RFU say NO to PRL deal with BT...!

Just in...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/9544678/RFU-refuses-to-endorse-Premiership-Rugbys-bumper-152-million-TV-rights-deal-with-BT-vision.html

The RFU issued a statement laced with conciliatory intent, with chief executive Ian Ritchie seemingly eager to seek a resolution between the warring parties. But the governing body was unequivocal over the question of consent for the European broadcasting rights.
“The RFU will continue to liaise with all stakeholders, in order to help reach a conclusion which benefits all,” said the RFU in a statement last night. “While the RFU has not given consent to Premiership Rugby to grant European Broadcasting Rights, we believe it is important to work with them and with all parties involved to find common ground. We anticipate that this process will begin at the ERC stakeholder meeting on Tuesday.”

The Guardian say

Earlier in the day the PRL chairman, Quentin Smith, had been forced to issue a statement denying that a majority of Premiership clubs had lost faith in the chief executive, Mark McCafferty, as doubts swirled over whether he had a proper mandate to sell the rights for games in a future European tournament to BT Vision. "The clubs have full confidence in Mark McCafferty and support him in implementing the broadcast deal," said Smith.

From ESPN

Premiership Rugby's stance does not appear to be wavering under increasing pressure with a source saying: "What this is about is club competitions being run by clubs rather than the unions. The Champions League is not run by the Football Association or the German federation and imagine how stupid it would be if it were. It is in everyone's interests to play together with a more even distribution of money than is currently the case. It comes down to who blinks first."

from the daily mail

And it is thought that the French are prepared to sign on with ERC again, subject to an agreement to move the date of future finals to April, rather than May.

Patrick Wolff, the vice-president of the French National Rugby League, said: ‘We want a quick answer. If we waste two years on the TV rights, everyone will lose — Celts, English and French.’

sounds like the French priority is the dates affecting there top14, doesn't sound like they want a complete overhaul of the competition and who runs it, minor tweaks here there and a new agreement in place asap.

This is blowing right up in the PRL's face now. McCafferty is looking like a right wally.

The French clubs aren't only interested in the dates. Just over three weeks ago, Wolff said:

"...The Amlin Challenge Cup must have teams from all stakeholders because at the moment it is a useless competition just concerning English and French clubs...We want a decent schedule to the season whereby European competition will be finished by the end of April. We also believe it would be interesting - even for the Celts - if the RaboDirect teams have to qualify like the English and French clubs do. We believe that would give more momentum to their competition."

Of course, that statement doesn't mean French interests are necessarily aligned with the English. Wolff is quite clear in recent comments that muddying the waters with a dispute over TV rights doesn't suit their desire to reach a swift conclusion one way or another.

However, offering only to move the dates of the Heineken Cup probably wouldn't be sufficient for the French clubs. It sounds like they'd would need some other incentive. Wolff didn't mince his words:

"If the negotiations fail, we will see what our alternative options are...we'll have to look at how the nine dates set aside for European competition can be used in other ways."

PRL have made their intentions blatantly clear. They don't seem to give a damn about anyone but themselves, they're more willing than any to swindle their own success and riches at the expense of everyone else. They are quite willing and prepared to destroy any sense of fairness that obstructs them from snaking in their tendrils and sucking as much as they can out of the sport, that has become obvious.

Set up for almightiest of falls now, if, as expected, the BT deal becomes invalid due to disregard of others then PRL may have lined themselves up to be sued. There's no real way they get out of this untainted now.

Still no mention about the BT or its immediate collapse on either the SKY or RFU sites. But ERC have published a piece containing the following.

"While awaiting further information regarding Premiership Rugby's proposed agreement with BT, the ERC Board, which met in Dublin today, believes that any such agreement would be in breach both of IRB regulations and of a mandate from the ERC Board itself."

"European club rugby's six participant Unions have granted the authority to sell broadcast rights to its tournaments solely to ERC."

"It was unanimously agreed at an ERC Board meeting on 6 June, 2012 that ERC would conclude a new four-year agreement with Sky Sports for the UK and Ireland exclusive live broadcast rights to the Heineken Cup and the Amlin Challenge Cup until 2018. Premiership Rugby was party to that decision."

"ERC remains determined to honour its own commercial commitments and to continue its work to further develop the European club game."

ERC Board of Directors present at the 6th June 2012 meeting where it was agreed that ERC would arrange rites for BSkyB to show European Rugby Cup for the next four years.

Independent Chairman: Jean-Pierre Lux
England: Rob Andrew (RFU), Peter Wheeler (Premiership Rugby)
France: Michel Palmié (FFR), René Bouscatel (LNR)
Ireland: Philip Browne (IRFU), Peter Boyle (IRFU)
Italy: Fabrizio Gaetaniello (FIR), Orazio Arancio (FIR)
Scotland: Ian McLauchlan (SRU), Mark Dodson (SRU)
Wales: Roger Lewis (WRU), Stuart Gallacher (RRW)

Peter Wheeler was appointed Tigers CEO in 1996, he represents the Tigers company on the board of Premier Rugby and represents the Aviva Premiership clubs on the Professional Game Board and the RFU Council.

maestegmafia wrote:"It was unanimously agreed at an ERC Board meeting on 6 June, 2012 that ERC would conclude a new four-year agreement with Sky Sports for the UK and Ireland exclusive live broadcast rights to the Heineken Cup and the Amlin Challenge Cup until 2018. Premiership Rugby was party to that decision."

We might have to take that with a pinch of salt. Less than a week after, Premiership Rugby gave notice, under the terms of the European Rugby Cup Accord, of their intention to withdraw from both the Heineken and the Amlin. Their notice was effective from June 1st, which predates the meeting.

There are plenty of legitimate questions about the legal status of Premiership Rugby's new contract but the ERC's new deal isn't necessarily as binding as they'd like to claim.

Rugby Fan wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:"It was unanimously agreed at an ERC Board meeting on 6 June, 2012 that ERC would conclude a new four-year agreement with Sky Sports for the UK and Ireland exclusive live broadcast rights to the Heineken Cup and the Amlin Challenge Cup until 2018. Premiership Rugby was party to that decision."

We might have to take that with a pinch of salt. Less than a week after, Premiership Rugby gave notice, under the terms of the European Rugby Cup Accord, of their intention to withdraw from both the Heineken and the Amlin. Their notice was effective from June 1st, which predates the meeting.

There are plenty of legitimate questions about the legal status of Premiership Rugby's new contract but the ERC's new deal isn't necessarily as binding as they'd like to claim.

ERC say in their statement that it was unanimously agreed at an ERC Board meeting on 6 June. That was a meeting with PR and the RFU representatives as directors and present.

It is definitely looking like PRL are in the wrong here and it is a little more black and white rather than grey as you are suggesting.

THis is a good thing. There was a good chance that the PR deal with BT could have a negative effect on other unions taking away their prime competition and that is ethically wrong.

Fans want a big and brilliant European competition, some want it more than international rugby, the players and the clubs love competing in it, therefor IRB will want to maintain it.

Shouldn't this thread be merged with the other one, in which it has been quoted that PRL categorically deny ERC's statement about the board meeting on 6th June?

maestegmafia wrote:ERC say in their statement that it was unanimously agreed at an ERC Board meeting on 6 June. That was a meeting with PR and the RFU representatives as directors and present. It is definitely looking like PRL are in the wrong here and it is a little more black and white rather than grey as you are suggesting.

You may yet be right, but I don't think we can be certain. If Premiership Rugby's notice of withdrawal removes them from any subsequent agreement, then the decisions taken on the 6th June are rendered moot. It's obviously in the interests of ERC to maintain otherwise.

The RFU's statement yesterday just seems designed to give them some cards to play if negotiations next week turn out catastrophically. If all parties can reach an agreement in the coming weeks - a big "if" given the tone of current statements - then you'd expect the RFU to rubber stamp any deal made by Premiership Rugby.

If everything does go down in flames, then the RFU could try to use its leverage on contract rights to force Premiership Rugby back to the table. That's probably the last thing the RFU wants because it might bring about a schism between the clubs and the union. With a World Cup due in 2015, losing any influence over the top flight game in England would be a fine mess. The RFU must be praying that they don't have to get involved.

Does seem a tad bizarre though mate that if PR notified the ERC that they would wish to withdraw in two years time on the 1st of June that they would then send their rep, Wheeler, to the meeting with ERC on the 6th of June, at which the ERC claim their was a unanimous agreement by all parties for ERC to construct the deal with BSkyB, that meant Peter Wheeler and PR agreed to those terms as well.

I would say that reading the papers and online media this morning that it very much appears that PR are in the doo doo's for agreeing to something they shouldn't have, and that as a result Mr Watson of BT got a little over excited.

PRs fabled Nuclear approach is not good business, especially when ERC had agreed to sit down and seriously discuss on going concerns with all unions involved on the 18th of September.

I am sure all will be revealed in the next week. But in my opinion the RFU seriously need to show some leadership over PR.

The IRB run the game, and for good reason too, as they make sure that the games future is secure and fair for all parties involved as best they possibly can. PR are assuming a lot of decision making and control of English rugby in a way that appears to undermine or even rival the RFU.

From a non English perspective that makes PR look a rather untrustworthy organisation, hense the suspicious reposts by so many non English rugby fans regional/club owners and Unions in respect to their dealings.

You are right in thinking that the RFU are praying that they don't have to get involved and that is part of the biggest problem that we see outside of English rugby looking in. The RFU run the game in England but they lack the backbone to deal with those with the most power and it is an awkward situation that we outside of England are always concerned could turn sour and seriously affect rugby in our countries.

What have the RFU said "no" to? They've said that they believe the agreement to pass tv rights on to the PRL does not include European games. They haven't said that the deal won't go ahead. It just means that the RFU have massive leverage now over the PRL, which is great. I imagine they'll use this to get a better deal regarding the EPS.

Still, all the PRL have done is sell on the their rights to a potential competition that doesn't exist yet. It seems the RFU haven't given them the right to do that 'yet' but I can't see them jeopardising the PRL's league TV deal over this. Got nothing to do with ERC or the IRB as of yet.

Funnily enough the HEC and ACC don't exist beyond 2014 and therefore the ERC have done exactly the same thing.

I'm still waiting to see the minutes (or read the report of someone who has) because the PRL said no TV deal was ever agreed at that meeting or subsequent meetings.

Could officials in suits with prominent positions in European rugby act like the dignified gentlemen their roles suggest and not constantly use the lazy and offensive term 'Celts' when refering to the Pro12 teams/countries please.

That would be a start. And if they refrained from using the term, then they might finally realise the complexity they try to ignore by talking about 'Celts'.

Italians aren't Celts - they are members of a League called Pro12 - don't continuously offend them by dropping them into the Celt (one name suits all of them) bucket.

And when you realise and admit there are four nations in one league then you'll understand the resistance to the idea that French and English sides have to qualify for the HC whilst Pro12 sides just saunter into it.

No, that's just fancy evasive semantics. The truth is the French and English do NOT have to qualify - six guaranteed places apiece await them...every year. There will always be six English and six French clubs in the HC.... as of right.
There should be Italian, Irish, Welsh and Scottish particpation in such a competition by right too - if England and France enjoy their rights. Yes the debate is about equality but not as the English and French woud understand it.

Very confusing -

What sort of deal have the ERC done if both the French and English clubs had already served notice to quit?

Sounds like a lot of positioning and second guessing before negotiations begin(hopefully!)

Oh to be a fly on the wall next week!

maestegmafia wrote:The IRB run the game, and for good reason too, as they make sure that the games future is secure and fair for all parties involved as best they possibly can. PR are assuming a lot of decision making and control of English rugby in a way that appears to undermine or even rival the RFU.

From a non English perspective that makes PR look a rather untrustworthy organisation, hense the suspicious reposts by so many non English rugby fans regional/club owners and Unions in respect to their dealings.

Not really. The RFU gave the PRL control over their TV rights. The PRL believed this included any cross-border competitions. The RFU says it doesn't BUT they're going to sit down with the PRL and talk about it. That means they're going to ask for concessions from the PRL for the RFU to allow the deal to go ahead. Nothing to do with Europe, it'll be about the EPS or the league.

Actually SecretFly, the Northern Italians (main rugby area) are Celts, I believe. No evidence to back that up so you can take it to the bank as an internet FACT.

SecretFly wrote:.........And when you realise and admit there are four nations in one league then you'll understand the resistance to the idea that French and English sides have to qualify for the HC whilst Pro12 sides just saunter into it.

No, that's just fancy evasive semantics. The truth is the French and English do NOT have to qualify - six guaranteed places apiece await them...every year. There will always be six English and six French clubs in the HC.... as of right.

Since ~50% of English and French clubs and qualify for the European Cup, are you proposing the same for the Rabo teams? Not sure I understand your point.

The stories of the AP and Top14 threatening to leave the HEC start around the 23rd of August.

If, as was mentioned by a poster above, that they notified the ERC on the first of June prior to the meeting where they agreed to the new 4 year ERC deal and a continuation of the HEC what happened in between, what happened in between the 1st of June and 23rd of August to prevent the story coming out.

I personally, haven't seen anything posted on here or anywhere online or in the papers, that actually states that the ERC were notified by anyone on the 1st of june that they might not re-negotiate a contract in two years time. It appears that threats were made by Top 14 and PR around the 23rd of August though.

HammerofThunor wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:The IRB run the game, and for good reason too, as they make sure that the games future is secure and fair for all parties involved as best they possibly can. PR are assuming a lot of decision making and control of English rugby in a way that appears to undermine or even rival the RFU.

From a non English perspective that makes PR look a rather untrustworthy organisation, hense the suspicious reposts by so many non English rugby fans regional/club owners and Unions in respect to their dealings.

Not really. The RFU gave the PRL control over their TV rights. The PRL believed this included any cross-border competitions. The RFU says it doesn't BUT they're going to sit down with the PRL and talk about it. That means they're going to ask for concessions from the PRL for the RFU to allow the deal to go ahead. Nothing to do with Europe, it'll be about the EPS or the league.

Actually SecretFly, the Northern Italians (main rugby area) are Celts, I believe. No evidence to back that up so you can take it to the bank as an internet FACT.

Celts covered most of Europe prior to the Roman Empire. There are Druidic Temples all over the southern Alps noting our previous presence. Apparently we are rather frightened of the bloke from the A-Team and his Elephants.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Actually SecretFly, the Northern Italians (main rugby area) are Celts, I believe. No evidence to back that up so you can take it to the bank as an internet FACT.

It's lazy, offensive and done for a reason. Call them one thing and hey presto, they become one thing. Our Leagues are inherently different from each other - Pro12 is nothing like the Top 14 or AP. It's nothing like those two and can't ever be so. When English clubs play against each other in their league their interests in that league is served by one overseeing body as they exist in one nation...same for France.

In Pro12, the Irish do not oversee what the Welsh or Italians do, the Scottish do not oversee what the Irish or Italians do - they are separate entities playing cooperatively in League format so that there can be enough compeition to improve standards in relatively small rugby playing nations. We all understand that? Does the PRL understand that difference in the Pro12 is a logical and inescapable result of the make of its members.

When the English and French put the pressure on, and even if the Irish and Welsh are coming around to agreeing to the adaptations sought by those two, I hope the Scottish and Italians dig in viciously if they feel their rights are being watered down. I hope they embarrass their Pro12 partners and ostracise them for trying to break honour that has grown between us. The only solution I'd want is that Scotland, Italy and the other Pro12 nations have their rightful positions in European competition.

From here on, I'll refer to the English and the French collectively as the Normans. And even when talking about them individually I'll call each of them Normans.

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Actually SecretFly, the Northern Italians (main rugby area) are Celts, I believe. No evidence to back that up so you can take it to the bank as an internet FACT.

It's lazy, offensive and done for a reason. Call them one thing and hey presto, they become one thing. Our Leagues are inherently different from each other - Pro12 is nothing like the Top 14 or AP. It's nothing like those two and can't ever be so. When English clubs play against each other in their league their interests in that league is served by one overseeing body as they exist in one nation...same for France.

In Pro12, the Irish do not oversee what the Welsh or Italians do, the Scottish do not oversee what the Irish or Italians do - they are separate entities playing cooperatively in League format so that there can be enough compeition to improve standards in relatively small rugby playing nations. We all understand that? Does the PRL understand that difference in the Pro12 is a logical and inescapable result of the make of its members.

When the English and French put the pressure on, and even if the Irish and Welsh are coming around to agreeing to the adaptations sought by those two, I hope the Scottish and Italians dig in viciously if they feel their rights are being watered down. I hope they embarrass their Pro12 partners and ostracise them for trying to break honour that has grown between us. The only solution I'd want is that Scotland, Italy and the other Pro12 nations have their rightful positions in European competition.

The IRB are there to protect the interests of teams that could be worst affected.

doctor_grey wrote:

SecretFly wrote:.........And when you realise and admit there are four nations in one league then you'll understand the resistance to the idea that French and English sides have to qualify for the HC whilst Pro12 sides just saunter into it.

No, that's just fancy evasive semantics. The truth is the French and English do NOT have to qualify - six guaranteed places apiece await them...every year. There will always be six English and six French clubs in the HC.... as of right.

Since ~50% of English and French clubs and qualify for the European Cup, are you proposing the same for the Rabo teams? Not sure I understand your point.

What's with you people????? English clubs (6 of them) DO qualify by right. We want the same rights! I want the same rights. Automatic qualification for Irish sides...two or three I don't care...but I certainly wouldn't tolerate the idea that in any given year Irish sides weren't represented at all. Neither should any other Pro12 member. It's about rights not leagues.

http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/news/18353.php

Call us what you want Fly, it really doesn't both me. It is lazy but then everything about writing on the internet is lazy. If you think it's has some sinister ulterior motive or paranoid. Also the French keep talking about the Celts, French and English. What's their game? I thought this was just a ploy to screw over the English.

Maesteg, the stories about the French and English threatened in to pull out of Europe started in April (on in Walesonline). There was one in the Guardian at the end of May that they were serving their notice on 'Friday'.

If fact there's a link on the current BBC article that's dated 11/06/12

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/18403809

You clearly haven't looked very hard.

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Actually SecretFly, the Northern Italians (main rugby area) are Celts, I believe. No evidence to back that up so you can take it to the bank as an internet FACT.

It's lazy, offensive and done for a reason. Call them one thing and hey presto, they become one thing. Our Leagues are inherently different from each other - Pro12 is nothing like the Top 14 or AP. It's nothing like those two and can't ever be so. When English clubs play against each other in their league their interests in that league is served by one overseeing body as they exist in one nation...same for France.

In Pro12, the Irish do not oversee what the Welsh or Italians do, the Scottish do not oversee what the Irish or Italians do - they are separate entities playing cooperatively in League format so that there can be enough compeition to improve standards in relatively small rugby playing nations. We all understand that? Does the PRL understand that difference in the Pro12 is a logical and inescapable result of the make of its members.

When the English and French put the pressure on, and even if the Irish and Welsh are coming around to agreeing to the adaptations sought by those two, I hope the Scottish and Italians dig in viciously if they feel their rights are being watered down. I hope they embarrass their Pro12 partners and ostracise them for trying to break honour that has grown between us. The only solution I'd want is that Scotland, Italy and the other Pro12 nations have their rightful positions in European competition.

What about the Russians? The Georgians? Germans? Etc? Why do the Scots and Italians have a 'right' to this particular European competition and not them? They do because of the current ERC agreement. Which ends in 2014. After then none of them have any such rights. The French proposal that has been taken on by the PRL includes expanding Europe to a 3rd tier and bringing in clubs from more European nations. Why would the IRB block that?

SecretFly wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

SecretFly wrote:.........And when you realise and admit there are four nations in one league then you'll understand the resistance to the idea that French and English sides have to qualify for the HC whilst Pro12 sides just saunter into it.

No, that's just fancy evasive semantics. The truth is the French and English do NOT have to qualify - six guaranteed places apiece await them...every year. There will always be six English and six French clubs in the HC.... as of right.

Since ~50% of English and French clubs and qualify for the European Cup, are you proposing the same for the Rabo teams? Not sure I understand your point.

What's with you people????? English clubs (6 of them) DO qualify by right. We want the same rights! I want the same rights. Automatic qualification for Irish sides...two or three I don't care...but I certainly wouldn't tolerate the idea that in any given year Irish sides weren't represented at all. Neither should any other Pro12 member. It's about rights not leagues.

You people? You people! Now who's being offensive.



Why ou say the same rights what do you mean? Every union should have the same number of teams? Every unions should have at least one guaranteed spot? You're rant was confusing. (I understand your point that some people don't appreciate that the PRO12 unions don't want to be dealt with as a collective)

HammerofThunor wrote:
Maesteg, the stories about the French and English threatened in to pull out of Europe started in April (on in Walesonline). There was one in the Guardian at the end of May that they were serving their notice on 'Friday'.

If fact there's a link on the current BBC article that's dated 11/06/12

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/18403809

You clearly haven't looked very hard.

Mate 11th of June is still after they had just agreed to the ERC four year deal.

Stop playing games Maesteg. The very first link was to the ERC statement on the 1st June 2012 saying they have had formal notice that the clubs want a review of the agreement that ends in 2014.

The BBC post doesn't say that was when the notice was given. It was dated on the 11th June. Which is still way earlier than the August you had previous claimed. You claimed you looked and couldn't find. Either you did a Poopie job or you're lying.

maestegmafia wrote:I personally, haven't seen anything posted on here or anywhere online or in the papers, that actually states that the ERC were notified by anyone on the 1st of june that they might not re-negotiate a contract in two years time. It appears that threats were made by Top 14 and PR around the 23rd of August though.

The Mail and other media reported on the 12th June that Premiership Rugby were handing in notice. According to them, under the terms of the accord, this notice was effective from the 1st June.

(I've only just joined so can't post any external links)

If that's true - and I don't think we can take anything written in the press as gospel - then no decision made on 6th June would be binding. Sky were also notified of that decision before they renewed their contract with the ERC.

HammerofThunor wrote:Stop playing games Maesteg. The very first link was to the ERC statement on the 1st June 2012 saying they have had formal notice that the clubs want a review of the agreement that ends in 2014.

The BBC post doesn't say that was when the notice was given. It was dated on the 11th June. Which is still way earlier than the August you had previous claimed. You claimed you looked and couldn't find. Either you did a Poopie job or you're lying.

Calm down and show some blwdi maturity man.

There is no need to through accusations around here. I obviously googled a different way to you and didn't find a link. Still haven't seen a mention of the an official 1st of june date anywhere... Why don't you provide a link before you make silly accusations.

SecretFly wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

SecretFly wrote:.........And when you realise and admit there are four nations in one league then you'll understand the resistance to the idea that French and English sides have to qualify for the HC whilst Pro12 sides just saunter into it.

No, that's just fancy evasive semantics. The truth is the French and English do NOT have to qualify - six guaranteed places apiece await them...every year. There will always be six English and six French clubs in the HC.... as of right.

Since ~50% of English and French clubs and qualify for the European Cup, are you proposing the same for the Rabo teams? Not sure I understand your point.

What's with you people????? English clubs (6 of them) DO qualify by right. We want the same rights! I want the same rights. Automatic qualification for Irish sides...two or three I don't care...but I certainly wouldn't tolerate the idea that in any given year Irish sides weren't represented at all. Neither should any other Pro12 member. It's about rights not leagues.

Fly, please understand from my perspective the English clubs which do end up playing in the European Cup still have to play their way into the top 6 (or 7). So, I understand your point that there is automatic qualification for English and French clubs. But each individual club has to earn the spot as well. That's my only point. Sorry if I raised any hackles. Not my intent.

HammerofThunor wrote:

What about the Russians? The Georgians? Germans? Etc? Why do the Scots and Italians have a 'right' to this particular European competition and not them? They do because of the current ERC agreement. Which ends in 2014. After then none of them have any such rights. The French proposal that has been taken on by the PRL includes expanding Europe to a 3rd tier and bringing in clubs from more European nations. Why would the IRB block that?

Well what rights do the Nor................... (no I won't actually, I'll be respectful like always) what rights do the English and French have? None.

Never mind tiers then. Let's start at the very beginning. New competition. All sides that are invited in to play, play each other in some overall competition for five years to work out just who goes into top, mid, and bottom tier after that

Why should a fair competition begin with positions worked out from previous European or domestic competition? Maybe Russian sides would beat the crap out of the French and shove them all into 2nd tier - would the French like that? No, they'd be back to the drawing board saying that idea didn't really work out according to plan.

Rights.

So let's recap. The English and French don't care about rights, they'll discuss them all day with whoever wants to; and they'll do what you've just done and mention the Russians and the Georgians etc. And they'll do so in the knowledge that no matter what happens, they'll be there - in the first tier If by an unfortunate sequence of events they all drop down to 2nd or 3rd tier, well....they leave the competition and suggest forming a new one, under new 'fair' rules for all of course, yet again.

By the way...my "what is it with you people" wasn'tanger..it was exasperation. Apologies if it resmbled shouting.

I was wondering how clearly I have to say something before it is understood. English want representation in Europe guaranteed - and get it. Me as Irish, want representation in Europe guaranteed - and I want to get that guarantee (just like France and England will) in any future competition. Other followers from other countries will I'm sure have similar feelings.

maestegmafia wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Stop playing games Maesteg. The very first link was to the ERC statement on the 1st June 2012 saying they have had formal notice that the clubs want a review of the agreement that ends in 2014.

The BBC post doesn't say that was when the notice was given. It was dated on the 11th June. Which is still way earlier than the August you had previous claimed. You claimed you looked and couldn't find. Either you did a Poopie job or you're lying.

Calm down and show some blwdi maturity man.

There is no need to through accusations around here. I obviously googled a different way to you and didn't find a link. Still haven't seen a mention of the an official 1st of june date anywhere... Why don't you provide a link before you make silly accusations.

I've already posted the link to the ERC website. What I did was go to the ERC website. Look in the their news archive. Selected June this year and hey presto it was there.
Here it is again.

http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/news/18353.php

And in full

ERC can confirm that a consultation process involving all its stakeholders will commence shortly following formal applications by the Federation Francaise de Rugby, the Ligue Nationale de Rugby and Premiership Rugby for a review of the ERC Shareholder Agreement which provides the structure for European club rugby's two tournaments, the Heineken Cup and the Amlin Challenge Cup.

The current agreement, which was agreed by all stakeholders in 2007, includes a provision for parties to confirm their intention to seek a renegotiation, while the structure and format of both tournaments remain in place for a further two years until the end of the 2013/14 season.
ERC will now lead a process of consultation with all stakeholders over the coming months. The stakeholders are made up of the following union and club bodies which have representation on the ERC Board: the Rugby Football Union, Premiership Rugby, the French Federation, the Ligue Nationale de Rugby, the IRFU, the Italian Federation, the Scottish Rugby Union, the Welsh Rugby Union and Regional Rugby Wales.

Fly I understand your exasperation. I don't know exactly what the plan would be for the Russians, etc. Would they go in the bottom tier? Would they be guaranteed a spot in the top tier? They've been excluded from European rugby so it's difficult to tell how good they'd be. That's for negotiations, something the Celtic and Italian unions didn;t want because it would probably lose them money.

Rugby Fan wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:I personally, haven't seen anything posted on here or anywhere online or in the papers, that actually states that the ERC were notified by anyone on the 1st of june that they might not re-negotiate a contract in two years time. It appears that threats were made by Top 14 and PR around the 23rd of August though.

The Mail and other media reported on the 12th June that Premiership Rugby were handing in notice. According to them, under the terms of the accord, this notice was effective from the 1st June.

(I've only just joined so can't post any external links)

If that's true - and I don't think we can take anything written in the press as gospel - then no decision made on 6th June would be binding. Sky were also notified of that decision before they renewed their contract with the ERC.

Hi mate here are the articles from Wales online's archives for the 12th of june 2012

which one contains the statements you mentioned above...?


Brumbies v Wales: How the players rated
Jun 12 2012 | Rugby News

Simon Thomas rates the performances of Welsh players that beat ACT Brumbies. Read

Two games in Australia 'will benefit Wales in second Test'
Jun 12 2012 | Rugby News

Alun Wyn Jones believes Wales will feel the benefit of having played two games on Australia soil when they go into Saturday’s second Test against the Wallabies. Read

Rob Howley keen to 'take the win and move on' after Wales beat Brumbies
Jun 12 2012 | Rugby News

Wales caretaker coach Rob Howley was happy “to take the win and move on” after seeing his side beat a makeshift Brumbies side 25-15 in Canberra. Read

Wales forced to work hard for 25-15 win over Brumbies (pictures)
Jun 12 2012 | Rugby News

Wales were made to work hard for victory by a spirited Brumbies side at the Canberra Stadium today. Read

Heineken Cup draw throws up Cardiff Blues return for Gethin Jenkins
Jun 12 2012 | Rugby News

Gethin Jenkins will make a quick return to Cardiff Blues after his former club were paired with his new employers Toulon in the Heineken Cup group stage. Read

Minute-by-minute coverage of Wales u-20s v Samoa u-20s
Jun 12 2012 | Rugby News

Wales' u-20s are looking to follow up their stunning 9-6 victory against New Zealand at the Junior World Championships by beating Samoa in their final group game. Read

Wilson says forget All Blacks win as U20sface Samoa
Jun 12 2012 | Rugby News

WALES Under-20 head coach Danny Wilson insists his side will have achieved nothing if they don’t beat Samoa today and ensure qualification for the Junior World Championship semi-finals. Read

Jake White claims Brumbies could be surprise package against Wales
Jun 12 2012 | Rugby News

World Cup-winning coach Jake White admits he doesn’t know what to expect from the inexperienced Brumbies team he has selected to take on Wales at the Canberra Stadium. Read

Young star Harry Robinson making waves in the Wales camp
Jun 12 2012 | Rugby News

Harry Robinson is dreading the next meeting of the fines committee on Wales’ trip Down Under. Read

Ashley Beck 'hungry' to win Wales starting place for Australia test
Jun 12 2012 | Rugby News

Young Wales centre Ashley Beck has spoken of his “hunger” to nail a starting berth for the second Test against Australia with an impressive performance against the Brumbies in Canberra today. Read



Read More http://www.walesonline.co.uk/2012/06/12/#ixzz26XTcpghx

HammerofThunor wrote:

I've already posted the link to the ERC website.
Here it is again. http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/news/18353.php

I think you are misinterpreting that article to back your argument HT mate.

It doesn't say anything about the PRL, RFU or other Unions parties having any right to renegotiate TV contracts during or after that period.

What it does make very clear is that the ERC are willing to listen to all Unions to understand their suggestions for improvement and continuity, something that the ERC have upheld.

maestegmafia wrote:Hi mate here are the articles from Wales online's archives for the 12th of june 2012

Mail = Daily Mail

"Premiership Rugby have confirmed their intention to withdraw from the Heineken and Amlin Challenge Cups after giving notice, effective from June 1, under the terms of the European Rugby Cup Accord. The notice period expires at the end of the 2013/2014 tournament at which time the Accord will terminate."

Since the post you quoted doesn't talk about Walesonline I'm guessing you're talking about me, who quoted Walesonline reporting about a possible pull out before August.

Here's one

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/rugbynation/rugby-news/2012/05/21/comment-heineken-cup-overhaul-could-threaten-leinster-dominance-91466-31009311/

I couldn't find the one from April so we can assume I was mistaken or lied about that one.

Maesteg, it doesn't say a lot of things. What it does say is that the current agreement runs out in 2014. The power of the ERC to sell TV rights from unions is part of that agreement. Therefore their power to sell TV rights ends from 2014. What they've done is sell the TV rights to Sky without the Unions giving them that power.

All that article said was that the English and French clubs have given their 2 years notice on the 1st June, which you couldn't find any evidence of. Just trying to help you out amigo.

Here's the link to the Mail quote from Rugby fan, since he can't post it himself

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-2158130/Heineken-Cup-draw-kind-Harlequins.html

Premier Rugby are trying to translate this as a battle of the leagues, they are pretending to be offended by the rights the RaboDirect Pro12 league has over their own.

This begs the question, when did leagues vs leagues become the issue more so than clubs vs clubs or countries vs countries? When it best befitted the interests of Premier Rugby, that's when. As Fly has tried to stress while you all who have jumped on the PRL bandwagon have tried your best to feign ignorance, the English and French are already guaranteed greater representation at every HC than each individual Pro12 nation. They always have been. It's only now that PR make an opportunistic choice to protest the validity of a standard which was set long ago that everything has kicked off.

What PR and all those who support their notion constantly fail to take into account is that the Pro12 caters for four nations, they (Premier Rugby) have the luxury of being able to stage a league exclusively to themselves. Scratch that, several tiers of leagues to themselves. None of the nations represented in the Pro12 have the rugby resources or population to sustain a professional model similar to the English or French, which is why we band together in the same league and are granted more slack to qualify and ensure representation in the Heino. It is the fairest system possible as things stand. Is this getting through to anyone?

Answer me this, why should we be deprived of our rights while you get to keep your own? Why should the English and French be guaranteed annual qualification while the Irish, Italians, Scottish and Welsh are not? Sorry old chaps but we won't stand idly and let Premier Rugby violate our rights under the pretence of being concerned with the current format. Not happening like it or not.

Had a read of that Daily Mail link, it seems to be the only report in any media source to state that?

Very strange, you would have thought that was massive news?

Still doesn't answer why on the 6th of June the PR and RFU were part of an amicable agreement with ERC to continue to allow ERC to negotiate European rugby coverage...!!!

Im sure that the PRL will have to state their ambitions and intentions in full this week.

When they do so we will all know what the story is. But at the moment none of this puts the PRL in a good light. THey still appear to have negotiated behind everyones backs with something they do not have rights to negotiated with.

I am confident that the IRB will not let anything happen that would be to the detriment of other nations. I cant see the IRB allowing the HEC to dissolve. It would be extremely detrimental to the four Rabbo Pro 12 Nations club and national efforts.

maestegmafia wrote:Had a read of that Daily Mail link, it seems to be the only report in any media source to state that?

Rugby365.com reported it the same news om Monday 11th under the headline "Euro club walk-out looms". The BBC had it under "Premiership Rugby announces possible Heineken Cup withdrawal". As it turns out, Walesonline had it on the same day as the Daily Mail, included in an article with the headline "Heineken Cup draw throws up Cardiff Blues return for Gethin Jenkins".

Maest
So you agree that the four Rabbo Nations gain an advantage from the HC as it is now

maestegmafia wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:"It was unanimously agreed at an ERC Board meeting on 6 June, 2012 that ERC would conclude a new four-year agreement with Sky Sports for the UK and Ireland exclusive live broadcast rights to the Heineken Cup and the Amlin Challenge Cup until 2018. Premiership Rugby was party to that decision."

We might have to take that with a pinch of salt. Less than a week after, Premiership Rugby gave notice, under the terms of the European Rugby Cup Accord, of their intention to withdraw from both the Heineken and the Amlin. Their notice was effective from June 1st, which predates the meeting.

There are plenty of legitimate questions about the legal status of Premiership Rugby's new contract but the ERC's new deal isn't necessarily as binding as they'd like to claim.

ERC say in their statement that it was unanimously agreed at an ERC Board meeting on 6 June. That was a meeting with PR and the RFU representatives as directors and present.

It is definitely looking like PRL are in the wrong here and it is a little more black and white rather than grey as you are suggesting.

THis is a good thing. There was a good chance that the PR deal with BT could have a negative effect on other unions taking away their prime competition and that is ethically wrong.

Fans want a big and brilliant European competition, some want it more than international rugby, the players and the clubs love competing in it, therefor IRB will want to maintain it.

it doesn't matter what the ERC say in a statement, we can't take either for granted.

broadlandboy wrote:Maest
So you agree that the four Rabbo Nations gain an advantage from the HC as it is now

Eh? Where did he say that?

All people have done so far to answer for Premier Rugby is interpret things as they see fit, evading the real issue. The English and French already have the greatest individual representation in the HC. They're already at an advantage. They just want more advantage!

Knowsit17 wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Maest
So you agree that the four Rabbo Nations gain an advantage from the HC as it is now

Eh? Where did he say that?

All people have done so far to answer for Premier Rugby is interpret things as they see fit, evading the real issue. The English and French already have the greatest individual representation in the HC. They're already at an advantage. They just want more advantage!

In your opinion of course, i can do the same thing..

The rabo teams already have an advantage, they don't want to lose it.

doctor_grey wrote:Fly, please understand from my perspective the English clubs which do end up playing in the European Cup still have to play their way into the top 6 (or 7). So, I understand your point that there is automatic qualification for English and French clubs. But each individual club has to earn the spot as well. That's my only point. Sorry if I raised any hackles. Not my intent.

That's not actually true doctor. The English and French don't have to 's earn their spot by reaching the top 6 in the AP or Top14. That's not a rule imposed on them externally. They are given 6 spots each and are free to give them to any 6 teams they choose. So their "disadvantage" is self imposed. They could change it tomorrow if they chose to.

Of their 6 HC representatives they could let 5 retain their place in the tournament the next year and "relegate" the worst performing team to the Amlin and "promote" the best Amlin team to the HC. This would give them much more stability yet still retain the possibility of any team making it to the HC on merit. It would award HC spots on the basis of performance in erc competitions rather than league. And would bring their priorities more in line with the other 4 nations.

England and France are guaranteed spots every year and are given more than the other nations. They choose to allocate them in the way they do so they can't then turn around and say it's unfair and force 4 other nations to change their rules and probably force one of the 6 Nations (Italy) to drop permanently out of Europe's top tournament, and risk that in any given year Scotland, Wales or Ireland mightn't have any representation in the top tournament either. It's bad for European rugby. And it would be bad for the RBS 6 Nations too.

I've never heard New Zealand or South Africa call for Australia to be banished from Super Rugby because they were the weakest nation. It defeats the whole purpose of having a cross border competition that benefits everybody.

There are 6 Nations making up the erc. Not England, France and "Celts".