New H-cup, minus the English likely?

First topic message reminder :

According to Gerry Thornley in today's article the FFR have more power than their clubs when it comes to negotiating and their priority is to make sure that the French players play less rugby, for the sake of the national side, and also so that they can compete in the playoffs in the Top 14 without any clash with the H cup. This is the gist of what Patrick Wolff, vice president of the LNR (represents French clubs) says in the quote below:

"But much stricter French law and the strength of the French Federation, whose president Pierre Camus signs off any television deal involving the French team or its clubs, means the LNR could not go down the English clubs’ route.

“The Heineken Cup is a very good competition and we don’t want to kill it,” added Wolff. “We love the Heineken Cup in France. Sometimes we complain, because we are French first, then because the Celts don’t play as many games as us. But I can’t imagine that the French will allow the big games like Clermont against Leinster not to happen. We will do our best to keep these type of games.”
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2012/0915/1224324046581.html

If they can make the same money but have a reduced number of competitors they may well be happy with that. If the English leave both of these outcomes could be accomplished without too much hardship to one side. They may well also want more money and tougher qualification rules for the pro 12 sides but their priorities are not the same as the English clubs. Would the LNR and public be happier with a smaller competition that included the best sides in Europe (mostly from the pro 12) or one with the next best sides in Europe involving only one other country?

Whatever way these negotiations go this way that people have gone of playing out each stage/ idea in public is a very bad idea. People are far less likely to back down and compromise if they think that they will lose face for going back on a previous statement. Pride could play as big a part as logic and greed in this process.

Update: From the Guardian, 25th Sept
"They opened talks directly with some South African and French clubs. This has hampered the negotiations. It is hard to talk with them. We may have to move on without the English, though I do not want it."
ERC chairman, Jean Pierre Lux quoted in the Guardian today.

Full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/sep/25/bt-deal-heineken-cup-illegal

He couldn't have made it clearer that they are considering a h cup without English clubs.

The French clubs will redraw the boundary lines. They have to. Posters on here think they can do what they like. They cant. They only keep their say if it does not conflict with National interest. They wont risk losing their voting rights for a start, even if they do want the same as the PRL.

Look, lets be fair here. The PRL have the most to lose here so I can understand why its getting heated. Ultimatdly the Aviva currently fails to attract the leading stars of world rugby (due to the French) which damages in turn its creditbitlity as a league. They are forced to try to increase revenue to not allow the gap to widen and see the English Premier become a development league for France.

Premier landscape has changed a lot in the last decade. There was a time when all the best players from Scotland, Ireland, Wales & England played there as well a host of SH international stars and south sea islanders.

Wind the clock forward to today and very few actual current internationals hail from the Premiership. Instead (due to financial constraints) they are forced to fill their rosters with unknown signings. It does not help the branding of the league. In order for it to mantain its place it needs to retain its wow factor.

Sadly the PRL cannot compete with the ever increasing salary demands of English internationals and cannot over price the Rabbo league to see and exodus from players from that league. This is why the are so desperate for the money. Its so they can essentially outbid current Unions for their stars and increase the reputation of the league.

The reason the Irish have been so successful is that they have pooled their resources to create mini internationals sides. It's not a question of players being rested. Munster & Leinster have qualified in the top 6 for plenty of seasons using player rotation. Truth is they are simply to well equipped in terms of player personel.

Be interesting to know what Sky and Heineken will make of the PRL's actions. I cant see the HC falling down now as too much has been put into this competition.

not sure London tiger,
I'd be happy with 4 pools of 5, and top two in each go through, top of pool 'A' plays second in pool 'D' at home.

But I'd be willing to give the French the say on this as they want it in two blocks, and as they want less games they will want 5 pools of 4, and best 3 runners up (which i'm not fond off), but willing to give this to have 8 teams from pro 12 enter.

Kingshu wrote:a well lads back to the topic

Geoff intrested in what you rekon the out come will be?

Do yo agree with me that the
Rabo nations will hold out for 8 qualifers, One from each nation guarenteed, rest league based, 6 English and 6 French.

H-cup winners and Almin winners come out of that countries allocation.

French and English will both increase their share by 5%, from 25% to 30%

I think the French will agree with as it see's the French and English share increase from 25% to 30% and a reduction in number of Pro 12 teams and tougher qualification critea for them, plus since with less teams a reduction in payments to pro 12 unions from 50% to 40%. While still having every nation represented. Also they will have final played earlier and played in blocks, and Almin will be relaunched.

This covers what the French are requesting and should be agreeable for the French and Rabo unions.
This may not go far enough to applease the English, but if the Rabo nations and French agree, that its a reasonable compromise for all nations, they may have to accept they are not getting more.

As long as it is along term contract so that we are not at this point again, lets make it a hundred year one.

I kind of love the quirky qualifing system we currently have. It really adds something in my opinion. I do think runners up will probably end up qualifing automatically.

welsh Mushroom - the french clubs have no voting rights. that is the thing that is bugging them the most. It all came to a head whe Lux was re-appointed as the ERC chief.

French. English and (interestingly) Welsh clubs favoured Wheeler. WRU agreed to vote how the regions wanted, PRL of course voted as they wanted, but FFR ignored the wishes of their clubs.


Oh and i hate the quirky system - even if apparently it has favoured my team - as it creates unfairness.

I hate the quirky system as well,

Come second in a group of death and you are less likely to qualify than some one who finishs second in an easy group.

I know which I rate aas the better acheivement.

4 pools of 5 would solve this, but then it would create the problem of teams giving up earlier and playing weaker team in it. after the first couple of games you could get 2 teams without a change of qualifing, who have turned thier attentions soley to their league, if you play these two last you are at an advantage against those who played them first.

This could be recitified by changing the points you get for the group stage, and also by reducing your points from 4 years to say 2 years.

it could mean that finish 4th in your group could really improve your chances, of a better group next year than 5th, keeping teams in it.

I'd also add that the 2 lowest teams at the end have to play off with the loser getting given a wooden spoon, the stigma should prevent it from happening the next year.

(also I think it could create a good one off game, with both teams going all out to avoid being laughed at)

Heres a mad idea,the last placed team can not qualify for next years top tier,keeps interest & different teams competing

not really likely broadlandboy, imagine if Glasgow finished bottom, Edinburgh would get in no matter where they finish, which is part of all this trouble, that they are wanting to remove

True,same with the Italians,but they wouldnt be guaranteed a place every year. Would reduce teams putting out weakened teams after chance of progressing gone

Answer to Thread Query: No. Not likely.

I think that what we can all seee from this is the the FFR have the greater good of Europe at heart and will veto the NRL when they don't act in the best interest of Europe which is also the best interest of France. THe RFU have however given to much power to the PRL.

On the Soccer the Champions league and Europa Cup are run by UEFA which is run by the unions. Clubs have no say other then through their unions. The FA could noniate any teams they wanted for their four places. This year they nonimated Clesea over Spurs. They could say we are giving the four places to the League winner, Fa cup winner, League Cup winner and Championship winner and there is nothing the clubs could do about it.

I really hope that this proposal is kicked into the long grass. Scotland an Italy need these two guaranteed places for the good of the game in those countries.

Just image a futer where England and France have pro leagues, Wales adn ireland are senmi pro and Scotland and Italy are amatuer. thats the future unless these idiotic proposals are scrapped.

If Engladn and france want a smaller HC then they can loose some teams - they already get more than anyone else. 5 french, five english 3 welsh, 3 irish, 2 scots, 2 italians gives 20 teams competition.

TJ wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:The ERC sell the TV rights for each union and then split it evenly. If the French TV rights are worth more than the others then they are, in effect, subsidizing the others.

s.

cowpat. the French TV rights are valuable because of the product - which is 6 unions teams in a competition. I suggest you go and look up a dictionary. there is no subsidy. ERC sell the rights and divide the income according to agreed formulae

Yes the agreed formula involving more money for Rabo than PRL and Top14 combined. In other words a subsidy.

TJ wrote:I really hope that this proposal is kicked into the long grass. Scotland an Italy need these two guaranteed places for the good of the game in those countries.

Just image a futer where England and France have pro leagues, Wales adn ireland are senmi pro and Scotland and Italy are amatuer. thats the future unless these idiotic proposals are scrapped.

If Engladn and france want a smaller HC then they can loose some teams - they already get more than anyone else. 5 french, five english 3 welsh, 3 irish, 2 scots, 2 italians gives 20 teams competition.

I understand that the PRL and BT are guaranteeing more money for all unions. Scots will get a smaller share of a much larger pot but still more in absolute terms. So why if they get more money would they go amateur. The main problem Scots have is inability to attract fans. Glasgow is second largest city in UK with a rugby team and they still cannot generate crowds. That is entirely their fault and no reason why clubs with much less potential should subsidise them.

Snippet from Guardian report of today's ERC meeting:

"While the meeting broke up after five hours and some representatives left to catch flights home, the English contingent stayed on to continue informal talks with those who remained."

Hmmm, I wonder who that could be........?

HammerofThunor wrote:Bigger question how are you going to convince the French the PRL want to expand Europe. By whoring out do you mean making money? How's that going to put off the French?

In History, the English invented rugby, soccer, cricket and the Industrial Revolution(Everyone else in the World knows it was the Scots really - for everything). But, lets not split hairs here. Then, they shyed away from being responsible for it and stopped nurturing it all, whilst the rest of the Planet moved on and enhanced it.

France, have always looked outwards in sport and politics. They have been fully instrumental in progressing all the top sports on the Planet to date(don't even mention the Yanks). They wont renege and sell out. Not in their psyche. The English - in times of strife, will always look inwards and go into de Nile. This is just more of the self-same, self-interested, short-sighted - malaise.

When push really comes to shove, they will back down. Again. Why? Because they have an imbecile in charge of the PRL. An imbecile, who got over-excited by BT geld and who has gone way beyond his remit and nous. I'll make this very simple for simple people. Run and own the internal Jeff - OK. Pan-European HC - not OK.

He's DUST after it all settles. They will move him upwards and out of the way of any real European business. Maybe, after 2014, England will have no teams in the HC for another year(as in 1999). Maybe they wont be missed for now. Or until they grow up and re-join the party. Again. Only one English side made the QF's last year. And even they were hammered at home. They really need to sort their own level out 1st. Rebuild their product to sell, sotospeak. Its all far too predictable and easy to beat.

This is what its all about. Money by pure demographics and greed alone. Not by merit, or by encouraging the game we all love, to flourish and grow. Problem is, they actually think they merit it. Rugby is growing and this RPL move is anti-rugby. Italy has 61 million people. A lot are becoming disenchanted with soccer as a game and with its inherent corruption. Its a feeding-ground for rugby to grow. Everyone is talking about France & England here. Has anyone actually asked a country as big as both of them, how they feel about their future? I bet the French have today in Dublin.

After this monumental cockup, I'd also bet that the French will steal this show and the rest will follow. Then England will too, late & begrudgingly. As per the Modern Olympics, European Soccer Championships, European Champions League, Soccer World Cup... yada yada.

We all know that it will work out a 666 representation for the 3 x NH leagues + 2. The rest, and the financial split, is what will really be discussed.

This picture is far too big to hang on McCafferty's wall, it seems.

New H-cup, minus the English likely?

No. Recent events have put the French even more in the driving seat for negotiations on the new European competition, they'll get pretty much what they want, which is almost identical to what the English want. The European competitions won't be losing any nations.

Gibson wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Bigger question how are you going to convince the French the PRL want to expand Europe. By whoring out do you mean making money? How's that going to put off the French?

In History, the English invented rugby, soccer, cricket and the Industrial Revolution(Everyone else in the World knows it was the Scots really - for everything). But, lets not split hairs here. Then, they shyed away from being responsible for it and stopped nurturing it all, whilst the rest of the Planet moved on and enhanced it.

France, have always looked outwards in sport and politics. They have been fully instrumental in progressing all the top sports on the Planet to date(don't even mention the Yanks). They wont renege and sell out. Not in their psyche. The English - in times of strife, will always look inwards and go into de Nile. This is just more of the self-same, self-interested, short-sighted - malaise.

When push really comes to shove, they will back down. Again. Why? Because they have an imbecile in charge of the PRL. An imbecile, who got over-excited by BT geld and who has gone way beyond his remit and nous. I'll make this very simple for simple people. Run and own the internal Jeff - OK. Pan-European HC - not OK.

He's DUST after it all settles. They will move him upwards and out of the way of any real European business. Maybe, after 2014, England will have no teams in the HC for another year(as in 1999). Maybe they wont be missed for now. Or until they grow up and re-join the party. Again. Only one English side made the QF's last year. And even they were hammered at home. They really need to sort their own level out 1st. Rebuild their product to sell, sotospeak. Its all far too predictable and easy to beat.

This is what its all about. Money by pure demographics and greed alone. Not by merit, or by encouraging the game we all love, to flourish and grow. Problem is, they actually think they merit it. Rugby is growing and this RPL move is anti-rugby. Italy has 61 million people. A lot are becoming disenchanted with soccer as a game and with its inherent corruption. Its a feeding-ground for rugby to grow. Everyone is talking about France & England here. Has anyone actually asked a country as big as both of them, how they feel about their future? I bet the French have today in Dublin.

After this monumental cockup, I'd also bet that the French will steal this show and the rest will follow. Then England will too, late & begrudgingly. As per the Modern Olympics, European Soccer Championships, European Champions League, Soccer World Cup... yada yada.

We all know that it will work out a 666 representation for the 3 x NH leagues + 2. The rest, and the financial split, is what will really be discussed.

This picture is far too big to hang on McCafferty's wall, it seems.

You too Gibbo?

I had actually wrote a long comment on yours but I really can't be arsed to finish it off. This is becoming extremely tiresome.

Please stop with this nonsense about subsidy!

the European cup is a product that creates profits. the profits belong to the European cup and are shared out between unions.

there is no subsidy as in transfer of cash from one union to another. This is a piee of nonsense created by the PRL to attempt to justify their power grab. How much would a european cup be worth without the teams that play attractive competative rugby?

Under the PRL proposals there would not be a much larger pot - it would be a little bit larger perhaps. Scotland would receive far less money. Remeber the 152 million incudes aviva games - no one is sure how much the split is. 5% of a slightly larger pot is a lot less than they receive now.

HammerofThunor - yes it is become tiresome listening to the english posters repeating the same nonsense over and over again

The French will comprimse - they do not want to throw the baby out with th bathwaterand they realise that for the good of the game europe wide the weaker nations need a little extra help.

Crowds north of the border are growing and the game is becomeing more popular. accepting the PRL proposals would kill the game north of the border stone dead within 5 years.

Just watch. the PRL will become isolated, the French will comprimise, the HC cup with either continue much as before or it will continue without the PRL clubs

TJ wrote:HammerofThunor - yes it is become tiresome listening to the english posters repeating the same nonsense over and over again

If the number of clubs needs to be reduced - and I can see no case why it should be anyway - why are the English and french to be excempt from the reduction in places? If they want to lose 4 teams from the competition the one french, one English, 2 rabo would seem much fairer.

TJ wrote:Please stop with this nonsense about subsidy!

the European cup is a product that creates profits. the profits belong to the European cup and are shared out between unions.

I just found out from a Herald article posted by As that the PRO12 league TV money is split depending on how much you bring to the table. This must really infuriate you.

there is no subsidy as in transfer of cash from one union to another. This is a piee of nonsense created by the PRL to attempt to justify their power grab. How much would a european cup be worth without the teams that play attractive competative rugby?

Under the PRL proposals there would not be a much larger pot - it would be a little bit larger perhaps. Scotland would receive far less money. Remeber the 152 million incudes aviva games - no one is sure how much the split is. 5% of a slightly larger pot is a lot less than they receive now.

I've seen two suggestions. one was £52M for Premiership, £100M for Europe (think this is unlikely as I think it's a drop in money for the Premiership). The other was £88M for Europe and £64M for the Premeirship. This is more likely but I still don't know it's come from. So that would be £88M from BT, £70M from Sky. Not a massive increase? But the BT deal is for 3 years and just the English games, the Sky one is for 4 years and all European games (both only dealing with UK rights, Sky one may inlcude Ireland, not sure). I don't doubt that BT would be willing to put more in for the other games. So it is a massive increase per year. Also there have been no suggestions of how the money will be split regarding the ACC.

HammerofThunor - yes it is become tiresome listening to the english posters repeating the same nonsense over and over again

Ditto

The French will comprimse - they do not want to throw the baby out with th bathwaterand they realise that for the good of the game europe wide the weaker nations need a little extra help.

Yes they will, as will the PRL and the other unions.

Crowds north of the border are growing and the game is becomeing more popular. accepting the PRL proposals would kill the game north of the border stone dead within 5 years.

French proposals.

Just watch. the PRL will become isolated, the French will comprimise, the HC cup with either continue much as before or it will continue without the PRL clubs

the LNR have said they want to play in a competition with the Celts and the English. They haven't indicated anywhere they would ever consider a competition with just the Celts. They've said they won't consider a Franglo competition unless the negotiations break down. Given that the French and the English are soming at this from similar (in not identical) positions then I don't understand where this idea has come from that the PRL are looking to be isolated. Other from badly written articles that are just using the same old quotes over and over again.

Its quite obvious from the quotes and proposals that the French and PRL positions are radically different - remember when this has happened before that the English were isolated and had to back down.

Do you mean in 2007 when the French teams actually pulled out of the HEC until they were encourage back in?

The only difference between the PRL and the LNR at the moment is that the LNR aren't looking in the Franglo Cup unless negotiations break down. Other than that they're basically saying the same thing.

The problem with the NRl is that its members would rather a top 16/18 as they would make much more money. They know the standard would be high as they have so many imports that are top notch.
The Rabo by playing aginst each other also have a way of making sure their standards remain high.
The PRL fighting it out with the French and Japan for high level players and with only 30 or so current internationals in the league it will be hard for them to measure their level of performance.
The last time the English left they had many of the Scottish and Irish internationals in their league so they knew the prem teams were as good as any team from the other 5 nations. Now they won't be as good.

At the end of the day the RFU don't want their players to be kicked out of the top competition and will do what ever they can to put english teams in it. They might say that as the Championship teams aren't good enough they will put in some regional teams until the PRL comes back.

The RFU will make sure that England is represented at the top table

HammerofThunor wrote:

I just found out from a Herald article posted by As that the PRO12 league TV money is split depending on how much you bring to the table. This must really infuriate you.

I didn't see the quote, but I'd presume the reason for this is because there are several broadcasters involved (3 in Ireland alone for instance, RTE, TG4 & BBCNI). Of course its Free to Air so not a huge money spinner anyway.

As well as that the size of the viewership would be fairly similar as we all have similar size populations.

Anyway get the ratings for Leicester v Ulster so as to compare them with an Aviva League Match?

Or better still compare Harlequins v Toulouse and Harlequins v Leicester in the league.

NOTE that the English Jeff clubs wish to encourage the emerging european nations with the new comps structure. [/color][/font]

To be continued... October talks .... zzzzzz

"Today's meeting in Dublin was called after English and French clubs served notice they intend to quit the current Heineken Cup following next season’s competitions unless a new deal can be hammered out to satisfy their demands. France wants European tournaments to conclude each April so its Top 14 Championship can take precedence afterwards.

Aviva Premiership clubs want three European competitions, beginning during the 2014-15 campaign with two concentrated on existing top-level European rugby, plus a tournament for teams from emerging nations like Spain, Russia and Portugal.An ERC statement confirmed rugby chiefs will meet again in Rome on October 4.The statement read: "The meeting included productive discussions regarding the future of the club game in Europe with a general resolve among all stakeholders to reach agreement towards a new Accord.[color=#000000][i][font='Calibri']It was decided that all parties would continue the consultative process at a meeting in Rome on 8 October 2012."

TJ wrote:Please stop with this nonsense about subsidy!

There is the Irish taxpayer's subsidy - the main reason why the ERC, IRB, Celtic Rugby, IRFU, British & Irish Lions etc. etc. etc.) are all based in Ireland is because they are exempted from paying tax.

Sin é wrote:

TJ wrote:Please stop with this nonsense about subsidy!

There is the Irish taxpayer's subsidy - the main reason why the ERC, IRB, Celtic Rugby, IRFU, British & Irish Lions etc. etc. etc.) are all based in Ireland is because they are exempted from paying tax.

Ha! Ha! - Now THAT is a very good point. Who pays for International Rugby Union? - Irish taxpayers. I like it Sin é.

England are also looking after interests of Spain, Russia, Portugal. The old country has the noblesse oblige to take care of the minnows too.

SecretFly wrote:

Sin é wrote:

TJ wrote:Please stop with this nonsense about subsidy!

There is the Irish taxpayer's subsidy - the main reason why the ERC, IRB, Celtic Rugby, IRFU, British & Irish Lions etc. etc. etc.) are all based in Ireland is because they are exempted from paying tax.

Ha! Ha! - Now THAT is a very good point. Who pays for International Rugby Union? - Irish taxpayers. I like it Sin é.

We don't pay for it all Fly - just European Rugby, IRB, Rugby World Cup Ltd, RBS 6Nations, British & Irish Lions etc. are at least 12%* better off than they would be.

*12% is Corporate Irish tax rate. Its much higher in other countries - you often hear the French & British moaning about it being too low

yes, that competitive tiger economic success record really bothers them.

I don't really think there are that many Brits moaning about it, in fact I'm pretty sure there are a number in our current coalition that would suggest it's a wonderful idea and take delight in highlighting the potential benefits of reducing corp. tax here. It's more the eurozone countries that are annoyed about the Irish tax rates.

gregortree wrote:England are also looking after interests of Spain, Russia, Portugal. The old country has the noblesse oblige to take care of the minnows too.

TJ wrote:

gregortree wrote:England are also looking after interests of Spain, Russia, Portugal. The old country has the noblesse oblige to take care of the minnows too.

gregortree wrote:yes, that competitive tiger economic success record really bothers them.

It bothers the UK specifically because it makes NI very uncompetitive when it comes to inward investment.

And for some reason, it drove Sarkozy loopy

Sin é wrote:

We don't pay for it all Fly - just European Rugby, IRB, Rugby World Cup Ltd, RBS 6Nations, British & Irish Lions etc. are at least 12%* better off than they would be.

*12% is Corporate Irish tax rate. Its much higher in other countries - you often hear the French & British moaning about it being too low

No, we don't pay for it all - my point is we cough up the extra tax that the government chooses not to place at the feet of the corporations. We foot the tax bill they don't pay. I'm all for it because I think it's joined up thinking. Not much point in having low taxes on the population if they have no income that can pay for the low taxes anyway. But we're footing the 12%

Actually lowering corporation tax is a major political hot potato in the UK right not, specifically in NI and Scotland - but also England.

Tax varying powers are in many ways the main driver behind the Scottish referendum on independance.

Salmonds main aim is not independance but this devo-max thing which would allow Scotland to set their own corporation tax rates, which is something the UK Goverment are very keen to avoid as England would then be at a big competitive disadvantage against Scotland when trying to attract international companies.

The BNP want 3 choices on the referendum - Yes, No or Devo Max - something the UK goverment won't allow. They will only allow a Yes/No referendum.

The UK goverment were very keen initially to allow NI to set their own corporation tax to kick start their economy but have since gone cold on the idea since because of the change of dynamics within Scotland and the growing desire for increased devolved powers.

Irelands low corporation tax model is something George Osbourne (himself an Irish aristocrat) is a huge fan of, he even wrote a paper on it whilst he was shadow chancellor. Its something the treasury can't afford though across the UK right now.

TV last night showed a US cruise ship docked in Belfast with loads of tourists visiting the Titanic museum and other NI wonders. NI also now has a devalued sterling to help it along. But makes Guinness a bit more expensive I would guess.

gregortree wrote:England are also looking after interests of Spain, Russia, Portugal. The old country has the noblesse oblige to take care of the minnows too.

There must be a vote coming

gregortree wrote:TV last night showed a US cruise ship docked in Belfast with loads of tourists visiting the Titanic museum and other NI wonders. NI also now has a devalued sterling to help it along. But makes Guinness a bit more expensive I would guess.

Galway got 300 new jobs yesterday - Electronic Arts' European Customer Centre (FIFA soccer & Star Wars). Thats brings their staff total up to 700 jobs (in a year) in a smallish city in Ireland.

I doubt if Electronic Arts are here just because they like the Guinness.

Dont forget that Limericks branch of Northern Trust announced creation of 400 new jobs today.

Some companies will do anything for the guinness.

red_stag wrote:Dont forget that Limericks branch of Northern Trust announced creation of 400 new jobs today.

Of course. 400 new Thomond Park season ticket holders on the way. A possible sponsor as well maybe - Toyota's sponsorship is up at the end of this season I think.

Sin é
We love Ireland really. No way do we want a European Cup without the Irish sides (or for that matter the English, Welsh etc etc). The craic is too good to miss. I think the TV money wars will bring more resources to the game once all the dust has settled, and no bad thing to gee up Sky's 'monopoly' mentality to rugby.
Back to the OP question: no, it would break Welsh hearts if there was no English involvement.

English TV deal 'illegal' according to ERC

“This is shocking because it is illegal,” ERC’s chairman Jean-Pierre Lux told a news conference held with the members of the seven French clubs qualified for this year’s Heineken Cup."

“We may have to move on without the English, though I do not want it.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2012/0925/1224324357897.html

From the ERC statement after last week's meeting:

"With the objective of creating an opportunity for a positive outcome for European club competitions, it was agreed that there would be limited comment from stakeholders at this time."

So that's what Lux thinks is limited comment?


From the same Irish Times article, and widely reported elsewhere:

"Apart from the TV rights issue, the French clubs reaffirmed yesterday that they wanted a tightened schedule, with a cut to 20 clubs and a change in the qualification rules could help to implement.

“Is it really appropriate always to have two Italians clubs in the group stage? Is it normal that some teams automatically qualify while others have to fight for their place? I am not sure,” AS Clermont general manager Jean-Marc Lhermet told a news conference."

and:

"Toulon and former France manager Bernard Laporte said he would prefer the European Cups to be played in two months to allow the clubs to move on to their domestic ties afterwards.

“A single playing window would be more logical to me,” he said. “Then we could move on to our domestic championships.”"

More "limited comment" from the French clubs.

The single window is an interesting public development, though no big surprise, but it's possible that Laporte is a lone voice.

So when Mark McCafferty or some other English numpty says something out of turn, it's right on and the only sensible thing in the world.

Anyone else and they are a "lone voice"

I hope everyone ends up holding hands and dancing round rainbows together, but to me it looks like the English are the odd men out.

Hmmm...! Looking likely England may get thrown out.

From todays Telegraph


English clubs were on Monday night accused of holding direct talks with South African clubs and warned they could be cast adrift from future European competitions following claims that Premiership Rugby’s new broadcasting deal with BT Vision was “illegal”.

The accusations were made by Jean-Pierre Lux, the chairman of European Rugby Cup Limited, the governing body of the Heineken Cup, at a press conference involving all seven French qualifiers for this season’s tournament.


The RFU chairman Billy Beaumont is trying to make clubs see that the PRL are leading them down a blind ally and is trying to rescue their support after it was reported on Friday last week, by the RFU, that the PRLs deal with BT Vision is Illegal.

Also from the Telegraph

They (The PRL) were not the least bit surprised by Friday night’s pronouncement from the Rugby Football Union that the new venture was illegal in that they had not given their consent to it

maestegmafia wrote:Hmmm...! Looking likely England may get thrown out.

From todays Telegraph


English clubs were on Monday night accused of holding direct talks with South African clubs and warned they could be cast adrift from future European competitions following claims that Premiership Rugby’s new broadcasting deal with BT Vision was “illegal”.

The accusations were made by Jean-Pierre Lux, the chairman of European Rugby Cup Limited, the governing body of the Heineken Cup, at a press conference involving all seven French qualifiers for this season’s tournament.


The RFU chairman Billy Beaumont is trying to make clubs see that the PRL are leading them down a blind ally and is trying to rescue their support after it was reported on Friday last week, by the RFU, that the PRLs deal with BT Vision is Illegal.

Also from the Telegraph

They (The PRL) were not the least bit surprised by Friday night’s pronouncement from the Rugby Football Union that the new venture was illegal in that they had not given their consent to it

You can't throw us out, we've already fricken left!