Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Premiership Rugby out of Heineken Cup?

1…137138140142143…326

Comments

  • #4172
    Clearlier
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Clearlier


    irishbucsfan wrote: »

    My problem is giving Premiership Rugby and Ligue Nationale de Rugby the same amount to split between 26 clubs as the Rabo Unions are splitting between 12 clubs, and then pretending the difference is the leagues' fault for splitting the money up wrong. When the difference is the ERC's fault for promising so many average Celtic teams Heineken Cup rugby every year.

    The point is that the money can be used for anything, it's not given to the IRFU to split between the provinces. It's given to the IRFU to do with what they wish. I've certainly heard people from Leinster moan a couple of times that a semi-final is worth nothing to them.

    You think that the money should go to the clubs. I think that it should go to the unions. We disagree and I don't see either of us persuading the other.


  • #4173
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Clearlier wrote: »
    The point is that the money can be used for anything, it's not given to the IRFU to split between the provinces. It's given to the IRFU to do with what they wish. I've certainly heard people from Leinster moan a couple of times that a semi-final is worth nothing to them.

    You think that the money should go to the clubs. I think that it should go to the unions. We disagree and I don't see either of us persuading the other.

    But why should the IRFU get 16% of the money for providing 4 teams to the ERC when the RFU get 24% for providing 12 teams?

    Why should the IRFU's participation be value twice as highly as the RFU's?


  • #4174
    rrpc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    So what you're saying is that it's the Leagues fault that 24/12 is less than 52/12?
    Seriously, fault? Don't be so childish. The split of monies was agreed upon at the last accord. That's the way they agreed it and that's what it is. Calling it somebodies fault is just being pejorative and disingenuous.

    If there's a flaw in the division, it's at the top end (i.e before it gets to individual divvy ups) and not at the bottom where telling people how to spend their money smacks of arrogance and paternalism. So using that as a comparison is invidious, Rabo clubs could just as usefully suggest that the English and French only give the money to teams in the HEC.


  • #4175
    dregin
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 6,525 Mod ✭✭✭✭dregin


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    Sexton V Maddigan V PJ V NOC;)

    FYP :P


  • #4176
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    rrpc wrote: »
    Seriously, fault? Don't be so childish. The split of monies was agreed upon at the last accord. That's the way they agreed it and that's what it is. Calling it somebodies fault is just being pejorative and disingenuous.

    You literally just said there was no other way to describe it! :pac:
    rrpc wrote: »
    If there's a flaw in the division, it's at the top end (i.e before it gets to individual divvy ups) and not at the bottom where telling people how to spend their money smacks of arrogance and paternalism. So using that as a comparison is invidious, Rabo clubs could just as usefully suggest that the English and French only give the money to teams in the HEC.

    Of course it's at the top end. That's exactly what everyone has been saying. Noone has said anything other than that. 26 English and French sides receive 48% between them. 52% for between 12 Rabo clubs (I know it's not quite like that, but too long to type it all out). The problem is at the top. Noone is telling anyone else how to spend their money at all, in fact they all do it pretty much the same way so there's no problem there.


  • Advertisement
  • #4177
    who_me
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,669 ✭✭✭who_me


    ArmaniJeanss wrote: »
    I hope the French club structure survives and thrives.
    Just because it isn't a suitable professional structure for us or Wales/Scotland for population/financial reasons doesn't mean it isn't the most desirable structure.

    That a small town in southern France can dream of moving up through the divisions, competing in and winning the Top14 and even becoming European champions is sport at its most noble.
    Going the regional/franchise route and saying that all they can ever hope to be is a feeder for some regional Brittany or Langeudoc team would be terrible.

    Amen to that. I have to say, I think it's incredibly unlikely that it could change, French club rugby is so strong. Was watching highlights of the Bayonne - Biarritz derby at the weekend, and it's great seeing fans absolutely jam-packed into a small stadium with an incredible atmosphere, in spite of the poor start to the season by both teams.

    While the club environment couldn't work here in the professional era, I love the French club system and how the clubs are firmly rooted to their origins.


  • #4178
    rrpc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    You literally just said there was no other way to describe it! :pac:
    Don't be silly, you're getting lost in your re-quotes.
    Of course it's at the top end. That's exactly what everyone has been saying. Noone has said anything other than that. 26 English and French sides receive 48% between them. 52% for between 12 Rabo clubs (I know it's not quite like that, but too long to type it all out). The problem is at the top. Noone is telling anyone else how to spend their money at all, in fact they all do it pretty much the same way so there's no problem there.
    Yes they are, they're using the subdivisions as a means to beat the Rabo with when the real problem they have is the main division of spoils. It's just plain disingenuous and it makes better reading to use the number of clubs argument rather than the overall split. It's spin and it's pathetic really. It also shows that they must feel a bit shaky on the overall split that they are concentrating on the 48/26 Vs 52/12 argument to bolster their case.

    There's probably room to manoeuvre at the top end, but let's call a spade a spade and stop trying to obfuscate the issue with meaningless horror stories.


  • #4179
    who_me
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,669 ✭✭✭who_me


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    But why should the IRFU get 16% of the money for providing 4 teams to the ERC when the RFU get 24% for providing 12 teams?

    Why should the IRFU's participation be value twice as highly as the RFU's?

    Or looking at it another way, why should one Union get 24% while another gets 16%? Or another: why does France get 6 representatives, the RoI get 2/3, yet the UK gets 11/12...

    ...I'm starting to get the feeling we've all been here before. :P


  • #4180
    rrpc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    The danger in all of this and the reason why I believe the ERC should remain the pre-eminent body here is the very real possibility that reducing incomes for the smaller unions will harm their domestic game.

    Ever increasing incomes for French and English clubs will push pay rates further, to the point that the smaller nations won't be able to compete. To add a corresponding reduction in income to the smaller unions will just widen that chasm farther and quicker.

    Anyone who thinks otherwise is just deluding themselves.


  • #4181
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    rrpc wrote: »
    Don't be silly, you're getting lost in your re-quotes.


    Yes they are, they're using the subdivisions as a means to beat the Rabo with when the real problem they have is the main division of spoils. It's just plain disingenuous and it makes better reading to use the number of clubs argument rather than the overall split. It's spin and it's pathetic really. It also shows that they must feel a bit shaky on the overall split that they are concentrating on the 48/26 Vs 52/12 argument to bolster their case.

    There's probably room to manoeuvre at the top end, but let's call a spade a spade and stop trying to obfuscate the issue with meaningless horror stories.


    Noone is trying to obfuscate anything.

    PRL - 24% of money between 12 clubs (~2% per club)
    LNR - 24% of money between 14 clubs (~2% per club)
    IRFU - 16% of money between 4 provinces (~4% per club)
    WRU - 16% of money between 4 regions (~4% per region)
    SRU - 11% of money between 2 clubs (~5.5% per club)
    FIR - 9% of money between 2 franchises (~2% per club)

    So there's no obfuscating. The money is clearly uneven. Under the proposal it would be

    PRL - 33% (2.75% per club)
    LNR - 33% (2.35% per club)
    Rabo - 33% (2.75% per club)

    How they then go about splitting the money between them is up to the Unions. They can do it based on qualification into the H Cup, or split the money as 2.75% each. I'd prefer the latter.


  • Advertisement
  • #4182
    molloyjh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,779 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    The English and French are still splitting that money between 26 teams, while the Rabo teams are splitting their money between 12. So it's completely unbalanced.

    This is bloody infuriating at this stage. You're happy to present an argument any way that suits you, regardless of whether you're using apples, oranges, mushrooms or fecking Tonka trucks.

    The money is divided up based on the number of teams taking part in the HEC. Therefore the English and French get theirs based on having 12 teams in the HEC, not 26. What they do with that money thereafter is up to them. The Pro12 get their money based on 10 teams in the HEC, not 12. Again what they do with that money is up to them. The Pro12 sides get a little more due to the fact that they don't have the same levels of income as the English and French. Hence 10 of the 22 teams, i.e. 45%, that divide up the revenue get 52% and 12 of the 22 teams, i.e. 55%, get 48%.

    If the English and the French then choose to split that money between 26 teams that's completely up to them.
    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    RFU and FFR have also withdrawn from the ERC in writing

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-2192429/English-French-clubs-ready-quit-Heineken-Cup.html

    The notice they provided was that they were pulling out from the HEC and the Amlin, not the ERC.


  • #4183
    who_me
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,669 ✭✭✭who_me


    rrpc wrote: »
    The danger in all of this and the reason why I believe the ERC should remain the pre-eminent body here is the very real possibility that reducing incomes for the smaller unions will harm their domestic game.

    Ever increasing incomes for French and English clubs will push pay rates further, to the point that the smaller nations won't be able to compete. To add a corresponding reduction in income to the smaller unions will just widen that chasm farther and quicker.

    Anyone who thinks otherwise is just deluding themselves.

    Actually, that is a good point. More revenue will likely increase the salary disparities; not that the the English or French would have much problem with that I'd imagine.


  • #4184
    rrpc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Noone is trying to obfuscate anything.

    PRL - 24% of money between 12 clubs (~2% per club)
    LNR - 24% of money between 14 clubs (~2% per club)
    IRFU - 16% of money between 4 provinces (~4% per club)
    WRU - 16% of money between 4 regions (~4% per region)
    SRU - 11% of money between 2 clubs (~5.5% per club)
    FIR - 9% of money between 2 franchises (~2% per club)

    So there's no obfuscating. The money is clearly uneven. Under the proposal it would be

    PRL - 33% (2.75% per club)
    LNR - 33% (2.35% per club)
    Rabo - 33% (2.75% per club)

    How they then go about splitting the money between them is up to the Unions. They can do it based on qualification into the H Cup, or split the money as 2.75% each. I'd prefer the latter.

    I think we can boil the above argument down to "four legs good, two legs bad".

    It makes about as much sense.



    The difficulty will start when it becomes "four legs (and two legs and two wings) good, two legs bad"


  • #4185
    keps
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,324 ✭✭✭keps


    It is also right to ensure funding continues to Italy via its clubs- to develop the game there further. It has a population of 61m.


  • #4186
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    keps wrote: »
    it is also right to ensure funding continues to Italy to develop the game there further. It has a population of 61m-

    Is it right for the Celtic nations to charge them 3 million a year to take part in the Rabo?

    They have the Italians' interests at heart when it suits them.


  • #4187
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    molloyjh wrote: »
    The money is divided up based on the number of teams taking part in the HEC. Therefore the English and French get theirs based on having 12 teams in the HEC, not 26. What they do with that money thereafter is up to them. The Pro12 get their money based on 10 teams in the HEC, not 12. Again what they do with that money is up to them. The Pro12 sides get a little more due to the fact that they don't have the same levels of income as the English and French. Hence 10 of the 22 teams, i.e. 45%, that divide up the revenue get 52% and 12 of the 22 teams, i.e. 55%, get 48%.

    Is the HEC participation correct?

    (in your opinion I mean)


  • #4188
    Jazlynn Nutritious Bellboy
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Jazlynn Nutritious Bellboy


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Is it right for the Celtic nations to charge them 3 million a year to take part in the Rabo?

    They have the Italians' interests at heart when it suits them.

    Loud Noises


  • #4189
    molloyjh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,779 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    rrpc wrote: »
    I think we can boil the above argument down to "four legs good, two legs bad".

    It makes about as much sense.



    The difficulty will start when it becomes "four legs (and two legs and two wings) good, two legs bad"

    IBFs logic makes perfect sense but for the fact that the monies are not actually split that way by the ERC. It isn't based on HEC & Amlin participation, it's based on HEC participation. Hence why I think the idea of building in some sort of system that weighs the HEC and Amlin participants to determine the split is important.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86746064&postcount=3949


  • #4190
    rrpc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Is it right for the Celtic nations to charge them 3 million a year to take part in the Rabo?

    They have the Italians' interests at heart when it suits them.
    Be careful of the glass when you're throwing those stones. Back of a fag packet calculation tells me there would be very little change out of €300k in travel and accommodation costs to two away matches in Italy.

    It's funny when you read the contradictory gymnastics you go through to find a bad light to paint the Rabo clubs in. On the one hand, they're raking in the money from the ERC (all of €6m for the IRFU, and a whopping €4m for Italy :rolleyes:), but when they can't bear the cost of taking Italy into the league, it's another stick to beat them with.

    Not seeing reciprocal arrangements in England or France though. Seems the only Italian you want is one wearing a COLOR=Silver]insert T14/AP club name here[/COLOR shirt :rolleyes:


  • #4191
    molloyjh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,779 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Is the HEC participation correct?

    (in your opinion I mean)

    I know ideally you'd like a yes or no answer, but I honestly don't think it's as simplistic as that. I think there needs to be a review of the participation certainly, but I also think there needs to be a review of how the funds are divided (now that I'm getting a better understanding of how it currently works - assuming I actually am :o).

    My preference in terms of a solution would be to go with the 6/6/8 approach discussed previously plus the division of money based on the linked post above. What is crucial in this is utilising the PRL and LNRs abilities to convince/attract investors, sponsors etc. The PRL have seemingly done a good bit of business with BT (ignoring for the purposes of this discussion how unsavoury that whole situation was/is). That kind of thing can be an asset to the ERC instead of a pain in the backside.


  • Advertisement
  • #4192
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    molloyjh wrote: »
    I know ideally you'd like a yes or no answer, but I honestly don't think it's as simplistic as that. I think there needs to be a review of the participation certainly, but I also think there needs to be a review of how the funds are divided (now that I'm getting a better understanding of how it currently works - assuming I actually am :o).

    My preference in terms of a solution would be to go with the 6/6/8 approach discussed previously plus the division of money based on the linked post above. What is crucial in this is utilising the PRL and LNRs abilities to convince/attract investors, sponsors etc. The PRL have seemingly done a good bit of business with BT (ignoring for the purposes of this discussion how unsavoury that whole situation was/is). That kind of thing can be an asset to the ERC instead of a pain in the backside.

    Yes, so you've said a 6/6/8 system would work.

    So under that system the money would be 30/30/40. Not far away at all from what they are suggesting. It's certainly a reasonable suggestion.


  • #4193
    keps
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,324 ✭✭✭keps


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Is it right for the Celtic nations to charge them 3 million a year to take part in the Rabo?

    They have the Italians' interests at heart when it suits them.


    Are you sure it's €3m a year?

    The only reference I can find at present relates to a warranty ( presume this is akin to an underwriting).. over a 4 year trial period?

    "The Celtic League board had asked for a €3 million warranty from the FIR (Italian Rugby federation) to offset the costs of having two Italian franchises in the league for a four-year trial and set a deadline of this morning.''


  • #4194
    molloyjh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,779 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Yes, so you've said a 6/6/8 system would work.

    So under that system the money would be 30/30/40. Not far away at all from what they are suggesting. It's certainly a reasonable suggestion.

    Realistically that system does need 60m+ to be worthwhile, which is a pretty big jump over the current revenues (44m including the knock-out prize money). It would need the ERC to really be working together towards that to make it happen, which we're a far cry from.


  • #4195
    él statutorio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,259 ✭✭✭él statutorio


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Noone is trying to obfuscate anything.

    PRL no, it's the RFU - 24% of money between 12 clubs (~2% per club)
    LNR -Again it's the FFR 24% of money between 14 clubs (~2% per club)
    IRFU - 16% of money between 4 provinces (~4% per club)
    WRU - 16% of money between 4 regions (~4% per region)
    SRU - 11% of money between 2 clubs (~5.5% per club)
    FIR - 9% of money between 2 franchises (~2% per club)

    So there's no obfuscating. The money is clearly uneven. Under the proposal it would be

    PRL - 33% (2.75% per club)
    LNR - 33% (2.35% per club)
    Rabo - 33% (2.75% per club)

    How they then go about splitting the money between them is up to the Unions. They can do it based on qualification into the H Cup, or split the money as 2.75% each. I'd prefer the latter.

    Irishbucsfan,

    you're driving me demented with your inaccuracies.

    A few points.

    The money from HC participation is dished out to the the constituent UNIONS not to the leagues. On that basis, both the RFU and the FFR get a very generous chunk of cash. It's up to those UNIONS how they share out that money.

    If PRL have a problem with how much they get then they need to hammer out a deal with the RFU. Perhaps they could only pay out to the 6 teams that qualify for the HC, all of a sudden the PRL teams in the HC are at the same level as the Irish sides.

    This whole thing is bluster. The PRL have NOTHING and that will be shown up in the coming weeks.

    LNR are shareholders in the ERC (they hold just under half of the FFRs shares in the ERC)

    PRL are the only party in this whole setup that have no shareholding in the ERC, they have a seat on the board but that's all.

    The PRL have really screwed the pooch here, if they were genuinely interested in a better situation for all clubs then they should've brought their BT deal to the ERC and back in June and then the ERC could've played Sky and BT off against each other.


  • #4196
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    él statutorio wrote: »
    Irishbucsfan,

    you're driving me demented with your inaccuracies.

    A few points.

    The money from HC participation is dished out to the the constituent UNIONS not to the leagues. On that basis, both the RFU and the FFR get a very generous chunk of cash. It's up to those UNIONS how they share out that money.

    If PRL have a problem with how much they get then they need to hammer out a deal with the RFU. Perhaps they could only pay out to the 6 teams that qualify for the HC, all of a sudden the PRL teams in the HC are at the same level as the Irish sides.

    This whole thing is bluster. The PRL have NOTHING and that will be shown up in the coming weeks.

    LNR are shareholders in the ERC (they hold just under half of the FFRs shares in the ERC)

    PRL are the only party in this whole setup that have no shareholding in the ERC, they have a seat on the board but that's all.

    The PRL have really screwed the pooch here, if they were genuinely interested in a better situation for all clubs then they should've brought their BT deal to the ERC and back in June and then the ERC could've played Sky and BT off against each other.

    What the hell can the RFU and FFR do about it? Magic more than 24% out of thin air?

    And actually that money is given to PRL under the 2007 accord with the RFU, it's not an inaccuracy, they get every penny.


  • #4197
    Clearlier
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Clearlier


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    But why should the IRFU get 16% of the money for providing 4 teams to the ERC when the RFU get 24% for providing 12 teams?

    Why should the IRFU's participation be value twice as highly as the RFU's?

    Rather than engaging in the Sisyphean task of explaining the other side of the argument I challenge you tell me what you think I would say in response to the above. I'd be happy to reciprocate.


  • #4198
    keps
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,324 ✭✭✭keps


    well I've just learned a new word today-Sisyphean:)


  • #4199
    jacothelad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 6,055 ✭✭✭jacothelad


    keps wrote: »
    well I've just learned a new word today-Sisyphean:)
    Sort of circular argument.

    Sysiphus.
    A Sinner condemned in Tartarus to an eternity of rolling a boulder uphill then watching it roll back down again. Sisyphus was founder and king of Corinth, or Ephyra as it was called in those days. He was notorious as the most cunning knave on earth. His greatest triumph came at the end of his life, when the god Hades came to claim him personally for the kingdom of the dead. Hades had brought along a pair of handcuffs, a comparative novelty, and Sisyphus expressed such an interest that Hades was persuaded to demonstrate their use - on himself.


  • #4200
    Howard Juneau
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,901 ✭✭✭Howard Juneau


    keps wrote: »
    well I've just learned a new word today-Sisyphean:)

    Someone got a subscription to Reader's Digest & is loving the Enrich your wordpower page ;)


  • Advertisement
  • #4201
    Clearlier
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Clearlier


    jacothelad wrote: »
    Sort of circular argument.

    Sysiphus.
    A Sinner condemned in Tartarus to an eternity of rolling a boulder uphill then watching it roll back down again. Sisyphus was founder and king of Corinth, or Ephyra as it was called in those days. He was notorious as the most cunning knave on earth. His greatest triumph came at the end of his life, when the god Hades came to claim him personally for the kingdom of the dead. Hades had brought along a pair of handcuffs, a comparative novelty, and Sisyphus expressed such an interest that Hades was persuaded to demonstrate their use - on himself.

    While no doubt accurate the relevant part for this particular discussion is the need to roll a heavy boulder up to the top of the hill and then repeat again the next day - a fairly neat analogy to IBF's efforts at explaining his position again and again. I imagine that most of the regular readers have got what he is saying by now and if they haven't they're not likely to but given the response to my earlier points I was wonder if the toll of having to reply to so many posts might have gotten to IBF and prevented him from actually understanding both sides of the argument. I kind of doubt it but there's didn't seem much point in doing the whole thing again.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement