Heineken Cup talks "have now ended"

[lucky number 7]

That's a bull**** example to use Cooky, seeing as recently as 19 August until 25 November England were 3rd above Australia. And for the period when the rankings were first used ( 6yrs after professionalism) England were the No1 team. If England had beaten NZ, which they nearly could of, then they in all possibility would of gone second. By your logic they achieved all this due to the fact the English game has owners.
Not to mention the fact that the Celts have copied the NZ way and are still languishing below England & France with their "owners" systems.

The control the IRFU have over their provinces in my opinion has contributed massively to the success of Irish provinces in European competition. Indeed over the last decade it could easily be argued that the Irish sides have dominated the top tier of European rugby.

Perhaps it hasn't paid dividends at international level just yet but that in my opinion is down to a series of managers that didn't really get the best from a very talented crop of players.

 

[smartcooky]

That's a bull**** example to use Cooky, seeing as recently as 19 August until 25 November England were 3rd above Australia. And for the period when the rankings were first used ( 6yrs after professionalism) England were the No1 team. If England had beaten NZ, which they nearly could of, then they in all possibility would of gone second. By your logic they achieved all this due to the fact the English game has owners.
Not to mention the fact that the Celts have copied the NZ way and are still languishing below England & France with their "owners" systems.

Meh, you missed the point Jim, probably because you got the Red Mist when you read my post.

The point was NOT that the SANZAR countries have succeeded because they have no owners in their setup, but rather it was to counter gaston le gaff's assertion that there would be no rugby without the millionaire owners when in fact, the sport is doing just fine own here without them.

Amiga500 hits the nail right on the head when he says that without owners "wages would reduce towards a natural level, which would be determined by TV deals, sponsorship and attendance figures". The reason you have players up north being paid what I consider to be offensive wage levels, is because private ownership of individual clubs creates financial competition between them to get the best players. Clubs become strong NOT just because they can grow good players with their systems, but because they can BUY them by offering outrageous and inflated salaries.

The English and French system of private ownership has been very good for us down south. Not only has it kept a significant part of their focus on domestic rugby, but also the outrageous money on offer takes older players, mostly older national squad players nearing retirement from here and deposits them among the national leagues up there, where they act as development and promotion blocks. I believe this cannot help but weaken the national teams up there. Sure, there is an argument that playing alongside these good players helps to improve the good young players, and that is true to a certain extent, but there is NO substitute for actually playing the game. The fact is that many young players do not get much game time because their spot is taken by a very experienced foreigner who is not eligible for their National team. It has often been said that every time an ex-All Black or senior player packs his bags and heads north for the retirement package, a door closes on a young upcoming player up there, and at the same time, a door opens for a fresh young talent here. Its why I love the ITM Cup so much; its an opportunity to see the raw potential of new talent and trying to predict which ones will be the All Blacks of the future.

For many years, certain people, mostly media pundits and a few forum posters of our mutual acquaintance (think "the mighty hunter" Jim) have been predicting that the wages being offered up north was going to strip the talent from the SANZAR countries, especially New Zealand; "last one out turn off the lights" I think was the common expression. Well, it hasn't happened has it, and there is no sign that it ever will. What has happened is that is has mostly stripped out the dead-wood, leaving space for new growth.

 

[Tony Manx]

I think Tony's whole point was that Barwell was a millionaire but that he invested wisely and slowly in the club rather than just splurging his money on lots of high profile players like Sarries, for example, have done.

Of course Sarries also built themselves a very nice new stadium as well so I guess there has been at least some thought for the future there!

Keith resigned due to ill health and his son took over before the son subsequently died at an unbelievable early age.........The Barwell still have a very substantial holding, to my knowledge, if not outright ownership. Duckworth has been a long, long time owner and benefactor of Worcester and their current problems will not change that.

Thank you Patchey for understanding what I mean and I would much prefer rugby was still run by these type of people....and even dear old loyal Serge Blanco.........rather than those who are out for world domination and the riches they believe will accrue!!

Old Fashioned, naive, unrealistic etc etc of course but one can dream in an ideal!!

 

[coolbawn]

I think very much along the lines of Smartcooky and Amiga500. So I then go on to wonder whether those of us who follow rugby mainly through an Irish prism should welcome more and more Irish players being well-prepared by the Unions in the provincial academies, AIL, B&I Cup, Rabo & HEC and then at some stage on that ladder being hoovered up by the TV-rich English and French clubs to make room for the next generation of Irish Union-prepared graduates ? As long as each one negotiates clearance for international camps and IF they can avoid being burned out by their new employers (is that possible ? Sexton is being worked very hard by Racing), the Irish national team should benefit from the much larger pool of mature Irish players. The IRFU seemed to keep the pool too small by having too many non-Irish players and discouraging players with top potential from leaving but now they have minimized the number of non-Irish qualified players AND allowed more Irish-qualified players to be snapped up by the English and French. Not only does this seem good for Ireland but (as Smartcooky says) it must be bad for England IF (in this case) the Irish Union-owned provinces, academies and club tournament prove to be better preparers of local talent than privately-owned English and French clubs are. So perhaps we should actually encourage Mr Wray and his backers etc ? Except we have to do everything possible to encourage the game to grow, so the above might be too parochial.

 

[St George]

Meh, you missed the point Jim, probably because you got the Red Mist when you read my post.

.

I dont do red mist, i do common sense, and to post the current top 3 in the rankings and imply they are there due to their owner-free systems is failing to recognise that England were recently in the top 3 and have been higher....all with their owner-based system. IMO both arguments are wrong.

I agree 100% that NZs system is the best in the world at producing the goods, but do you really think the status quo would change if the NZ clubs were in private ownership? IMO that is an insult to the mentality of all those involved in NZ rugby.
As for the other two Sanzars, IMO the ARU punches way above its weight, and is strugging to compete within its own borders with other sports especially League. And i would not like to think what the SARU will be like if it continues with its desired policy:

http://www.espnscrum.com/southafrica/rugby/story/207937.html

The Big 3 have historically been the best at rugby, and i believe that is in part to a more professional attitude, even during amateurism. Unfortunately the North were amateurs on and off the field and to some extent still are off the field.

 

[St George]

The control the IRFU have over their provinces in my opinion has contributed massively to the success of Irish provinces in European competition. Indeed over the last decade it could easily be argued that the Irish sides have dominated the top tier of European rugby.

Perhaps it hasn't paid dividends at international level just yet but that in my opinion is down to a series of managers that didn't really get the best from a very talented crop of players.

I understand your point, but would also point towards Wales, that have also regionalised and found success/failure in reverse to Ireland. Their regions underperform, and their national team excels. So its a bit rough trying to imply that the non-owner system brings success as Cooky is alluding to. IMO you have hit the nail on the head by mentioning the management of players within a system. The Ireland team have failed in your eyes possibly to the managers it had. England excelled under Woodward within an owner-based system. Wales are currently looking good under Gatland although he cannot beat the top3.

IMO managers/coaches aligned with good players are what bring success, and in NZ they have the best with regards attitude and professionalism.

 

[nickdnz]

I dont do red mist, i do common sense, and to post the current top 3 in the rankings and imply they are there due to their owner-free systems is failing to recognise that England were recently in the top 3 and have been higher....all with their owner-based system. IMO both arguments are wrong.

I agree 100% that NZs system is the best in the world at producing the goods, but do you really think the status quo would change if the NZ clubs were in private ownership? IMO that is an insult to the mentality of all those involved in NZ rugby.
As for the other two Sanzars, IMO the ARU punches way above its weight, and is strugging to compete within its own borders with other sports especially League. And i would not like to think what the SARU will be like if it continues with its desired policy:

http://www.espnscrum.com/southafrica/rugby/story/207937.html

The Big 3 have historically been the best at rugby, and i believe that is in part to a more professional attitude, even during amateurism. Unfortunately the North were amateurs on and off the field and to some extent still are off the field.

Of course New Zealand teams would suffer because of private ownership.

Every level of New Zealand rugby is essentially a cog which leads to a strong national team - all of which is controlled by the NZRU. Schools, clubs, representitives, ITM Cups, Super Rugby all ultimately work to produce talent that will succeed on a national level. That is where the NZRU's interest lies. For example you have All Blacks rested from Super Rugby (they rarely ever play ITM Cup) in order to get fitness for international rugby, and since the NZRU pay the wages the franchises essentially put the interests of the national team ahead of their own success. A young promising player is carefully managed so that his career may lead to higher honours, even if playing him early week in and out would benefit the franchises.

By introducing private ownership this goes. An owners responsibility is first and foremost to his own team. Do you wonder why Richie McCaw, Dan Carter and Conrad Smith get sabbaticals? Do you think if they were being paid hundred of thousands for a club that they could take half a year off? No. Ultimately if there is one amazing demonstration of professional clubs interests hurting their national team it is France. Players play massively long seasons (when their not stuck behind a foreign player), get forced to play with risk of injuries, get limited training time with their national side due to club interests and yet are somehow expected to be competitive. England's season isn't quite so long, nor do they have as many foreigners in key positions - but private ownership has certainly not done England many favours.

 

[Packman]

Of course New Zealand teams would suffer because of private ownership.

Every level of New Zealand rugby is essentially a cog which leads to a strong national team - all of which is controlled by the NZRU. Schools, clubs, representitives, ITM Cups, Super Rugby all ultimately work to produce talent that will succeed on a national level. That is where the NZRU's interest lies. For example you have All Blacks rested from Super Rugby (they rarely ever play ITM Cup) in order to get fitness for international rugby, and since the NZRU pay the wages the franchises essentially put the interests of the national team ahead of their own success. A young promising player is carefully managed so that his career may lead to higher honours, even if playing him early week in and out would benefit the franchises.

By introducing private ownership this goes. An owners responsibility is first and foremost to his own team. Do you wonder why Richie McCaw, Dan Carter and Conrad Smith get sabbaticals? Do you think if they were being paid hundred of thousands for a club that they could take half a year off? No. Ultimately if there is one amazing demonstration of professional clubs interests hurting their national team it is France. Players play massively long seasons (when their not stuck behind a foreign player), get forced to play with risk of injuries, get limited training time with their national side due to club interests and yet are somehow expected to be competitive. England's season isn't quite so long, nor do they have as many foreigners in key positions - but private ownership has certainly not done England many favours.

I totally agree with you.

I'd also say that I can't see the club owner's lasting very long in NZ because the whole population from little old ladies in the supermarket to angry hormonal teenager behind the bike sheds won't put up with anyone who thinks they are bigger that the All Blacks.
Firstly there'd be a national debate and probably a referendum as soon as anyone dared to even suggest such a thing! The Eurpean cup fiasco would be discussed and that ought to put the matter to bed there and then.

But for argument's sake lets just say that NZ had a nationwide brain fart and some guy was allowed to buy the Crusaders and then refused to release his players for an all black training camp, or maybe he arranged his domestic match to clash with the first test against England like PRL have. If that happened then the South Island and probably half the North Island as well would be outside his house the next day ready to kick his ass if he dared to walk out the front door. You do not screw with the All Blacks and expect your typical Kiwi to take it lying down. I know a couple of guys who want to change the national flag to a black one with a silver fern in the middle! The issue would be raised in the NZ parliament and I wouldn't be surprised if a law wasn't passed making refusal to release players for all black training or test match a criminal offense! That's why NZ are the best in the world. They look after the All Blacks as they would look after their own mothers and the All Blacks are expected to repay that loyalty with wins. A disruptive influence like a club owner wouldn't last a season if he behaved like PRL does.

English rugby may have the largest playing numbers and biggest potential, but we will never ever reach that potential because the club owners want that potential for themselves, so they can win the Aviva trophy and show it off in their gentlemen's club. None of them give a damn about us English fans who want to see the English teams playing in the european cup, they'd rather boycott it for a year just to **** off the Irish. We are getting shat on from a great height folks all so 12 businessmen can get 143 milllion quid off BT sports.

What the hell are these leaches doing in our sport???? Well its because the vast majority of English rugby fans are apathetic. They don't care as much as your typical New Zealander would. That's something that drives me up the wall. Its something that made Sir Clive Woodward resign in 2004 and man have England ever missed him. He championed the national team and made them the No.1 priority and made sure they wanted for nothing. We won a world cup out of it. Since he left England have not been the no.1 priority and we all know it. Why on earth do we continue with PRL? GO FIGURE! Get some regions set up now. If we're truthful, we know haven't a dog's chance of winning the 2015 RWC anyway so lets set up Six regions accept that they'll take a few years to get up to speed but then go forward from an real foundation of strength! Look at Wales. look at what the welsh teams has achieved with just four regions. I've had enough of PRL. They are banking on the English rugby fan's apathy to see them though this, and going on this Thread where 90% of English fans are supporting them to the hilt you have to say they'll pull it off too. But you fans ought to be ashamed of yourselves and don't even dare to criticise Stuart Lancaster or the English national team because you couldn't be bigger hypocrites if you tried! You're a bunch of corporate lickspittles.

 

[bertiec]

With the advent of profesional rugby the commercial pressure was enevitable. This buisness avarice is must to satisfy boards and, if only partially, to pay for new players. Big names in a side will sell tickets so the plug pulls out of the money bucket and you can only hope to fill it a bit quicker than it is running dry or get a sugar daddy. As for bringing new players through, well, this can prove a bit of a double edged sword as they are rarely satisfied with bench duty to start their career. As a Tigers fan I have seen to many do it, Ford 36 etc. But the likes of Salvi Goneva and Hamilton have been godsends to us. Its not good but thats the way it is so we have to make a fist of it and go forward.

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

http://www.premiershiprugby.com/mobile/news/29994.php

The Chairmen and Shareholders of Premiership Rugby met today to consider amongst other matters the situation and options related to European club rugby issues.

The English Clubs have unanimously re-confirmed their position. Having served notice in June 2012, they will not participate in any competitions run by ERC from 2014-15 season. ERC does not structurally recognise the role of the leagues and clubs in driving the success of club competitions, under the overall governance of Unions. The ERC voting structure is controlled by Unions even though the majority of commercial value is created by the independent clubs which represent 75 per cent of the participants.
Proposals put forward to address a new structure within a Rugby Champions Cup were agreed by a majority of the Unions in October, alongside meritocratic competition formats and equitable financial distributions. However, these have not been accepted by all.
The English Clubs have worked exhaustively over the last 18 months to propose solutions to the issues with the current European competitions and to provide a sustainable platform to grow the game in the various countries.

The English clubs are now pursuing other options.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

[Tony Manx]

Huge, huge mistake but inevitable for two reasons......BT Contract and bloody arrogance!

Next thing is to hear whether the French will backtrack again and not play H Cup as they did say they would play only if the T....ts from England also played!

 

[TRF_Olyy]

So no English = No French = Pro 12 w/ Romanian/Spanish/Italian club sides...?

 

[Tony Manx]

But.................could go either way as assitance or hinderance to RWC..................rest against lack of competition!

 

[Maverick1987]

But.................could go either way as assitance or hinderance to RWC..................rest against lack of competition!

I think it will go well for English clubs . Let's face it we don't lack tough competition in the aviva anyway . It will shorten the season out to 25 or so games plus the lv cup . Hopefully we will get less injuries to England players .

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

I think it will go well for English clubs . Let's face it we don't lack tough competition in the aviva anyway . It will shorten the season out to 25 or so games plus the lv cup . Hopefully we will get less injuries to England players .

They may not lack tough competition but they do lack quality competition. The Premiership is a bit of a turdfest. Less games is a good thing though.

 

[smartcooky]

Huge, huge mistake but inevitable for two reasons......BT Contract and bloody arrogance!

Next thing is to hear whether the French will backtrack again and not play H Cup as they did say they would play only if the T....ts from England also played!

They didn't actually say they wouldn't take part if the English didn't, they said "we reserve the right not to take part". They don't have to exercise that right if they find it expedient not to do so!

This is called keeping your options open!



[TEXTAREA]"The Chairmen and Shareholders of Premiership Rugby met today to consider amongst other matters the situation and options related to European club rugby issues. The English Clubs have unanimously re-confirmed their position"[/TEXTAREA]

I wonder if they even bothered to ask the players and the fans if they agree with this arrogant stance.

Their position rather reminds me of this...

 

[Maverick1987]

They may not lack tough competition but they do lack quality competition. The Premiership is a bit of a turdfest. Less games is a good thing though.

I hardly think it's a turdfest tbh at least 6 very high quality teams . Leicester sarries Northampton Quins bath and Exeter are more than capable of mixing it with the best . Gloucester and wasps can have their days too

 

[Maverick1987]

They didn't actually say they wouldn't take part if the English didn't, they said "we reserve the right not to take part". They don't have to exercise that right if they find it expedient not to do so!

This is called keeping your options open!



[TEXTAREA]"The Chairmen and Shareholders of Premiership Rugby met today to consider amongst other matters the situation and options related to European club rugby issues. The English Clubs have unanimously re-confirmed their position"[/TEXTAREA]

I wonder if they even bothered to ask the players and the fans if they agree with this arrogant stance.

Their position rather reminds me of this...

It's because we don't need the HC it's nice to play the French and rabo teams but it's not a necessity

Edit . Sorry I should have said I don't think we need it . Everyone has their own opinion this is mine

 

[smartcooky]

It's because we don't need the HC it's nice to play the French and rabo teams but it's not a necessity

So, why has PRL gotten itself into a (now unfulfillable) contract to do exactly what you say you don't need!

They won't have any money from the ERC next year, plus the clubs that would have been involved will miss out on all the gates from 18+ home matches. That is a very significant portion of their annual revenue.

[TEXTAREA]England's top clubs, whose deal with UK broadcaster BT also presents a potential conflict with Sky's rights to show Heineken Cup matches, will now seek a way to fill the missing weekends, with games against South African sides being touted in the media as a possibility.[/TEXTAREA]

The Crusaders v Sharks match that was played at Twickenham a couple of seasons ago required the approval of the RFU, SARU and the iRB.

I cannot see filling the vacant weekends with matches against SA teams is going to get that approval for any of the above-mentioned bodies.

 

[Tony Manx]

So, why has PRL gotten itself into a (now unfulfillable) contract to do exactly what you say you don't need!.

Because theyh are arrogant T...ts!