Two new H Cup structures to be considered

First topic message reminder :

Following a meeting held in ERC offices today, the ERC has undertaken to examine two new proposals for change to the current comp structures.

The English and French have proposed a 20 team H Cup, 20 team Challenge Cup, and an undefined third tier comp.

The Irish, Welsh, Scottish and Italians have proposed a 32 team comp, comprising 10 teams from Pro 12 and Premiership, and 12 teams from the Top 14. There appears to be no other comp in their proposals. Some media reports say that this proposal was turned down by the French at a meeting last week in Paris, where there was also seeming agreement on the French proposal to move the completion of the comp to earlier in the season.

These proposals will be evaluated along with the current two competitions for discussion at the next meeting.

Each union has been asked to present its proposals/suggested re-structuring for the next meeting - apparently.

No discussions on commercial arrangements until the rugby structure is agreed.

Next meeting to be held in December. Still all to play for.

IanBru wrote:
I think the question he's asking (and stop me if I'm wrong, TJ) is whether such a proposal would be a reasonable thing to expect the unions to accept.

So, to ask the question again, is it a reasonable development from the status quo for the unions represented in the Pro 12 to lose representation in the European Cup, while the RFU and FFR don't?

There's nothing inherently unfair about one league having to give up more than the other two, if that league is starting from an advantageous position. This is what the English and French sides believe to be the case.

Also the Rabo clubs need the English and French sides more than the English and French need them. Therefore it is reasonable to ask the Pro 12 to make serious concessions. If they don't want to then no agreement will be reached.

I don't buy the notion that the "Rabo clubs" are negotiating anything.

The Pro 12 has four unions participating in it. Their needs and wants do not coincide on this. Assuming that they are collectively negotiating on everything is a mistake. Why has each union been asked to set out their individual objectives/requirements, etc for a new European comp agreement?

DaveM wrote:

There's nothing inherently unfair about one league having to give up more than the other two, if that league is starting from an advantageous position. This is what the English and French sides believe to be the case.

Also the Rabo clubs need the English and French sides more than the English and French need them. Therefore it is reasonable to ask the Pro 12 to make serious concessions. If they don't want to then no agreement will be reached.

Actually, I've had enough of that old cliche and now I'm going to put the question: Explain How?

Explain how Individual leagues - of which Pro12 is just one entity amongst three - can so quickly mutate into 'English' and 'French' and yet can't be ripped apart even more into all constituents when debating the issue - ie, the 'English', the 'French', the 'Welsh', the 'Scots', the 'Italians, and the 'Irish'?
It's so easy for some to see the 'Englishness' of the AP, or the 'Frenchness' of Top14, but these same people have such a tough time spotting Welshness or Irishness or Italianness or Scottishness in Pro12???

And when you've explained that one, explain then too what possible evidence in the history of HEC suggests to you that the 'Irish' need the 'French' or 'English' more than 'French' or 'English' need them?

If the Welsh teams and Edinburgh would take the Rabo seriously we wouldn't need the Heino at all.... .....

rodders wrote:If the Welsh teams and Edinburgh would take the Rabo seriously we wouldn't need the Heino at all.... .....

What? Like winning it more times than the Irish you mean? Pull your fingers out Ireland.

Griff wrote:

rodders wrote:If the Welsh teams and Edinburgh would take the Rabo seriously we wouldn't need the Heino at all.... .....

What? Like winning it more times than the Irish you mean? Pull your fingers out Ireland.

That's one of them Griff....one of them

Griff wrote:

rodders wrote:If the Welsh teams and Edinburgh would take the Rabo seriously we wouldn't need the Heino at all.... .....

What? Like winning it more times than the Irish you mean? Pull your fingers out Ireland.

Titles
Ireland 6 Wales 5

Close but no cigar, Welsh teams have won the Almin more often than Irish teams, (and we won't go near international records)

You get the point IrnBru.

I can see this ending up with an HC without English PRL clubs - infact I think this is the most likely outcome. the rest are simply not goping to accept losing half or more of their representation while the PRL does not. Remeber the PRL is about english club OWNERS not clubs themselves or unions.

It has happened before and I can see it happening again.

DaveM wrote:

IanBru wrote:
I think the question he's asking (and stop me if I'm wrong, TJ) is whether such a proposal would be a reasonable thing to expect the unions to accept.

So, to ask the question again, is it a reasonable development from the status quo for the unions represented in the Pro 12 to lose representation in the European Cup, while the RFU and FFR don't?

There's nothing inherently unfair about one league having to give up more than the other two, if that league is starting from an advantageous position. This is what the English and French sides believe to be the case.

Also the Rabo clubs need the English and French sides more than the English and French need them. Therefore it is reasonable to ask the Pro 12 to make serious concessions. If they don't want to then no agreement will be reached.

Of course it is aoutrageously ufair. t eh englisha dn the french already have greater representation despite in the case of the english a very mediocre recrd.,

so those already disavataged have to be disavantaged more to level them down to the level of the PRL? get real!

They have more representation because that is what was agreed by everyone. I assume it was because they thought it would bring more money, although the reason doesn't really matter. Exactly the same as now. A competition will be agreed by all parties involved. Or one won't. Fairness doesn't come into it because it doesn't exist as an absolute. It's more in the eye of the beholder than beauty.

TJ,Why do you think the French will stay when at the Paris meeting without the PRL the French clubs said IIRC that they wouldnt be involved in a comp without the English clubs

broadlandboy wrote:TJ,Why do you think the French will stay when at the Paris meeting without the PRL the French clubs said IIRC that they wouldnt be involved in a comp without the English clubs

They said that? Not how I remember it. got any quotes?

I think the french are open minded enough to accept a reasonable compromise - mainly around dates played. I think the PRL are so blinkered they are unable to accept anything but what they want and bugger everyone else. When a reasonable deal is made that is acceptable to everyone but the PRL the french will come on board and leave the PRL with a take it or leave it option.

Its one insular group of unrepresentative club owners with a selfish agenda V the rest.

Seriously - I think a european cup without the PRL clubs is likely. Remember there is previous on this. the PRL are acting in bad faith here - nasty manipulative liars - and the rest of us would be better off without them - bullies need to be stood up to and the PRL are attempting to bully here. the French understand fairplay.

Quite honestly I would be happy for the PRL clubs to be thrown out for breaching the rules.

"It is understood the French clubs also intimated they would not countenance a European tournament that did not include their English counterparts, which effectively ruled out any possibility of setting up a new tournament without the agreement of the Aviva Premiership clubs." from an article in the Telegraph 26th October
IIRC it was the french thay wanted the reduction to 20 with the PRL going along with them.
You call the English bullies but the reason that both the English & French clubs gave notice was because the others were not willing to enter talks about possible changes & only forced after the Eng/Fre clubs gave notice.
So who are the bullies,those who wanted to talk or those who said that it had to stay the same?
The PRL can't be thrown out as they have already given notice.
What rules have the PRL clubs breached?

TJ wrote:I think the PRL are so blinkered they are unable to accept anything but what they want and bugger everyone else.

But where has this come? Where has the idea that the PRL won't negotiate come from?

EDIT: corrected quote. Sorry about that.

Hammer could you please correct your post as it was TJ's quote not mine,Thankyou

Some of the english posters on here are so naive. the PRL proposals is all about a power grab for the PRL and bugger everyone else

It is absolutely clear to anyone with an open mind that the PRL are not serious about negotiations. Its a dictact on a might is right basis. Selling the rights they do not own to games involving others without even the basic courtesy of prior discussion? Asking for the rabo countries to lose a large proportion of their representation without losing any themselves despite their mediocre record in the HC? attempting to interfere in other countries qualification process for the HC to disadvantage other countries so the PRL teams can win.

The bullies are the PRL who are prepared to destroy professional rugby in other countries and to destroy a great competition in order to earn more money for them ant the expense of every other union.

OPEN YOUR EYES CHAPS do you really wonder why the english rugby is disliked despised and even hated worldwide? Nasty arrogant bullies

I really hope to see a european cup without the PRL teams.

TJ, All we are asking for is evidence that the PRL are guilty of the things you accuse them of.
As for the selling of media rights how is this different from the ERC selling the rights to a comp that doesn't exist?

I have seen nothing whatsoever that suggests the PRL are not willing to negotiate. You seem to have completely made that up. I've seen quote that they've said things MUST change. But I've seen identical quotes from the French but you seem to be happy to believe they ARE willing to negotiate.

You've got no idea on how suggested finances are going to be split. I've seen a quote that said the PRL are uninterested in relative slice sizes, more interested in the whole being increased. The only thing that suggests is that they're happy with the finances to be split as they currently are.

You've made very clear why English rugby is "disliked despised and even hated wordwide". It's because people seem desperate to want to do that and will even make things up to allow them to. I am more than willing to apologize if you are able to provide any evidence that backs you up.

If you don't not want to see it you will not. Its obvious to anyone with an open mind.

the selling is totally different as they 1) had no right to do so and 2) sold the rights to games involving other nations without discussion. How dare they do this? How dare the PRL sell the rights to games involving other nations teams?

Here is the equivalent proposal to the PRL one from the other side

HC to be reduced in numbers. Given the poor showing of the English and french their representation will be reduced to 3 teams each and the control of the TV rights goes to Ireland. the english club game has to be restructured to make it even less competative. take it or leave it.

How would you like that?

You have to understand what is going on - look tot eh history of the PRL, look to previous disputes. Stop being so naive

I have seen nothing whatsoever that suggests the PRL are not willing to negotiate. You seem to have completely made that up. I've seen quote that they've said things MUST change.

so they are prepared to negotiate so long as they get their way.

They have absolutely no intention of an honest and fair negotiation. Its a blatant power grab. Once they control the tv rights they control the competition.

No honest broker behaves as they do.

You've made very clear why English rugby is "disliked despised and even hated wordwide". It's because people seem desperate to want to do that and will even make things up to allow them to. I am more than willing to apologize if you are able to provide any evidence that backs you up.

Look at the RFUs attempt to sell 6 nations to sky? Look at the reluctance of the RFU to be involved in the original European cup. look at the arrogant way they were saying they were too good for the 6 N few years ago?

Open your eyes and minds

The English home 6 nations games were theirs to be sold. The other unions bullied (yes, bullied) them into not selling them.

Why were the RFU reluctant to be involved in the original European cup? You need to expand on that if you want us to hate England over it.

As for the "too good" thing, who actually said that?

Next you'll be blaming HERSH.

Still absolutely nothing on the PRL yet. I'm sure it's on the way.

The English AND French clubs are unhappy about the present agreement,they wanted to negotiate but the ERC were unwilling to so gave notice(as allowed in the present agreement) to leave,prefering to leave rather than be involved in something that they were unhappy with.
They have sold the media rights to home matches(which seems to be the norm in most sports unless a different agreement is reached between the parties involved),agreeing to put the money into one pot to be split having proved that the ERC under sold the media rights.
The French/English clubs have to be more business minded as they can't depend on their union to bale them out

Do you really believe that?

Selling the media rights to matches involving other unions without even basic discussion? Wrong

We do not know if they have negotiated more money as we do not know how much the HC rights they have "sold" have been sold for

the unions do not " bale out" the celtic teams. they run them on a bon profit basis whereas many of the PRL teams are run with unsustainable deficits. Which is driven by the egos of the owners in large part and paid out of their pockets. Businesslike?

HammerofThunor wrote:The English home 6 nations games were theirs to be sold. The other unions bullied (yes, bullied) them into not selling them.

Simply not true.

all I ask is you guys try to see this from the other side and stop being so naive in your assessment of the PRL clubs.

so how would you like it if yo were told only six french and english clubs combined and no guaranteed English teams at all in the HC in future, that you have no control at all over media rights and that you have to change the structure of your league in ways that are detrimental to you? thats what is being asked of the Rabo teams

The PRL are making a naked power grab of the HC. Selling the media rights gains them effective control. This is why they did this before talking to other unions.

I can see it from your side,it works for you(esp the Irish)so why would you want change.
Taking your reasoning only the Irish should be involved(no other union having won it in the last 2 years)

TJ wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:The English home 6 nations games were theirs to be sold. The other unions bullied (yes, bullied) them into not selling them.

Simply not true.

The home union controls the broadcast rights for their home games. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the away team. We don't discuss it with NZ, AUS or SA for the AI. It's nothing to do with them. You may not think that is right but that is the way it is.

all I ask is you guys try to see this from the other side and stop being so naive in your assessment of the PRL clubs.

Something you completely refuse to do. I understand fully the other side. They want as much as possible, got a very very good deal in the first place and are completely unwilling to negotiate that (that's your side, the union are willing to negotiate now they've been forced to)

so how would you like it if yo were told only six french and english clubs combined and no guaranteed English teams at all in the HC in future, that you have no control at all over media rights and that you have to change the structure of your league in ways that are detrimental to you? thats what is being asked of the Rabo teams

You seem to be confused over the TV rights thing. The PRL have sold the TV rights for their home games, which are controlled by the RFU now that notice has been given on the ERC. The SRU will control the rights for their home games, WRU the Welsh home games, etc. Isn't this exactly how the broadcast rights are sorted out in the RABO? There was an article a while ago about how the SRU were annoyed with BBC Scotland as they get less than the other unions involved.

The PRL are making a naked power grab of the HC. Selling the media rights gains them effective control. This is why they did this before talking to other unions.

How? The money is going into a central pot so everyone still gets a share. It's a three year deal. The RPL do have permanent control over these rights. The RFU have that. So it gives the PRL no control whatsoever (unless the RFU sign over the rights for 40 years or something like not, not going to happen). The control thing comes down to them and the french saying the ownership should be split equally between the teams in the 3 leagues. This is a negotiation point and would only happen if the unions agreed (again, not going to happen).

And it sounds like they did speak to the ERC about TV rights and they refused to deal with anyone other than sky. THAT'S why they went ahead and just did it. To show how badly the ERC was doing with it. Baring in mind that a BT free-view subscription channel would be much much more accessible around the UK than Sky sports.

HammerofThunor wrote:

TJ wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:The English home 6 nations games were theirs to be sold. The other unions bullied (yes, bullied) them into not selling them.

Simply not true.

The home union controls the broadcast rights for their home games. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the away team. We don't discuss it with NZ, AUS or SA for the AI. It's nothing to do with them. You may not think that is right but that is the way it is.

all I ask is you guys try to see this from the other side and stop being so naive in your assessment of the PRL clubs.

Something you completely refuse to do. I understand fully the other side. They want as much as possible, got a very very good deal in the first place and are completely unwilling to negotiate that (that's your side, the union are willing to negotiate now they've been forced to)

so how would you like it if yo were told only six french and english clubs combined and no guaranteed English teams at all in the HC in future, that you have no control at all over media rights and that you have to change the structure of your league in ways that are detrimental to you? thats what is being asked of the Rabo teams

You seem to be confused over the TV rights thing. The PRL have sold the TV rights for their home games, which are controlled by the RFU now that notice has been given on the ERC. The SRU will control the rights for their home games, WRU the Welsh home games, etc. Isn't this exactly how the broadcast rights are sorted out in the RABO? There was an article a while ago about how the SRU were annoyed with BBC Scotland as they get less than the other unions involved.

The PRL are making a naked power grab of the HC. Selling the media rights gains them effective control. This is why they did this before talking to other unions.

How? The money is going into a central pot so everyone still gets a share. It's a three year deal. The RPL do have permanent control over these rights. The RFU have that. So it gives the PRL no control whatsoever (unless the RFU sign over the rights for 40 years or something like not, not going to happen). The control thing comes down to them and the french saying the ownership should be split equally between the teams in the 3 leagues. This is a negotiation point and would only happen if the unions agreed (again, not going to happen).

And it sounds like they did speak to the ERC about TV rights and they refused to deal with anyone other than sky. THAT'S why they went ahead and just did it. To show how badly the ERC was doing with it. Baring in mind that a BT free-view subscription channel would be much much more accessible around the UK than Sky sports.

Sky Sports 1 and 2 are available as Free-View subscription channel already!

Are they? I knew ESPN was.

EDIT: Cool

HammerofThunor

HammerofThunor wrote:
TJ wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:
The English home 6 nations games were theirs to be sold. The other unions bullied (yes, bullied) them into not selling them.



Simply not true.

The home union controls the broadcast rights for their home games. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the away team. We don't discuss it with NZ, AUS or SA for the AI. It's nothing to do with them. You may not think that is right but that is the way it is.


I'm afraid you are only partially right, they may own the rights for home games but the television rights for a tourament are different matter, and are jointly owned.

Remember in 1996. RFU signed sky deal, which went against the agreement between 6 nations sides. England were thrown out of the 5 nations and only re-admitted when they agreed to negotiate jointly with the other unions when the RFU contract came up for renewal.

The BT deal is the same thing happening again.

That's not what is suggested in this article

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/england-out-of-the-five-nations-1328755.html

There is no mention that the RFU weren't allowed to sell their rights. Just that the celtic unions didn't want them to and therefore threatened to kick them out (or at least form a new competition). If there was an agreement that the 6 nations committee sold the rights it would have been a simple legal matter. Tournament rights are only jointly owned if the union gives up those rights. In this case it seems that the RFU sold their 6 nations rights to Sky for when the BBC deal ended, which they're allowed to do.

Which IS what is happening here (except the rights belong to the RFU rather than PRL it seems).

andyi
What happens when they put the rugby on Sky sports 3 & 4 which they often do?
Hammer
The PRL have the rights as part of the EPS agreement,however this only runs until 2015 when they would revert to the RFU unless another agreement is reached as under IRB regs Unions hold the media rights

could say from article

"Allan Hosie, the committee's Scottish Rugby Union representative, said: "We hope England, even at this late hour, realise they cannot sell what is not theirs to sell, and return to the Five Nations table.""

But it erally is a reun of the 1996 6 nations, PLC say they own rights to sell in own country (which they do as RFU), Pro 12 unions say any competation is sold as a product and not individually?

This is what will be argued, but sure we aren't even on that stage yet, first format then this.

Broadlandboy, that's where the confusion comes in. Because the ERC will effectively cease to exist after 2014 the PRL assumed any European club games would revert to them by the EPS agreement. The RFU believe (and are probably right) that the EPS agreement only deals with the premiership, it would come down to the exact working of the deal.

But yes it is up until the end of the 2015/16 season. The BT TV deal was until 2018.

Kingshuu, true I did miss that bit. Doesn't mean they don't have the right but could easily mean Hosie doesn't believe to do (or should).

If they didn't actually have the legal right it would be a legal challenge. That didn't happen. It wouldn't be a matter of applying pressure or kicking them out, or arguing, or hoping they see reason. It would have been a court case that would have been easily settled.

Kingshu
One small problem in that I believe that the French & Italians sell the rights in their country

broadbandboy.

I think its the ERC sell the TV rights in Italy and France they also sell the TV rights for UK and Ireland, and deal with coverage in any other country.

And I'll agree with HammerofThunor that home TV rights are RFU's (PLC and RFU will have to settle it between them) to sell
But I think that the other Unions will want them sold collectivly rather than induelally, its going to be a major part of the talks.

I can see both sides, and the PLC deal does show that the ERC may not have been doing th ebest job in selling th erights. I hope that they are continued to be sold collectively and ERC better supervised.

I do hold with the Pro 12 unions on this, for a number of reasons, UK and Irland makes it difficult to split up as its covered by same broadcasters, say ECR sold them together for £50 million, Could the total sold by each Union total that, say RFU sell thiers for £40 million, how much could the Scots then generate or Welsh as one broadcaster has already made a deal? could they even sell them in Englands were already sold.

The second part is PLC say they can sell more as they have more chimmley pots is the phase they used, but it doesn't really work like that, each country just bring its viewers to the table.
Do the provinces just bring in the potentional 5 million population of Ireland? I'd say the provinces add a lot more to it than that, Viewing figures in Engalnd and France are increased because the Provinces are in the competation, likewise viewing figures are higher in Ireland because France and England are in it. Viewing figures are higher in France because England Ireland etc are involved.
It's not right to say Ireland only bring the TV figure for Ireland to the comp, selling them individually makes this the case.

I see it that if PLC get there way and its sold individually, they will put the Money in a collective pot, but next time the format is up for talks, they will use this as an example of how much they bring in compared to others and want to keep this, each union sells its own, which will never work.

I may be looking at this through blinkers but could it be that it is one thing to tell the ERC that they are under selling the media rights but now they have shown that they are.As BT is a PLC they couldn't release a proposed deal but had to release an actual one.
True it has strenghened the PRL by showing what they bring to the table,unfortunately in this day & age money talks

Regardless of who is currently enjoying a cycle of success TV firms will only look at real numbers over the term of a deal rather than which individual teams might currently be adding the 'colour'.

Any Euro deal should have the Unions put half their top professional teams into the HC and the other half into the Amblin OR put them all in one pot and not refer to it as an elite club competition.
The R12 sides had a good deal to establish the euro competition but financial circumstances have now moved on.

No-one expects Unions to voluntarily concede structures or finances, so negotiations have to take place with the two sides bringing options to the table. To date only one side had made suggestions which is then easy to cast as doom & gloom or greedy merchants.

The current structure should change to have the pool fixtures all in one phase and finances should be split evenly amongst all competing teams.

I have watched this issue develop over 18 months and I believe the French and English reps will not back down this time until some concessions are agreed. I await to see which ones.

Negotiation is the art of compromise, so they say. And yet, as one person argues just now - nobody is demanding that unions voluntarily concede structures or finances, but negotiations have to take place so that all sides can place options on the table - and yet that same person says the English and French won't be changing their mind this time until they get consessions.

What concessions? Consessions to their demands? I thought demands weren't being made and that nobody expected unions to concede to demands?

So, if demands actually are being made (and we all know there are demands being made, however we want to evade the truth of that) - where are the aspects that the English and French will have to concede in order for a negotiation to take place? Compromises all round???

Bliley that was quick Secret!
On the basis that the French and English got no changes in, the last time the ERC contract was renewed then perhaps a few concessions will be forthcoming this time round. Yes compromise will be made because whilst one side of the debate haven't offered much other than the status quo they will not concede everything

The issues are not going to go away simply because we are mixing clubs with franchises in competition. That was part of the RFU argument when they wanted to install the North, Midlands, London and the South West into a Euro tournament. Sky wouldn't have paid the tv money for it but the RFU would have got its ready made trials sides.

Compromise? Go see how many English sides were in the first HEC, Recwatcher. Then go see how many of them were in the 2nd. Then slide down the years and see how bit by bit English and French representation/chances of winning/share of the profits per numbers of particpation have gone up and where Ireland remains with the same number as always.

Compromise? It seems everytime English rugby sneezes and says it doesn't want to play no more it gets a few more places at HEC.

Nice trick...but don't even begin to tell me it's fair or in the interests of rugby across Europe. It's greed and power - and it evidently always works So the new solution is what? 8 English spots now was what I heard a week or so ago as a proposal. Poor lads, they is oppressed by Europe indeed.

I don't think we can think of these talks in terms on cedeing, giving up, demanding. These talks have a new edge to them they aren't evoling the H-cup, they are making a brand new one.

So its best to forget that we used to get 6 palces we got 3, and pretend that the H-cup never existed, we are in talks then to create a new European comp.

Unions have to put in what they want to get out off it, to take part.

Sectrecfly the Pro 12 unions have offered England 10 places, and France 12 places, can't really offer anything more than that? but they still arn't happy.

Kingshu... and I think Pro12 are dummies for even offering that.

The real art of powerful negotiation is to offer the aggressor (and the PRL are the ones who started this ball rolling in demanding changes); to offer it less than it is actually demanding off others. Offer it a lesser roll to go with the ground conceded by Pro12 sides - and then let's all talk sense back to a real solution that respects all participants - all of them.

Secret, I would have the thought getting the existing ERC members to put half their top teams into an HC competition respected all members?

HammerofThunor wrote:Broadlandboy, that's where the confusion comes in. Because the ERC will effectively cease to exist after 2014 the PRL assumed any European club games would revert to them by the EPS agreement. The RFU believe (and are probably right) that the EPS agreement only deals with the premiership, it would come down to the exact working of the deal.

But yes it is up until the end of the 2015/16 season. The BT TV deal was until 2018.

Kingshuu, true I did miss that bit. Doesn't mean they don't have the right but could easily mean Hosie doesn't believe to do (or should).

If they didn't actually have the legal right it would be a legal challenge. That didn't happen. It wouldn't be a matter of applying pressure or kicking them out, or arguing, or hoping they see reason. It would have been a court case that would have been easily settled.

Hammer, they definately didn't have the legal right to negotiate their own deal for the Six Nations, they were made to hand over money to the Competition, it didn't get to court same as the London Welsh fiasco as they knew they were in the wrong.

No, I don't think one ERC member should have 6 natural chances to get top prize, whilst other ERC members get 2 or 3. No, I don't really call that respect, Recwatcher - I call it loading the dice in your favour.

I don't see much following-on logic or respect either in the idea that one ERC member with a 12 side League still gets the same representation as an ERC member with a 14 side League. That's not what I'd call respect, that's what I'd call loading the dice in your favour.

So talk of half meaning fair all you like Recwatcher - I'll still see two ERC members with at least 6 chances of winning a prize each and others only having 2 or 3 chances. That's not respect - that's a loaded dice.

But we've compromised on that one, haven't we... as the dice became ever more loaded in favour of Top14 and English Premiership. We've compromised, we've lived with the inequality. Yet now, they realise that even a loaded dice has to rely on chance - it won't guaranteed fall with the right number up... and so we need even more lead ballast, don't we - thus the PRL demands

Perhaps the alternative is to just have three French and English sides in the HC competition but would it be commercially viable?

HammerofThunor you say the rights for a Europe comp were the RFU's to sell, which PLC did.

But ERC say the RFU and PLC were present at meeting granted ERC right to sell TV deals covering the same period

"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. Premiership Rugby was party to that decision."

so it looks like RFU and PLC gave premission for ERC to sell the rights, then PLC went behind their backs and sold TV rights they don't own (RFU own them) and have already agreed for ERC to sell!

Of course there are counter arguments and so forth that make the this part of the talks (structure of cup) the easy part.

This is going to drag on and on and on.

PS i think the Pro 12 union suggestion of 32 teams is a great idea.

8 groups of 4, 1st and second in each play knock out for cup, 3rd and 4th play knock out for shield.

How could it be any fairer than that?

Kingshu, A 32 team competition seems fair enough if folk are happy to ditch the elite element. It of course doesn't entirely address the fact that the French want fewer fixtures not the same or the funding element. However I kind of like it.