Premiership Rugby out of Heineken Cup?

connemara man wrote: »

Hopefully if it goes to a 20 team comp its 6-6-6-2 with the next spot going to the next best placed team from the winning union if that happens.

I hope not, that's the very sort of thing that should be scrapped. As much as I'm happy that Connacht are in the Heineken, they shouldn't get a free pass because of performances of other provinces. I'd have no problem with buc's idea, as at least the team would be there on merit of league performance.

The proper thing to do would be to scrap both TV deals and go back out to tender for the rights.

http://www.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/story/202507.html

If this 'third way' proves to be established, then the disputed TV deals should all be scrapped as they will be dealing with a fully new entity. Let them fight it out for the rights again with inflated pricing, those inflated fees will help compensate the Pro12 for the reduction in automatic representation.

On that, I have no problem with a fully meritocratic system but the 19th and 20th places should be decided with a round-robin play-off between the 6 No. 7th & 8th place sides in the leagues. It would mean May/June rugby for more teams with a real carrot to fight for, so as the 4/4/6 top finishers are fighting to win their leagues, the next division are fighting for revenue and prestige. At the same time though, I would end the 'drop' from the senior comp into the junior comp at the end of the pool stages, i.e. Leinster or equivalent would not be able to win the replacement for the Amlin in the manner they did this year.

I would be reluctantly open to the 6/6/8 split if it goes to the 20 team competition with each Pro 12 union guaranteed 1 place. Both winners places could come out of their "league" allocation.

Agree that if we go down this route the Heineken Cup teams dropping into the Amlin should be scrapped. Not fair on the Amlin teams.

Also splitting revenue per league is wrong but a set % per H Cup teams and % per Amlin Cup teams would be fairer.

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

What do people think of this?
www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugby/1038/


Not sure about this proposal though as the article says it would be good as sides, not in contention for playoffs or at risk of relegation, would have something to play for at end of season.

Article also shows how money is key to dispute in that they want Pro12 sides in 2nd tier comp to help boost attendances at games as attendances in Amlin are not great in pool stages

Smokescreen

Behind the fog is still
1. The PRL wanting control in voting (where 2 countries can veto 4 other countries)

2. PRL and LNR gaining an extra 10M each while the other competing teams would receive approx 250K each.
Although we have seen little evidence of the actual figures of this purported bigger pie. One day it is 60M the next it is 70M.

and 3. The TV deal where they have signed their soul to BT and from which they can not extricate themselves from

A bit off topic but just to show the financial state of Rugby at present

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/oct/16/wallabies-players-pay-cut-rugby-union

keps wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/10381474/English-and-French-tempt-Celts-and-Italians-to-European-deal-with-play-offs-offer.html

The Torygraph.
Unofficial mouth piece of the PRL.

I agree about the playoffs but the rest of the article is typical PRL spin.

I think the champions of both cups should get into the top tier. It's an important currency to the current Amlin CC.

Zzippy wrote: »

What if the champions are already qualified though - do we stick with the next team from that country getting in (i.e 7th in AP/T14 or Connacht/Dragons/Edinburgh/Zebre depending on which Rabo nation wins), or the next ranked team (on ERC rankings) not already qualified, or the next team from that league (7th in Pro12/AP/T14 regardless of which country the winner comes from?

And if the Amlin champions are already qualified - does the runner up get in, or a team from the winner's country, etc etc.?

Next team from that league not qualified.

;)Heard from an unconfirmed source that Big Phil met with Ian Ritchie "unofficially" yesterday or earler today (do not know what day I am on as just back from a weeks holiday in the Caribbean) think the meeting may have gone along the lines of
PB : How come you have suddenly appointed yourself as a mediator in the current impasse, we thought that Canadian bloke had been allocated that role and ALL stakeholders agreed to it. So I can not fathom why you have invited me to this meeting?
IR: We are trying to placate the clubs as we have RWC2015 coming up.
PB : I will acquiesce to the meeting, as it is unofficial and you seem to have some leverage in represententing the RFU's position, of which we have heard very little.
IR : We have purposely kept quiet as that loose cannon McCafferty representing PRL seems to be making our own case for us.
PB : So you have PRL by the balls
IB : Well yes when they signed the LTA in Nov 2007 that came into effect from 1/6/2008 they effectively committed to only playing in ERC run competitions until the end of June 2015 and could not play in any other European competition until after that date.
PB : And are you going to enforce that? Plus what about their signing of a domestic TV deal beyond the scope of the remit in the LFA, notwithstanding the European rights.
IR : Yes. If PRL break the LTA we can withold payments to them (which will cost them more £) We acceded to the BT Vision deal on domestic TV coverage as only extended 1 year beyond ther remit and was "beneficial" to the clubs (or so they told us) At no point did we acquiesce to PRL negotiating unilateral European TV rights. And this is off the record BUT PRL have F***ed up big time in this respect and the PRL teams will be worse off when the RCC does not materialise
PB : So why should we join the RCC rather than stay with the ERC?
IR : Because of the extra money? I do not know why else ?, PRL have just shown us the figures for the BT European deal a year after they signed the deal (despite not getting our authority or any other Unions who would be involved, which is a pre-resquivite of negotiaiton a deal) and they are not much/any more than the set in stone SKY deal
PB : So lets get to the split of revenue PRL seem to be saying that the English market is greater, well the UK market includes Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, so if we for example if we entered this proposed PRL RCC would the TV revenie be split equally between all markets?
IR : I do not know, I will have to defer
PR : It has been +
PB : So PRL are saying that because a person in Bolton subscribes to BT Vision and has no interest in viewing Rugby entitlies PRL to a greater % of the money than a fan in Swansea who only subscribes to BT for the rugby?
IR : I can not see the reasoning behind the PRL BT deal as the 6N is done collectively
PB : So PRL want the governance/revenue to be split 33%/33%/33% per league and more representation for the clubs
IB : They may want it but they are not going to get it
PB : Thanks
IB : Thanks Phil for a productive meeting I can now see where the Celtic Unions are coming from
PB : Having heard everything you have said we would be receptive to joining the RCC as long as we get equal money and representation as per BT's diversive markets;)

Should enter that into the Texaco "Young Creative Writers" Short Story Competition.

One of the bigger problems with rugby at the moment is the artificial inflation of player salaries in France creating an unsustainable model. I would like to think that along with the JIFF rules that the FFR will also be examining squad sizes and salary caps/financial rules.