PRO12 has new Managing Director and he isn't Irish :D :yahoo:

First topic message reminder :

Welcome Martin Anayi, you are going to have your hands full.

Read more at http://www.pro12rugby.com/news/17587.php#kJPQdWr0F2UKZ8DF.99

Munchkin wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Success on the field, and good management, increases wealth. That success on the field, and good management, comes first...

And the biggest spending budgets per team in Europe goes a fair way to that as well.

Ha! And you have just accused me of knowing '**** all'. Get your facts right, LD

I am just going by what was said on this link:-

http://gwladrugby.com/?p=1493

Munchkin wrote:
You haven't really asked me anything specific about 2010. My powers of telepathy are weak this afternoon, so please enlighten as to what exactly you would like me to answer.

Up until 2010 the Welsh teams were competitive. I don't think that anybody could disagree with that.

At that point, the Agreement written by Lewis (signed by the four pro teams who he had over a barrel as they had no PRL leverage at that time) kicked in. Whilst wages in Europe escalated and fair payment for player release was in place, in Wales we were in a position to offer neither. Our better players left and our teams weakened considerably.

The work of one man - Roger Lewis.

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Success on the field, and good management, increases wealth. That success on the field, and good management, comes first...

And the biggest spending budgets per team in Europe goes a fair way to that as well.

Ha! And you have just accused me of knowing '**** all'. Get your facts right, LD

I am just going by what was said on this link:-

http://gwladrugby.com/?p=1493

The one titled 'Player Costs'?

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:The point you miss, or ignore, is that the Regions are really not independent. They rely on WRU cash, they couldn't survive without PRL, according to you.

See, there you go again, coming to your own conclusions when you do not really know feck all. The thing is, the money that the regions generate through TV, and producing players for team Wales all goes to the WRU. The WRU then divvies this money up between the four regions, they do this so that each region is on an equal footing.

What Roger was doing was keeping some of the money back that the regions were making through the media to pay off stadium debt and bucks fizz and chicken portions.

The WRU give the regions money for taking the players for team Wales, and they give the TV money out equally. This money is all earned by the regions in the first place, so how the feck are the regions rely on the WRU cash, when it is not the WRU's cash to start with.

The WRU kept the Regions money back?!? Did they really? You mean the WRU didn't hand back all the broadcasting revenue that the Regions made, to the Regions, and top that up with WRU money made from the internationals?

Show me, LD. Show me the proof of this or withdraw your comment.

PhilBB wrote:

Sin é wrote:

So, its all about the handouts? You are clueless if you think that match attendances are irrelevant. A European QF is worth about 1m to Munster when they factor in sponsorship merit payments and hospitality, ticket sales etc.

Jebus, nothing has changed for the Provinces on the old meritocracy thing. Good chance that Connacht will make it on their own merits. If the Welsh Regions are as clueless as you are about the benefits of attendances, sponsorship etc., no wonder they are commercially unviable.

You've misread and misinterpreted. I wrote that the secondary income is small fry in comparison with the value of the tournament. In other words, to explain it for you, having even one guaranteed slot is not something I'm in favour of. It should be entirely based on meritocracy in order for the tournament to achieve its full value.

And, not only did you misread, you've now claimed the four businesses are not commercially viable. That, in itself, is a remarkably ignorant statement.

If the new European system was concerned about merit then it would have scrapped every team from the top tier nations qualifying for either of the ERCC or Challenge Cup but just as the Irish, Welsh, Scots and Italians have ensured that everyone gets a place at the top table the English and French make sure everyone gets a piece of the pie too

PhilBB wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Success on the field, and good management, increases wealth. That success on the field, and good management, comes first...

And the biggest spending budgets per team in Europe goes a fair way to that as well.

Ha! And you have just accused me of knowing '**** all'. Get your facts right, LD

I am just going by what was said on this link:-

http://gwladrugby.com/?p=1493

The one titled 'Player Costs'?

Have you read it ?

If so what do you make of it ?

Munchkin wrote:

The WRU kept the Regions money back?!? Did they really? You mean the WRU didn't hand back all the broadcasting revenue that the Regions made, to the Regions, and top that up with WRU money made from the internationals?

Show me, LD. Show me the proof of this or withdraw your comment.

He'll struggle to do that.

marty2086 wrote:
If the new European system was concerned about merit then it would have scrapped every team from the top tier nations qualifying for either of the ERCC or Challenge Cup but just as the Irish, Welsh, Scots and Italians have ensured that everyone gets a place at the top table the English and French make sure everyone gets a piece of the pie too

That doesn't make any sense.

LordDowlais wrote:
Have you read it ?

If so what do you make of it ?

I was involved in putting it together.

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Success on the field, and good management, increases wealth. That success on the field, and good management, comes first...

And the biggest spending budgets per team in Europe goes a fair way to that as well.

Ha! And you have just accused me of knowing '**** all'. Get your facts right, LD

I am just going by what was said on this link:-

http://gwladrugby.com/?p=1493

This is hilarious That little article is a load of hogwash....on GWlad!!!! That you accept as authoritative?!?

Munchkin wrote:

This is hilarious  That little article is a load of hogwash....on GWlad!!!! That you accept as authoritative?!?

The point on the wages paid by the Irish teams is far from hogwash. It is information taken from the IRFU annual reports and Branch accounts, written by accountants.

Sorry, Munchkin.

Munchkin wrote:The WRU kept the Regions money back?!? Did they really? You mean the WRU didn't hand back all the broadcasting revenue that the Regions made, to the Regions, and top that up with WRU money made from the internationals?

Show me, LD. Show me the proof of this or withdraw your comment.

Do you know what, I am sick to death with things like this, give me proof, show me a link, FFS.

Look, the WRU negotiated the TV deals for the regions with in the Pro12. All the TV money that is generated from the Pro12 and BOTH European competitions goes to the WRU. The WRU then share it out equally between the four regions, even though you get more TV money for the top tier European competition, you still get the same share off the WRU.

What was happening was, Roger Lewis was paying less than any other country for the release of players for team Wales, and he was not giving ALL the TV money back to the regions, he was using it to finance the stadium debt and other things.

This is why the regions went to war with the WRU, not because they all woke up one morning and fancied a fight. Can anybody remember Roger Lewis's look at me interviews where he was claiming record profits for the WRU ? This is becuase he was not giving the regions the money they were earning. He was servicing debt with it. Why the WRU's debt had to be the burden of the regions is anyone's guess, but that is what was happening. I am not giving you links or proof, if you do not want to believe me then don't. I will not lose sleep over it.

PhilBB wrote:

Sin é wrote:

So, its all about the handouts? You are clueless if you think that match attendances are irrelevant. A European QF is worth about 1m to Munster when they factor in sponsorship merit payments and hospitality, ticket sales etc.

Jebus, nothing has changed for the Provinces on the old meritocracy thing. Good chance that Connacht will make it on their own merits. If the Welsh Regions are as clueless as you are about the benefits of attendances, sponsorship etc., no wonder they are commercially unviable.

You've misread and misinterpreted. I wrote that the secondary income is small fry in comparison with the value of the tournament. In other words, to explain it for you, having even one guaranteed slot is not something I'm in favour of. It should be entirely based on meritocracy in order for the tournament to achieve its full value.

And, not only did you misread, you've now claimed the four businesses are not commercially viable. That, in itself, is a remarkably ignorant statement.

I'd be happy with just league league qualification rather than country. In fact I think the Champs Cup funds should be divided up between the teams that actually qualify to play in it and similarly for the Secondary Cup, they should just get the income they actually earned.

LordDowlais wrote:

Do you know what, I am sick to death with things like this, give me proof, show me a link, FFS.

Look, the WRU negotiated the TV deals for the regions with in the Pro12. All the TV money that is generated from the Pro12 and BOTH European competitions goes to the WRU. The WRU then share it out equally between the four regions, even though you get more TV money for the top tier European competition, you still get the same share off the WRU.

What was happening was, Roger Lewis was paying less than any other country for the release of players for team Wales, and he was not giving ALL the TV money back to the regions, he was using it to finance the stadium debt and other things.

This is why the regions went to war with the WRU, not because they all woke up one morning and fancied a fight. Can anybody remember Roger Lewis's look at me interviews where he was claiming record profits for the WRU ? This is becuase he was not giving the regions the money they were earning. He was servicing debt with it. Why the WRU's debt had to be the burden of the regions is anyone's guess, but that is what was happening. I am not giving you links or proof, if you do not want to believe me then don't. I will not lose sleep over it.

1. You don't more money for the top tier European competition. The money is paid equally to all competitors.
2. The contract agreed (the old PA) ensured that all broadcast and competition income was paid into the WRU (to meet banking covenants with Barclays) and then on to the four teams. Lewis met the terms of this contract. He passed on ALL of the money.
3. What he didn't do was pay the market rate for player release and minimising non-Welsh qualified players. That's your confusion.

Lewis met the terms of the PA. What was shown by the witholding of the ERC payment (when it laughably claimed it had to keep reserves to meet wind down costs) is that the WRU were not obliged to pass on that money, thus proving that the income of that competition was due direct to the four teams.

Lewis serviced the debt, far too quickly, with the cream of the money made by the international game. His margin there was greater as he was underpaying, significantly, his supply chain.

Sin é wrote:

I'd be happy with just league league qualification rather than country. In fact I think the Champs Cup funds should be divided up between the teams that actually qualify to play in it and similarly for the Secondary Cup, they should just get the income they actually earned.

I totally agree and, in keeping with that team meritocracy payment, each team should be owned and run by an organisation which has no ownership of any other participating team or any officials.

Phill, either way he was ripping off the regions, and the regions do not rely on the WRU to keep them afloat they earn their own money.

LordDowlais wrote:Phill, either way he was ripping off the regions, and the regions do not rely on the WRU to keep them afloat they earn their own money.

Quite right, sir.

PhilBB wrote:He passed on ALL of the money.

I think you will find that he wasn't. This is one of the big things the regions were fighting about.

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

This is hilarious  That little article is a load of hogwash....on GWlad!!!! That you accept as authoritative?!?

The point on the wages paid by the Irish teams is far from hogwash. It is information taken from the IRFU annual reports and Branch accounts, written by accountants.

Sorry, Munchkin.

It's a load of nonsense with a skewed interpretation of the facts. I will touch on it later, as well as check your links out. Thanks for the links. I've barely time to comment on LD's ridiculous claims, but hard to resist

Munchkin wrote:I've barely time to comment on LD's ridiculous claims

What ridiculous claims ?

LordDowlais wrote:

PhilBB wrote:He passed on ALL of the money.

I think you will find that he wasn't. This is one of the big things the regions were fighting about.

He passed on all of the money he was contractually bound to do so.

Munchkin wrote:
It's a load of nonsense with a skewed interpretation of the facts. I will touch on it later, as well as check your links out. Thanks for the links. I've barely time to comment on LD's ridiculous claims, but hard to resist

I look forward to your explanation of why the 'salaries' and 'professional game costs' to indicate wages (which discount the additional sums paid by third parties) is a 'load of nonsense'.

Having seen the figures and the branch accounts, I can assure that they are not, but I'll wait for your viewpoint and counter figures later on.

And please do read that link to the Senedd. It will give you the full picture of what Lewis was like to deal with, or at least a large idea. The man has almost killed the professional game here.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
If the new European system was concerned about merit then it would have scrapped every team from the top tier nations qualifying for either of the ERCC or Challenge Cup but just as the Irish, Welsh, Scots and Italians have ensured that everyone gets a place at the top table the English and French make sure everyone gets a piece of the pie too

That doesn't make any sense.

How does it not make sense?

Every team from the Pro12, Top14 and AP either qualify for the ERCC or Challenge Cup even those promoted into the AP and Top14

PhilBB wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

PhilBB wrote:He passed on ALL of the money.

I think you will find that he wasn't. This is one of the big things the regions were fighting about.

He passed on all of the money he was contractually bound to do so.

Hi might have been contractually bound to do so, but he was finding ways around it, like paying it in dribs and drabs, and holding payments back and he was basically holding the regions to ransom for their own money.

He was also using some of that money as payment for releasing players for team Wales, when that should have been a totally different entity.

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
If the new European system was concerned about merit then it would have scrapped every team from the top tier nations qualifying for either of the ERCC or Challenge Cup but just as the Irish, Welsh, Scots and Italians have ensured that everyone gets a place at the top table the English and French make sure everyone gets a piece of the pie too

That doesn't make any sense.

How does it not make sense?

Every team from the Pro12, Top14 and AP either qualify for the ERCC or Challenge Cup even those promoted into the AP and Top14

The merit to qualify for the second tier is through not qualifying for the first tier. Only in the Pr'O12 can qualification be decided by geography not merit.

LordDowlais wrote:

Hi might have been contractually bound to do so, but he was finding ways around it, like paying it in dribs and drabs, and holding payments back and he was basically holding the regions to ransom for their own money.

He was also using some of that money as payment for releasing players for team Wales, when that should have been a totally different entity.

I think that you're conflating many issues, leading to your confusion. Your sentiment is right but the detail wrong.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
If the new European system was concerned about merit then it would have scrapped every team from the top tier nations qualifying for either of the ERCC or Challenge Cup but just as the Irish, Welsh, Scots and Italians have ensured that everyone gets a place at the top table the English and French make sure everyone gets a piece of the pie too

That doesn't make any sense.

How does it not make sense?

Every team from the Pro12, Top14 and AP either qualify for the ERCC or Challenge Cup even those promoted into the AP and Top14

The merit to qualify for the second tier is through not qualifying for the first tier. Only in the Pr'O12 can qualification be decided by geography not merit.

Then surely theres merit in finishing above your national rivals? Which is more worthy than just showing up

marty2086 wrote:

Then surely theres merit in finishing above your national rivals? Which is more worthy than just showing up

You can finish below your national rivals through no fault of your own.

Like, for example, when the IRFU tells its subsidiary it cannot select so many players that it loses to the NGD - twice.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Then surely theres merit in finishing above your national rivals? Which is more worthy than just showing up

You can finish below your national rivals through no fault of your own.

Like, for example, when the IRFU tells its subsidiary it cannot select so many players that it loses to the NGD - twice.

And which subsidy was told not to select players?

marty2086 wrote:

And which subsidy was told not to select players?

Is this the time we do the 'IRFU told us to' followed by the IRFU claiming 'no we didn't', but Leinster still lost twice?

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

And which subsidy was told not to select players?

Is this the time we do the 'IRFU told us to' followed by the IRFU claiming 'no we didn't', but Leinster still lost twice?

Lets not forget to add, show me the evidence, I want a link to prove it.

Sin é wrote:I'd be happy with just league league qualification rather than country. In fact I think the Champs Cup funds should be divided up between the teams that actually qualify to play in it and similarly for the Secondary Cup, they should just get the income they actually earned.

If qualification was by league rather than country then it would probably be, 7 French, 7 English and 6 Pro12 (or 5P12 + qualifier). The leagues bringing the most money to the table would demand the majority share of the places. There can be no "meritocracy" on rugby terms because the teams don't inhabit the same leagues and the places just go to whomever has the biggest wad.

Spreading the funds according to performance would seem on the face of it to be meritorious, except that also would mean the rich clubs would continue to get richer and the poor poorer. That is fine in business but sport relies on competition and if the fixtures are predictably one-sided, the product is devalued and ultimately everyone suffers.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

And which subsidy was told not to select players?

Is this the time we do the 'IRFU told us to' followed by the IRFU claiming 'no we didn't', but Leinster still lost twice?

They lost twice so the IRFU fixed it?

marty2086 wrote:They lost twice so the IRFU fixed it?

No they lost twice because the IRFU told them what players they could and could not use.

The Great Aukster wrote:

If qualification was by league rather than country then it would probably be, 7 French, 7 English and 6 Pro12 (or 5P12 + qualifier). The leagues bringing the most money to the table would demand the majority share of the places. There can be no "meritocracy" on rugby terms because the teams don't inhabit the same leagues and the places just go to whomever has the biggest wad.

Spreading the funds according to performance would seem on the face of it to be meritorious, except that also would mean the rich clubs would continue to get richer and the poor poorer. That is fine in business but sport relies on competition and if the fixtures are predictably one-sided, the product is devalued and ultimately everyone suffers.

Any chance you could explain how the AP and T14 bring 'most of the money to the table'? Thanks.

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

And which subsidy was told not to select players?

Is this the time we do the 'IRFU told us to' followed by the IRFU claiming 'no we didn't', but Leinster still lost twice?

They lost twice so the IRFU fixed it?

That depends on what you'd understand by 'fixed' but certainly its subsidiary didn't go into those games full strength or close to it.

Such is the way of this ProShambles Pr'O12.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

And which subsidy was told not to select players?

Is this the time we do the 'IRFU told us to' followed by the IRFU claiming 'no we didn't', but Leinster still lost twice?

They lost twice so the IRFU fixed it?

That depends on what you'd understand by 'fixed' but certainly its subsidiary didn't go into those games full strength or close to it.

Such is the way of this ProShambles Pr'O12.

LordDowlais wrote:No they lost twice because the IRFU told them what players they could and could not use.

The first game against the Dragons was a week after the 6Ns and a week before they played Toulon, MOC chose to rest his front line players and save them for Toulon a decision which pretty much any coach would have made under the circumstances

The second game, in which Leinster started something like 12 internationals with more on the bench, was near the end of the season and many of the players were closed to the minutes on the pitch with the Player Management System allows meant that he had a choice of playing players against the Dragons or Ulster. A decision by the way Ulster also took against the Dragons and backfired on them too since Dragons went on a decent run at that time.

The system your so critical of is the same as the one which Wales have now introduced and see the likes of Sam Warburton limited to 16 games a season

marty2086 wrote:The first game against the Dragons was a week after the 6Ns and a week before they played Toulon, MOC chose to rest his front line players and save them for Toulon a decision which pretty much any coach would have made under the circumstances

Like I have been saying, prioritising other competitions over the league, yet it is us Welsh who are damaging the league with our in-fighting.

marty2086 wrote:The system your so critical of is the same as the one which Wales have now introduced and see the likes of Sam Warburton limited to 16 games a season

I would not look into that too much, I am under the impression that that quote is a little bit of a red herring. The players themselves have said so in an around about way. I think they will play a little more than 16 games a season.

marty2086 wrote:
The first game against the Dragons was a week after the 6Ns and a week before they played Toulon, MOC chose to rest his front line players and save them for Toulon a decision which pretty much any coach would have made under the circumstances

The second game, in which Leinster started something like 12 internationals with more on the bench, was near the end of the season and many of the players were closed to the minutes on the pitch with the Player Management System allows meant that he had a choice of playing players against the Dragons or Ulster. A decision by the way Ulster also took against the Dragons and backfired on them too since Dragons went on a decent run at that time.

The system your so critical of is the same as the one which Wales have now introduced and see the likes of Sam Warburton limited to 16 games a season

In Wales it applies to only a handful of players. It's systemic in Ireland. See the difference?

And, of course, the system stinks in Wales, too.

LordDowlais wrote:
I would not look into that too much, I am under the impression that that quote is a little bit of a red herring. The players themselves have said so in an around about way. I think they will play a little more than 16 games a season.

The second and third wave of NDC signatories was held up, amongst other reasons, by that game limit.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/wales-rugby-national-dual-contract-8911940

Plus, of course, the NDC contract is 40% contributed to by the secondary employer whereas all players in the Irish Provinces are employed by the IRFU (bar the non-Irish players).

PhilBB wrote:The second and third wave of NDC signatories was held up, amongst other reasons, by that game limit.

Yes, but didn't they negotiate a little longer playing time into their contracts ? I am sure the likes of AWJ and Biggar have.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
The first game against the Dragons was a week after the 6Ns and a week before they played Toulon, MOC chose to rest his front line players and save them for Toulon a decision which pretty much any coach would have made under the circumstances

The second game, in which Leinster started something like 12 internationals with more on the bench, was near the end of the season and many of the players were closed to the minutes on the pitch with the Player Management System allows meant that he had a choice of playing players against the Dragons or Ulster. A decision by the way Ulster also took against the Dragons and backfired on them too since Dragons went on a decent run at that time.

The system your so critical of is the same as the one which Wales have now introduced and see the likes of Sam Warburton limited to 16 games a season

In Wales it applies to only a handful of players. It's systemic in Ireland. See the difference?

And, of course, the system stinks in Wales, too.

Its not systemic as it applies to those on Central Contracts ie those contracted to the IRFU rather than the provinces. Leinster just have more than the other provinces but have greater depth. There are now under 30 central contracts with 12 dual contracts in Wales with more available to give for the WRU

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:The first game against the Dragons was a week after the 6Ns and a week before they played Toulon, MOC chose to rest his front line players and save them for Toulon a decision which pretty much any coach would have made under the circumstances

Like I have been saying, prioritising other competitions over the league, yet it is us Welsh who are damaging the league with our in-fighting.

marty2086 wrote:The system your so critical of is the same as the one which Wales have now introduced and see the likes of Sam Warburton limited to 16 games a season

I would not look into that too much, I am under the impression that that quote is a little bit of a red herring. The players themselves have said so in an around about way. I think they will play a little more than 16 games a season.

Of course they are prioritising, the ERCC is the bigger prize what team wouldn't prioritise?

The number of games will be increased to 31 which will also take in tests

Munchkin wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Success is relative, and relative to the Provinces the Regions haven't been successful. Ospreys came closest, and are still a force but, in general, the Regions have fallen short.

The point you miss, or ignore, is that the Regions are really not independent. They rely on WRU cash, they couldn't survive without PRL, according to you.

You haven't addressed the question about what happened in 2010. If you're genuinely interested in challenging your existing opinion then you will need to address that question.

Our Pro Teams (well, three of them) are independent. They provide a service to the WRU in return for a payment, just as the clubs in England and France to respectively. That payment is entirely insufficient and below the market value and therein lies the problem. That payment (at three of them) is under 10% of company income.

Also, let's look at that PRL issue in context: Lewis would have shut them down were it not for PRL. Now, he cannot shut them down for they are EPRC shareholders.

You haven't really asked me anything specific about 2010. My powers of telepathy are weak this afternoon, so please enlighten as to what exactly you would like me to answer.

...

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Success on the field, and good management, increases wealth. That success on the field, and good management, comes first...

It sure does, you're right.

Do you remember the times, pre-2010, when the Welsh teams were successful on the field? Can you remember the Amlin wins, the genuine Anglo-Welsh cup wins (before it became a development tournament) and can you remember the Ospreys winning the league?

I hope that you do.

So the question is where did it all go wrong from there and there is a single answer to that question.

marty2086 wrote:Of course they are prioritising, the ERCC is the bigger prize what team wouldn't prioritise?

So where does the IRFU see the Pro12 in order of importance then ?

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Of course they are prioritising, the ERCC is the bigger prize what team wouldn't prioritise?

So where does the IRFU see the Pro12 in order of importance then ?

Hang on let me call them and ask...

I'd guess they'd see it like everybody else as below the ERCC

marty2086 wrote:

Its not systemic as it applies to those on Central Contracts ie those contracted to the IRFU rather than the provinces. Leinster just have more than the other provinces but have greater depth. There are now under 30 central contracts with 12 dual contracts in Wales with more available to give for the WRU

All players are contracted to the IRFU. You're confusing that with those on national squad contracts - the 30.

The WRU has no money money for NDCs. It only had £2m to start with. That's only a little change after a Heaslip and a Sexton.

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Of course they are prioritising, the ERCC is the bigger prize what team wouldn't prioritise?

So where does the IRFU see the Pro12 in order of importance then ?

Hang on let me call them and ask...

I'd guess they'd see it like everybody else as below the ERCC

The point you're wilfully ignoring is that the decision is made by the IRFU, not by Leinster. That is a major problem with this shambolic league - the IRFU owning and controlling four teams PLUS match officials.

It shouldn't happen.

marty2086 wrote:I'd guess they'd see it like everybody else as below the ERCC

Everybody else does not see it like that, not in France, not in England, and we do not prioritise Europe over here, we have always put our best players out, when ever possible.Only in Ireland do you think like this, no wonder we cannot market our league properly. Not when Irish fans and their union do not give a FF about it.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Of course they are prioritising, the ERCC is the bigger prize what team wouldn't prioritise?

So where does the IRFU see the Pro12 in order of importance then ?

Hang on let me call them and ask...

I'd guess they'd see it like everybody else as below the ERCC

The point you're wilfully ignoring is that the decision is made by the IRFU, not by Leinster. That is a major problem with this shambolic league - the IRFU owning and controlling four teams PLUS match officials.

It shouldn't happen.

What decision was made by the IRFU?