Heineken Cup talks "have now ended"

[ratsapprentice]

Exactly, the model that is being pursued essentially greases the tracks for fickle wealthy businessmen to procure vanity projects.
If the game continues to grow at the rate it has done over the last decade then by all means it will be big enough to attract those sorts of "investors".
Boudjellal is the archetype.

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

Exactly, the model that is being pursued essentially greases the tracks for fickle wealthy businessmen to procure vanity projects.
If the game continues to grow at the rate it has done over the last decade then by all means it will be big enough to attract those sorts of "investors".
Boudjellal is the archetype.

I've no problem with making lots of money, I do have a problem if it's done with short term self interest at heart and no desire to grow the game.

As I've said at nauseum, a closed 40 odd team league (run like MBL, NFL, NBA, MLS) with the potential to expand/relocate one team at a time into new markets like Germany, Spain, Portugal, Georgia, Romania, Russia etc is far more effective than the preposterous proposed 3rd level European competition which nobody will care one jot about, will lose money and be jettisoned quietly after a year or two if it even gets off the ground.

I'd equate European rugby to soccer in the USA. Both are behind behemoths in the public's consciousness- in Europe's case soccer holds sway whereas in the USA, gridiron is the number one show in town. MLS has grown from 10 teams in 2004 to having 19 teams today (with a 20th added in 2015), now has higher average attendences than MLB and NHL and a network TV deal. Rugby has looked to downsize it's flagship European tournament from 24 to 20 teams and accepted a TV deal with a minority station reducing it's potential audience (BT Sports audience share in the UK is 0.2%). This is madness.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I've no problem with making lots of money, I do have a problem if it's done with short term self interest at heart and no desire to grow the game.

Of course. That's why I feel it's so important for the Unions to retain ultimate control of the clubs.

 

[Tony Manx]

Of course. That's why I feel it's so important for the Unions to retain ultimate control of the clubs.

I agree again with your Rats but it is not likely to happen........the clubs are the money and the business experts whereas the Unioons have the old farts and ex rugby players!

It will all end in tears......................

 

[Peat]

I agree again with your Rats but it is not likely to happen........the clubs are the money and the business experts whereas the Unioons have the old farts and ex rugby players!

It will all end in tears......................

There's a great many ex-players who are business experts in fairness - just they don't seem to end up in the Unions.

The failure of the RFU to take over in 1995 remains the single greatest flaw in English rugby. The fact they seem to have little interest in putting it right now is almost as crap.

 

[dullonien]

I've no problem with making lots of money, I do have a problem if it's done with short term self interest at heart and no desire to grow the game.

As I've said at nauseum, a closed 40 odd team league (run like MBL, NFL, NBA, MLS) with the potential to expand/relocate one team at a time into new markets like Germany, Spain, Portugal, Georgia, Romania, Russia etc is far more effective than the preposterous proposed 3rd level European competition which nobody will care one jot about, will lose money and be jettisoned quietly after a year or two if it even gets off the ground.

I'd equate European rugby to soccer in the USA. Both are behind behemoths in the public's consciousness- in Europe's case soccer holds sway whereas in the USA, gridiron is the number one show in town. MLS has grown from 10 teams in 2004 to having 19 teams today (with a 20th added in 2015), now has higher average attendences than MLB and NHL and a network TV deal. Rugby has looked to downsize it's flagship European tournament from 24 to 20 teams and accepted a TV deal with a minority station reducing it's potential audience (BT Sports audience share in the UK is 0.2%). This is madness.

Quality post Snoop.

 

[Tony Manx]

There's a great many ex-players who are business experts in fairness - just they don't seem to end up in the Unions..

Totally agree...Tony O'Reilly, Mike Burton and Fran Cotton for example.....but the reason for their not being involved in Unions is that the latter are run by endless number of committees and successful business people believe that the maximum number of members of a committee is themselves!!

 

[McTallshort]

So the ERC have agreed to everything the french/english clubs asked for 2 years ago. makes you wonder why they didnt do it then?

 

[profitius]

So the ERC have agreed to everything the french/english clubs asked for 2 years ago. makes you wonder why they didnt do it then?

Or they've called the PRLs bluff!

 

[McTallshort]

Called it? what have they called? Yes we will do everything you asked......

 

[LittleGuy]

I've no problem with making lots of money, I do have a problem if it's done with short term self interest at heart and no desire to grow the game.

As I've said at nauseum, a closed 40 odd team league (run like MBL, NFL, NBA, MLS) with the potential to expand/relocate one team at a time into new markets like Germany, Spain, Portugal, Georgia, Romania, Russia etc is far more effective than the preposterous proposed 3rd level European competition which nobody will care one jot about, will lose money and be jettisoned quietly after a year or two if it even gets off the ground.

I'd equate European rugby to soccer in the USA. Both are behind behemoths in the public's consciousness- in Europe's case soccer holds sway whereas in the USA, gridiron is the number one show in town. MLS has grown from 10 teams in 2004 to having 19 teams today (with a 20th added in 2015), now has higher average attendences than MLB and NHL and a network TV deal. Rugby has looked to downsize it's flagship European tournament from 24 to 20 teams and accepted a TV deal with a minority station reducing it's potential audience (BT Sports audience share in the UK is 0.2%). This is madness.

Did you mean higher average attendances than NBA and NHL? MLB has way higher average attendances than MLS, about 30,500ish to 19,000ish. MLS tends to have a large disparity between markets as well, Seattle, Portland, Vancouver are examples of teams that draw fantastic crowds often into the 30-40,000 range and are dragging that average attendance way up, while other markets like Columbus, Chivas for example are more in the 10-12,000 range. There has also sort of been a trend in MLS where expansion franchises draw fantastic crowds until the charm runs out a little, I've seen this happen in Toronto, Columbus, New England and other markets where attendances are actually down from 4-5 years ago.

The TV deal is OK, but I'm not being hyperbolic when I say that some regional broadcasts of games there are more people in the stands than watching on TV, and at least in Canada nationally broadcast MLS games draw pretty poor ratings when compared to Ice Hockey, Gridiron, Baseball and to a lesser extent Basketball(in the States you could probably put Basketball higher than Hockey in that ranking). I don't want to trash MLS too much they've grown fairly succesfully and have found an enthusiastic and sizable niche that especially enjoys attending games, but beyond that niche they haven't grown the sport that much, the U.S. has a decent national team which I think draws some traffic as well.

 

[coolbawn]

"Called it? what have they called? "

The unions are showing that they agree with what they have said all along (including at ERC meetings for years apparently) namely that they are happy to change qualification and financial share but not to let the loonies run the asylum inc negotiate their own TV deal.

So the Franglais clubs are shown up.

 

[McTallshort]

"Called it? what have they called? "

The unions are showing that they agree with what they have said all along (including at ERC meetings for years apparently) namely that they are happy to change qualification and financial share but not to let the loonies run the asylum inc negotiate their own TV deal.

So the Franglais clubs are shown up.

If they had been saying it all along why did the clubs give notice? and when they gave notice why didnt the ERC come straight out and say they would make changes and its already been discussed?

They didnt because they never had any intention of changing anything, they have been shown up because after 18 months they are agreeing to something they should have just agreed to start with.

 

[coolbawn]

The clubs might have given notice if they want more than improved qualification and share ie control of the TV deal etc.

None of us outsiders knows for sure. One camp says the unions never intended to make progress; the clubs' PR machine has been pushing that in the English media so that's what you like to believe; fair enough. Another camp was quiet but is now saying that the unions tried to make progress ages ago in the ERC (before the notice to quit and after ?) but the clubs never intended to negotiate in good faith because they wanted to break away from their unions re the HEC. Who knows. One day the story might be told.

 

[Tony Manx]

Who knows. One day the story might be told.

And there is no doubt that it wil be told.................and that, my friend, is the only thing that is known about this fiasco at the moment!!

 

[Amiga500]

If they had been saying it all along why did the clubs give notice? and when they gave notice why didnt the ERC come straight out and say they would make changes and its already been discussed?.

How about because the clubs wanted control? Control of the competition, in sporting, organisational and financial matters.

Which is something the unions would never willingly cede.

 

[Packman]

Exactly, it's not as if they're being banished from Europe for all eternity and if they play well then they'll be back in the HEC.

And Packman, well done on selectively interpreting both my reply and current data!

We're not talking about the here and now! We're taking about how Italy got to where they are today. Look at the team which beat France in 2011. The majority of them either played for overseas teams OR had played a good chunk of their rugby for such teams in the past.

Half of that starting XV which beat Ireland play for French and English clubs and another two or three at least had played for such clubs in the past. So what exactly is your point?

At the end of the day it is sadly obvious that you're just trolling. I wish you all the best in the ball pool while myself, Oly and the rest of the adults talk about the real issues

I'd could congratulate you on your whipped bullyboy squirming and oh so predictable use of the troll card but to be honest I don't think its a quality worth praising. Luckily people who care can read the thread so keep squirming and nursing that bruised ego.

I've got a tip for you though. If you are going to reply to people's posts directly then try learning some tolerance or at least attempt to respect their point of view while getting your own across or you will be told to wheel your neck in when your argument falls down. In other words if you can't take it, don't dish it out. This bit of advice may save your fragile ego from more beatings. :lol:

 

[McTallshort]

I'd could congratulate you on your whipped bullyboy squirming and oh so predictable use of the troll card but to be honest I don't think its a quality worth praising. Luckily people who care can read the thread so keep squirming and nursing that bruised ego.

I've got a tip for you though. If you are going to reply to people's posts directly then try learning some tolerance or at least attempt to respect their point of view while getting your own across or you will be told to wheel your neck in when your argument falls down. In other words if you can't take it, don't dish it out. This bit of advice may save your fragile ego from more beatings. :lol:

You want to tell Amiga 500 the same thing.....

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

If they had been saying it all along why did the clubs give notice? and when they gave notice why didnt the ERC come straight out and say they would make changes and its already been discussed?

They didnt because they never had any intention of changing anything, they have been shown up because after 18 months they are agreeing to something they should have just agreed to start with.

When PRL withdrew from ERC 15 or so months ago, their story was that they wanted a change to the Heineken Cup and Amlin Cup qualifying format. After much screwing around from ERC, these demands were met. Surely if that's all PRL wanted when they gave two years notice to withdraw, they'd be back in the fold now. Do you agree that PRLs subsequent shifting of the goalposts and demand that ERC be disbanded illustrates they were never looking for ERC reform but were merely looking to grab power?

If ERC have been shown up as bumbling fools, surely PRL have been shown up for dishonesty as to their true intentions at the same time. ERC didn't have any intention of changing and PRL never had any intention of getting back into the fold.

This isn't revisionist history on my part, I've been saying the same thing consistently for the last year. I've no problem with clubs getting more of a say in running European competition. I've no particular love for ERC who seem to have undersold commercial rights (Mark McCafferty is/was commercial chairman of ERC incidentally) up to now. I think handing the reins over to clubs exclusively is a dangerous path to go down and will ultimately lead to the undermining of the international game.

 

[Feicarsinn]

I've no problem with making lots of money, I do have a problem if it's done with short term self interest at heart and no desire to grow the game.

As I've said at nauseum, a closed 40 odd team league (run like MBL, NFL, NBA, MLS) with the potential to expand/relocate one team at a time into new markets like Germany, Spain, Portugal, Georgia, Romania, Russia etc is far more effective than the preposterous proposed 3rd level European competition which nobody will care one jot about, will lose money and be jettisoned quietly after a year or two if it even gets off the ground.

I'd equate European rugby to soccer in the USA. Both are behind behemoths in the public's consciousness- in Europe's case soccer holds sway whereas in the USA, gridiron is the number one show in town. MLS has grown from 10 teams in 2004 to having 19 teams today (with a 20th added in 2015), now has higher average attendences than MLB and NHL and a network TV deal. Rugby has looked to downsize it's flagship European tournament from 24 to 20 teams and accepted a TV deal with a minority station reducing it's potential audience (BT Sports audience share in the UK is 0.2%). This is madness.

It's a complicated comparison to make though. One one hand you have to consider that the Heineken Cup is a much shorter competition than any of the others you have mentioned. You notice the burden of lower attendences and uncompetitive teams that much more as a result. Secondly, the draft system is hugely beneficial to US sports with regards expansion. It allows weak teams to become an awful lot stronger over the space of a season or two, whereas builing a team from the bottom up as a rugby club must do takes an awful lot more time.