Premiership Rugby out of Heineken Cup?

Winters · 02-10-2013 10:59AM

I fear this problem will always exist as long as uncontrolled private ownership exists in the game.

02-10-2013 10:59AM

At least he understands how the HEC works

Quentin Smith wrote:

Let’s be honest with each other about how that arose. It arose because of a political ambition to support those Unions from value derived from European competition.

As a consequence, when you read the qualification criteria on the ERC website, you find the language used to be very interesting.

There are three automatic places for Wales and Ireland and two nominated places for Scotland and Italy. It’s a manufactured situation to allow teams entry into the Heineken Cup.

The merits of which to 'Rugby' are clear and tangible but to QS are marginal, unwarranted, and relatively costly.

-

Gas

Quentin Smith wrote:

The simple economics are that everyone should be better off and we wouldn’t propose it unless that was true.

'hypothetical' scenario

Pot = 15m
divided amongst 3 at 5m each.

New Pot = 25m
divided in a manner so that 2 get 9.5m and 1 gets 6m.

All are better off, ipso facto, good deal yeah? (David Brent school of Economics)

--

Quentin Smith wrote:

This is not new or ground-breaking stuff. This is just soap-box politics.

Just beautiful.

backgreen · 02-10-2013 11:05AM

hope their is not a rugby split coming down the line similar to boxing where we will have two of everything..the scenario of a franchise being sold in limk/cork/dublin

molloyjh · 02-10-2013 11:15AM

Eponymous wrote: »

Isn't there just.

Indeed...

Quentin Smith wrote:

We have been explicit in describing how such a competition should be governed and we’ve said it should be equally distributed between the Pro12, the Top 14 and the Aviva Premiership.

We would have no greater control on that than of the other participating organisations.

As though the Pro12 is a participating organisation in the European game. It isn't. So the whole foundation for their position is massively flawed.

Quentin Smith wrote:

Of course we would talk to everyone. We always have.

Except the ERC of course.....

EDIT: ...and the mediator....

irishbucsfan · 02-10-2013 11:47AM

Great interview from Thomas. Really dispells some of the nonsense floating around. Can't believe he asked him about that nonsense "leak."

Why has it taken this long to get an interview of that standard written? Journalists have been awful right through this whole issue, from Thornley constantly mixing up his facts to the
English papers setting difficulty to Easy.

molloyjh · 02-10-2013 11:51AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Great interview from Thomas. Really dispells some of the nonsense floating around. Can't believe he asked him about that nonsense "leak."

Why has it taken this long to get an interview of that standard written? Journalists have been awful right through this whole issue, from Thornley constantly mixing up his facts to the
English papers setting difficulty to Easy.

It's hard to get decent articles written when the parties involved are so busy threatening each other and posturing like feckless gobs***es. The interview isn't really much of an interview anyway, it's more of a mouthpeice for Smith as he's not really put under any kind of pressure or the fundamental mistakes he's making aren't being addressed.

Larbre34 · 02-10-2013 11:51AM

Methinks Quentin doth protest too much about denying the conditions of delivering a cross section of quality teams from Tier 1 for the tournament sponsors to pay up. As I said yesterday, ERC can afford to let it go into limbo, but if PR/LNR dont deliver the Irish and Welsh teams in the next few months then theyre goosed.

irishbucsfan · 02-10-2013 11:52AM

molloyjh wrote: »

It's hard to get decent articles written when the parties involved are so busy threatening each other and posturing like feckless gobs***es. The interview isn't really much of an interview anyway, it's more of a mouthpeice for Smith as he's not really put under any kind of pressure or the fundamental mistakes he's making aren't being addressed.

Well considering none of what you posted above are mistakes, what mistakes did he make?

molloyjh · 02-10-2013 11:58AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Well considering none of what you posted above are mistakes, what mistakes did he make?

Already posted. He claimed that the Pro12 would be a participating organisation which it could not be because it doesn't control the game in the 4 respective Unions. It's a fundamental part of his argument and is completely wrong. He also said they've always been willing to talk to anyone, yet recent press releases from McCafferty have clearly stated that they don't want to talk with the ERC or the mediator that has been appointed to deal with these issues.

He is presented with opposing opinions in the article, allowed to respond to them and then they move on to another opposing opinion without putting what he actually said under any sort of scrutiny. As far as I'm concerned that isn't much of an interview at all. They opened up the floor for him and allowed him to say what he wanted without really challenging what he was saying. It's very easy for someone to come across well in that kind of "interview".

rrpc · 02-10-2013 12:00PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Well considering none of what you posted above are mistakes, what mistakes did he make?

The same one you continuously do; referring to the Rabo as an organisation.

Howard Juneau · 02-10-2013 12:01PM

Winters wrote: »

I fear this problem will always exist as long as uncontrolled private ownership exists in the game.

The game went professional, it was only a matter of time before club owners wanted a greater share for their overall layout.

Winters · 02-10-2013 12:23PM

Howard Juneau wrote: »

The game went professional, it was only a matter of time before club owners wanted a greater share for their overall layout.

Going professional was inevitable but I don't think that it is the crux or main cause of this issue. Revenues would have increased, competitions would have formed and the arguments over control would have ensued irregardless. My 2c anyway.

The key word in my post is 'control' and I think that's telling. The interview with McGrath in the IT today says that the RFU have only seen the BT figures not the contract itself. For the governing body not to have full visibility or demanding such is incredibly poor government.

irishbucsfan · 02-10-2013 12:25PM

rrpc wrote: »

The same one you continuously do; referring to the Rabo as an organisation.

They are an organisation, just not involved in the ERC.

Do people think he meant "the Pro 12 teams" as one organisation?

molloyjh · 02-10-2013 01:24PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

They are an organisation, just not involved in the ERC.

Do people think he meant "the Pro 12 teams" as one organisation?

I'm not sure how else you could read the line:

"We have been explicit in describing how such a competition should be governed and we’ve said it should be equally distributed between the Pro12, the Top 14 and the Aviva Premiership."

irishbucsfan · 02-10-2013 01:28PM

molloyjh wrote: »

I'm not sure how else you could read the line:

"We have been explicit in describing how such a competition should be governed and we’ve said it should be equally distributed between the Pro12, the Top 14 and the Aviva Premiership."

Or, you know, he's using it as a short name for the twelve teams within the organisation, and by extension in some cases, their unions. Which is the proposal.

keps · 02-10-2013 01:28PM

I have been reading a lot of UK blogs on this issue over the last week or so- and it surprising the level of antagonism towards the clubs that it is being displayed- particularly in contributions/comments made by ordinary posters.

The general consensus seems to be ' We hope the Unions take them on- no matter what the short-term outcome'.

I know the owners are too single-minded to heed what Joe Soap is saying - but who knows- a little bit of the criticism might register.

molloyjh · 02-10-2013 01:31PM

Quentin Smith wrote:

That comment is completely based upon misinformation and total unawareness of what we have been discussing.

The competition which we have proposed and put on the table a year ago is for a three-tier tournament. Let’s call them for shorthand, Heineken, Amlin and development.

We have been explicit in describing how such a competition should be governed and we’ve said it should be equally distributed between the Pro12, the Top 14 and the Aviva Premiership.

We would have no greater control on that than of the other participating organisations.

What is important is that it’s predominantly a club-run competition.

Allied to the equal representation on its governance would be the equal distribution of revenue – one third to each league.

How we manage the business is something we are involved in discussing and it depends who comes into business with us.

Here's the full answer to the question. He follows up the quote that I made with:

"We would have no greater control on that than of the other participating organisations."

This can only be true if the Pro12 is a participating organisation. Which it is not and can not be.

rrpc · 02-10-2013 01:37PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Or, you know, he's using it as a short name for the twelve teams within the organisation, and by extension in some cases, their unions. Which is the proposal.

Because it's fundamentally wrong. The Rabo does not represent the rest of the teams in the tournaments. There are 16 between the four unions.

The Rooster · 02-10-2013 01:39PM

molloyjh wrote: »

Here's the full answer to the question. He follows up the quote that I made with:

"We would have no greater control on that than of the other participating organisations."

This can only be true if the Pro12 is a participating organisation. Which it is not and can not be.

I'd say you're splitting hairs over pedantic stuff.

The Rabo clubs between them will get a third of the places, a third of the revenue and have a third of the vote. How the Rabo clubs divide that up between themselves is their own decision.

When he mentions Pro12, he's using it purely as a generic term to represent the clubs that play in the Pro12. He obviously doesn't mean it as a separate legal entity.

molloyjh · 02-10-2013 01:42PM

The Rooster wrote: »

I'd say you're splitting hairs over pedantic stuff.

The Rabo clubs between them will get a third of the places, a third of the revenue and have a third of the vote. How the Rabo clubs divide that up between themselves is their own decision.

When he mentions Pro12, he's using it purely as a generic term to represent the clubs that play in the Pro12. He obviously doesn't mean it as a separate legal entity.

He's trying to spin things. He's saying nobody is getting more say than anyone else. That's not true. The English will have more of a say than the Irish for example. He claims the financial split based on league is fair, yet ignores the fact that the English have 1 set of overheads, the Pro12 sides have 4. There are numerous obvious holes in his points, none of which are addressed by the interviewer. And yet he is allowed to talk about others spreading misinformation.

irishbucsfan · 02-10-2013 01:45PM

molloyjh wrote: »

He's trying to spin things. He's saying nobody is getting more say than anyone else. That's not true. The English will have more of a say than the Irish for example. He claims the financial split based on league is fair, yet ignores the fact that the English have 1 set of overheads, the Pro12 sides have 4. There are numerous obvious holes in his points, none of which are addressed by the interviewer. And yet he is allowed to talk about others spreading misinformation.

The English clubs have 12 sets of overheads. The Rabo sides have 12 sets of overheads.

Splitting it by Union is, as dear old Quentin would say, a self serving argument. This is a club competition.

molloyjh · 02-10-2013 01:47PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The English clubs have 12 sets of overheads. The Rabo sides have 12 sets of overheads.

Splitting it by Union is, as dear old Quentin would say, a self serving argument. This is a club competition.

And in 4 of the 6 countries those clubs are run by Unions. You can't simply ignore this fact because it doesn't suit. In terms of overheads I was talking about the Unions and not the clubs themselves. But of course you knew that.

QS's argument is self serving because it is presenting a skewed version of the truth to "prove" their position. I'm simply pointing out the holes in the argument.

rrpc · 02-10-2013 01:49PM

The Rooster wrote: »

I'd say you're splitting hairs over pedantic stuff.

It may sound pedantic, but it's important because the comparison is being drawn between it and the other leagues. The reality is that the Rabo is a construct designed to give the other ERC participating unions a platform to enter their teams in and give them valuable experience. It was never the basis for distribution of income, but it's now being used as a stick to beat them with. Italy have four other teams who enter the Amlin but aren't in the Rabo. Wales have a premier division that used to take part in the HEC/Amlin but no longer do so and Ireland have an amateur league that would not be able to compete.

The Rabo clubs between them will get a third of the places, a third of the revenue and have a third of the vote. How the Rabo clubs divide that up between themselves is their own decision.

Yet the four unions concerned have come under heavy criticism for the way they split their income from the ERC: "Zebre gets more than Harlequins" etc.

rrpc · 02-10-2013 01:52PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The English clubs have 12 sets of overheads. The Rabo sides have 12 sets of overheads.

Splitting it by Union is, as dear old Quentin would say, a self serving argument. This is a club competition.

No, it's a union run competition for clubs. The fact that 10 of the 12 seats on the ERC board are held by Union representatives may have escaped your notice and that the the other two were the direct gift of two of those unions to the clubs for 'services rendered'.

irishbucsfan · 02-10-2013 01:57PM

rrpc wrote: »

No, it's a union run competition for clubs. The fact that 10 of the 12 seats on the ERC board are held by Union representatives may have escaped your notice and that the the other two were the direct gift of two of those unions to the clubs for 'services rendered'.

WAS a union run competition for clubs. Its over now.

irishbucsfan · 02-10-2013 02:02PM

molloyjh wrote: »

And in 4 of the 6 countries those clubs are run by Unions. You can't simply ignore this fact because it doesn't suit. In terms of overheads I was talking about the Unions and not the clubs themselves. But of course you knew that.

QS's argument is self serving because it is presenting a skewed version of the truth to "prove" their position. I'm simply pointing out the holes in the argument.

The number of unions involved isn't relevant though in the way things should be governed. Some allowances should be made, but Unions can't just decide to fund a bunch of clubs and continue to leave the bill on the doorstep of the FFR and RFU. Things should be split between participants after a consensus on participation is reached.

molloyjh · 02-10-2013 02:02PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

WAS a union run competition for clubs. Its over now.

Any future competition will have 4 Unions involved either way because the provinces/regions/franchises/clubs of the Pro12 have no equivalent to the PRL and the LNR. So the majority of the parties at the table (4 of the 6) will be Unions.

And there is still hope for the ERC btw. Given the IRB and FFR announcements over the last week and a half or so it's looking far more likely that the solution will be found there and not in this new competition.

Phonehead · 02-10-2013 02:04PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

WAS a union run competition for clubs. Its over now.

Over for the English maybe, I wouldn't be so cock sure about the French!

WorldRugby99 · 02-10-2013 02:14PM

Wasnt this always eventually going to happen? 2 sides run and owned differently-clubs V union controlled regions/provinces,each steadfastly refusing to back down. The way the heinken works suits the irish teams so they inevitably want no change-french/english want more control and more money-who can blame them for wanting that? Every side is essentially being selfish and putting their own needs first-no one wants the other side to have the upper hand in running things. Both sides though actually need each other-the celtic teams with no heineken will lose money and even more players abroad and some anglo-french only tournament would be pretty meaningless too.In the end one side will crack and have to give in. If you look from afar and take off the nationalistic spectacles and the predictable english bashing-you totally understand both sides and what they are doing and why. It was an inevitable battle that was always going to happen at some point.

who_me · 02-10-2013 02:23PM

keps wrote: »

I have been reading a lot of UK blogs on this issue over the last week or so- and it surprising the level of antagonism towards the clubs that it is being displayed- particularly in contributions/comments made by ordinary posters.

The general consensus seems to be ' We hope the Unions take them on- no matter what the short-term outcome'.

I know the owners are too single-minded to heed what Joe Soap is saying - but who knows- a little bit of the criticism might register.

Really? I was under the impression most UK fans would be behind the English clubs. Which sites/blogs were you looking at?

Premiership Rugby out of Heineken Cup?

Comments