Heineken Cup: Broken?
If you posed the question, 'What will European Rugby look like in 2014?' very few would be able to answer with any degree of informed judgement, for the simple reason that the current Shareholder Agreement governing the structure of the Heineken Cup (HEC) comes to an end at the conclusion of the 2013-14 season.
Premiership Rugby are keen for the qualification criteria to be changed as part of a wider re-vamp, and to demonstrate the financial value of English and French Clubs. Their announcement of an exclusive four-year £152m deal with BT, pursuant to the serving of the formal two-year notice period to ERC to leave the accord, comes as no shock to the rugby world, yet the news has rocked European Rugby to its core.
Premiership Rugby (PRL), who have been on a noticeable recruitment drive in recent months, are under no illusions as to the drawbacks of the current competition and seem determined to gear themselves up for a heavyweight fight. With greater playing numbers than any other home union, and with more professional top flight teams, it's long been a bone of contention for the English and French clubs that they effectively eliminate each other during qualification, whilst the elite of other home unions, by comparison, get an armchair ride into the HEC.
Nigel Wray, Saracens' long-serving Chairman, a barometer of Premiership mood and a man noted for his persuasive abilities, is particularly vocal on this matter: "The Heineken Cup was set up by the Unions and fair play that they created it," he commented.
"There is no doubt that the English and French clubs contribute by miles the biggest part of the revenue and we don't get our just reward. That must be put right.
"The structure is clearly wrong in that we have to knock each other out to get into the tournament and all the other guys stroll in. And that's not right - we have to fight to get in and we provide most of the revenue. The terms have to be changed.
"I don't blame anybody in particular. If I was Wales, Scotland, Ireland and Italy - which is the majority and therefore out vote England and France - then I'd want to keep the situation as it is. That's perfectly normal. But from the point of view of England and France that doesn't make financial or rugby sense."
Food for thought indeed, and already the Pro12 Clubs have been vocal in their condemnation of PRL's actions, whilst ERC, the tournament delivery company, have been firing off missives of equal disdain, discrediting PRL's actions and suggesting that they are both contractually wrong and morally reprehensible.
Nevertheless, PRL are adamant that the competition is in dire need of a re-structure, and in particular, are keen to see the inclusion of the best of the 'emerging nations' such as Russia, Spain and Georgia. Sources close to PRL told Planet Rugby that, "The BT deal will provide the finance to create a framework of the new competition; one that is fair for all and allows the emerging nations to both develop and compete." If they are taken at their word, then their actions are understandable; if there are hidden agendas then these actions will come under huge scrutiny over the next few months as both ERC and PRL fight to determine the structure of European Rugby from 2014.
In the current structure, the Premiership and Top 14 are each guaranteed six clubs in the HEC, while Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy are allowed all of their teams bar one in the premier tournament. This is clearly an inequitable situation and one that PRL are keen to address.
PRL's thought process is to be more competitive, rather than nation specific. As we understand it, their proposal is to reduce to 20 clubs, have six teams each from the Premiership, Pro12 and Top 14, with two teams from the emerging nations making up the last two places. Yes, within that structure there is plenty of food for thought for Irish, Welsh and Scottish rugby, and those unions will be rightly vocal in their condemnation of the proposal. But when examined properly, one is forced to conclude that the revenue, playing and viewing numbers are far greater in both France and England, and therefore an adjustment in the format is well overdue.
Yes, PRL have ridden rough-shod over ERC, who, rather like the man who sold London Bridge to the Americans, have nothing to sell but have still granted exclusive rights to Sky post 2014! The simple truism is that post 2014 nothing exists, so any attempt to sell TV rights has a huge degree of speculation. PRL will claim that all they have done is uphold their own financial value and interests, whilst ERC will adopt a more left-wing stance of all the contributors getting an equal share, and denuding the individual value each union brings.
And what of BT? They're not fully sure yet of the scope of their purchase, nor their route to market. However a BT spokesperson has confirmed exclusively to Planet Rugby that, whilst exclusivity on the rights was essential, they consider this a very strategic move, to place TV content into their 'triple package' or '3-Pack' of telephone, broadband and TV, thus allowing them to compete with the likes of Virgin and Sky. They also confirmed their model will be a paid subscription channel rather than a matchday 'pay to view' scheme and assured us that potentially they will be opening up the content to other partners, refusing to rule out the possibility of terrestrial channels in those partnerships. ITV, we are assured, will continue their evening highlights package.
One of the greatest ironies of this deal is BT have effectively done to Sky what Sky did to the BBC 20 years ago - a classic case of the biter bit!
Whether or not this is a good move for the game is difficult to say; it all depends on your personal allegiance and agenda. One thing is for sure though - change is something that is needed from time to time and should, in the right situation, be embraced. The European competitions have been running for 14 years now and an overhaul is long overdue. Criticise the structure and proposals itself by all means, but it would be wrong to oppose or criticise this development on the basis of change alone.
By James While
This is an extract from our free weekly newsletter, The Crooked Feed. To receive future editions, subscribe by clicking HERE
Comments
Sincero says...
Craigsman, firstly, cry me a river. Secondly, learn how quotation marks work. If I were quoting verbatim, as I have done elsewhere, I'd have used them. I didn't, so I was free to embellish with the occasional adjective or reference to your greasy tills. Thirdly, did you get your degree from the University of Wikipedia? Have you no shame in not knowing your own history? Fourthly, history repeats itself. If it didn't it wouldn't be so useful. If you behave in a certain manner as a nation time and time again, it is not racism to point it out. It's just called being observant.
Now if you want a swift kick in the nuts for 800 years of crimes against humanity that you committed I can duly oblige. However, even through all the misery you inflicted upon so many peoples, I still manage to see the positives of your civilisation, and sure wouldn't rugby be one of them? I am not anti-English.
Now, I will simply not put up with your whining victimisation of yourselves that you seem to have gotten from reading red tops. 'Ohhh, you can't say nuffink about nobody, except us white English'. Well, no... I will say what I want about whom I want. It's called freedom of expression. It's not based on any prejudice, but if it were, that would be my own choice, and not up to anyone to tell me what is an acceptable or unacceptable stance. However, my attitude to you English (and let's get back to the rugby, if you don't mind) is based entirely on your atrocious behaviour since 1998. You do not dispute any of the charges levied against you, yet you come on here to complain that I've been racist in my criticism? Well, why not answer the charges and debate on the facts, instead of crying foul and taking the ball home? Fact is, you deserve all the scorn and mockery you'll get from here on in. If your only counter is 'well... that's racist, that is' then it's safe to say you've conceded that.
Posted 16:08 25th September 2012
craigsman says...
@ Sincero - Ahhh thank you for that piece of information. I am always happy to be educated on historical information. For anyone else who does not know and is interested Napoleon said: "England is a nation of shopkeepers."
He was referring to England's perceived inability to fight a war with France.
This still doesn't change the following:
1. It is still racist as it generalizes a people within a common negative stereotype. I remember an article in PR about an SA commentator referring to a 'coconut tackle' and stating that is not generally acceptable to use derogatory language in a public forum. This is the same principle.
2. You have misquoted and added you own negative emphasis (grubby).
3. Napoleon was wrong. Brief extract from Wikipedia:
"In fact, Napoleon's assertion proved itself wrong. Although Britain had half the population of France during the Napoleonic Wars, the country's manufacturing capacity was greater, so that there was a higher per capita income and, consequently, a greater tax base, necessary to conduct a prolonged war of attrition".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_shopkeepers
History lesson for you.
I'd have no problem if you had quoted it verbatim and made it clear to all and sundry that it was just banter but you continually make negative remarks about what you think the English national character is and the fact that you use phrases such as 'your victim mentality' and 'your behavior over the centuries' rather than specifically referring to me (which I don't mind btw).
I've no problem with you disagreeing with the PRL's stance, in fact I have not made my mind up either, but lets talk about rugby rather than spending our time slamming each others cultures/nations which your comments spend half their time doing.
Everyone else - sorry for an off topic rant but I do genuinely feel that Sincero's remarks are off the mark.
Posted 11:51 20th September 2012
Norm says...
Oui oui!
Posted 11:27 19th September 2012
Toulousain says...
norm, sorry, you're right, i cldn't resist a little sting in the tail with the national team stats. i guess we french have egos too. and we are famously argumentative. somehow, over a bottle of wine after a game, the discussions seem more natural. these pages, by contrast, make everyone sound unreasonable.
i need to remind myself of how much fun those big HCup days are. upwards of 50,000 fans mixing together before during and after a game. all with different points of view! it's really quite beautiful to experience. long live the HCup!!
Posted 09:53 19th September 2012
Norm says...
@ Toulousian
Wow. We were doing so well there and it appeared a rarity was developing on these boards, a balanced and mature discussion about rugby. Then you make us see that it is pointless to continue the debate! You have a better national team nah nah nah nah na na! Cest Ca!
Well done Toulousian well done your astute rugby insight has just been victorious in every aspect of this argument!
@ APV1
Yep I am guilty of taking too principled a view of how our game is run (quite regularly too, almost soapboxy on occasion I go so far as to say). Am I repentant? Sorry mate no. The day we actually accept that this is purely about money and that a sense of morals and common good of the game should not apply to the business of our sport, is the day we surrender our sport to the principles of chavball where Mourad Boujellal oh sorry excuse me, Roman Abromavich ( what a freudian clit that was!) can buy titles with an endless chequebook!
Lets put aside my self righteous principles now for a minute and look at this from a purely business point of view. If we take the approach of the biggest clubs/ leagues following the money for their own end, then we will eventually hit a snag, Rugby does not have the global appeal of Chavball and so if we allow it proceed unchecked down the path of escalating salaries the game will become bankrupt ( take a look at serie A in the 80s-90s. This would happen to rugby so much quicker as it has miniscule support by comparison.) The only answer is therefore broaden the appeal of the game in developing nations like for example Italy ( that is of course unless the French and English Unions truly believe they have a few million extra untapped fans they can access), now you see where I am going with this dont you.....
Posted 14:43 18th September 2012
Sincero says...
Swift bit of maths for you- Ireland have 3.5 top-flight teams, but let's call it 4. England have 12. Moaners wish to 'even the playing field' by say amalgamating into 4-ish English 'regions'. Then that'd be fair, right?
Wrong. As England have 10 players for every 1 Irish player, in order for you to have teams on an even playing field with Ireland you would have to create more teams, not fewer. If that's what you're trying to achieve you will need to expand the English league to include your 40 best teams, and go from there.
And of course having 10 times the player resources makes a difference, Toulousain. For every one No.8 we choose, for example, the English have ten they could choose. Logically, that is a massive advantage. In reality England should be cleaning up every year in all competitions. They don't because they're pound for pound rubbish.
Posted 14:04 18th September 2012
Sincero says...
"craigsman says...
@ Planet Rugby
Why is it okay for Sincero to make derogatory/racist comments on here without censorship?
"English money-grubbing nation of shop-keepers"
He may not agree with the PRL actions but surely the above is just bigoted."
If you knew any history at all, you'd have known that that is not my incredibly accurate definition of the English, but that of Napoleon Bonaparte. It's applicable now due to your thinking only of your greasy tills, and as I was talking to a Frenchman I thought he would get my point (which he did). The only one to miss it was... well, you.
And I could have added a little sub-paragraph on your miserable mentality of victimhood, too, by the look of it. None of that is racism, it's just observance of your behaviour over the centuries, which tends to follow a ludicrous pattern. History is useful. You should read some.
Posted 13:53 18th September 2012
jontheref says...
remember when the RFU tried to get a new TV deal for the 6N, so they could have bigger share of the pie?
Didn't happen, as they need the others.
Like a lot on here, I have no problem with a first past the post, but suspect what will get agreed, is first past the post, BUT min 1 from each country.
Again, how will the 20 places be used?
5 pools of 4, or the sensible way, 4 pools of 5.
Top 2 qualify, for quarters.
3rd palced teams into Amlin.
4 and 5 go home.
Posted 22:35 17th September 2012
Toulousain says...
@crunchfit.
you say: "I don't really understand the problem.... The French have greater player bases and much greater budgets. Celtic Nations have smaller budgets and smaller player bases."
Yes. Agreed. But it's always 15 vs 15 on the field. And squad sizes are the same. So having more players in the country doesn't help much come kick-off time. Pls refer to my comments below.
"it really comes down to the French and English trying to make more money at the expense of there own players."
totally agreed. the clubs view the players as horses to be flogged in pursuit of $$$.
"They made their choices. They should have to deal with the repercussions, positive and negative."
That is exactly what they are doing. They are dealing with it. They have given a simple ultimatum. Either a) change the current system, or b) we are leaving.
"I just hope they don't bring everyone down while trying to squirm out of the consequences of their own actions. It would be a shame for all of the nations."
Why would the French leaving bring everyone down, or be a shame for the other nations? By your logic, if the French are just make-weights, won't the competition improve if they leave? After all, they are a disgrace. They are devaluing the Cup. They don't take it seriously. It's plain for all to see. So, why have them in at all?
Or is it possible that, despite knowingly playing against French teams that are not up for it, the sheer joy of beating a really big club like ASM or ST (albeit in a weakened state) is just too tempting for your egos? Your whole season would seem somewhat anti-climactic without being able to swagger with a French scalp or two under your belt?
After all, it's not a feeling your national team is very used to.... 1 victory in Paris since the early 1970s if I'm not mistaken....
Posted 18:50 17th September 2012
APV1 says...
@ Toulousain - thank you for making a reasoned argument. We may not all agree with everything you suggest, but it sure beats the insults and diatribes from some of the other posters.
@ Monkeyboy - "Surely it would be better for Euro rugby for all sides to improve, rather than dragging down the pacesetters." - exactly what the AP and T14 want to avoid. The two most successful club competitions in the world do not want to be dragged down. I knew there'd be some common ground eventually.
@ norm - the problem is that morals and business rarely mix. We don't live in Utopia, we live in the real world. And PRL's remit is to look after the AP. Like it or not, that's just the way it is. If the CEO of Coca-Cola decided to share their recipes and research with Pepsi "just to be fair", how long would they last in their job?
Just to be clear, the AP and T14 are very unlikely to change their formats. They are successful competitions in their own rights and to go down a regional or franchise route is very unlikely.
Posted 17:04 17th September 2012
12Counties says...
Surely the solution to this is obvious? PRL and Top 14 amalgamate their respective teams into 6 regional teams and form a 12 team anglo/french league. The top 10 in this league each yr will qualify for Heino along with the top 10 from the Rabo, giving the english teams their much sought after 20 team Euro cup and also, no relegation from their new Anglo/French league, allowing them to dazzle us with skills that the pressures of the premiership/relegation/euro qualification don't allow!
Posted 13:58 17th September 2012
craigsman says...
@ Planet Rugby
Why is it okay for Sincero to make derogatory/racist comments on here without censorship?
"English money-grubbing nation of shop-keepers"
He may not agree with the PRL actions but surely the above is just bigoted.
Posted 13:12 17th September 2012
crunchfit says...
I don't really understand the problem. The English have much greater player bases and greater budgets than the Celtic Nations. The French have greater player bases and much greater budgets. Celtic Nations have smaller budgets and smaller player bases. Celtic Nations have to play French or English nations with greater resources and / or other Celtic Nations. They have to play them in 2 leg pool stages and then play the further knockout stages. It's strange how the author barely mentioned the other side of the story. As usual.
I can understand wanting the changing of the qualification system to allow only the top 6 to qualify, although it also has drawbacks. However, the criticism of the Pro12 just seems like baseless whining. Regarding the issue of resting players in the Pro12, it is really only Leinster who do it to that degree (and they would qualify if the proposed qualifying method were in place). People also use Edinburgh as an example to say to say a team can just focus on the HC but if you view the teams they played they were very similar teams in the Pro12 to the HC. Toulouse were just the lesser team on that day.
I think the fact that all the complaints on this issue are only coming up after a different nation is dominating shows this.
Articles like this one don't help either. At least it's easy to tell by the absence of certain facts that the author is heavily biased. At least it gets the debate going.
Judging by what I see, it really comes down to the French and English trying to make more money at the expense of there own players. They made their choices. They should have to deal with the repercussions, positive and negative. I just hope they don't bring everyone down while trying to squirm out of the consequences of their own actions. It would be a shame for all of the nations.
@Sincero
Well said.
Posted 18:14 16th September 2012
jaycee_111 says...
This article thankfully is out of date now and the pro PRL hogwash with it. PRL are only interested in PRL not in developing the game or protecting players as the Celtic Unions are I will leave it at that.
However....... the French are now going soft on their support for the breakaway European cup AND the RFU have pointed out to the PRL that they don't have the rights to sell the European games anyway so no BT deal lol. Those English club owners should learn to read contracts before signing them :0)
Posted 16:12 16th September 2012
Toulousain says...
norm ,sincero, monkeyboy. i agree with all of you. maybe my english isnt so good? i'm saying i wish the top14 would change and be more like pro12. i'm not saying the pro12 should change to be more like t14. you all make too many good points that i can't really answer them one by one. but i'm not responsible for the politics that is being played right now by our countries. pls don't attack/blame me!!
if we take nz or sa as the example, we would have a NH season like this:
autumn: HCup and autumn Tests, with final of HCup determined by Xmas
winter: 6N and early rounds of club matches
spring: club season concludes, summer Tests
but that is very unlikely to happen!!
the other suggestion i have heard here in france is that t14, pro12 and aviva prem stay as they are except WITHOUT THE KNOCK-OUT FINAL STAGES. So it's a pure league in each. Then you have the winner of each league in a home and away mini-series in May to determine who is the best club side in Europe.
Posted 15:05 16th September 2012
Norm says...
Sincero
Very well put
Posted 14:49 16th September 2012
Sincero says...
One thinng we do agree on though is the burden on the top players with the number of tests per annum, added to the European Cup games, which are at the same intensity now, and league matches to boot. It's far too much to ask of them, and I fear for their health in the future once retired. Something needs to change there.
That said, at least the IRFU identified that and did something useful and positive for once. The difference, Toulousain, is that a player who is looked after at an Irish Province would be flogged into the ground in France.
Posted 13:26 16th September 2012
Sincero says...
(cont.) But that's due to a successful academy producing excellent young players, and the fact that the players wish to play for Leinster. I think we'd do well enough. Now, what you're getting at is asking would we be leading contenders with the bookies if we were playing in the Top 14, AND trying to win it, while trying to retain the European Title. That would be incredibly difficult, I admit.
Fact is, though- you decided to double your matches, nobody else. I love French rugby- watch it all the time. But money is increasing a problem in this professional sport. I'd like to see salary caps across the board, personally. However, meanwhile, while you have many, MANY times the resources of your European rivals, why not use them instead of moaning about us?
But then, if Leinster we in the Top 14, as European Champions, with all the mega dosh that would have generated in France with your population, sure we could have 8 top-class teams of stars easily... and deploy them as we saw fit on a rotational basis (or just for fun). Then we'd win and win and win in France and Europe until we could get any richer, and then we'd buy all the mediocre players too, because we already have all the good ones, until the only players left for anyone else to purchase have some awful defect (say, being Welsh, for example), and that then goes on forever.
That's professional sport with no limits, mate. And you see it in the samanthaball all the time. If that's what France wants, plus the extinction of the sport in the Celtic nations and Italy (and worse still, to agree with the English money-grubbing nation of shop-keepers)... well, so be it. But you can count me out.
Posted 13:21 16th September 2012
Sincero says...
Toulousain, cheers mate... but I really must question your understanding of the Irish Provinces, if you make a statement like 'Leinster had not won anything for 35 years'... eh??? The Provinces competed really only in the Inter-Pro Championship before the advent of professional rugby, occasionally playing touring sides. A player might get the honour of being called up from his club to represent his province in an Inter-Pro. And Leinster consistently won that championship over the period you mention. We've been around since 1879, FFS. Of course, with the professional era upon us, we decided to enter the Provinces in the league (and the Cup), and we've been winning since the very first year (inaugural champions 2001-2002). What's this 35 year BS???
Anyhow, you change your Top 16 to a Top 14, double the matches and get a bit tired come the spring... yet that is somehow our fault, and we (the Irish, the Scots, the Welsh and the Italians) need to be punished for your decision of how to run your league by giving you our European Cup berths?
What are your limits on squad sizes, might I ask. I mentioned the statistic that ASM could afford to put out 4 1st teams with 15 top-class players, while Leinster can afford one. ASM are by no means the wealthiest club- so if you doubled your matches (for financial reasons), then why not spend some of your endless money and have a squad of 75 plus? You can afford it. That's your look-out. You already have what can be considered an unfair advantage in the wealth your clubs generate due to the population of France. You want the tables tipped more in your favour?
As to how would ST do in the Celtic League... would love to see. You'd challenge for the title, no doubt. How would Leinster do in the Top 14? We actually have a very strong squad... we're light in a couple of areas, but are really blessed in our depth in many positions.
Posted 13:10 16th September 2012
norm says...
Toulossian
You make a sound and fair point but your approach to resolve it is logically wrong and morally. So the celtic countries have better player welfare programs.' Well let's penalise them for that'. In many cases they have to look after what top class players they have because the chelsea esque approach of certain french clubs is robbing them of their top talent!
In ireland most of the development money doesn't come from europe either it comes from the national union so yes absolutely the players get rested, but that is in most cases not with an eye on europe it is a dictation of the central contrracts of the national players! Hmmm maybe we should therefore make ireland have to play russia or romania to qualify for the 6N what do you thiNk?
Like I said you make a fair point, but is it a point which ERC is responsible for the addressing of? No it is one for french and english rugby to sort out in their own game and infrastruature!
Posted 10:32 16th September 2012