCC was worth and how much each union would get from it.  That implies they had "sold" all the games.

mystiroakey wrote:its also against the eu law to have quotas as well

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:England's success is now in the past. You were a laughing stock at the last world cup, remember.

Most of the clubs are in deep financial trouble. (Only 4 of the 12 are living within their means).

Thanks for pointing out and confirming my point that the Union owned clubs are the best run clubs because they live within their means, retain their best players and wins lots of stuff.

Just so you know, the IRFU 'subsidy' to clubs is paid out of ERC money as the IRFU retain all of it. The Provinces get to keep ticket money, jersey sales and sponsorship. Munster could earn twice to three times in ticket sales for home games in Thomond Park than the likes of Quins, Northampton etc. because of the capacity of their grounds and of course, Munster would have much better corporate facilities.

Leinster can even do better. Probably get 50K paying full whack for the sale of their tickets for the Northampton home game before Christmas in the Aviva.

Hard for English clubs (exception Leicester) in competing with that.

So the English clubs should be given a bigger share of the ERC money. After all you're suggesting the WRU get more of the Pro12 TV money because their teams need it. You've just demostrated that the Irish teams are in a much better financial situation than the English clubs so they should get a bigger slice.....right?

I think the English clubs should live within their means. Look to clubs like Exeter & Leicester who are able to manage their affairs well.

Soft cash isn't a good idea. Saracens etc. will only squander the extra money on Elvis entertainers and giving free beer to students (and they still can't get people to support the club).

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Sin e could you give evidence that the union run clubs make a profit as it seems that they take more from the Unions than they contrbute. Also the English teams seem to be the only ones who have to pay for their stadiums. This is were several PRL clubs do not make a profit because either they don't own their home grounds or are spending money to upgrade them so that they are financialy viable.

The IRFU take all the money that the clubs earn from Heineken Cup Rugby & Rabo (like prize money, merit payments etc). They pay the clubs something like 5m per year from central funds.

The clubs own and sell their own sponsorship, ticket sale, jersey sales, corporate entertainment etc.

Munster developed Thomond Park (with a repayable loan from the IRFU - Munster has to repay the IRFU something like 10m by 2018 or something). Munster are also in the process of developing our other ground in Cork (Musgrave Park). This is being done by the sale of some land down there and is not reliant on funds from the IRFU.

So, Munster has two stadiums to finance and isn't moaning about it. It also supports two training bases (One in Limerick and one in Cork)  

I believe the turnover of Munster Rugby is about 12m per annum. I know a few years ago, getting a home semi in the HC was worth 800K to Munster (between ticket sales and sponsorship merit payments).

The provinces do have benefactors - for instance, a Leinster supporter built their training centre for them. And JP McManus (of Manchester United / Racing fame) supposedly donated the amount of money necessary so that Thomond Park Stadium didn't need to sell its naming rights.

Thankfully, all these benefactors stay in the background and don't go crawthumpting like Wray and Co about how much money they spend on 'their' club.

because there is a big difference between a club being "yours" because you support it, and a club being "yours" because you own it. the IRFU owns the provincial branches that field the teams. If McManus did "own" the club i bet he, like any owner, might expect to have control and input.

anyway it's all by the by, as its very hard to compare such totally contrasting systems as Eng/Fre and Irish, without understanding all the small contributing factors to how they operate. keeps us amused here while we wait for more scraps from the ERC/PRL/FFR/LNR table.

Don't think he bothered too much with any input into Manchester United when he was a majority shareholder (with Magnier) - left them to it. And when the price was right, he just sold his interest.

This might keep you amused:

Its against EU law to sell exclusive broadcasting rights for longer than 3 years.

@FootballLaw BREAKING: Mediapro & Real, Barca, Sevilla & Racing fined by Spanish Comp Authority for signing b'casting agreements longer than 3 yrs.

@FootballLaw The fine amounts are €6.5 Mediapro, €3.9m Real, €3.6m Barca , €900k Sevilla & Racing €30,000.

@FootballLaw The Spanish language press release is here http://cnmcblog.es/2013/12/02/multa-...ubs-de-futbol/ …

@FootballLaw @KevSportsLaw The Commission has been pretty insistent over the years that any exclusive contract should not be for more than 3 years.

Guess what the PRL have done? Thats right - sold the Aviva to BT for 4 years  

(from a poster on Munsterfans).

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:

This might keep you amused:

Its against EU law to sell exclusive broadcasting rights for longer than 3 years.

@FootballLaw BREAKING: Mediapro & Real, Barca, Sevilla & Racing fined by Spanish Comp Authority for signing b'casting agreements longer than 3 yrs.

@FootballLaw The fine amounts are €6.5 Mediapro, €3.9m Real, €3.6m Barca , €900k Sevilla & Racing €30,000.

@FootballLaw The Spanish language press release is here http://cnmcblog.es/2013/12/02/multa-...ubs-de-futbol/ …

@FootballLaw @KevSportsLaw The Commission has been pretty insistent over the years that any exclusive contract should not be for more than 3 years.

Guess what the PRL have done? Thats right - sold the Aviva to BT for 4 years  

(from a poster on Munsterfans).

Do you mean like the ERC did with the HEC?

http://corporate.sky.com/media/press_releases/2012/four_more_years_of_european_rugby_live_on_sky_sports

broadlandboy wrote:ITV have Highlights deal so BT is exclusive only for live games. Don't know if that makes a difference but a thought

Sin é wrote:Everyone needs to live within their means.

mystiroakey wrote:you seriously dont know what a quota is and how it goes against European employment laws.?

Sin é wrote:Yep, luckily for the ERC that agreement hasn't kicked in yet so they can change it, unlike the PRL.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:Everyone needs to live within their means.

I'm sorry I'm a bit confused here.

You say the Pro12 give more TV money to the WRU because they're in need of the cash.

But the clubs shouldn't be given more ERC money even though they also are in need of cash?

Which is it?

mystiroakey wrote:rugby teams?

who do you think

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:Everyone needs to live within their means.

I'm sorry I'm a bit confused here.

You say the Pro12 give more TV money to the WRU because they're in need of the cash.

But the clubs shouldn't be given more ERC money even though they also are in need of cash?

Which is it?

I said the IRFU probably didn't push for the same amount of money as the Welsh (also 4 teams) as they are financially stable - unlike the Welsh Clubs.

Similarly, the IRFU have backed the Scots in their need to not earn any less than what they are earning now because they will go to the wall.

mystiroakey wrote:off course nothing will come from it. these laws are allways broken

The fine amounts are €6.5 Mediapro, €3.9m Real, €3.6m Barca , €900k Sevilla & Racing €30,000.

mystiroakey wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:Everyone needs to live within their means.

I'm sorry I'm a bit confused here.

You say the Pro12 give more TV money to the WRU because they're in need of the cash.

But the clubs shouldn't be given more ERC money even though they also are in need of cash?

Which is it?

I said the IRFU probably didn't push for the same amount of money as the Welsh (also 4 teams) as they are financially stable - unlike the Welsh Clubs.

Similarly, the IRFU have backed the Scots in their need to not earn any less than what they are earning now because they will go to the wall.

Its funny that isnt it.

The IFRU backing the competition that hands them out money paid for by the french and English , because they screw them in the RABO!! /headsgone

mystiroakey wrote:Sin e as mentioned a million times to you. IN RUGBY , football as i have explained is totally different

/headsgone

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:Everyone needs to live within their means.

I'm sorry I'm a bit confused here.

You say the Pro12 give more TV money to the WRU because they're in need of the cash.

But the clubs shouldn't be given more ERC money even though they also are in need of cash?

Which is it?

I said the IRFU probably didn't push for the same amount of money as the Welsh (also 4 teams) as they are financially stable - unlike the Welsh Clubs.

Similarly, the IRFU have backed the Scots in their need to not earn any less than what they are earning now because they will go to the wall.

Sin é wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Sin e as mentioned a million times to you. IN RUGBY , football as i have explained is totally different

/headsgone

Not in the EU's eyes. They are both sports that compete and have broadcasting rights to sell.

quinsforever wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:

quinsforever wrote: (having seen the % of matches played by irish squad players in Rabo its easy to see why). .

The old you rotate more in your league myth  

1. it's no myth. look at playing % of intl squad members in their domestic leagues in matches where there is no HC conflict.
2. it's contracutally enforced by IRFU on their "well-run" clubs so its not about rotation.
3. why is it always the irish players who say they need HC as their "testing-ground" for picking the international squad? don't hear that from england or french union setups.

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:Everyone needs to live within their means.

I'm sorry I'm a bit confused here.

You say the Pro12 give more TV money to the WRU because they're in need of the cash.

But the clubs shouldn't be given more ERC money even though they also are in need of cash?

Which is it?

I said the IRFU probably didn't push for the same amount of money as the Welsh (also 4 teams) as they are financially stable - unlike the Welsh Clubs.

Similarly, the IRFU have backed the Scots in their need to not earn any less than what they are earning now because they will go to the wall.

Sin é wrote:Going on what you said previously, the Rabo Pro 12 teams seem to keep the funds generated in their own countries which would mean that it is based on number of games played by the teams.

Scotland has 2 teams. Italy 2 teams (and their own broadcaster), Ireland 4 & Wales 4.

Haven't the IRFU agreed to a per team split in the ERC (1/3 each for each league)?

From that information, you would expect that the Irish and Welsh teams would get the same amount (based on interest from the countries), but according to you the Welsh clubs get most of the money.

Now, I don't know why that is the case, but on the face of it Ireland and Wales should be getting the same money, and that should be double what Italy & Scotland get.

I'd imagine the Scots are in a better financial situation than the Welsh (who are in debt between them of about 30m).

mystiroakey wrote:

Sin é wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Sin e as mentioned a million times to you. IN RUGBY , football as i have explained is totally different

/headsgone

Not in the EU's eyes. They are both sports that compete and have broadcasting rights to sell.

so the erc sign a 4 year deal and the Prl sign a 4 year deal?

And you think they just didn't know about this EU law?

They knew and they just didn't care,

You think Frances RU foreign player quota is also EU legal , yet when the PL think about expanding there English player quota there are talking about having to sort it out with the EU first.

And just because the rest of us(RU leagues) dont officially have a foreign player quota doesn't mean he dont theoretically

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:Going on what you said previously, the Rabo Pro 12 teams seem to keep the funds generated in their own countries which would mean that it is based on number of games played by the teams.

How do you work that one out? SRU get the money that BBC Alba pay for all the games. They own the rights to a 6th of the games.

Scotland has 2 teams. Italy 2 teams (and their own broadcaster), Ireland 4 & Wales 4.

Haven't the IRFU agreed to a per team split in the ERC (1/3 each for each league)?

1. They have indeed. And that was what the PRL proposed and called greedy over.

From that information, you would expect that the Irish and Welsh teams would get the same amount (based on interest from the countries), but according to you the Welsh clubs get most of the money.

Now, I don't know why that is the case, but on the face of it Ireland and Wales should be getting the same money, and that should be double what Italy & Scotland get.

2. I've already said why that's the case (if it's true, the PRO12 TV deals are shrouded in mystery). It's because BBCW and S4C pay more money for all the Pro12 games than BBC NI and RTE.

I'd imagine the Scots are in a better financial situation than the Welsh (who are in debt between them of about 30m).

Dunno.

geoff998rugby wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:

quinsforever wrote: (having seen the % of matches played by irish squad players in Rabo its easy to see why). .

The old you rotate more in your league myth  

1. it's no myth. look at playing % of intl squad members in their domestic leagues in matches where there is no HC conflict.
2. it's contracutally enforced by IRFU on their "well-run" clubs so its not about rotation.
3. why is it always the irish players who say they need HC as their "testing-ground" for picking the international squad? don't hear that from england or french union setups.

Taking the Irish front row as an example please look up the number of games played by Healy , Best and Ross at all levels in the last 3 years (2010-13)
and then compare with Corbo, Cole and Youngs/Hartley (you choice) and see who has played the most

When that myth is destroyed we can go on to other positions

Sin é wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Sin é wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Sin e as mentioned a million times to you. IN RUGBY , football as i have explained is totally different

/headsgone

Not in the EU's eyes. They are both sports that compete and have broadcasting rights to sell.

so the erc sign a 4 year deal and the Prl sign a 4 year deal?

And you think they just didn't know about this EU law?

They knew and they just didn't care,

You think Frances RU foreign player quota is also EU legal , yet when the PL think about expanding there English player quota there are talking about having to sort it out with the EU first.

And just because the rest of us(RU leagues) dont officially have a foreign player quota doesn't mean he dont theoretically

I think the difference maybe 4 year exclusive deal. The ERC will also be selling rights to a French and an Italian broadcaster, so they are not technically selling exclusive rights exclusively - unlike the PRL.

These kind of quotas are not unusual to protect the country's interests (in the interests of the French national team this time). For example, people without an EU passport have to get a work permit if they want to work in Europe. Its not a free for all. In countries like Australia, you have to apply for a work visa if you want to work there and they may only grant them if you are on the list of required occupations.

quinsforever wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:

quinsforever wrote: (having seen the % of matches played by irish squad players in Rabo its easy to see why). .

The old you rotate more in your league myth  

1. it's no myth. look at playing % of intl squad members in their domestic leagues in matches where there is no HC conflict.
2. it's contracutally enforced by IRFU on their "well-run" clubs so its not about rotation.
3. why is it always the irish players who say they need HC as their "testing-ground" for picking the international squad? don't hear that from england or french union setups.

Taking the Irish front row as an example please look up the number of games played by Healy , Best and Ross at all levels in the last 3 years (2010-13)
and then compare with Corbo, Cole and Youngs/Hartley (you choice) and see who has played the most

When that myth is destroyed we can go on to other positions

don't need to look at statistics, distorted by injury, whether people were first choice, other club options, etc, etc.

all i need to know, and all you need to know, is this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/25184789

clubs in the AP pick the best players they can to win over the course of the season. often against the wishes of the RFU who might like them rested but has ZERO input outside windows and agreed training release days. this conflict does not exist in ireland. at least not until sexton went to France it didnt. and he had played what, 10 of the first 11 top14 matches, vs an average of less than 50% of rabo league matches career to date?

if you don't see this then there will be no convincing you.

Sin é wrote:I'd imagine the Scots are in a better financial situation than the Welsh (who are in debt between them of about 30m).

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:

quinsforever wrote: (having seen the % of matches played by irish squad players in Rabo its easy to see why). .

The old you rotate more in your league myth  

1. it's no myth. look at playing % of intl squad members in their domestic leagues in matches where there is no HC conflict.
2. it's contracutally enforced by IRFU on their "well-run" clubs so its not about rotation.
3. why is it always the irish players who say they need HC as their "testing-ground" for picking the international squad? don't hear that from england or french union setups.

Taking the Irish front row as an example please look up the number of games played by Healy , Best and Ross at all levels in the last 3 years (2010-13)
and then compare with Corbo, Cole and Youngs/Hartley (you choice) and see who has played the most

When that myth is destroyed we can go on to other positions

don't need to look at statistics, distorted by injury, whether people were first choice, other club options, etc, etc.

all i need to know, and all you need to know, is this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/25184789

clubs in the AP pick the best players they can to win over the course of the season. often against the wishes of the RFU who might like them rested but has ZERO input outside windows and agreed training release days. this conflict does not exist in ireland. at least not until sexton went to France it didnt. and he had played what, 10 of the first 11 top14 matches, vs an average of less than 50% of rabo league matches career to date?

if you don't see this then there will be no convincing you.

Quins, naughty boy, we both know that's simply not true - look at Bath and their selection for their away game vs Sarries earlier this season - a virtual B team.  I've also never really understood this criticism in general - I think it makes vastly more sense to try and manage the working life of your assets

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Sin é wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Sin e as mentioned a million times to you. IN RUGBY , football as i have explained is totally different

/headsgone

Not in the EU's eyes. They are both sports that compete and have broadcasting rights to sell.

so the erc sign a 4 year deal and the Prl sign a 4 year deal?

And you think they just didn't know about this EU law?

They knew and they just didn't care,

You think Frances RU foreign player quota is also EU legal , yet when the PL think about expanding there English player quota there are talking about having to sort it out with the EU first.

And just because the rest of us(RU leagues) dont officially have a foreign player quota doesn't mean he dont theoretically

I think the difference maybe 4 year exclusive deal. The ERC will also be selling rights to a French and an Italian broadcaster, so they are not technically selling exclusive rights exclusively - unlike the PRL.

These kind of quotas are not unusual to protect the country's interests (in the interests of the French national team this time). For example, people without an EU passport have to get a work permit if they want to work in Europe. Its not a free for all. In countries like Australia, you have to apply for a work visa if you want to work there and they may only grant them if you are on the list of required occupations.

that is the very definition of EXCLUSIVE. if SKY then choose to on-sell certain rights in certain jurisdictions, that is completely irrelevant. at the point the rights are given they are given EXCLUSIVELY to SKY. nobody else has those rights. that is the definition of exclusive.

quinsforever wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:

quinsforever wrote: (having seen the % of matches played by irish squad players in Rabo its easy to see why). .

The old you rotate more in your league myth  

1. it's no myth. look at playing % of intl squad members in their domestic leagues in matches where there is no HC conflict.
2. it's contracutally enforced by IRFU on their "well-run" clubs so its not about rotation.
3. why is it always the irish players who say they need HC as their "testing-ground" for picking the international squad? don't hear that from england or french union setups.

Taking the Irish front row as an example please look up the number of games played by Healy , Best and Ross at all levels in the last 3 years (2010-13)
and then compare with Corbo, Cole and Youngs/Hartley (you choice) and see who has played the most

When that myth is destroyed we can go on to other positions

don't need to look at statistics, distorted by injury, whether people were first choice, other club options, etc, etc.

all i need to know, and all you need to know, is this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/25184789

clubs in the AP pick the best players they can to win over the course of the season. often against the wishes of the RFU who might like them rested but has ZERO input outside windows and agreed training release days. this conflict does not exist in ireland. at least not until sexton went to France it didnt. and he had played what, 10 of the first 11 top14 matches, vs an average of less than 50% of rabo league matches career to date?

if you don't see this then there will be no convincing you.

Quins, naughty boy, we both know that's simply not true - look at Bath and their selection for their away game vs Sarries earlier this season - a virtual B team.  I've also never really understood this criticism in general - I think it makes vastly more sense to try and manage the working life of your assets

yes but they're not resting players for either int'l requirements (irfu has different rules to rfu) or to play in HC. rabo12 attendance figures are dire too. i am on a welsh forum and have lost count of the number of times i hear people complaining about the regions rarely seeing their star players (and that was before they all upped sticks )

quinsforever wrote:really? so why is there not one single mention of the ERC negotiating or agreeing TV rights with Canal+, France2, or the italian broadcaster (SKY Italia) separately. not a single mention. anywhere. ever.

maybe because SKY, who already film and broadcast the matches in 5 countries, do in fact get given exclusive exclusivity and then sell on the rights to broadcast in France?

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:

quinsforever wrote: (having seen the % of matches played by irish squad players in Rabo its easy to see why). .

The old you rotate more in your league myth  

1. it's no myth. look at playing % of intl squad members in their domestic leagues in matches where there is no HC conflict.
2. it's contracutally enforced by IRFU on their "well-run" clubs so its not about rotation.
3. why is it always the irish players who say they need HC as their "testing-ground" for picking the international squad? don't hear that from england or french union setups.

Taking the Irish front row as an example please look up the number of games played by Healy , Best and Ross at all levels in the last 3 years (2010-13)
and then compare with Corbo, Cole and Youngs/Hartley (you choice) and see who has played the most

When that myth is destroyed we can go on to other positions

don't need to look at statistics, distorted by injury, whether people were first choice, other club options, etc, etc.

all i need to know, and all you need to know, is this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/25184789

clubs in the AP pick the best players they can to win over the course of the season. often against the wishes of the RFU who might like them rested but has ZERO input outside windows and agreed training release days. this conflict does not exist in ireland. at least not until sexton went to France it didnt. and he had played what, 10 of the first 11 top14 matches, vs an average of less than 50% of rabo league matches career to date?

if you don't see this then there will be no convincing you.

Quins, naughty boy, we both know that's simply not true - look at Bath and their selection for their away game vs Sarries earlier this season - a virtual B team.  I've also never really understood this criticism in general - I think it makes vastly more sense to try and manage the working life of your assets

yes but they're not resting players for either int'l requirements (irfu has different rules to rfu) or to play in HC. rabo12 attendance figures are dire too. i am on a welsh forum and have lost count of the number of times i hear people complaining about the regions rarely seeing their star players (and that was before they all upped sticks )

Rabo attendances in Wales last weekend were similar to the AP, despite all the Welsh star playing an international the next day.

Dragons v Munster : 7,118
Ospreys v Glasgow: 5,679
Falcons v Quins: 6,017
Worchester Warriors v Saints: 7,808
Saracens v Sale Sharks: 7,126

The biggest game was with the more traditional clubs: Gloucester v Leicester 14,803 and the Bath v Chiefs Darby: 12,200.

Leinster at home to Scarlets (without their stars): 15,740.

Sin é wrote:The 3 year rule is an EU law, though, isn't it?

If the Spanish ComReg didn't find them, the EU could find the Spanish Government.

I'd imagine someone like ITV or BBC could complain about the contract and force the British ComReg guy to do something about it.