Heineken Cup Replaced

[rumncoke]

TB

Exactly what did the Franglais put on the table to negotiated ? What have they offered to four unions making up the Pro12 in return for reduced representation and reduced income while improving their percentage representation from 25% to a minimum of 30 % ?

Don't expect anyone to say ' that's a fantastic idea chaps I don't how we were so stupid never to think of it ourselves were's that agreement you want us to sign? and exactly how much is the contract with BT worth ?and How much will we get ?

Oh you won't tell us till after we sign -- where's that pen ?""

What is there to discuss ?

[mikerob]

when they backed the Franglais into a corner and refused to talk change.

The Franglais hold the majority vote on the ERC board (10 to 8 ) so they could have voted through any change.

However that would have meant PRL getting the support of their own union, and LNR also getting the support of the FFR.

Was that too difficult for PRL and LNR?

So what will the voting arrangements be for the new competition? Somewhat important to know that, wouldn't you think?

[Rooster]

TB, sorry but I have to ask, is your name McCafferty? Yer needle is stuck in that same groove. You appear to be operating on the "say it often enough & it becomes the truth" theory.

Same goes for most clowns over there Baggy they have been convinced/brainwashed into the thinking ERC would not talk when in effect the PRL went off on a power trip of their own and I really doubt how much the French actually support them or is it more PRL propaganda ?

[MightyRearranger]

So fearfull of losing their cash support from the Heineken they now ask for more from the IRB's world cup fund to subsidise their coffers? Who has got the maths wrong here?

I don't think anyone has got the maths wrong, it's just a shot across the bows of the RFU. One of the reasons the PRL clubs seem to think that the RFU will back them is that they won't want to risk a fight with the clubs so close to the World Cup. The point this is trying to make is that a war with the other home unions could be just as costly for the RFU, if not worse.

[tigerburnie]

So fearfull of losing their cash support from the Heineken they now ask for more from the IRB's world cup fund to subsidise their coffers? Who has got the maths wrong here?

I don't think anyone has got the maths wrong, it's just a shot across the bows of the RFU. One of the reasons the PRL clubs seem to think that the RFU will back them is that they won't want to risk a fight with the clubs so close to the World Cup. The point this is trying to make is that a war with the other home unions could be just as costly for the RFU, if not worse.

Firstly..............are you a re- arranger?......or a rear ranger.(ooh 'er..........) tad confused

It's not just the home nations wanting more please, the Kiwis have slapped a bill into the IRB for lost revenue as they can't draw from their sponsers during a world cup year. The IRB seemingly have signed a sponsership for exclusive rights. So don't go getting your hopes up on either the IRB being capable of sorting this sorry mess out, nor getting anymore money from them either.

[BuckRogers]

TB you are hillarious, sadly you reflect the perception=reality that the PRL has in some corners managed to create.

The PRL clubs have been down this route, and to court, before in 1998/99. They didn't win then and they won't win now. The idea that qualification is actually an issue at the centre of this is nonsense. It is almost certainly about money and control. Too many PRL clubs are running losses that are ultimately unsustainable. PRL lackies and representatives are on record as suggesting their #new model# for european rugby can eliminate these losses. Given Sarries, for example, lost nearly 5Million sterling last year what sort of deal is actually on the table here from the PRL?

Even if you reduce the teams, redistribute the revenue and change the qualifcation process it might lead to the PRL clubs getting another 2-3Million per season whilst the Italians and Scots are smited but even 3 Millions across 12 clubs is no good to the PRL. They need a compeitition that is going to give them around £2Million per club or collectively £20Million+ per year. How do you get that? Playing BT off against Sky would have been an obvious move, but hey the PRL ensured that could not happen. Increasing sponsorship deals with the ERC....the PRL have undoubtedly done an amount of damage by this phony PR war they have been fighting. Instead of having a ever improving and growing compeittion the HEC is in flux. Will Heineken want to sign on to another 3/4/5 years whilst you banker are busy playing with yourselves? Perhaps but their marketing people will be seeking to drive their cost down rather than the ERC saying "You want it you pay for it. X% growth year on year for 18 years, projected growth of XYZ". No the PRL have done a real job on the ERC even if it survives.

I am at a point now where I would give the French whatever they want and burn the PRL. I like Leicester, Northampton etc as clubs and have enjoyed the trips there for rugby but if its a choice of the ERC's demise or the PRL, I know what I'd like to see.

Alternatively sure the IRFU, WRU, SRU and FIR can hold the RFU to ransom over the RWC because they haven't been able to bring their clubs into line.

[Neil F]

The major issue remains the conception of the Pro12; I wonder, in a world where the Pro12 had never happened, would a competition with 6 English sides, 6 French sides, 3 Irish sides, 3 Welsh sides, 2 Scottish sides and 2 Italian sides (and two miscellaneous, based on the previous season's winners) seem unfair? The world without the Pro12 was the status quo when this competition started. The existence of the Pro12 has created a kind of backwardly induced argument on behalf of the French and English clubs (and I'm careful to say clubs here; if it was the unions with the issue, it could have been resolved, given the voting structure, as pointed out by mikerob).

The issue, therefore, arises with the French and English clubs. The problem becomes that the English and French clubs are picking and choosing whether they are against the Pro12 or the Celtic and Italian unions, based on which suits their argument the most at any given time. It's disappointing how many rugby fans in England seem to have been taken in by such split logic, rather than critically reading between the lines, here, and evaluating the reality of the situation. If looked at on the union level, the current setup really isn't at all unfair; or, in other words, the invention of the Pro12 has, entirely, clouded the argument. Or, rather, it's made it easier for the factual inaccuracies spouted by the Franglais clubs to gain traction.

This brings me to my major annoyance with posts like those of TigerBurnie. There is a HUGE mistake in perception made by looking at the Pro12 as a league that is comparable to the English and French leagues. It is not and never was. A league spanning four countries and four unions, simply, cannot compare in that manner. The problem is that this then leads to a perception that the Heineken Cup features teams from three leagues (as opposed to the more correct factually correct assertion that it features teams from six unions).

Within the unions, the same qualification rules apply as do those to the English teams. Hence why the Dragons haven't featured in the Heineken Cup for a number of season, or why Connacht didn't feature before recent seasons. In recent seasons, Connacht have been there on the merit of the performance of the other Irish teams; if the English or French had been good enough, they'd have been able to secure that extra qualification place.

Ask anyone on this forum - there were a couple of hairy seasons where Ulster fans worried that Connacht might pip us to the HC qualification post. Irish and Welsh teams, in principle at least, face similar qualification criteria to teams in England and France. This is convoluted by the fact that both Scotland and Italy only have two professional teams, therefore both have guaranteed qualification - of course, that was not always the case in Scotland, where the Borders would, traditionally, not be involved in the HC. (And, of course, moves to take money OUT of the club games in Scotland or Italy is a logical way to introduce more teams from these Unions into the mix, thus "fairing up" the qualification system, once more). And Italy's guaranteed representation predated their involvement in the Pro12, again suggesting the fallacy of looking at the Pro12 in such a way - was Italy's representation question before they entered the Pro12?

If you look at the Pro12 as a league comparable to the English or French, I can see why (certain) perceptions of unfairness arise. In terms of the "overrepresentation" of the Pro12, I can see how it may seem unfair that 11 of 12 Pro12 teams are in the tournament, compared with only 6 from the English league and 7 from the French. The alternative, however, is view it that the English (and French) each have double the guaranteed positions in the tournament than any of the other involved unions. And here is the important part - the Pro12 spans 4 Unions, not 1. It is, therefore, entirely disingenuous to attempt to compare it to the leagues in England and France. We are not comparing like with like and notions of "fairness" across such comparisons, therefore, go out of the window at the league level.

In this context, TB, I'd like to hear an explanation how this isn't about money on the behalf of the French and English clubs. Where is the genuine unfairness in the tournament structure as it stands?

Oh, and I hope I'm not alone by suggesting that this forum has no place for mild homophobic remarks - like the "rear ranger" one - causally / humorously meant or otherwise.

[Mac]

Measured as ever Neil............


............... you've no place around these parts

[damianmcr]

Great post Neill

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

[BaggyTrousers]

Firstly..............are you a re- arranger?......or a rear ranger.(ooh 'er..........) tad confused

I was simply going to point out that you seriously misjudge the mood on this subject, however both Buck & Neil have said things more than effectively.

[TinPig]

here is the important part - the Pro12 spans 4 Unions, not 1. It is, therefore, entirely disingenuous to attempt to compare it to the leagues in England and France.

Well said that man!!

[Cap'n Grumpy]

TB

Exactly what did the Franglais put on the table to negotiated ? What have they offered to four unions making up the Pro12 in return for reduced representation and reduced income while improving their percentage representation from 25% to a minimum of 30 % ?

Don't expect anyone to say ' that's a fantastic idea chaps I don't how we were so stupid never to think of it ourselves were's that agreement you want us to sign? and exactly how much is the contract with BT worth ?and How much will we get ?

Oh you won't tell us till after we sign -- where's that pen ?""

What is there to discuss ?

It seems they have put absolutely nothing of worth on the table for the Pro12 nations.

They have simply tried bully boy tactics of saying if you don't agree with us, you will have nothing. If you do as we say, you can at least have a smaller percentage of what we can get for ths tournament. Half a loaf is better than no loaf at all - take it and be thankful, or we'll starve you into submission.

Everything else has been window-dressing to make it more palatable to their own fans at home - i.e. to make it look like this was done in the interests of fairness, and the Pro12 should be grateful for the Franglais crumbs that are thrown.

And from that position of "strength" they will have even more ammunition to wrest even more power from the eRFU.

[rumncoke]

TB

But for the fact you came as a visitor to this board long before this subject raised it's ugly head one could easily mistake you for a Troll .

Your attempts to defend the indefensible are understandable but your loyalty to a shower power hungry, undemocratic, moneyed moguls is lamentable for one who should know better.

At least the Unions are represented people who are elected by the their Clubs or persons employed by the elected there is an element of accountability to a wider audience including the non professional clubs who are the backbone of any sport. The PRL are a just self serving shower.

[MightyRearranger]

So fearfull of losing their cash support from the Heineken they now ask for more from the IRB's world cup fund to subsidise their coffers? Who has got the maths wrong here?

I don't think anyone has got the maths wrong, it's just a shot across the bows of the RFU. One of the reasons the PRL clubs seem to think that the RFU will back them is that they won't want to risk a fight with the clubs so close to the World Cup. The point this is trying to make is that a war with the other home unions could be just as costly for the RFU, if not worse.

Firstly..............are you a re- arranger?......or a rear ranger.(ooh 'er..........) tad confused

It depends on my mood...

It's not just the home nations wanting more please, the Kiwis have slapped a bill into the IRB for lost revenue as they can't draw from their sponsers during a world cup year. The IRB seemingly have signed a sponsership for exclusive rights. So don't go getting your hopes up on either the IRB being capable of sorting this sorry mess out, nor getting anymore money from them either.

In a strange way the arguement New Zealand are making about the RWC is quite similar to the arguements the PRL are making about the ERC. They're one of the main attractions at the tournament and receive much less than what (in purely commercial terms) they think would be their fair share.

The IRB largely use the proceeds of the World Cup to fund rugby in the developing nations, which I'd strongly suspect the NZRU would recognise as a good thing. They're probably just looking for a slightly bigger cut of the pie to try and stop all of their players going to France. That said maybe if they don't get their way they'll go off on their own and found a super duper inter-galactic championship that everyone else would be welcome to join.

I don't think the Celtic nations are really looking for any concessions with regards to the RWC and I wouldn't expect (or want) the IRB to give any. As I said any rumblings of this sort are probably just meant as a shot across the bow of the RFU to try and encourage them to take a harder line with their clubs. Although it's almost certainly not going to happen, they'd stand to lose a lot of money if there was any sort of Celtic pull-out.

[BaggyTrousers]

I don't think the Celtic nations are really looking for any concessions with regards to the RWC and I wouldn't expect (or want) the IRB to give any. As I said any rumblings of this sort are probably just meant as a shot across the bow of the RFU to try and encourage them to take a harder line with their clubs. Although it's almost certainly not going to happen, they'd stand to lose a lot of money if there was any sort of Celtic pull-out.

As one with minimal interest in the RWC, I have great visions of the Celts pulling out, but with the Millennium Stadium already contracted, the hilarious sight of Samoa playing USA in an empty stadium.

How would ya like them apples ERFU?

ERFU, would be like the woman who sat on the circular saw. Disaster.