European Champions Cup 2017/18: Pool 2 - Round 2

[Ragey Erasmus]

You're clearly so blinded by bias there's no point talking to you, you didn't read a word I wrote, have no understanding of the business approach I suggested or how the old tournament was run and this post looks incredibly foolish...

Biased is changing the criteria you want to use to fit your gain best. It's by country for splitting the money raised, by league for who raises it, by club for fairness of the share, by league for final position in Europe, by league for qualification for 2 but by country for another.

Pick the criteria you want to use and stick to it. This is either going to be done by leagues or by country. Ultimately your argument boils down to it's England's fault any clubs in Europe are failing and therefore England and France should pay to subsidise others.

 

[munstermuffin]

Might have something to do with the traveler population though..

Not really as any educated lad would know they don't spend

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Aren't Leicester one of the clubs that turn a profit*, and sell out most games...?
It's easy to say "our club gets more" when you've a bigger stadium to host big games at - if Leicester could play their big games at a 50k seater they'd have a higher average gate too.


You?




*Maybe not last year because of the new stand/pitch, but every other year they're always at the top of the turnover/profits list.

Semantics and a technicality, that stadium is Munster's as much as Ravenhill is Ulster's and is owned by the union that owns the club. Leicester have used the Walkers before, the Leinster branch of the IRFU don't get access to Lansdowne for free they have to pay the IRFU.

I don't think there's a great understanding of how the provinces are run here. Each province is run by a branch of the union which is essentially a subsidiary company of the IRFU who are given a budget and certain benefits based on performance, central contracts for having players who are the best in their position in the country, and certain restrictions, such as limits on foreign players, after that the running of the club within the budget is up to the branch. They look after the rest of the contracts, academy, travel, accommodation, the stadium etc... and all the profits go to the IRFU and the budget of the provinces is decided again and distributed between the four at a previously set share regardless of what they earned. The advantage over the English system is that their primary goal is success on the pitch rather than turning a profit but equally when that success results in profit, which it does with all our bandwagon hoppers in the country, the benefit is limited.

Tigers aren't exactly light years behind really though with averages between 21-23K over the past few years despite Wasps turning up on their doorstep and stealing a few Nuneaton, Rugby, Coventry and Hinckley fans (its actually happening, ive seen it).

With regards to your 'brilliantly ran' comment. I agree with you. Apart from Saints and Tigers I don't know of any English side that can label themselves sustainable.

Thats fair I honestly don't know the background of the individual Premiership sides well enough, I was just going on the knowledge that about three quarters of them run at a loss, running back to the implication that they're run far better, I think Sale were the only club to turn a profit last year from memory? I wasn't aware of the new stand or anything so I'll take your word there for both clubs.

Biased is changing the criteria you want to use to fit your gain best. It's by country for splitting the money raised, by league for who raises it, by club for fairness of the share, by league for final position in Europe, by league for qualification for 2 but by country for another.

Pick the criteria you want to use and stick to it. This is either going to be done by leagues or by country.

I don't care about qualification, I care about remuneration with the goal of this competition running successfully for as long as possible, attracting new fans, new sponsors and more money. This won't be achieved by making Unions, who have populations a fraction of the size of their competitors, to run their clubs competitively with the current way monies are shared. Currently the Irish and Scottish are running at maximum capacity, they're losing Zebo and Finn Russell, have lost Donncha Ryan and a rake of others and important players in their best clubs like Cronin, Henderson and Stander aren't certain to stay. Without a bigger slice of the pie this will only get worse, the competition will outgrow them and not even the centrally contracted guys will be able to be kept. Everyone but the French are losers in this scenario, they have the capacity to expand and grow their league further England don't unless soccer ceases to exist.

Ultimately your argument boils down to it's England's fault any clubs in Europe are failing and therefore England and France should pay to subsidise others.

No it doesn't, the "fault" lies in the unions having smaller populations and nothing else, the clubs are well run or getting there. (there's not enough talent in Wales for them all to be successful) While I don't like the PRL and don't think their goals match what rugby fans want at all, I don't think there's anything wrong with what they're doing other than it's incredibly stupid that they think they'll continue to do as well as they are without the Pro14, they won't and it is in their best interest to subsidise the unions because they won't have to endure a crash in 10-15 years time when Ireland, Scotland, Wales and France lose interest in European rugby after it becomes an Anglo-French tournament.

If @munstermuffin is right in saying that the new tournament isn't making as much as the old one the new change and it's increased fairness hasn't been a good business venture, this only stands to get worse after 2019 when I predict we'll start to see the Exodus of players from the unions. By 2025 the French will start to get fed up that their secondary competition isn't giving them the matches that their fans want against good Leinster or Munster teams which, unless everyone I spoke to last year was Brown nosing me, they get more excited about than any of the visiting English sides.

 

[munstermuffin]

Also a few fact ad alot of English seem to be grossly uniformed.

Munster own Thomond Park hence a loan off IRFU.

Munster and Leinster actually have 2 of better average populations in all of Europe. As do Ulster.
Also nobody is slating any English team here but on operational level the Irish provines ate only behind New Zealand clubs in being soundly run financially day to day expense wise according to a report in Tokyo last year.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I don't think we've ever turned a profit - we broke even last year (apparently - don't think the books are out yet), and will this year, due to Kennedy wiping off our debts and the new owners putting a huge effort into the corporate side and sponsorship.
Pretty crazy that we can get the smallest top tier crowds in Europe, not own our own stadium, bring in some genuine big name players (and not all of them in last chance saloon like JOC and Yarde), and still break even.

I think Gloucester are sustainable too?
There's not many that make enough to not be propped up by a sugar daddy, but I think there's a few, and then a few not far off.

 

[valley commando]

Yet "best interests of rugby" are being used a synonymous with "England and France should pay for everyone else". England and France have become wealthy due to large investment in thing like the stadiums, paying the prices at the gates, sponsorship deals meaning the fans don't get the rugby for free and a variety of other stuff. Now we have clubs and unions who have done none of that demanding the income when they have put nothing towards generating it. No, there is no reason English and French should have to subsidise others. If you want more money why not invest in your stadiums, why not take your games off terrestrial TV and go with paid TV? Why is the response to having not enough money to demand someone else gives it when you aren't prepared to do any of the things they did to get it?

I can agree there is a problem with rugby going the way of football and don't want to see that happen but I also don't want it to be a case of England and France being whacked round the head with a begging bowl and others demanding we basically prop up all of European rugby.

Also yeah the whole thing was a joke. It is a club tournament and you think it makes sense that Scotland with 2 clubs contributing should get the same as England with 6/7? That makes each Scottish club get 3 times what the English clubs would get. If you want to do it by country then it's simple, 2 clubs from each country and split it by country, completely remove the qualifying criteria per league. You can't have one set of criteria done by league when it suits and then demand it be per country the next.

When you have the sides contributing the least getting indignant because those who contribute the most want to make things fairer then you have screwed up sense of fairness.

More than a touch of I'm all right Jack from you.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Also a few fact ad alot of English seem to be grossly uniformed.

Munster own Thomond Park hence a loan off IRFU.

Munster and Leinster actually have 2 of better average populations in all of Europe. As do Ulster.
Also nobody is slating any English team here but on operational level the Irish provines ate only behind New Zealand clubs in being soundly run financially day to day expense wise according to a report in Tokyo last year.

Wrong, Thomond park is owned by the IRFU with Munster being tenants. Check it yourself.

I don't care about qualification, I care about remuneration with the goal of this competition running successfully for as long as possible, attracting new fans, new sponsors and more money. This won't be achieved by making Unions, who have populations a fraction of the size of their competitors, to run their clubs competitively with the current way monies are shared. Currently the Irish and Scottish are running at maximum capacity, they're losing Zebo and Finn Russell, have lost Donncha Ryan and a rake of others and important players in their best clubs like Cronin, Henderson and Stander aren't certain to stay. Without a bigger slice of the pie this will only get worse, the competition will outgrow them and not even the centrally contracted guys will be able to be kept. Everyone but the French are losers in this scenario, they have the capacity to expand and grow their league further England don't unless soccer ceases to exist.

No it doesn't, the "fault" lies in the unions having smaller populations and nothing else, the clubs are well run or getting there. (there's not enough talent in Wales for them all to be successful) While I don't like the PRL and don't think their goals match what rugby fans want at all, I don't think there's anything wrong with what they're doing other than it's incredibly stupid that they think they'll continue to do as well as they are without the Pro14, they won't and it is in their best interest to subsidise the unions because they won't have to endure a crash in 10-15 years time when Ireland, Scotland, Wales and France lose interest in European rugby after it becomes an Anglo-French tournament.

If @munstermuffin is right in saying that the new tournament isn't making as much as the old one the new change and it's increased fairness hasn't been a good business venture, this only stands to get worse after 2019 when I predict we'll start to see the Exodus of players from the unions. By 2025 the French will start to get fed up that their secondary competition isn't giving them the matches that their fans want against good Leinster or Munster teams which, unless everyone I spoke to last year was Brown nosing me, they get more excited about than any of the visiting English sides.

When talking about which clubs compete and thus receive remuneration, the qualifying criteria is important is it not? Each Pro 12 country used to get 1 side through automatically. If you want to talk remuneration then the current setup of 1/3rd split each would be the most equal, or are you going to decide it is the individual countries who should be remunerated regardless of representation in the competition? If it's per country then each club in the Pro 14 would receive way more than English or French clubs. Let's just have it straight, remuneration by club or country?

Again it is not our job to prop up other unions and quite frankly it's some nerve to say we have to shoulder the financial burden of others as well as for ourselves. You don't think England have the capacity to grow further...? Of course they do. Rugby in England is better funded now than at any other point in history. The "fault" first and foremost for being unable to retain players or financially compete lies at home and NOT with other countries. You can point to smaller populations, well nice. That still doesn't give you the right to demand subsidies from other nations. As you said, it's a business and businesses don't subsidise their competitors. On the one hand you boast about the Irish having the best stadiums, the best academies, the best fans, the most sound financial practice and the next you are whacking us round the head with the begging bowl demanding more. Just like all things in this, you lot can't make up your mind what you are or aren't arguing for. If you're worried about Italy then give them a larger portion of the Pro 14 share. Oh that seems unfair? Welcome to our world. In fact let's split the entire Pro 14 share up as you propose we do for Europe. Ireland gets the least because they need it the least and Italy should get say 40-50% of the total Pro 14 share. After all we are splitting this based on the need to subsidise those with the least resources aren't we and clearly Irish clubs are the most well resources in the Pro 14 so should get a proportionally lower share. This is fair remember? This is business. This is protecting the sport. Your own arguments.

 

[munstermuffin]

Wrong, Thomond park is owned by the IRFU with Munster being tenants. Check it yourself.



When talking about which clubs compete and thus receive remuneration, the qualifying criteria is important is it not? Each Pro 12 country used to get 1 side through automatically. If you want to talk remuneration then the current setup of 1/3rd split each would be the most equal, or are you going to decide it is the individual countries who should be remunerated regardless of representation in the competition? If it's per country then each club in the Pro 14 would receive way more than English or French clubs. Let's just have it straight, remuneration by club or country?

Again it is not our job to prop up other unions and quite frankly it's some nerve to say we have to shoulder the financial burden of others as well as for ourselves. You don't think England have the capacity to grow further...? Of course they do. Rugby in England is better funded now than at any other point in history. The "fault" first and foremost for being unable to retain players or financially compete lies at home and NOT with other countries. You can point to smaller populations, well nice. That still doesn't give you the right to demand subsidies from other nations. As you said, it's a business and businesses don't subsidise their competitors. On the one hand you boast about the Irish having the best stadiums, the best academies, the best fans, the most sound financial practice and the next you are whacking us round the head with the begging bowl demanding more. Just like all things in this, you lot can't make up your mind what you are or aren't arguing for. If you're worried about Italy then give them a larger portion of the Pro 14 share. Oh that seems unfair? Welcome to our world. In fact let's split the entire Pro 14 share up as you propose we do for Europe. Ireland gets the least because they need it the least and Italy should get say 40-50% of the total Pro 14 share. After all we are splitting this based on the need to subsidise those with the least resources aren't we and clearly Irish clubs are the most well resources in the Pro 14 so should get a proportionally lower share. This is fair remember? This is business. This is protecting the sport. Your own arguments.

I work for Munster. And 100% sure who owns it. Munster Rugby is the owner.
Think logically sure. Why would Munster Rugby loan off the IRFU to pay the IRFU????

Can we just take short cut and will yr please put up what he think he know about how Irish provinces are run as it's scary how little ye know or wrong ye are
So again maybe you should check again.

On the funding it was the heads of English league who promised so much extra revenue too from all these new sponsors that were lining up and screwed it up thats the facts.

And will ye do your damn facts on all this. Funds in Pro14 are split to support weaker teams. Italian teams base fee is more than Irish.

 

[valley commando]

I work for Munster. And 100% sure who owns it. Munster Rugby is the owner.
Think logically sure. Why would Munster Rugby loan off the IRFU to pay the IRFU????

Can we just take short cut and will yr please put up what he think he know about how Irish provinces are run as it's scary how little ye know or wrong ye are
So again maybe you should check again.

On the funding it was the heads of English league who promised so much extra revenue too from all these new sponsors that were lining up and screwed it up thats the facts.

And will ye do your damn facts on all this. Funds in Pro14 are split to support weaker teams. Italian teams base fee is more than Irish.

I'd give you 2 thumbs up if it were possible

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I work for Munster. And 100% sure who owns it. Munster Rugby is the owner.
Think logically sure. Why would Munster Rugby loan off the IRFU to pay the IRFU????

Can we just take short cut and will yr please put up what he think he know about how Irish provinces are run as it's scary how little ye know or wrong ye are
So again maybe you should check again.

On the funding it was the heads of English league who promised so much extra revenue too from all these new sponsors that were lining up and screwed it up thats the facts.

And will ye do your damn facts on all this. Funds in Pro14 are split to support weaker teams. Italian teams base fee is more than Irish.

Thomond Park Stadium company own it, which is not Munster rugby. Also with regards to revenues, they ARE increasing. There was a bumpy start initially but there are indicators that in the 2018-2022 there is likely to be a surge in revenue as things like TV rights and sponsors are being sorted out properly, an amount in excess of what was raised by the Heineken cup. The fact the competition is growing despite the rocky start would indicate that actually it wasn't this big failure the Pro 14 clubs want to pretend it was. As it stands, the next 4 year cycle looks like it will be a big step up financially. The question is do you want that or would you prefer seeing it fail?

As it is the current competition is not so Pro 12 biased. I mean seriously, basic maths. x is the total revenue to be split, Pro 12 would have had 10 guaranteed teams and 52% of the revenue meaning 5.2% of the total per team. The Aviva and Top 14 combined contributed 12 teams for 48% of the revenue making 4% of the total per team. How in all that is holy did you conclude that the Pro 12 clubs used to get less than the Aviva or Top 14?

 

[Groundhog]

Thomond Park Stadium company own it, which is not Munster rugby.

And the director of said company is also Munster Rugby CEO. Thomand Park Company is a Designated Activity Company which is basically just a way of seperating Munster and the Stadium's activities legally. For instance they used to have their own clothing line etc and obviously dealings with Limerick F.C and concert organisers which is simplified if not all done under the Munster Rugby banner.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Wrong, Thomond park is owned by the IRFU with Munster being tenants. Check it yourself.



When talking about which clubs compete and thus receive remuneration, the qualifying criteria is important is it not? Each Pro 12 country used to get 1 side through automatically. If you want to talk remuneration then the current setup of 1/3rd split each would be the most equal, or are you going to decide it is the individual countries who should be remunerated regardless of representation in the competition? If it's per country then each club in the Pro 14 would receive way more than English or French clubs. Let's just have it straight, remuneration by club or country?

Again it is not our job to prop up other unions and quite frankly it's some nerve to say we have to shoulder the financial burden of others as well as for ourselves. You don't think England have the capacity to grow further...? Of course they do. Rugby in England is better funded now than at any other point in history. The "fault" first and foremost for being unable to retain players or financially compete lies at home and NOT with other countries. Just like all things in this, you lot can't make up your mind what you are or aren't arguing for. If you're worried about Italy then give them a larger portion of the Pro 14 share. Oh that seems unfair? Welcome to our world. In fact let's split the entire Pro 14 share up as you propose we do for Europe. Ireland gets the least because they need it the least and Italy should get say 40-50% of the total Pro 14 share. After all we are splitting this based on the need to subsidise those with the least resources aren't we and clearly Irish clubs are the most well resources in the Pro 14 so should get a proportionally lower share. This is fair remember? This is business. This is protecting the sport. Your own arguments.

By country, not equal, something like the old system where the English and French still got the most and when they shared it between their competing clubs they got more than any of the unions clubs. Even if no Italian sides qualify give them a guaranteed split, there's a country of 60m there which will increase everyone's earnings if they continue to show their current direction and improvement of the last 9 months.

Italy get more out of the Pro14 than they put in to it, Scotland have benefitted from it more than Ireland too who had well run provinces competing in finals and winning European cups before the Celtic league's inception in 2001... So there's practicing what we preach. The result? A more lucrative Pro14 with competitive sides from every country. I also explained how the IRFU is run, Leinster bring in much more money than Connacht, this isn't shown in their budgets provided by the IRFU. The result? Leinster can still compete at a top class level but rather than let Connacht rugby die they've turned them into a successful province who are bringing more money into the IRFU than ever before.

Again, I'm not saying it is your job to do anything, stop playing the victim on this one because it's clearly clouding your judgement, it's in your best interest to share between countries with a bias towards the unions though. If Europe goes you're the small fish in the French pond, their club rugby is so much bigger than England's and has so much more potential it's not even funny, they have a bigger population and half the country's most popular sport is rugby, they are a more attractive destination for foreign talent post BREXIT and they really don't care about the international game. They'll ditch Europe and expand the Top 14, they have so much untapped potential in some of their biggest cities whereas in England rugby won't oust soccer and they won't oust rugby league or even exist peacefully in rugby league territories. England will be left with the Prem and Anglo-Welsh joke and be a sitting duck for big French wages to rob their top players, they're already big enough to do it and the RFU's "play in England" rule is what protects them. As much as you'd like to think otherwise you need Europe, you're bigger than the Pro14 and that's been established but you're overestimating the Prem in relation to the Top14 big time. It's a perfectly valid move to maximise earnings now but it's shortsighted and stupid to think you'll expand or even survive at your current level without the attraction of big Irish, Welsh or Scottish club rivalries in both England and, more importantly, France.

You can point to smaller populations, well nice. That still doesn't give you the right to demand subsidies from other nations. As you said, it's a business and businesses don't subsidise their competitors. On the one hand you boast about the Irish having the best stadiums, the best academies, the best fans, the most sound financial practice and the next you are whacking us round the head with the begging bowl demanding more.

I've taken this separately because it really shows your ignorance in this matter. First of all the "You have small populations, well tough" followed by "you've just said you have the best stadiums and academies yada yada" when considered along with your previous implication that English clubs earn more because they're better run proves you have no real motion other than a Pro-England one.

Then your use of the word competitors; the clubs might be competitors on the pitch but off it they're most certainly partners trying to achieve the same goal, there's literally no overlap in target market between the LNR, PRL, IRFU, SRU, WRU or FIR. So how are they business competitors? Does it make sense to subsidise your partners to increase everyone's earnings long term? I'll leave that to you.

So you can continue to ramble on about how we're charity cases and that things are right as they are but you're wrong and will rue it in 20 years if that approach continues.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

By country, not equal, something like the old system where the English and French still got the most and when they shared it between their competing clubs they got more than any of the unions clubs. Even if no Italian sides qualify give them a guaranteed split, there's a country of 60m there which will increase everyone's earnings if they continue to show their current direction and improvement of the last 9 months.

Italy get more out of the Pro14 than they put in to it, Scotland have benefitted from it more than Ireland too who had well run provinces competing in finals and winning European cups before the Celtic league's inception in 2001... So there's practicing what we preach. The result? A more lucrative Pro14 with competitive sides from every country. I also explained how the IRFU is run, Leinster bring in much more money than Connacht, this isn't shown in their budgets provided by the IRFU. The result? Leinster can still compete at a top class level but rather than let Connacht rugby die they've turned them into a successful province who are bringing more money into the IRFU than ever before.

Again, I'm not saying it is your job to do anything, stop playing the victim on this one because it's clearly clouding your judgement, it's in your best interest to share between countries with a bias towards the unions though. If Europe goes you're the small fish in the French pond, their club rugby is so much bigger than England's and has so much more potential it's not even funny, they have a bigger population and half the country's most popular sport is rugby, they are a more attractive destination for foreign talent post BREXIT and they really don't care about the international game. They'll ditch Europe and expand the Top 14, they have so much untapped potential in some of their biggest cities whereas in England rugby won't oust soccer and they won't oust rugby league or even exist peacefully in rugby league territories. England will be left with the Prem and Anglo-Welsh joke and be a sitting duck for big French wages to rob their top players, they're already big enough to do it and the RFU's "play in England" rule is what protects them. As much as you'd like to think otherwise you need Europe, you're bigger than the Pro14 and that's been established but you're overestimating the Prem in relation to the Top14 big time. It's a perfectly valid move to maximise earnings now but it's shortsighted and stupid to think you'll expand or even survive at your current level without the attraction of big Irish, Welsh or Scottish club rivalries in both England and, more importantly, France.



I've taken this separately because it really shows your ignorance in this matter. First of all the "You have small populations, well tough" followed by "you've just said you have the best stadiums and academies yada yada" when considered along with your previous implication that English clubs earn more because they're better run proves you have no real motion other than a Pro-England one.

Then your use of the word competitors; the clubs might be competitors on the pitch but off it they're most certainly partners trying to achieve the same goal, there's literally no overlap in target market between the LNR, PRL, IRFU, SRU, WRU or FIR. So how are they business competitors? Does it make sense to subsidise your partners to increase everyone's earnings long term? I'll leave that to you.

So you can continue to ramble on about how we're charity cases and that things are right as they are but you're wrong and will rue it in 20 years if that approach continues.

Funny enough the distribution of money isn't the main issue, although it was one to be addressed. The main point was the Pro 12 lot being so indignant and outraged at such a change and the attitude of entitlement. You still haven't said how the Aviva and Top 14 got more... I mean it's physically impossible to get more if you get the minority of the overall funding... If you divvied up the allocated funds for the Pro 12 equally among every club in the Pro 12 (including those that didn't compete) that still would have been more than the average for the Aviva and top 14 for competing clubs only so where is this figure coming from?

No you're not saying it's our job, you're just acting like anything other than that is some morally reprehensible position to hold. The old Heineken cup was so skewed in favour of the Pro 12 it was laughable. You keep saying somehow English and French got more, based on what? 48% split between 12 clubs is less than 52% split between 12, which isn't even a fair comparison either as not every Pro 12 team would be involved. Also tell me why it was right that the Pro 12 would get 10 sides to England and France's 6? Why should each nation have got automatic qualification? You talk about the quality of the tournament yet hark back to one that would let teams at the bottom of the league come in to get bashed around and sent home with maybe 1 or 2 upsets at best.

No, they are not partners at all, they are competitors. They are competing on field and it's largely the on field success that brings in revenue. I also find it weird you act like the Top 14 is that far ahead of the Aviva. Attendences in the Aviva are rising. For the last complete year the average attendances for the top 11 clubs (the top 14 didn't show any below 10k) were: Top 14 - 14.8k, Aviva - 13.6k and Pro 12 - 9.5k. As mentioned before, the RFU and English rugby as a whole have brought in record breaking revenue this year and yet you somehow think we have nothing on the Top 14? When it comes to TV rights it's roughly double per season per club compared to the Aviva. That's a sizeable gap sure but to make out that therefore means the Aviva couldn't survive without the European competition and has no room to grow is daft. I'd argue the opposite, the French are the ones who have peaked and are on the way down in term of interest in the sport whilst it's on the up in England.

But to the TL;DR, the main issue is those of Pro 12/14 nations who seem to think it's fine for something to be set up in their favour but have this attitude that the largest contributors should have the smallest say in how the competition works. If Pro 14 want funds redistributed to help the game then that's one thing, acting like they have some divine right to it along with the other perks though is quite something else.

 

[munstermuffin]

Thomond Park Stadium company own it, which is not Munster rugby. Also with regards to revenues, they ARE increasing. There was a bumpy start initially but there are indicators that in the 2018-2022 there is likely to be a surge in revenue as things like TV rights and sponsors are being sorted out properly, an amount in excess of what was raised by the Heineken cup. The fact the competition is growing despite the rocky start would indicate that actually it wasn't this big failure the Pro 14 clubs want to pretend it was. As it stands, the next 4 year cycle looks like it will be a big step up financially. The question is do you want that or would you prefer seeing it fail?

As it is the current competition is not so Pro 12 biased. I mean seriously, basic maths. x is the total revenue to be split, Pro 12 would have had 10 guaranteed teams and 52% of the revenue meaning 5.2% of the total per team. The Aviva and Top 14 combined contributed 12 teams for 48% of the revenue making 4% of the total per team. How in all that is holy did you conclude that the Pro 12 clubs used to get less than the Aviva or Top 14?

Ok 1st of all. You haven't a clue on Munster Rugby. The deed to Thomond Park is framed in the stadium with a clear "Proudly Owned By Munster Rugby".
Thomond Park Stadium is an entity set up by Munster Rugby to run the stadium in same way most sports teams do. Like I'm begging please just try be educated instead of trying to make up something. Think it out. Why would Munster loan off the IRFU for something they'd never own?

On 2018-2022. I'll believe it when it's fact as they said a lot in past which was bull. What is FACT however in comparison to Heineken Cup days
TV revenue is similar(Not set to rise either as Sky are leaving and others going to reduced fees)
Sponsorship revenues considerably down. And nowhere near Heineken Cup Days.
On more competitive competition the stats show it's actually not as there less amount of closer games and teams can qualify more easier.
Not a question of do I want to see it fail. More a case of facts. Why believe people who've got majority of commercial side horribly wrong so far?

On current competition not being so Pro12 biased. How apart from qualification bit added (which was already kind of there anyway) what is different?
On revenues it's not as basic as that as TV times factor in too and you miscalculated fact. There was the guys in playoff to qualify get fees too. Not just 20 but 22 teams and the offset was by Top14 and Aviva getting more in Challenge Cup (Where up to 2015 there wasn't much difference in fees).
See you get caught up in just 1 European competition but forget next level.
Like ever wonder why it not a huge carrot financially to qualify for champions cup?

And many take issue with Aviva League as they're the 1s that guaranteed x y and z yet delivered very little.
On Alphas point though. You say nations shouldn't help. But fact is if they don't they will be killing themselves too. Didn't the Worcester chairman recently say it's very hard to be sustainable in just the league recently. As I say if the facts are read then you'll be better informed than guessing on things like Thomond Park.

Also on your average attendance figures they aren't accurate as a Double header in Twickenham for example would have an attendance of 80k or whatever and that shows attendance of 80k for both games. And doesn't factor in free tickets etc. For example Saracens rarely sell out yet any time they're in Wembley they get 30k easy

 

[curtbob7]

Its never going to be a fair competition. Clubs, franchises, regions, union-propped up clubs/regions all competing on varying salary caps and with/without the massive aid of central contracts.

Some are ran by sugar daddies, some as businesses that require profit to survive long term and some can do what they like as long as the union is breaking even.

Rugby is at a major risk of going Pete Tong. If my club cant make profits then It says it all.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Funny enough the distribution of money isn't the main issue, although it was one to be addressed. The main point was the Pro 12 lot being so indignant and outraged at such a change and the attitude of entitlement. You still haven't said how the Aviva and Top 14 got more... I mean it's physically impossible to get more if you get the minority of the overall funding... If you divvied up the allocated funds for the Pro 12 equally among every club in the Pro 12 (including those that didn't compete) that still would have been more than the average for the Aviva and top 14 for competing clubs only so where is this figure coming from?

No you're not saying it's our job, you're just acting like anything other than that is some morally reprehensible position to hold. The old Heineken cup was so skewed in favour of the Pro 12 it was laughable. You keep saying somehow English and French got more, based on what? 48% split between 12 clubs is less than 52% split between 12, which isn't even a fair comparison either as not every Pro 12 team would be involved. Also tell me why it was right that the Pro 12 would get 10 sides to England and France's 6? Why should each nation have got automatic qualification? You talk about the quality of the tournament yet hark back to one that would let teams at the bottom of the league come in to get bashed around and sent home with maybe 1 or 2 upsets at best.

No, they are not partners at all, they are competitors. They are competing on field and it's largely the on field success that brings in revenue. I also find it weird you act like the Top 14 is that far ahead of the Aviva. Attendences in the Aviva are rising. For the last complete year the average attendances for the top 11 clubs (the top 14 didn't show any below 10k) were: Top 14 - 14.8k, Aviva - 13.6k and Pro 12 - 9.5k. As mentioned before, the RFU and English rugby as a whole have brought in record breaking revenue this year and yet you somehow think we have nothing on the Top 14? When it comes to TV rights it's roughly double per season per club compared to the Aviva. That's a sizeable gap sure but to make out that therefore means the Aviva couldn't survive without the European competition and has no room to grow is daft. I'd argue the opposite, the French are the ones who have peaked and are on the way down in term of interest in the sport whilst it's on the up in England.

But to the TL;DR, the main issue is those of Pro 12/14 nations who seem to think it's fine for something to be set up in their favour but have this attitude that the largest contributors should have the smallest say in how the competition works. If Pro 14 want funds redistributed to help the game then that's one thing, acting like they have some divine right to it along with the other perks though is quite something else.

You don't know what you're talking about. You refuse to acknowledge the facts that were laid out in front of you about the old system by Amiga pages back and have a go at me for not telling you how the English and French got more, I don't have to, it was written in reply to your earlier comment, you just didn't read it as it doesn't fit your skewed agenda.
You either can't fathom that what I'm proposing is better for English clubs as well as the unions clubs or refuse to address it, and it's really the only point I'm making, instead making a false claim that I've stated England have some moral duty to share revenue in this way and that the Pro12 unions are charity as straw men.
You overrate English club rugby when the French could quite easily expand to an 18 team league without splitting conferences. They used to have a Top16 which ran concurrently with Europe and prior to that they had a 24 team championship, which immediately increases their TV revenue substantially and it's already far bigger than the English deal. In contrast the PRL want a closed shop with 10 sides... In stadium attendance don't really matter that much, if they did Irish rugby would be fine, the provinces averaged 13k last year being held back by Connacht at 6k which is hugely impressive in a city of 70,000 where rugby is less popular than hurling, football and soccer, skewed distribution of funds helping the IRFU out there.
And you've outdone yourself by claiming the likes of Leinster rugby are in direct competition with Leicester to the point Leicester would be better off if Leinster ceased to exist and it's not better for both to earn more consistently through sustained and entertaining on field competition. Without a competitive Europe that money dries up, to have a competitive Europe you need competitive teams outside of England you know, look at the last two weeks' rugby.
You haven't a clue, refuse to argue on anything other than a Pro-England, anti-"celt" stance and have consistently shown the arrogance that has been quite prevalent in your conservative government lately that when the Irish try to suggest an approach to you for your own good you swat it away with no regard to what is being said and claim what has been suggested is outrageous, hypocritical and is a result of us being up ourselves when you have been shown consistently that it isn't. So I'd continue but I could literally travel to two versions of the future, provide you with evidence that you're better off showing bias towards Pro12 unions and you'd swat it away and somewhat coherently shout back "Engerland, Engerland, **** the Celts, Charity cases charity cases" because you're argument has devolved to a polished version of that while making false claims that you've been proven not to have known what you were talking about. So I refuse to go back and forth further if you continue to blindly throw out anything that you believe will read "England = Good, Everyone else = Bad" for the sake of my sanity.

 

[Which Tyler]

FFS guys, it's Christmas! - don't you of have anyone better to argue with?

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

FFS guys, it's Christmas! - don't you of have anyone better to argue with?

Ok let's leave it at that

 

[munstermuffin]

Can I just put few things up here as they're little bug bears of mine and so many seem alot out of touch.

Leinster do not own RDS but have long term lease.
Munster Rugby own Thom nd Park, Ulster Rugby own Ravenhill and I'm open to correction but Connacht have a special tenancy arrangement in their place.

Ok on to provinces. IRFU own all provinces. However they appoint boards to run each province as a stand alone entity.

On central contracts it isn't as if Irish clubs are paying millions and as was shown recently the IRFU wage bill for senior playing contracts for 4 provinces is less than 63% of French teams and and alot of Premiership teams too. So that shows the level of funding. All academy guys are paid in different ways. In Munster the supporters club pay the majority of academy guys.

The Central Contract mean it's excluded from budget for example Leinster might get 1m euro. If Sexton wasn't on a CC then that'd be 500k gone. As Sexton on a CC it means Leinster get a player free. It has no impact what so ever on clubs outside Ireland.

Now on to resting players. Most Irish national teams players play the max amount recommended by scientific tests. This is more player welfare than resting.

So for all those that think we go way above a salary cap etc please just learn before assuming wrongly.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

VC being his normal pillocky self and going through an entire thread downvoting every comment.