When you compare how much each union raises to how much they get, Aviva and Top 14 raise a larger proportion for the competition than they get back, that is after they adjusted the revenues with the European competition. With the Heineken cup the Pro 12 got more revenue from the competition than Aviva and Top 14 combined whilst raising less than either, do please tell me how that is fair? Pro 12 got more qualification chances than Aviva or Top 14 along with more guaranteed qualifications. Again, how is that fair?
I'll bite, simply because this is so ludicrous.
1. The European cup was always competition between unions, never between leagues.
2. The Aviva (PRL) and the T14 (LNR) are not the RFU or FFR.
3. It was
always understood that monies would be biased toward the unions who had lower populations and that a competitive landscape helped the game as a whole. (c.f. soccer and the farce that is "the champions league".)
4. Each union that had teams in the Pro12 got less per union than either the RFU or FFR.
You are either too young, or too biased, to understand, or want to understand, the history of the European Cup. It was never about three leagues competing with each other. The Celtic league wasn't even formed when the European Cup started!
It's quite telling that the biggest whingers are all Pro 12 because it got rid of a system that massively favoured them and replaced it with one of equal shares, but somehow in your warped reality that is bad?
I'll repeat point one.
1. The European cup was a competition between unions, not between leagues.
Then I'll repeat point 4.
4. Each union that had teams in the Pro14 got less per union than either the RFU or FFR.
The Heineken cup functioned as little more than a huge cash cow for the Pro 12 by taking money from the other unions.
When it started, there was no Pro12.
HCUP
- 2 automatic qualification for IRFU, 2 for SRU, 2 for WRU and 2 for FIR, 6 for RFU and 6 for FFR.
- 13% funding to IRFU, 13% to SRU, 13% to WRU, 13% to FIR, 24% to RFU, 24% to FFR.
- ERC board, 1x IRFU representative, 1x SRU, 1x WRU, 1x FIR, 1x RFU and 1x FFR.
Euro championship
- 1.75 clubs per union split among IRFU, SRU, WRU and FIR. 6 for RFU and 6 for FFR.
- 8.3% funding to IRFU, 8.3% to SRU, 8.3% to WRU, 8.3% to FIR, 33% to RFU, 33% to FFR
Yet somehow you think the LATTER is fair?
Give me a break. You're demanding the English and French subsidise the Pro 14 to cover for the fact they aren't making enough revenue themselves and then say it's our fault if interest drops. No, it's your job to keep interest in your unions and raise your funding, not ours. If anything screeched "I feel entitled" then it's this Heineken cup attitude of the Pro12/14
Do you not realise that throwing money at your clubs has only resulted in average foreign journeymen preventing young English talent from gaining experience? (c.f. English soccer.)
Do you not realise that your clubs only have their own self-interest at heart? Good of the game bedamned.
Do you not realise that you would take rugby on a path that would follow soccer, a very select few with the means to financially bully others and that the cascading effect of this would eventually result in international uncompetitiveness. Only rugby doesn't have the global bandwagon to keep rolling to. We already see Australia and South Africa really struggling with the drain to Europe and even hints that the All Blacks are weaker from losing a few too many players. The IRFU have been able to keep their best in Ireland (Sexton's French misadventure probably helping), the WRU are struggling to do the same (and Wales aren't the force they were), the SRU are either coping somehow or are an anomaly right now and the Italian national side are in dire straights.
I don't want to call you a short sighted something, but the cap fits mighty snugly right now.
