Premiership Rugby out of Heineken Cup?

rrpc · 24-09-2013 02:26PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Sorry I mixed up my posts, just noticed.

I didn't imply anything about fairness in the way money is distributed

You made a bald statement comparing what Harlequins and Zebre got. You didn't editorialise, but you didn't need to where one was three times the size of the other.

The implication was clear, stop being disingenuous.

irishbucsfan · 24-09-2013 02:29PM

rrpc wrote: »

You made a bald statement comparing what Harlequins and Zebre got. You didn't editorialise, but you didn't need to where one was three times the size of the other.

The implication was clear, stop being disingenuous.

I don't think you understood the point at all to be honest.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with splitting the money based on participation. I've said it many times.

24-09-2013 02:41PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I don't think you understood the point at all to be honest.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with splitting the money based on participation. I've said it many times.

Do you think that the ERC's purposeful 'overpayment' to the Italian Union is a bad idea?

rrpc · 24-09-2013 02:43PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I don't think you understood the point at all to be honest.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with splitting the money based on participation. I've said it many times.

Do you need to re-re-read your post again?

irishbucsfan wrote:

So effectively in Europe everyone would be equal, rather than Premiership and Top 14 sides all getting far less than Rabo sides. Conor O'Shea said it when we was on RTE, his Harlequins got 400k out of Europe while Zebre got 1.2m

Each team currently gets their tranche according to how their Unions (or their delegates) decide.

So why are you comparing Harlequins with Zebre?

irishbucsfan · 24-09-2013 02:46PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Do you think that the ERC's purposeful 'overpayment' to the Italian Union is a bad idea?

It probably goes a little way to making up the 3 million euro the celtic nations charge the Italian nations to take part in the Rabo each year.

But it's not a huge amount beyond their share in terms of participation.

irishbucsfan · 24-09-2013 02:48PM

rrpc wrote: »

Do you need to re-re-read your post again?

Each team currently gets their tranche according to how their Unions (or their delegates) decide.

So why are you comparing Harlequins with Zebre?

I've explained why it's a good example many times.

If you agree its right to distribute money on participation, and it is, but the money is still grossly uneven, then what needs to change?

24-09-2013 02:50PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It probably goes a little way to making up the 3 million euro the celtic nations charge the Italian nations to take part in the Rabo each year.

But it's not a huge amount beyond their share in terms of participation.

That's a noisy answer.

What if I ask it this way?

From a Global Rugby outlook, do you think that €1 spent on Italian rugby is more beneficial to 'Rugby' than €1 spent on English Rugby?

24-09-2013 02:50PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I've explained why it's a good example many times.

If you agree its right to distribute money on participation, and it is, but the money is still grossly uneven, then what needs to change?

I most definitely do not agree with this.

irishbucsfan · 24-09-2013 02:57PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's a noisy answer.

What if I ask it this way?

From a Global Rugby outlook, do you think that €1 spent on Italian rugby is more beneficial to 'Rugby' than €1 spent on English Rugby?

It completely depends how that money is spent. Impossible to answer that.

Do you think that Zebre are one of the top sides in Europe? I know rrpc does.

irishbucsfan · 24-09-2013 02:59PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I most definitely do not agree with this.

So how should it be distributed? And why should the majority of the participants be bound to that?

.ak · 24-09-2013 02:59PM

It'll be interesting to see what's in place this time next year. Until then I think I may bury my head in the sand.

24-09-2013 03:06PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It completely depends how that money is spent. Impossible to answer that.

Do you think that Zebre are one of the top sides in Europe? I know rrpc does.

Not interested in a straight answer? Not sure why anyone should give you one back if that's the case tbh.

What you'll note is that ERC and Unions took the above (purchasing power and redistribution of wealth) into account when the most recent accord was signed. They've as a group committed to assisting FIR to reach a level quicker than it could on it's own.

It was a decision made to support the Rugby ecosystem, as opposed to benefit Zebre directly.

Ask yourself why people in disadvantaged areas get grants that others don't.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

So how should it be distributed? And why should the majority of the participants be bound to that?

It should be distributed in a manner that protects the viability of the tournament and gives all potential participants the best chance of being a long term success. This is not a clear "particpation % = revenue %" calculation.

This means that teams like Zebre/Treviso/Edinburgh get paid more than established teams in established rugby strongholds as there is a shortfall to be made up.

Yes this is in effect handicapping teams, no doubt about it, but the benefits of doing so are to Rugby as a whole as opposed to individuals.

irishbucsfan · 24-09-2013 03:11PM

OK, heres a straight answer. I'd much rather spend 50 cent on developing Italian rugby that spend a euro on propping up a side at a level they can't compete.

As for the rest of your answer, you're on a strand of your own there, completely seperated from the ERC.

24-09-2013 03:18PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

As for the rest of your answer, you're on a strand of your own there, completely seperated from the ERC.

What?

PRL complaining that Italian Union gets too much from ERC.
Even Though
ERC purposely gives Italian Union more than it 'is due' from the competition.
For
The reasons stated above.

Yet this is separate from the ERC?

irishbucsfan · 24-09-2013 03:20PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What?

PRL complaining that Italian Union gets too much from ERC.
Even Though
ERC purposely gives Italian Union more than it 'is due' from the competition.
For
The reasons stated above.

Yet this is separate from the ERC?

Can you show where the ERC have outlined these reasons that you've stated?

24-09-2013 03:22PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Can you show where the ERC have outlined these reasons that you've stated?

Petty.

No.

But you know full well it's the case.

irishbucsfan · 24-09-2013 03:26PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Petty.

No.

But you know full well it's the case.

No its not petty. How many times have you asked me for a source? But I can't ask you fir one?

I think you'll find you're giving the ERC a whole load more credit than they're due.

24-09-2013 03:39PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No its not petty. How many times have you asked me for a source? But I can't ask you fir one?

I think you'll find you're giving the ERC a whole load more credit than they're due.

I admit I cannot find evidence. ( I don't know where to start and I don't have time). Wouldn't be surprised if someone else could.

Answer me this honestly though, do you believe that the ERC don't purposely pay the Italian Union more than they might for the reason I've given above? (might be worded badly - In your opinion are the Italians getting the extra money for the reason I've described, or another?)

irishbucsfan · 24-09-2013 03:46PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I admit I cannot find evidence. ( I don't know where to start and I don't have time). Wouldn't be surprised if someone else could.

Answer me this honestly though, do you believe that the ERC don't purposely pay the Italian Union more than they might for the reason I've given above?

I think there are many reasons why they are paying the Italians more.

The fact it's dominated by a group of unions who happen to be charging the Italian Union so much (more than they get on top of participation) a year may certainly be a large part of it.

And I don't think its at all the healthiest possible scenario for Italian rugby.

24-09-2013 03:51PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I think there are many reasons why they are paying the Italians more.

The fact it's dominated by a group of unions who happen to be charging the Italian Union so much (more than they get on top of participation) a year may certainly be a large part of it.

And I don't think its at all the healthiest possible scenario for Italian rugby.

Honestly?

molloyjh · 24-09-2013 03:53PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You quoted a post from Molloy earlier. Look back at this posts on the subject, which were very good. The money IS very closesly linked to participation. In fact this season it almost fell exactly along those lines.

It's the only fair way to do it really, and the PRL and LNR guys have said (as recenly as this morning) that they don't disagree with that.

That's all fine, but when you post something like the below it suggests that there's an imbalance, even if that's not what you are trying to portray.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

So effectively in Europe everyone would be equal, rather than Premiership and Top 14 sides all getting far less than Rabo sides. Conor O'Shea said it when we was on RTE, his Harlequins got 400k out of Europe while Zebre got 1.2m

There's a few things that we don't know here and that we haven't discussed. For example what happens with the Amlin money? Do the PRL split that 12 ways as well while the Italians split theirs between the 4 clubs they have in that competition? And how much is that worth?

Take for example the situation where Quins made 400k from the HEC while Treviso made 1.2m. Then let's just make up some figures for the Amlin (the actual figures don't really matter, it's the %'s that do). I'm going to assume that the Amlin revenue is split similarly to the HEC and that the Italians get slightly more than the 1/6 that they contribute to the competition while the English get slightly less than the 1/4. So I'm using 18% and 24% respectively. All figures are in millions.

||HEC|Amlin|Total Revenue
||

20.00

|

10.00

|

30.00

||||
English|6/24 in HEC, 6/24 in Amlin|

4.80

|

2.40

|

7.20

Italian|2/24 in HEC, 4/24 in Amlin|

2.50

|

1.80

|

4.30

||||
Harlequins|English revenue divided among 12 clubs|

0.40

|

0.20

|

0.60

Treviso|Italian revenue ringfenced|

1.25

|

0.00

|

1.25

||||
Gloucester|English revenue divided among 12 clubs|

0.40

|

0.20

|

0.60

Cavalieri|Italian revenue ringfenced|

0.00

|

0.45

|

0.45

If the Italians did the same thing as the English clubs they would be getting a little over 700k to the English clubs 600k. The Amlin percentages aren't going to be wildly inaccurate so the point stands that, per club, there's not much difference. There's a slight difference due to the attempt to help out the smaller nations, but the majority of the difference related to how the countries divide their cash.

irishbucsfan · 24-09-2013 04:04PM

You just can't include the Italian sides in the Amlin for many reasons, let alone because they are pretty much parallel to invitational sides and get none of the funding and are almost entirely uncompetitive at that level, and that is why they are being moved to the 3rd tier. They do not come out of the Rabo and as soon as the meritocracy is introduced they'll be gone. We also don't know anything about the Amlin money currently, but we can be very sure it will increase under the new structure.

There is nothing wrong with splitting the money based on participation, as you have said Molloy. I agree. You also agree Molloy that participation needs to change. So there you go, you are on board with the proposals. You may disagree with a 6/6/6 split, but that is the extent of the proposals made by PRL and LNR. They did not ask for anything more than a split based on participation.

And that is all I have said. I am not saying Harlequins should just be given a bunch of more money, the structure of the competition needs to be changed so that a team who had never won a single game are not promised entry into an elite European tournament when there is a much better tournament available to them that is being entirely neglected because the Celtic unions are so attached to their bank balances.

MCBrian had a great proposal before, and if it did end up as 6/6/8 which you (Molloy) have said you agree with and the money was split based on participation, which you also have said you agree with, then the money would be split 30/30/40. There'd still be a bit of an imbalance and I wouldn't be entirely happy with that, but it would be at least a lot closer to being fair and the Amlin would be far superior. And I think if the Unions had started with that sort of line of reasoning things would have been sorted out as quickly as McCafferty and that lot had initially predicted they would.

.ak · 24-09-2013 04:14PM

molloyjh wrote: »

That's all fine, but when you post something like the below it suggests that there's an imbalance, even if that's not what you are trying to portray.

There's a few things that we don't know here and that we haven't discussed. For example what happens with the Amlin money? Do the PRL split that 12 ways as well while the Italians split theirs between the 4 clubs they have in that competition? And how much is that worth?

Take for example the situation where Quins made 400k from the HEC while Treviso made 1.2m. Then let's just make up some figures for the Amlin (the actual figures don't really matter, it's the %'s that do). I'm going to assume that the Amlin revenue is split similarly to the HEC and that the Italians get slightly more than the 1/6 that they contribute to the competition while the English get slightly less than the 1/4. So I'm using 18% and 24% respectively. All figures are in millions.

||HEC|Amlin|Total Revenue
||
20.00
|
10.00
|
30.00

||||
English|6/24 in HEC, 6/24 in Amlin|
4.80
|
2.40
|
7.20

Italian|2/24 in HEC, 4/24 in Amlin|
2.50
|
1.80
|
4.30

||||
Harlequins|English revenue divided among 12 clubs|
0.40
|
0.20
|
0.60

Treviso|Italian revenue ringfenced|
1.25
|
0.00
|
1.25

||||
Gloucester|English revenue divided among 12 clubs|
0.40
|
0.20
|
0.60

Cavalieri|Italian revenue ringfenced|
0.00
|
0.45
|
0.45

If the Italians did the same thing as the English clubs they would be getting a little over 700k to the English clubs 600k. The Amlin percentages aren't going to be wildly inaccurate so the point stands that, per club, there's not much difference. There's a slight difference due to the attempt to help out the smaller nations, but the majority of the difference related to how the countries divide their cash.

He used tables, your argument is inferior.

McCBrian · 24-09-2013 04:29PM

molloyjh wrote: »

There's a few things that we don't know here and that we haven't discussed. For example what happens with the Amlin money? Do the PRL split that 12 ways as well while the Italians split theirs between the 4 clubs they have in that competition? And how much is that worth?

Molloy you are way way off with the Amlin figures, but not blaming you for making the leap, don't have time at the moment but will put something up tonight;)

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience · 24-09-2013 04:37PM

I still can't get my head around much of this. Would need to sit down and read the thread from start to finish I reckon

thomond2006 · 24-09-2013 04:48PM

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

I still can't get my head around much of this. Would need to sit down and read the thread from start to finish I reckon

See you next year

24-09-2013 04:54PM

there should be a facts post at the beginning or a time line of whats happened so you can pop is see the discussion about he said she said and then still be completely lost :P

molloyjh · 24-09-2013 04:55PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You just can't include the Italian sides in the Amlin for many reasons, let alone because they are pretty much parallel to invitational sides and get none of the funding and are almost entirely uncompetitive at that level, and that is why they are being moved to the 3rd tier. They do not come out of the Rabo and as soon as the meritocracy is introduced they'll be gone. We also don't know anything about the Amlin money currently, but we can be very sure it will increase under the new structure.

Why can't we include Italys Amlin teams? If Quins are getting money from the Amlin (which is a reasonably safe assumption) then we need to account for the Amlin money in general. To do that we have to include the Italian sides that partake in the Amlin. Otherwise we're not comparing the same things and this whole conversation would need to stop because of the ridiculous amount of misinformation it could create.

As for the rest of the post it's clear we understand each others position. The only point that I was trying to make above was that by quoting the Conor O'Shea figures you were, intentionally or not, inferring a level of unfairness in the split of money. You said that the "Premiership and Top 14 sides <are> all getting far less than Rabo sides" without stating that the figures you gave are as much to do with their internal set-up than anything else.

The numbers of teams is a seperate issue to the division of money one, despite the fact that it does have a direct knock-on effect on the money.

McCBrian wrote: »

Molloy you are way way off with the Amlin figures, but not blaming you for making the leap, don't have time at the moment but will put something up tonight;)

Please do. I know nothing at all about Amlin monies.

irishbucsfan · 24-09-2013 05:03PM

molloyjh wrote: »

Why can't we include Italys Amlin teams? If Quins are getting money from the Amlin (which is a reasonably safe assumption) then we need to account for the Amlin money in general. To do that we have to include the Italian sides that partake in the Amlin. Otherwise we're not comparing the same things and this whole conversation would need to stop because of the ridiculous amount of misinformation it could create.

As for the rest of the post it's clear we understand each others position. The only point that I was trying to make above was that by quoting the Conor O'Shea figures you were, intentionally or not, inferring a level of unfairness in the split of money. You said that the "Premiership and Top 14 sides <are> all getting far less than Rabo sides" without stating that the figures you gave are as much to do with their internal set-up than anything else.

The numbers of teams is a seperate issue to the division of money one, despite the fact that it does have a direct knock-on effect on the money.

Please do. I know nothing at all about Amlin monies.

But the Italian sides who compete in the Amlin aren't the same. They are effectively invitational sides. They don't get the H Cup money and will be gone after this season. So really, there is no point including them really. You can if you want, but you know as well as I do that the FIR won't give them the money and don't consider them to be the same thing.

There is a level of unfairness in the split of the money, but it is not the way that it is distributed that causes that unfairness. And again, you must agree with that if the conditions I stated above were met.

If you say the number of sides is different than the money, then the PRL and LNR only want to change one of those things. As they confirmed in that interview this morning (although must admit I didn't see it myself).

former legend · 24-09-2013 05:08PM

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

I still can't get my head around much of this. Would need to sit down and read the thread from start to finish I reckon

Save yourself the hassle. It's the same five posts over and over and over.

Premiership Rugby out of Heineken Cup?

Comments