Heineken Cup talks "have now ended"

[Peat]

Do the RFU have the assets to turn the Championship into the premiership? no way in the world. The fans will still go to Northampton and Bath not Bedford or Bristol and why would the RFU want to fight with the clubs? as long as England produce a team with its best players for the world cup the IRB dont care if they are playing for some renegade league.

The IRB will care if there is a renegade league and so will the RFU. If they don't their authority is effectively broken. There is a very minuscule probability of them ignoring that.

Just how plausible using the Championship is instead is an interesting question, but ruling it out entirely is unrealistic. So too would be ruling out defectors from PRL.

And since rats points out the issue of infrastructure - refs aren't paid for by PRL. They have international ambitions too. So if the refs are staying with RFU mandated competitions, who refs the new one? To give one but one example of the host of issues arising.

 

[smartcooky]

You have not got a clue, dont reply to my posts and I wont reply to yours.

It seems I have more clues than you mate. Highlighting what I said and having a hissy fit wont make the facts go away.

1. Club bosses freely acknowledge the losses made by their clubs, otherwise people like Andy Martin (London Irish) would not be making public statements like "the newly formed Rugby Champions Cup will wipe out the losses in English and French rugby."

2. The stats I posted are STRAIGHT from the Aviva Premiership and RBS Six Nations websites.

And I'll answer your posts if I feel like it. You post bullshít and I'm gonna call you on it.

1.The RFU (most unions for that matter) has a great and massive history at being completely hopeless at managing itself why the hell would they make things more stable thaan they are already?

Maybe that is true of some Unions in the amateur era, not so since professionalism, especially in Europe and SANZAR.

2. Unions subsidies the club instead of a private owner? no difference apart from the owner will be (and often is) for the club and the union are mostly self serving.

Except that the Union has a responsibility for the game in their whole country. In England that is a responsibility for the 1800+ rugby clubs and the 2 million registered and unregistered players. They have a responsibility to develop the the grass roots of the game. The private owners don't give a jot about the wider aspects of the game. Their only responsibility is to their bank balances and their bottom line.

3.What issues do we have in England now?

The Elite Player Squads and the Player Management Programme, part of the agreement signed betwen the RFU and PRL in 2007 includes such limitations as
► England squads, once named, cannot be changed except for injury. If a player has a loss of form, they are stuck with him and cannot replace him in the squad.
► Time limit on when and England squad is allowed to assemble prior to test matches
► EES players are only allowed to play three of the four Autumn Internationals. The England coaching staff have to manage their teams around that restriction.

SCW resigned in 2004 because he was unable to get the access to the players that he wanted; "I wanted more from the union – more training days with the players, more influence over the way they were treated – and ended up with less."

4.yeah obviously you may now more about that but the big drain on England players in the past is 4 autumn internationals instead of 3 so I don't see how the unions are more pro player welfare.

One extra test match instead of one club match for 22 players out of 12 clubs spread over 8 months and 30+ matches is hardly going to have any impact on player welfare.

5. agree with what you say about soccer but we have a salary cap etc and this on the presumption that all unions are great noble organisations and all clubs are owned by rabid bond villian types...my experience its the other way around.

Do you really, in all honesty, believe that if the PRL and LNR get their way, that any form of salary cap will remain in place? Really?

What this all boils down to for me is trust. In an interview, McCafferty was quoted as saying "We want all the teams from the six countries involved in the Heineken Cup to take part but it will be run by the clubs with safeguards put in place to ensure it does not cut across international rugby."

Really? Does anyone really think that McCafferty can be taken at his word after the way he has acted? Well, if the way the English and French club owners are treating the current organisers and the other participants in the European Cup is anything to go by (considering that they are not actually as yet in any position of power) then it is abundantly clear that McCafferty and his cohorts cannot be trusted.

There is little doubt that whatever happens, there will be a negative impact on the game world wide. You only have to look at other professional sports such as Football and Rugby League to see what happens when private individuals get their hands on the reins. The game gets driven for the benefit of the individual owners, the players are treated as property rather than people, the international game suffers as a result, the power in the club game centralises geographically at the expense of the game globally.

Fortunately, international Rugby Union is still enough of a draw card that players still see it as the pinnacle of their game. Enjoy it while it lasts, because that might not remain the case for much longer.

 

[Peat]

Do you really, in all honesty, believe that if the PRL and LNR get their way, that any form of salary cap will remain in place? Really?

Yes. The cap is decided by PRL as a whole and the turkeys will not vote for Christmas there.

 

[smartcooky]

Yes. The cap is decided by PRL as a whole and the turkeys will not vote for Christmas there.

And in the LNR?

 

[coolbawn]

Interesting quote in The Times today:

"The [national unions] should not be able to dictate when national teams play [qualifying matches] in the World Cup. The players are paid by us, the clubs. If anyone is going to organise an international competition every four years, it should be the clubs. The players are our employees."

Luckily that's some Italian owner of some top Italian football club, but McCafferty seems close behind him.

I'm glad I'm on the side of smartcooky, peat, amiga500 etc. Great stuff. Specially important to realise that for most non-English people, it's not an anti-English thing to be concerned about PRL as rats etc show.

Wasn't Bill Beaumont captain of England, or maybe making his debut, when the Dublin crowd welcomed England back ? I was there but don't remember for sure. If so, it would be good to think that President Beaumont remembers the goodwill existing then and now and does his level best to keep it going. I'm confident that he'll try and I'm confident that the likes of Beaumont and Ritchie are good examples of "union people" who are good and have the interest of the game at the forefront of their thinking.

 

[McTallshort]

[1] As I understand it, the RFU consistently turn a profit - whereas the PRL as a whole is insolvent without external aid [including from the RFU!]. That would suggest they are relatively better managed.

[2] It is very different. As the union owns all the clubs - they can impose real spending limits on the club hierarchy without fear of consequences. Serious question - do you know how the Irish provinces work? Or want a quick rundown of how the provinces exist as semi-independent entities within a larger collective?

[3] If a player is not in the EPS, will Stuart Lancaster be able to select him for evaluation in an international training camp? England are competitive despite the ESP protocol, not because of it!

[4] That point says an awful lot - on many levels. To lift the two most pertinent; [A] you say 4 international games drain the players more than the dozen plus club games in the surrounding months without any international fixtures. your post infers you place club rugby as a higher priority than international rugby - which to be fair - would explain much of your posts to date. Is that the case?

[5] Not the case over here. I believe your view of the RFU is questionable and sounds very irrational.

[6] Give it time in the PRL-world.

1. they turn a profit because they dont have to subsidize the elite clubs to the same level other unions do. This leaves more money for investment in grass roots rugby. The premier league is not insolvent and this is the sticking point for me...yes most clubs operate at a loss (mine doesnt) much of the loss is down to investment at clubs such as sarries and Exeter. There are clubs such as Irish and wasps are completely reliant on outside investment but thats because they are more franchise than club and I can honestly say if they go under its their own fault for failure to invest. I dont declare the premiership is perfect but some people on here (yourself included) are over playing the fact some clubs return a loss. The only Pro team in recent years to fold was supported by its Union......

2.I know how the irish regional model works but that would not work in England simply because there are more clubs to "support" (not that 4 clubs need any support) dont forget as well Irish players get tax breaks for playing in Ireland and also they have tried wrapping up one region recently and that would suggest supporting the large wage bills at Leinster and Munster is not a sustainable as some people believe. Also correct me as I know you would but dont Ulster get lots of private investment...

3.Disagree on that, the EPS is fine in my eyes and I have never known a situation were SL has not been able to select the players he wants.

4.No I would always support England before Tigers but I wouldnt above the clubs I have played for. I also dont think International rugby is the be all and end all of English rugby but then I dont believe elite rugby as a whole is the whole game either and would be more than happy to miss an international or tigers game if the vets team at my local club were short of players.

5.Over the years I suppose my opinion of my union has developed to be slightly irrational but no more irrational than your view of our clubs.

6.You really dont get club rugby do you? Dont see what clubs in the PRL do in the local community etc. Private owners have been in the English club game for nearly 20 years and this Orwellian nightmare that you seem to think will happen really has not happened. If you dont believe me come over and I will happily take to a PRL game and you can see for yourself that the people in and around these clubs are not the Nazi party.

 

[smartcooky]

1. they turn a profit because they dont have to subsidize the elite clubs to the same level other unions do. This leaves more money for investment in grass roots rugby. .

The NZRU has turned a profit for the last few years, despite that fact that...

1. it supports five fully professional Super Rugby teams
2. it supports 14 semi-professional Provincial Teams
3. it supports 12 second division amateur teams (The Heartland Championship)
4. it operates in an environment with only a 4½ million population base
5. it has done so in the worst global economic environment in more than 30 years
6. it has done so with only 145,000 registered and unregistered players (you probably have close to or even more than that in the Midlands alone)

All of that has been done using the All Blacks as the sole money earner (other than investments), and on top of the profit, it has been able to invest ahead for possible bad times.

If we can do it, there is no earthly reason why the RFU could not do it considering the huge advantage it has in the scale of the economy it operates in.

 

[McTallshort]

And the rfu would have 12 full time and 12 part time to support

But why would they? No one seems to be able to answer this. Lots of people are making suggestions regards what the french and english unions should do to take over the clubs but are they really going to do that just to save the current european chamioship? Why what would they gain? As for throwing all there money into the championship clubs just to break the prl I know some people might want that happen but it never ever would

 

[ratsapprentice]

They would do it to prevent the international rugby landscape being turned into one resembling the EPL.
One where England matches don't really matter, because a Sarries or Leicester match is more important.

Tallshort, I am completely onside with the clubs regarding the qualification and revenue restructuring.
What I am increasingly unhappy about is the stance that the clubs are taking in regards to the Unions ceding control.

The international game is sacrosanct.
It is one of the hallmarks of our sport.
Without it - good luck trying to build the game domestically - let alone abroad.
You cannot allow the clubs to interfere with it.
The French Top14 is already starting to resemble the EPL.


I also understand that you cannot **** around with the clubs - people support who they want to and will not simply be herded into supporting one club or the other.

It seems to me that you are ignoring the structure of rugby in NZ when you say that Unions cannot be trusted.
I, for one would be thrilled to have a structure like that in England - it is stable with a clear pyramidal development path running through all levels of the game.

Something like: 12 Championship <--> 12 Premiership --> 6 Regional (for Europe) --> 2 England

Whether you have regions or not is not my point though.

I also would like to point out that I agree that the club owners are not necessarily bogey-men - Bruce Craig is a former player and clearly wants Bath to do well, regardless of financial reward.*
But giving the clubs more control will encourage more self-interested parties to become involved from outside our game.
You cannot just say "it'll never be like the EPL" - it will do exactly that without proper Union governance.

*To a reasonable extent - He isn't going to bankrupt himself.

 

[Amiga500]

1. they turn a profit because they dont have to subsidize the elite clubs to the same level other unions do.

All other unions are fully solvent. Yes, some have long-term debt incurred because of capital investments, but none are on continual life support like certain clubs.

The premier league is not insolvent and this is the sticking point for me...

It is well down the road to collapse. When BT eventually do their "ITV Digital" in a couple of years - the PRL will fall apart unless Sky bail them out.

I know how the irish regional model works - Also correct me as I know you would but dont Ulster get lots of private investment...

I'm not sure you are fully aware of how it works. The provinces can raise significant monies completely independent of central (IRFU) control. But, the IRFU will give each a fixed stipend per season and also act as backer for capital projects. The IRFU are probably not even Ulster's major source of funding.

As for it not working because there are more clubs to support.... rubbish. The revenue the RFU generate from international games will be significantly larger than that of Ireland. If it means the proportions of union/club (or in Ireland union/province) generated income change a bit - so what.

3.Disagree on that, the EPS is fine in my eyes and I have never known a situation were SL has not been able to select the players he wants.

Already examples provided as to why that is not the case.

4.No I would always support England before Tigers but I wouldnt above the clubs I have played for.

That is more than fair enough!

5.Over the years I suppose my opinion of my union has developed to be slightly irrational but no more irrational than your view of our clubs.

6.You really dont get club rugby do you? Dont see what clubs in the PRL do in the local community etc. Private owners have been in the English club game for nearly 20 years and this Orwellian nightmare that you seem to think will happen really has not happened. If you dont believe me come over and I will happily take to a PRL game and you can see for yourself that the people in and around these clubs are not the Nazi party.

Of course the people within the club are not bad. 99.9% will be genuine men or women with an interest only in developing their team and the sport.

It only takes the owner to have a change of mind, a change of attitude, a change in financial conditions elsewhere, a change in health... and the private-owner structure is at risk.

Many owners have thrown money into clubs for a long time now - without thought as to how it could ever be sustainable for them. Most have done a fantastic job in improving infrastructure around the clubs. But, they will always be tempted by "speculate to accumulate" policies [such a phrase is common in soccer amongst numbskull fans], whereby they buy in expensive players to aid short-term success [case in point - the clown at sarries]. This has seen them continually hemorrhage money to the point where the owner sees no alternative but to get more income... from anywhere... without concern for the consequences elsewhere. The alternative means the balance sheets are unsustainable and the club is at risk - as they can no longer justify throwing money at it.

 

[McTallshort]

They would do it to prevent the international rugby landscape being turned into one resembling the EPL.
One where England matches don't really matter, because a Sarries or Leicester match is more important.

Tallshort, I am completely onside with the clubs regarding the qualification and revenue restructuring.
What I am increasingly unhappy about is the stance that the clubs are taking in regards to the Unions ceding control.

The international game is sacrosanct.
It is one of the hallmarks of our sport.
Without it - good luck trying to build the game domestically - let alone abroad.
You cannot allow the clubs to interfere with it.
The French Top14 is already starting to resemble the EPL.


I also understand that you cannot **** around with the clubs - people support who they want to and will not simply be herded into supporting one club or the other.

It seems to me that you are ignoring the structure of rugby in NZ when you say that Unions cannot be trusted.
I, for one would be thrilled to have a structure like that in England - it is stable with a clear pyramidal development path running through all levels of the game.

Something like: 12 Championship <--> 12 Premiership --> 6 Regional (for Europe) --> 2 England

Whether you have regions or not is not my point though.

I also would like to point out that I agree that the club owners are not necessarily bogey-men - Bruce Craig is a former player and clearly wants Bath to do well, regardless of financial reward.*
But giving the clubs more control will encourage more self-interested parties to become involved from outside our game.
You cannot just say "it'll never be like the EPL" - it will do exactly that without proper Union governance.

*To a reasonable extent - He isn't going to bankrupt himself.

Right lets look at this, have the clubs asked the RFU for more control? Are the RFU jumping up and down demanding they change their power hungry stance? No

I am honestly not worried that Tigers V Sarries will ever be bigger than England V France but I am glad the club game is bigger than it was and it does need to grow. I honestly dont believe the HEC was helping development or the growth of the game in the last few years unlike the Amlin. The Welsh, Scottish and Italian teams (Glasgow aside) have not improved and are certainly no better in terms of crowds etc than they were in 2007 and the apathy and dis-interest showed by the French and English now is a good time to change.

Am I happy with what the PRL done regards the BT deal? No. SKy have done alot for Rugby. Am I worried that BT will collapse because its not getting any viewers? Oh yes but I think this was the only way things like qualification could be honestly debated and the Pro 12 has to take some responsibility for pushing the French and ENglish into this stance.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Right lets look at this, have the clubs asked the RFU for more control? Are the RFU jumping up and down demanding they change their power hungry stance? No

No, they haven't asked - they have told.

They have explicitly said that they want to control the competitions they are involved in - not the Unions.

This is the big problem with "Club" sporting structures - they are unable to co-exist with meaningful international games.
Precisely because they are self-serving. You've seen how the poorer unions are shafted by it - French based PI's do not get released because the players cannot afford it.

It should also be reiterated that this battle is happening in parallel with the BT/ESPN vs SKY/FOX battle.
If the leaked info regarding the BT/PRL deal is correct and the PRL don't fulfill their contract, then Sky would have serious motivation to pour a ****-ton of money into the Championship.
Bearing in mind that they already have invested more heavily in it this season.

 

[McTallshort]

No, they haven't asked - they have told.

They have explicitly said that they want to control the competitions they are involved in - not the Unions.

This is the big problem with "Club" sporting structures - they are unable to co-exist with meaningful international games.
Precisely because they are self-serving. You've seen how the poorer unions are shafted by it - French based PI's do not get released because the players cannot afford it.

Disagree, as long as there is common ground then things like the ESP can work. The clubs are not stupid they know that they are not the soccer premier league who dont really need or care about the England soccer team, they also know that they get more bodies though the turn-styles if the England rugby union team are successful as its the biggest draw but they want to control the tournaments they play in, dont have a problem with that its not like they tell the RFU how to run the 6 nations

 

[ratsapprentice]

The Premier League can afford not to care about the England team - this is exactly where we are heading by allowing the PRL to have control.
I don't understand how you cannot see that?
You don't seem to be willing to see how things will change - as opposed to how they have been.

Have you seen the leaked details about the BT deal?
Does the PRL really seem trustworthy after that?

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rug...ll-open-to-resolve-european-impasse-1.1545438

However, Midi Olympique yesterday cited "several sources" in speculating that the FFR will announce, in the next few days, a hardening of its stance in opposition to the LNR's attempts to forge a new breakaway competition and, what's more, if the Top 14 clubs refuse to take part in the Heineken Cup, they will look to enter regional teams from outside the LNR umbrella.

 

[Peat]

And in the LNR?

Dunno mate.

It is a somewhat moot question though in my mind given that their current wage cap is so far above everyone else's budget. Including English clubs. It frustrates me that English rugby is pressing this fight to the hilt when it could be allied with Celtalia in forcing a lower wage cap on the French.

And the rfu would have 12 full time and 12 part time to support

But why would they? No one seems to be able to answer this. Lots of people are making suggestions regards what the french and english unions should do to take over the clubs but are they really going to do that just to save the current european chamioship? Why what would they gain? As for throwing all there money into the championship clubs just to break the prl I know some people might want that happen but it never ever would

They would not do this lightly. They would not do it simply to force the English clubs to play in European competition. It is very clear that the possibility of jeopardising the 2015 World Cup by not getting players is upmost in the RFU's mind.

However, if the English clubs take part in a non-IRB sanctioned competition - an Anglo-French cup that either the French or we didn't sanction - then they have little choice but to finish the war that has been started for them. They must enforce sanctions or they will lose any future authority over the clubs. Which means no international selection for players competing in the new league, which is their main possible sanction, along with withholding payments made.

Which then gives the RFU no option but to start investing in the next tier down simply to create a competition to place internationals in. It would be difficult, but it would be feasible. I am not certain whether it would work but I think PRL would be very unwise to find out.

As for the club owners intentions - we have mostly had twenty years of philanthropy for which I am very grateful. That is no guarantee of another twenty, or the twenty after that. The current structure of rugby makes it very difficult for the clubs to supersede international rugby. Yet we already have had bitter arguments over player release and issues over the number of foreign players in the Premiership. You may believe otherwise, but I see no guarantee that with more money, PRL wouldn't again seek to grow in ways un-conducive to the England national team.

 

[McTallshort]

The Premier League can afford not to care about the England team - this is exactly where we are heading by allowing the PRL to have control.
I don't understand how you cannot see that?
You don't seem to be willing to see how things will change - as opposed to how they have been.

Have you seen the leaked details about the BT deal?
Does the PRL really seem trustworthy after that?

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rug...ll-open-to-resolve-european-impasse-1.1545438

See what! are you honestly saying the PRL are just going scrap the EPS and tell the RFU to f off? Why? jsut tell me why they would do it?

 

[McTallshort]

Dunno mate.

It is a somewhat moot question though in my mind given that their current wage cap is so far above everyone else's budget. Including English clubs. It frustrates me that English rugby is pressing this fight to the hilt when it could be allied with Celtalia in forcing a lower wage cap on the French.



They would not do this lightly. They would not do it simply to force the English clubs to play in European competition. It is very clear that the possibility of jeopardising the 2015 World Cup by not getting players is upmost in the RFU's mind.

However, if the English clubs take part in a non-IRB sanctioned competition - an Anglo-French cup that either the French or we didn't sanction - then they have little choice but to finish the war that has been started for them. They must enforce sanctions or they will lose any future authority over the clubs. Which means no international selection for players competing in the new league, which is their main possible sanction, along with withholding payments made.

Which then gives the RFU no option but to start investing in the next tier down simply to create a competition to place internationals in. It would be difficult, but it would be feasible. I am not certain whether it would work but I think PRL would be very unwise to find out.

As for the club owners intentions - we have mostly had twenty years of philanthropy for which I am very grateful. That is no guarantee of another twenty, or the twenty after that. The current structure of rugby makes it very difficult for the clubs to supersede international rugby. Yet we already have had bitter arguments over player release and issues over the number of foreign players in the Premiership. You may believe otherwise, but I see no guarantee that with more money, PRL wouldn't again seek to grow in ways un-conducive to the England national team.

SInce the EPS how many bitter arguments have we had? I know there has been some in Wales and France but to my mind we have few here in England.

 

[Amiga500]

See what! are you honestly saying the PRL are just going scrap the EPS and tell the RFU to f off? Why? jsut tell me why they would do it?

Because eventually they would rather have their players for an extra... ohh... 10+ rounds of league/cup games a year than release them to internationals as they would make more money that way.

As others have pointed out several times (and you continually refuse to acknowledge) - such practice is already common-place in France regarding south-sea islanders.


You should change your username to Shortsighted. In fact, blind might be a more accurate portrayal!

 

[McTallshort]

Because eventually they would rather have their players for an extra... ohh... 10+ rounds of league/cup games a year than release them to internationals as they would make more money that way.

As others have pointed out several times (and you continually refuse to acknowledge) - such practice is already common-place in France regarding south-sea islanders.


You should change your username to Shortsighted. In fact, blind might be a more accurate portrayal!

Ha Ha! I do wear glasses!

This is my take on it....having a succesful England team is in the best interest of the clubs because its the best place to show off their best assets. Also regarding France, the players have the power to ask for clauses in their contracts to stop that happening.

 

[Peat]

It is in the best interests of the club. Whether the clubs can accurately see their best interests is up for question.

Take Saracens. They are a club well positioned to capture the floating casual rugby support base in London. So what do they do? Put on a massive display of fakery, constantly talk about moving big games abroad and transparent PR - all of which alienates a lot of casual rugby support. Wasps decision to move to Wycombe looks a mistake and a half with hindsight. And so on.

Certainly nobody sees their best interests accurately all the time.