Premiership Rugby out of Heineken Cup?

rrpc · 27-09-2013 07:28AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

its the figures for the for ERC.

So 48% for 26 teams and 52% for 12

I don't accept that money for participation in the HEC should be allocated to non-participating teams.

So it's 48% for 12 and 52% for 10.

But my question was where does the 15% for knockout games come from?

irishbucsfan · 27-09-2013 08:29AM

rrpc wrote: »

I don't accept that money for participation in the HEC should be allocated to non-participating teams.

So it's 48% for 12 and 52% for 10.

But my question was where does the 15% for knockout games come from?

Well that's very convenient for you, but I'm afraid that's how the total ERC money is split, not just the Heineken Cup money. And in the ERC competitions there are 38 teams from the 3 leagues. And 26 teams from the two leagues receive 48% while the 12 from the Pro 12 receive 52%.

I believe the 15% comes out after that, so this would be how the initial 85% is split. I'm not sure how they do it though.

27-09-2013 08:33AM

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

The news of the BT deal would seem to be a game changer, but i'm a bit skeptical to believe it, at least until it's more that just some guy posting it on the Irish Times comment section.

edit. McCbrian, would that not make it at least 23 teams? that'd undermine one of their original demands.

just as an FYI on this, it's not news, it's guesswork.

In my opinion it's not far off what's most likely given the attitude of PRL and direction that this 'battle' has gone since day one, but at the moment it's just someone's theory.

LuckyLloyd · 27-09-2013 08:38AM

If the BT deal was released into the public domain this would be done and dusted methinks. If the deal wasn't dependent on a new EPL led comp they would have released the details already.

irishbucsfan · 27-09-2013 08:42AM

Deleted User wrote: »

just as an FYI on this, it's not news, it's guesswork.

In my opinion it's not far off what's most likely given the attitude of PRL and direction that this 'battle' has gone since day one, but at the moment it's just someone's theory.

It's not guesswork. It's from someone who purports themselves to be working for a national Union and is making it look like they're leaking this info. Except none of the figures add up and some of the claims are bizarre.

Winters · 27-09-2013 09:00AM

I don't believe those claims about the BT deal but I would be surprised if it will be worth much to PRL and BT until it has full Union and IRB backing and thus a full compliment of European teams.

Just to clarify, FIR submits 6 teams into ERC competitions not 2.

Also while yes total ERC revenue for all competitions is divided amongst the 6 shareholders it is divided based on H Cup participation as that is the major revenue stream.

It seems the FIR don't give much to their 4 Amlin reps except the gate money perhaps. Don't know how Dragons fare or how Connacht faired when they were in the Amlin.

Conor O'Shea's argument is valid except it should be directed towards PRL and how they divide their 24%.

channelsurfer2 · 27-09-2013 09:12AM

to those saying the BT deal should be released to the public, it should be pointed out that the ERC deal with sky is never released "due to commercial sensitivities" nor is there even an opportunity for it to be put out to tender. Sky simply say heres a figure, dont release it, yes its more than the last time but thats because we dont want BT or anyone else to know how much we paid". thats not openess. Why should PRL give details of a figure when ERC are refusing to release the EXACT commercial arrangements they have with sky for their new deal.

irishbucsfan · 27-09-2013 09:34AM

Winters wrote: »

I don't believe those claims about the BT deal but I would be surprised if it will be worth much to PRL and BT until it has full Union and IRB backing and thus a full compliment of European teams.

Just to clarify, FIR submits 6 teams into ERC competitions not 2.

Also while yes total ERC revenue for all competitions is divided amongst the 6 shareholders it is divided based on H Cup participation as that is the major revenue stream.

It seems the FIR don't give much to their 4 Amlin reps except the gate money perhaps. Don't know how Dragons fare or how Connacht faired when they were in the Amlin.

Conor O'Shea's argument is valid except it should be directed towards PRL and how they divide their 24%.

There's nothing wrong with the way PRL divide the money. The problem is that 50% of the teams in the Heineken Cup are regularly from the Pro 12. If it was split evenly between the 3 leagues then all those teams would be worth the same.

irishbucsfan · 27-09-2013 09:39AM

channelsurfer2 wrote: »

to those saying the BT deal should be released to the public, it should be pointed out that the ERC deal with sky is never released "due to commercial sensitivities" nor is there even an opportunity for it to be put out to tender. Sky simply say heres a figure, dont release it, yes its more than the last time but thats because we dont want BT or anyone else to know how much we paid". thats not openess. Why should PRL give details of a figure when ERC are refusing to release the EXACT commercial arrangements they have with sky for their new deal.

The problem is that the other Unions apart from the RFU haven't seen the BT deal while everyone has seen the Sky deal.

rrpc · 27-09-2013 10:21AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Well that's very convenient for you, but I'm afraid that's how the total ERC money is split, not just the Heineken Cup money. And in the ERC competitions there are 38 teams from the 3 leagues. And 26 teams from the two leagues receive 48% while the 12 from the Pro 12 receive 52%.

And you are conveniently ignoring the fact that the money is paid on the basis of participation and the subdivision of that money was left up to the individual unions. RFU gave it to PRL in its entirety and they gave it to everyone in the audience. The IRFU keep it for the general pot and the French, Welsh, Scottish and Italians do something else.

So saying how much each team in the entire six nations gets from that money is meaningless.

I believe the 15% comes out after that, so this would be how the initial 85% is split. I'm not sure how they do it though.

It's very important to find out because if it comes out of the same pot as the rest of the money for the participants then it puts a completely different complexion on the figures than if it came before the participatory payments.

irishbucsfan · 27-09-2013 10:47AM

rrpc wrote: »

And you are conveniently ignoring the fact that the money is paid on the basis of participation and the subdivision of that money was left up to the individual unions. RFU gave it to PRL in its entirety and they gave it to everyone in the audience. The IRFU keep it for the general pot and the French, Welsh, Scottish and Italians do something else.

So saying how much each team in the entire six nations gets from that money is meaningless.

It's very important to find out because if it comes out of the same pot as the rest of the money for the participants then it puts a completely different complexion on the figures than if it came before the participatory payments.

The money is based on participation. Which is unfair.

No one is arguing that it should not be based on participation. It's just the participation which is completely uneven and causing the money to be distributed unevenly. No one is talking about what they decide to do with the money after it's distributed.

The 48% figure is the money before the 15%. I think the Top 14 and a premiership this year ended up with more than that as they had 6 quarter finalists between them iirc

molloyjh · 27-09-2013 10:52AM

Things aren't looking good for this new competition. The FFR have made as clear a statement as could be made in recent days to say that they will not back anything that isn't organised by the ERC. So the LNR cannot set-up this new tournament with the PRL. The Pro12 Unions have all come out to say that they will not join any new competition unless it has prior IRB approval. With noone left to set the competition up with, the PRL are again left out on their own. The RFU can now make whatever statement they like really as it's all irrelevant. I'm sure they are delighted by that, as it takes the pressure off them.

Some of the statements coming from the English clubs recently have pointed again to money being the primary driver. On top of the quote posted previously from Bruce Craig we now have this from LI CEO Andy Martin:

http://www.espn.co.uk/heineken-cup-2013-14/rugby/story/199763.html

Andy Martin wrote:

This isn't about the English and French teams getting richer, it is about wiping out the losses in English and French rugby, that is how significant this could be. A lot of our clubs in England don't make money, if we get this right, that could all be taken out in one hit.

Given that the English clubs are viewing this as a way to get their finances straight (be it a primary motive or not it's clear this is a factor) I find McCaffertys position rather strange:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/sep/26/premiership-french-erc-heineken-cup-rugby

Mark McCafferty wrote:

No European competitions next season would be a financial catastrophe for Celtic rugby. If the unions try to block the Rugby Champions Cup, they have to offer something else but there is no way we or the French clubs will be part of an organisation that is controlled by unions.

Surely existing losses in English clubs would only be compounded if there was no European competition next year? Plus if we do go without a European championship for a year there are options. Remember Sky will be taking on some of the Pro12 games next season which will add to the Pro12 revenue. Here in Ireland we could do some sort of one-off inter-provincial competition involving double headers in the Aviva. That would cover at least 3 weekends and you could be sure they'd sell out the Aviva for those. And would Sky be interested in broadcasting those in the event of no HEC? Quite possibly - Leinster and Munster in particular being big fish on the European stage, and Ulster not at all far behind. This wouldn't completely make up the shortfall in HEC revenue, but combined with the added Pro12 revenue it would go some way to easing the pain.

keps · 27-09-2013 11:11AM

Taken from a Welsh rugby blog post

I Quote

'I have just read an interesting blog claiming the details of the BT deal with the English clubs has been leaked. The contract apparently requires the involvement of 4 tier 1 nations in the European element of the deal and if this is not delivered it drastically reduces the money paid to travel compensation levels.
The premiership league matches money is also dependant upon the creation of the new European competition so that the deal is worth less than the original Sky deal if the English clubs fail to deliver one with 4 tier 1 nations in it. It all makes a lot of sense if its true.

BT would have been keen to build in safeguards so that they didn't have to pay for a competition that they could never be sure would be delivered.
They were purporting to buy rights to our games as well as the English clubs' after all. It is no wonder PRL spokesmen are issuing daily statements about the disaster this would be for Celtic sides as if they don't scare other countries into joining them the whole house of cards will collapse. And the chances of the French clubs being part of this rugby championship that was announced last week are vanishingly small.

IRB rules require Union approval for international competitions and the French union won't provide it and French law requires the approval of the Ministry of sport and that's even less likely.'

end quote

Winters · 27-09-2013 11:20AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with the way PRL divide the money. The problem is that 50% of the teams in the Heineken Cup are regularly from the Pro 12. If it was split evenly between the 3 leagues then all those teams would be worth the same.

Conor O'Shea seems to think there is and I wouldn't blame him seeing as Quins got to the H Cup QFs.

Also, the Pro12 is neither a shareholder nor a union.

irishbucsfan · 27-09-2013 11:25AM

Winters wrote: »

Conor O'Shea seems to think there is and I wouldn't blame him seeing as Quins got to the H Cup QFs.

Also, the Pro12 is not a shareholder nor a union.

When did Conor O'Shea said there was a problem with the way Premiership Rugby distribute the Heineken Cup money?

I only heard him point out the difference in what his club and Zebre were receiving. Which is a direct result of the fact both Italian teams are promised Heineken Cup rugby every year. (And Scotland and Italy combine for 20% of the revenue taken out of the competition)

LuckyLloyd · 27-09-2013 11:27AM

channelsurfer2 wrote: »

to those saying the BT deal should be released to the public, it should be pointed out that the ERC deal with sky is never released "due to commercial sensitivities" nor is there even an opportunity for it to be put out to tender. Sky simply say heres a figure, dont release it, yes its more than the last time but thats because we dont want BT or anyone else to know how much we paid". thats not openess. Why should PRL give details of a figure when ERC are refusing to release the EXACT commercial arrangements they have with sky for their new deal.

Well, no there's no need to release it to the public. You might want to show it to the other unions you wish to involve in the competition though.

awec · 27-09-2013 11:30AM

Some progress has been made on the discussion front anyway:

(Pilfered from uafc)

27-09-2013 11:38AM

More oblivion and worry for the Unions to deal with today from the Man in the middle

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/10336256/Premiership-warns-Celtic-unions-not-to-try-to-prevent-clubs-from-joining-Rugby-Champions-Cup.html

McCafferty wrote:

“We cannot afford to keep subsidising Celtic rugby,” McCafferty added.
“Over the last five years, if you look at the extra amount they have received of what might be their natural level of one third [of the tournament revenues] rather than their current figure of 52 per cent, between us and the French we have probably put £30million into RaboDirect Pro 12 Rugby.”

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience · 27-09-2013 11:40AM

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/anglo-french-clubs-to-boycott-heineken-cup-talks-1.1542416?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

After reading that I'm firmly with team Emmet now.

27-09-2013 11:45AM

Lovely term in the opening comment on that article.

DaveO'Shaughnessy wrote:

Megaphone Diplomacy

http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/megaphone+diplomacy.html

Phonehead · 27-09-2013 11:51AM

This is just getting comical! at this point McCafferty needs to stop making silly soundbites and talk to some PR people. 5-10 Pro 12 teams?

Is it the 4 Irish who are run by their Union? - all evidence suggests No
Is it the 2 Scottish who are run by their Union? - as above
Is it the 3 Welsh who are partnerships/ventures 100% dependent on Union funding? - I suspect even if they wanted they couldn't break from their Union
Is it the 2 Italians? - Treviso are privately owned but are they a big name to shout about? nope so even if they were willing they are not going to make BT happy. Zebre are run by the Union so I suspect a No here also.

irishbucsfan · 27-09-2013 11:53AM

molloyjh wrote: »

The FFR have made as clear a statement as could be made in recent days to say that they will not back anything that isn't organised by the ERC. So the LNR cannot set-up this new tournament with the PRL.

Incorrect. The FFR did not say that about the ERC. The FFR are far from finished on this as well, keep on mind who their Vice President is.

molloyjh wrote: »

The Pro12 Unions have all come out to say that they will not join any new competition unless it has prior IRB approval.

But nothing about the ERC.

molloyjh wrote: »

With noone left to set the competition up with, the PRL are again left out on their own.

There's the LNR. And also the Welsh clubs met on Wednesday with the WRU and indicated they want to join. The WRU say they won't back it, but there will be no penalty to Welsh teams who join it supposedly. It's no help without WRU backing though really.

molloyjh wrote: »

The RFU can now make whatever statement they like really as it's all irrelevant.

Completely incorrect.

molloyjh wrote: »

Surely existing losses in English clubs would only be compounded if there was no European competition next year? Plus if we do go without a European championship for a year there are options. Remember Sky will be taking on some of the Pro12 games next season which will add to the Pro12 revenue. Here in Ireland we could do some sort of one-off inter-provincial competition involving double headers in the Aviva. That would cover at least 3 weekends and you could be sure they'd sell out the Aviva for those. And would Sky be interested in broadcasting those in the event of no HEC? Quite possibly - Leinster and Munster in particular being big fish on the European stage, and Ulster not at all far behind. This wouldn't completely make up the shortfall in HEC revenue, but combined with the added Pro12 revenue it would go some way to easing the pain.

Bruce Craig explained their point. Their idea is that 80% of their revenue comes from domestic rugby. The Rabo clubs are much more dependent on that income.

I personally think the only people fully capable of surviving without the Heineken Cup are the French and the IRFU, but the IRFU would do their "were getting rid of Connacht" act. I don't agree with the English clubs declaration that they don't need Europe, those clubs will have trouble selling season tickets without European Rugby. So will Irish provinces I suppose.

rrpc · 27-09-2013 12:00PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The money is based on participation. Which is unfair.

That's a separate issue and a subjective one. The fact is that it's currently based on participation and that was by agreement back when the current accord was reached.

No one is arguing that it should not be based on participation. It's just the participation which is completely uneven and causing the money to be distributed unevenly. No one is talking about what they decide to do with the money after it's distributed.

Which is it? Fair or unfair?

The 48% figure is the money before the 15%. I think the Top 14 and a premiership this year ended up with more than that as they had 6 quarter finalists between them iirc

So what happens that money in the premiership? Does it go directly to the team involved or is it given to everyone in the audience?

Conor O'Shea might feel that the Zebre/Harlequins disparity is unfair, but he's probably looking in the wrong direction really.

irishbucsfan · 27-09-2013 12:04PM

rrpc wrote: »

That's a separate issue and a subjective one. The fact is that it's currently based on participation and that was by agreement back when the current accord was reached.

Which is it? Fair or unfair?

So what happens that money in the premiership? Does it go directly to the team involved or is it given to everyone in the audience?

Conor O'Shea might feel that the Zebre/Harlequins disparity is unfair, but he's probably looking in the wrong direction really.

I don't mean splitting it based on participation is unfair. I mean that way participation is currently split is unfair.

Conor O'Shea is looking in the correct direction. At the organisation who promise Edinburgh, Glasgow, Zebre and Treviso a place in the competition every year and 20% of the money between them.

Winters · 27-09-2013 12:10PM

rrpc wrote: »

Conor O'Shea might feel that the Zebre/Harlequins disparity is unfair, but he's probably looking in the wrong direction really.

In actual fact if PRL split their 24% over the 6 Heineken Cup qualified teams then Quins would have received in the region of €1.7m.

The PRLs split currently means the top 6 Aviva Premiership clubs subsidise the bottom 6. Now where have we heard that before?

Pudsy33 · 27-09-2013 12:14PM

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/anglo-french-clubs-to-boycott-heineken-cup-talks-1.1542416?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

After reading that I'm firmly with team Emmet now.

What a joke. Toys out of the pram stuff. How can anyone possibly side with these eejits.

keps · 27-09-2013 12:21PM

If this rumour which i posted earlier is true it would explain why PLR are trying to 'scare' the Celtic clubs to join in.

The BT contract apparently requires the involvement of 4 tier 1 nations in the European element of the deal and if this is not delivered it drastically reduces the money paid to travel compensation levels.
The premiership league matches money is also dependant upon the creation of the new European competition so that the deal is worth less than the original Sky deal if the English clubs fail to deliver one with 4 tier 1 nations in it.

irishbucsfan · 27-09-2013 12:21PM

PRL and LNR were supposedly advised by lawyers not to attend the meeting.

I still think they'll find a way to send representatives. Serge Blanco for the FFR and someone who is sympathetic to the clubs in the RFU. These types of people will squirm at the idea of not having some sort of control over anything.

irishbucsfan · 27-09-2013 12:22PM

keps wrote: »

If this rumour which i posted earlier is true it would explain why PLR are trying to 'scare' the Celtic clubs to join in.

The BT contract apparently requires the involvement of 4 tier 1 nations in the European element of the deal and if this is not delivered it drastically reduces the money paid to travel compensation levels.
The premiership league matches money is also dependant upon the creation of the new European competition so that the deal is worth less than the original Sky deal if the English clubs fail to deliver one with 4 tier 1 nations in it.

It's from a comment that someone posted under an article in the Irish Times. It's very unlikely to be true.

molloyjh · 27-09-2013 12:23PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Incorrect. The FFR did not say that about the ERC. The FFR are far from finished on this as well, keep on mind who their Vice President is.

I've posted this previously.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/rugby/latest/heineken-cup-breakaway-labelled-irrelevant-by-ffr-1-3106448
http://www1.skysports.com/rugby-union/news/12332/8937226/french-rugby-federation-indicates-opposition-to-rival-for-heineken-cup

FFR wrote:

No meeting or international competition involving French clubs can be organised outside the framework of the FFR and without its prior agreement.

The FFR has always been and will remain a major player in the European cups organised by ERC and backs proposals to permit the continuity and development of these. If the FFR is in favour of an improvement in the European cups, their organisation can only be envisaged under the edict of the European federations which make up ERC.

The statement released by the clubs appears therefore irrelevant and inappropriate.

That seems pretty clear cut to me and directly mentions the ERC as the mechanism towards which a resolution should be reached.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

But nothing about the ERC.

Correct. But as long as the FFR refuse to allow the LNR to agree this new competition with the PRL then no new competition can be created. Who would the PRL create it with?

irishbucsfan wrote: »

There's the LNR.

Who can't do anything without FFR approval which the statement above clearly deals with.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

And also the Welsh clubs met on Wednesday with the WRU and indicated they want to join. The WRU say they won't back it, but there will be no penalty to Welsh teams who join it supposedly. It's no help without WRU backing though really.

Exactly. This article clearly spells out where they stand. With no guaranteed qualification for the AP (which they can't get) then they can't afford to break from the WRU.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/welsh-regions-face-double-blow-6100703

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Completely incorrect.

Given at this stage that the LNR are not allowed to create a new competition and no other Union will with the PRL the RFU can (in theory) come out in support of the PRL and it would have no impact on anything.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Bruce Craig explained their point. Their idea is that 80% of their revenue comes from domestic rugby. The Rabo clubs are much more dependent on that income.

True, yet some English clubs are still losing money and have directly said at this point that the increased revenue of this new competition could help them balance their books.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I personally think the only people fully capable of surviving without the Heineken Cup are the French and the IRFU, but the IRFU would do their "were getting rid of Connacht" act. I don't agree with the English clubs declaration that they don't need Europe, those clubs will have trouble selling season tickets without European Rugby. So will Irish provinces I suppose.

The Irish provinces would have difficulty, but if the English press releases are right about the financial losses in France as well I'm not sure any of us could survive without Europe bar a couple of the really big clubs with the sugar daddies. That's not a road any of us want to go down.

This is real brinkmanship type stuff because all parties know they are all in some way shape or form dependent on the European competition. In the context of the whole thing the FFR statement was huge because it does isolate the PRL realistically. Does anyone really have the time or money for lengthy court action? And will the LNR have the will for that if the ERC are prepared to meet them somewhere in the middle re tournament size and meritocracy?

Premiership Rugby out of Heineken Cup?

Comments