HEC dead

by justified sinner Tue 10 Sep 2013, 5:32 pm

First topic message reminder :

http://www.premiershiprugby.com/mobile/news/28786.php

At least until ERC and the IRB tell them they're ultra vires.

Interesting times.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 12 Sep 2013, 9:36 am

beshocked wrote:Well said 2nd time round.

IanBru you talk about rewarding achievement? Very funny.

Perhaps Scotland should focus on getting sides to win more consistently in the HC before wanting two extra teams. Glasgow and Edinburgh have win rates that are around 30% and 35% respectively.

You mentioned Saints - well their win rate is around 59% in the HC.

Yawn

by Scrumpy Thu 12 Sep 2013, 9:37 am

Notch wrote:How is four of the six nations involved a 'minority'?

IMO all the clubs need to get around the table and break away from the Unions, as it's the old farts in suits that are causing the problems.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 12 Sep 2013, 9:39 am

From the Torygraph:

The European phoney war is over.

By Quentin Smith, Chairman of Premiership Rugby

RFU must accept that lead taken by top English and French clubs is real. People should not see what has happened in the last 48 hours as a negotiating stance. This is real. The Aviva Premiership rugby clubs along with our Top 14 colleagues are taking the lead rather than being led than others by affirming that we will start an Anglo-French competition in the 2014-15 season.

It is crucial to point out that competition is open to teams from the other four nations. Let us see who comes. I would be amazed if no one else joins us. We will then see what they bring to the party and then work out the competition structure and how the revenues will be distributed.

If countries or teams do not join us and there is a cup among themselves, that is fine. But we and the French have served notice on the ERC Accord, the contract that brings us all together, and there will be no turning back.

If we do not do this, and we do not get support from the Rugby Football Union, and everyone continues to fight, then we just will not have a cross-border competition at the end of the season – and who is interested in that?

The announcement made by ourselves and the LNR breaks the deadlock in European club rugby. It is a decisive move to create stronger, fairer and more ambitious club rugby competitions.

The French and English clubs want to put in place stronger, more ambitious European club rugby competitions. We have always been in agreement with the French clubs about this.

Change is essential after months have passed without a timetable, despite efforts to develop one, we had to act. We need to make sure our clubs and players have cross-border competitions of integrity and value so that whether it is Geoff Parling, Manu Tuilagi, Owen Farrell or George Ford – they are in competition against teams that will contain players who they might meet on the international stage. We want a dynamic tournament that is of benefit to the English game.

Second, we must do something of commercial value to the clubs for their welfare and sustainability. Most of our clubs are losing money.

It may seem as though a lot has happened very quickly but actually how the European competitions are structured, managed and what occurs within them has been a concern to us for a long time.

That is why we, along with the French clubs, served notice to the ERC in June 2012 to leave the accord in two years. But what then happened is that the ERC effectively kicked the matter into the long grass and that we would have to pick it up in September of that year. Even then there was ample time to do something.

Unfortunately, what we have found – notwithstanding our progressive approach, presentation of proposals and the creativity we have brought to the marketplace – that we have been dealing with others whose commercial ambition is maintenance of the status quo. That is not acceptable to us for reasons that have been widely reported.

All we are seeking is a competition that is fairly and competitive structured – both in terms of qualification and seeding – and equal distribution of the revenue. The ERC is controlled by the unions and yet it is really the French and English clubs in their numbers that give it real value in terms of viewing public, wider broadcasting and sponsors.

So we have been bold. We have put a stake in the ground with the French. Instead of shilly-shallying, we have said: “OK everybody, someone is going to have to move on this otherwise we will have another seven months of wafting.”

That is what, frankly, a number of the other unions around the table and the ERC had hoped would happen. They filibustered and procrastinated and thought if we got deep into this season there would not be an alternative created and we would all go for an ‘ERC mark II’. But we are not doing that, because that would mean we would go backwards.

Anyone who reads beyond the headlines will also read that the door is open for anyone else who wants to join. The only place where they should be a battle is on the field of play. Off the field we should all be working for the collective good of the sport we love and all that want to play in it and watch it and enjoy it.

I cannot see that anything we have proposed or are doing detracts from that position. I am somewhere between optimistic and confident that other teams will join us in this tournament.

At the professional game board meeting last week I said to the RFU there were two aspects of this that I asked them to consider. First, that we will not do anything that is not for the benefit of the English game.

Nobody wants to take any money out of the game but they want to be sustainable in the long run to ensure they can continue to run their academies, continue with their community work and bring through players for the England team.

There is a lot of hysteria at the moment but if we put aside emotion and politics and concentrate on the integrity of the competition and the commercial aspects, they have got enduring value.

I do not deny the pressures that are on the RFU but we derive the revenues from the European competition and we have kept them aware all the way through of our concerns.

What ERC should be doing is to concentrate on running the Heineken and Amlin Challenge Cups this season as successfully as they can and then a mechanism for running itself down because there will no longer be a need for it.

What a pompous ar-se - this guy is worse than bell-end McCafferty

But the reply from Phillip Browne of the IRFU is priceless (as reported in the Irish Times):

“Generally we, by that I mean the shareholders in ERC, be it Italian, Scottish, Welsh or ourselves, find it a deplorable way of doing business whereby you have these press statements issued the night before a board meeting with threats and ultimatums.

“Having said that, this is who we have to do business with, and it’s about time we all got down and negotiated properly. We have been accused in the media, by Mark McCafferty and others, of simply stonewalling and not engaging with PRL and LNR, which is a downright lie.

“We have made a number of proposals. We have tried to shift thinking in relation to the competition and we’re quite happy to discuss a whole range of issues, financial distribution, meritocracy, competition structures and formats.

“In any negotiation, nobody gets exactly what they want. We know what we would like but we know we’re probably not going to get exactly what we would like, but that’s the nature of negotiation. Unfortunately that’s not the way other parties across the table appear to think.”What added to Browne’s frustration was, he said, the lack of understanding within the English club game “as to what exactly is going on”.

“ I think there is misinformation and disinformation out there. I don’t like negotiating in public, I don’t think it’s a good way of doing business but apparently that’s the way they do their business, or the people they employ do their business.”

In particular, Browne cited the difference in responsibilities, with the Unions and Federation seeking to protect the well-being of the entire game under their respective jurisdictions, whereas the PRL are solely concerned about acquiring more power and money for the English club game.

“It is fundamentally difficult to make people understand how significant this bodes not only for the future of rugby in Ireland, but for the future of international rugby, because if Scotland, Wales, Ireland or Italy go to the wall as rugby unions, remote as that possibility might be, the international game is going to suffer.

“And if the international game suffers, the whole game suffers.”
Nonetheless, Browne believes negotiations remain “fluid” and that the Heineken Cup can still be saved.

“I have to hope in the better instincts of human nature, and that people will actually, in good faith, sit around a table and try and find a solution.

“This should not be about winners and losers, it should be about trying to make the whole thing work for everyone.

“As to whether we will get there, I don’t know. The IRFU will certainly put its best foot forward and try and make the negotiations work, but it requires all parties to come to the table willing to find real solutions, as opposed to holding guns to people’s heads.”

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 12 Sep 2013, 9:40 am

Scrumpy wrote:
Notch wrote:How is four of the six nations involved a 'minority'?
IMO all the clubs need to get around the table and break away from the Unions, as it's the old farts in suits that are causing the problems.

No, it's the self-interested tw@ts that have only their own pockets in mind that are the problem - rugby is a game for all

by beshocked Thu 12 Sep 2013, 9:40 am

tattie scones you don't like it when your poor record stares you in the face?

Well said Scrumpy. It's quite odd that people actually want unions to run a club competition.

I don't want the RFU involved either. Bunch of bloated fat cats on the gravy train.

Notch 26 AP and Top 14 clubs vs 12 Pro12 clubs - 26-12. Pro12 clubs are in the minority.

by Scrumpy Thu 12 Sep 2013, 9:44 am

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:
Notch wrote:How is four of the six nations involved a 'minority'?
IMO all the clubs need to get around the table and break away from the Unions, as it's the old farts in suits that are causing the problems.
No, it's the self-interested tw@ts that have only their own pockets in mind that are the problem - rugby is a game for all

Nothing wrong with that seeing as ERC and Unions refuse to budge and won't enter into talks about changing the format of the HC.

by beshocked Thu 12 Sep 2013, 9:44 am

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:
Notch wrote:How is four of the six nations involved a 'minority'?
IMO all the clubs need to get around the table and break away from the Unions, as it's the old farts in suits that are causing the problems.
No, it's the self-interested tw@ts that have only their own pockets in mind that are the problem - rugby is a game for all

The RFU are a bunch of self interested tw@ts too. The amount they charge for tickets at Twickenham for example. Shafting loyal debenture holders for the RWC too so they can milk as much money as they can.

The WRU have an extra game every season in the AIs to line their pockets. They don't give a damn about the Welsh clubs in my opinion. Just think about much money they can make.

The Unions are hardly the angels you probably think they are.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 12 Sep 2013, 9:45 am

Scrumpy wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:
Notch wrote:How is four of the six nations involved a 'minority'?
IMO all the clubs need to get around the table and break away from the Unions, as it's the old farts in suits that are causing the problems.
No, it's the self-interested tw@ts that have only their own pockets in mind that are the problem - rugby is a game for all
Nothing wrong with that seeing as ERC and Unions refuse to budge and won't enter into talks about changing the format of the HC.

You actually don't know what you are talking about - can you not read what the IRFU guy said? I even quoted it for you above picard

I despair

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 12 Sep 2013, 9:47 am

beshocked wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:
Notch wrote:How is four of the six nations involved a 'minority'?
IMO all the clubs need to get around the table and break away from the Unions, as it's the old farts in suits that are causing the problems.
No, it's the self-interested tw@ts that have only their own pockets in mind that are the problem - rugby is a game for all
The RFU are a bunch of self interested tw@ts too. The amount they charge for tickets at Twickenham for example. Shafting loyal debenture holders for the RWC too so they can milk as much money as they can.

The WRFU have an extra game every season in the AIs to line their pockets. They don't give a damn about the Welsh clubs in my opinion. Just think about much money they can make.

The Unions are hardly the angels you probably think they are.

beshocked, you are so full of it. The unions have responsibility for running the whole game, from the mini rugby club my kid goes to right thru to the international teams - they may not be perfect, but at least they have a wider interest than the self-serving PRL - wake up, man

by Luckless Pedestrian Thu 12 Sep 2013, 9:47 am

In particular, Browne cited the difference in responsibilities, with the Unions and Federation seeking to protect the well-being of the entire game under their respective jurisdictions, whereas the PRL are solely concerned about acquiring more power and money for the English club game.

That's about the size of it.

by beshocked Thu 12 Sep 2013, 9:58 am

You say running the whole game (what exactly does that contail?). It's the clubs who ultimately develop the players for international rugby. The Unions need to keep the clubs on side.

I certainly know how good Unions are at disrupting clubs. The likes of Ospreys have had their HC campaigns hampered by the WRU's greed in regard to that 4th international game. Saracens had their end of season campaign hampered by RFU when they basically swooped in for Andy Farrell despite him being on a long term contract.

Wake up yourself - Unions have just as much self interests than the PRL if not more so.

At least with a chairman like Nigel Wray for Sarries for example I know he cares about the club. He's a true rugby fan who knows what he's talking about too.

Ultimately it seems like again it's Unions vs Clubs - the HC is a club competition.

The Unions should not be involved in a club competition.

Rugby union is split into two - international rugby and club rugby. The Unions shouldn't run club rugby.

by Guest Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:05 am

beshocked wrote:tattie scones you don't like it when your poor record stares you in the face?

Well said Scrumpy. It's quite odd that people actually want unions to run a club competition.

I don't want the RFU involved either. Bunch of bloated fat cats on the gravy train.

Notch 26 AP and Top 14 clubs vs 12 Pro12 clubs - 26-12. Pro12 clubs are in the minority.

26 AP teams? Really?

So you think voting rights should be based on amount of clubs, and not each to a Union? I don't think you are doing your credibility much good here, beshocked.

by Toadfish Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:06 am

There is obviously a great deal of passion about this whole debate on both sides and the more I read the more I feel there just won't be a solution. The two opposing sides just want different things and while there could be a comprimise it would leave a bitter taste in the mouth for one side or the other. Perhaps it's best if we each go our seperate ways? It was nice while it lasted but onwards and upwards.

by Scrumpy Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:15 am

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:
Notch wrote:How is four of the six nations involved a 'minority'?
IMO all the clubs need to get around the table and break away from the Unions, as it's the old farts in suits that are causing the problems.
No, it's the self-interested tw@ts that have only their own pockets in mind that are the problem - rugby is a game for all
Nothing wrong with that seeing as ERC and Unions refuse to budge and won't enter into talks about changing the format of the HC.
You actually don't know what you are talking about - can you not read what the IRFU guy said? I even quoted it for you above I despair

And you do Laugh

What a Numpty.

by maestegmafia Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:17 am

Toadfish wrote:There is obviously a great deal of passion about this whole debate on both sides and the more I read the more I feel there just won't be a solution. The two opposing sides just want different things and while there could be a comprimise it would leave a bitter taste in the mouth for one side or the other. Perhaps it's best if we each go our seperate ways? It was nice while it lasted but onwards and upwards.

That is not true. There may be two sides being drawn here but i think pretty much everyone wants to see a great rugby competition that represents the best of European Rugby.

by Scrumpy Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:21 am

maestegmafia wrote:That is not true. There may be two sides being drawn here but i think pretty much everyone wants to see a great rugby competition that represents the best of European Rugby.

If thats the case the automatic qualification for some needs to be kicked into touch, ERC have had 5 years to sort this out as they knew the contract was ending yet they have refused to budge. You can't blame the English and French clubs for wanting more control seeing as they make up 2/3 of the teams.

by Student-A1 Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:23 am

AsLongAsBut100ofUs, I don't get your attitude here. You quote two people one you agree with and one you don't then spout that one is obviously gospel and the other as nonsense.

I fail to see what the English and French clubs are doing wrong. They wanted change, they gave the notice as per the contract they were signed up to. They are not happy with the contract as it stands and have been unable to get to a point where they agree to sign up to a contract to go on from 2014. What should they do?? Sign up to a contract that they do not believe in and do not want?? I have no issues with the other nations in the ERC not signing on to the new club competition being mentioned as that is their right just as it is the English and French clubs right to not agree to extend a deal due to expire.

by Toadfish Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:23 am

maestegmafia wrote:
Toadfish wrote:There is obviously a great deal of passion about this whole debate on both sides and the more I read the more I feel there just won't be a solution. The two opposing sides just want different things and while there could be a comprimise it would leave a bitter taste in the mouth for one side or the other. Perhaps it's best if we each go our seperate ways? It was nice while it lasted but onwards and upwards.
That is not true. There may be two sides being drawn here but i think pretty much everyone wants to see a great rugby competition that represents the best of European Rugby.

What I gave was an opinion, not a fact and thus I would rather you didn't claim it to be 'untrue'. If you have a different opinion feel free to express it.

by ScarletSpiderman Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:25 am

beshocked wrote:tattie scones you don't like it when your poor record stares you in the face?

Well said Scrumpy. It's quite odd that people actually want unions to run a club competition.

I don't want the RFU involved either. Bunch of bloated fat cats on the gravy train.

Notch 26 AP and Top 14 clubs vs 12 Pro12 clubs - 26-12. Pro12 clubs are in the minority.

But it isn't that is it. Look at the people who are involved

PRL, RFU
LNR, FFR
FIR, FIR
WRU, RRW
IRFU, IRFU
SRU, SRU

So I make that 2 (possibly 4) against 8 (possible 6). That is a fair bit of a miss match.

by Poorfour Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:26 am

Munchkin wrote:
beshocked wrote:tattie scones you don't like it when your poor record stares you in the face?

Well said Scrumpy. It's quite odd that people actually want unions to run a club competition.

I don't want the RFU involved either. Bunch of bloated fat cats on the gravy train.

Notch 26 AP and Top 14 clubs vs 12 Pro12 clubs - 26-12. Pro12 clubs are in the minority.
26 AP teams? Really?

So you think voting rights should be based on amount of clubs, and not each to a Union? I don't think you are doing your credibility much good here, beshocked.

Credibility with whom? With a bunch of fans who know that their vested interest lies in defending a status quo that gives their side of the argument a disproportionate share of the power and money?

And you think that clubs should be forced to toe the line and accept terms negotiated by a group of unions that has very different interests and priorities and where the bulk of the voting power lies with the unions that represent the minority of clubs (and players)?

Neither position (union domination or club domination) is ideal, and there needs to be a balance. The current position is overwhelming biased in favour of the unions. That's simply not sustainable if you genuinely want a "best of Europe" competition (which is what several of you repeatedly claim you want).

by Guest Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:27 am

Toadfish wrote:There is obviously a great deal of passion about this whole debate on both sides and the more I read the more I feel there just won't be a solution. The two opposing sides just want different things and while there could be a comprimise it would leave a bitter taste in the mouth for one side or the other. Perhaps it's best if we each go our seperate ways? It was nice while it lasted but onwards and upwards.

It really wouldn't be best for PRL to split from the Unions, Toadfish, and I don't believe they will. What they want is power to dictate their own terms to the Unions, whilst remaining under the umbrella of the RFU/IRB. What sort of relationship exists between the RFU, and PRL? Does the tail wag the dog?

by trebellbobaggins Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:28 am

If the polarised views in here tells us anything , it's that this really can't be resolved and there will be two competitions in future.

It's the only way the Anglo/French will get what they want and the Celts get what they want.

The hostility between them looks too far gone.

by Standulstermen Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:29 am

Beshocked you are losing it a little. The IRFU have said they are will to negotiate and compromise on format, qualification and revenue, something we haven't heard directly from PRL.

We also have the statement from the chairman and from mccafferty saying the negotiation is over and they will form a new league but at the meeting yesterday they are apparently willing to negotiate.

Nigel Wray is the problem in microcosm. He went on yesterday about what the fans want. The vast majority of fans don't want an anglo french competition and want the HEC retained in some format (restructured or not). The last thing Nigel Wray gives a sh1t about is the fans.

Also it's great to talk tough on the union but without the rfu and the unions you don't have a game. Are the English clubs not subsidised by the rfu aswell? Obviously not entirely but they are. If they want schism they will find that they want last very long without the union, selling an inferior product which no one wants.

If the PRL or LNR even contemplated talking as tough as some on this thread the IRB would step in and they would be ostracised from the game.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:31 am

Student-A1 wrote:AsLongAsBut100ofUs, I don't get your attitude here. You quote two people one you agree with and one you don't then spout that one is obviously gospel and the other as nonsense.

I fail to see what the English and French clubs are doing wrong. They wanted change, they gave the notice as per the contract they were signed up to. They are not happy with the contract as it stands and have been unable to get to a point where they agree to sign up to a contract to go on from 2014. What should they do?? Sign up to a contract that they do not believe in and do not want?? I have no issues with the other nations in the ERC not signing on to the new club competition being mentioned as that is their right just as it is the English and French clubs right to not agree to extend a deal due to expire.

Student, at a minimum, I'd ask the PRL not to lie about the negotiating process - furry nuff if you don't care about that

by maestegmafia Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:32 am

Dont the RFU still think that what the PRL are doing is illegal, they said so before. They have certainly distanced themselves from the PRL decisions.

by Toadfish Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:33 am

Munchkin wrote:
Toadfish wrote:There is obviously a great deal of passion about this whole debate on both sides and the more I read the more I feel there just won't be a solution. The two opposing sides just want different things and while there could be a comprimise it would leave a bitter taste in the mouth for one side or the other. Perhaps it's best if we each go our seperate ways? It was nice while it lasted but onwards and upwards.
It really wouldn't be best for PRL to split from the Unions, Toadfish, and I don't believe they will. What they want is power to dictate their own terms to the Unions, whilst remaining under the umbrella of the RFU/IRB. What sort of relationship exists between the RFU, and PRL? Does the tail wag the dog?

In terms of their relationship I think it is better than it has been and in terms of power I'd say there has been a slight shift towards the PRL. They seem to be working ok together and I see no reason why the RFU would stand in their way. The move to the new competition would not be ideal but would allow them to form a competition which they were happy with the format whilst also increasing their financial return. Obviously the new compeition wouldn't be as good as the old HC but I think that would be a price they would be willing to pay.

by Guest Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:34 am

Poorfour wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
beshocked wrote:tattie scones you don't like it when your poor record stares you in the face?

Well said Scrumpy. It's quite odd that people actually want unions to run a club competition.

I don't want the RFU involved either. Bunch of bloated fat cats on the gravy train.

Notch 26 AP and Top 14 clubs vs 12 Pro12 clubs - 26-12. Pro12 clubs are in the minority.
26 AP teams? Really?

So you think voting rights should be based on amount of clubs, and not each to a Union? I don't think you are doing your credibility much good here, beshocked.
Credibility with whom? With a bunch of fans who know that their vested interest lies in defending a status quo that gives their side of the argument a disproportionate share of the power and money?

And you think that clubs should be forced to toe the line and accept terms negotiated by a group of unions that has very different interests and priorities and where the bulk of the voting power lies with the unions that represent the minority of clubs (and players)?

Neither position (union domination or club domination) is ideal, and there needs to be a balance. The current position is overwhelming biased in favour of the unions. That's simply not sustainable if you genuinely want a "best of Europe" competition (which is what several of you repeatedly claim you want).

Credibility with anyone interested in facts, and intellectual honesty, I would think, Poorfour.

As to that which is highlighted in bold. Absolutely, yes, because the interest of those same Unions lies in the growth, and welfare, of the game throughout Europe, and not in shallow self-interested ambition for short-term financial gain.

by maestegmafia Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:36 am

Munchkin wrote:
Poorfour wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
beshocked wrote:tattie scones you don't like it when your poor record stares you in the face?

Well said Scrumpy. It's quite odd that people actually want unions to run a club competition.

I don't want the RFU involved either. Bunch of bloated fat cats on the gravy train.

Notch 26 AP and Top 14 clubs vs 12 Pro12 clubs - 26-12. Pro12 clubs are in the minority.
26 AP teams? Really?

So you think voting rights should be based on amount of clubs, and not each to a Union? I don't think you are doing your credibility much good here, beshocked.
Credibility with whom? With a bunch of fans who know that their vested interest lies in defending a status quo that gives their side of the argument a disproportionate share of the power and money?

And you think that clubs should be forced to toe the line and accept terms negotiated by a group of unions that has very different interests and priorities and where the bulk of the voting power lies with the unions that represent the minority of clubs (and players)?

Neither position (union domination or club domination) is ideal, and there needs to be a balance. The current position is overwhelming biased in favour of the unions. That's simply not sustainable if you genuinely want a "best of Europe" competition (which is what several of you repeatedly claim you want).
Credibility with anyone interested in facts, and intellectual honesty, I would think, Poorfour.

As to that which is highlighted in bold. Absolutely, yes, because the interest of those same Unions lies in the growth, and welfare, of the game throughout Europe, and not in shallow self-interested ambition for short-term financial gain.

100% correct Munchkin

by Poorfour Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:39 am

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
Student-A1 wrote:AsLongAsBut100ofUs, I don't get your attitude here. You quote two people one you agree with and one you don't then spout that one is obviously gospel and the other as nonsense.

I fail to see what the English and French clubs are doing wrong. They wanted change, they gave the notice as per the contract they were signed up to. They are not happy with the contract as it stands and have been unable to get to a point where they agree to sign up to a contract to go on from 2014. What should they do?? Sign up to a contract that they do not believe in and do not want?? I have no issues with the other nations in the ERC not signing on to the new club competition being mentioned as that is their right just as it is the English and French clubs right to not agree to extend a deal due to expire.
Student, at a minimum, I'd ask the PRL not to lie about the negotiating process - furry nuff if you don't care about that

How do you know that they are lying?

All we've seen are a bunch of press releases in which both sides are briefing their perspective. You only have the other side's word for it that they are lying, and they are hardly impartial.

At least the PRL have maintained a consistent position over the last year or so and have set out what they've asked for and the outline of what they've offered.

by Scrumpy Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:40 am

The HC is Dead in the water.

I for one will continue to enjoy the Aviva week in week out, every game has a great atmosphere as fans pay to watch their teams home and away and don't rely on hand outs from ERC.

Enjoy the Rabo whilst it last but without the money from the HC some of the teams will struggle which is sad, but at the same time they had a chance to do something about it but they were unwilling to change the status quo as it suited them at the time.

by Student-A1 Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:43 am

AsLongAsBut100ofUs, what proof of a lie do you have?? I have been completely underwhelmed by the willingness to negotiate from the other Unions, and the nonsense on here about improving the game as a whole is a lie. They are concerned solely about there own Unions/Clubs. As is there priority and right, but the only proposals that would of included helping emerging nations was the one by the English/French.

Yes they want more money and control, but why shouldn't they negotiate to get a package they believe is fair? I struggle to see how the argument of 6 nations so that's how it is split. It's 3 leagues that provide the competitors so having the money split equally between those 3 leagues is just plain logical.

My opinion of the two quotes of paper articles is that one comes over as a reasoned approach and the other as a bitter sulking baby who has just realized the other side were not bluffing. Obviously these opinions will mean I don't care about rugby but oh well. Before getting invlved in this thread I really didn't care that much about which way it went, but now I hope the split happens. I just fail to see why two leagues that are constantly aiming to get more successful and competitive are frowned upon whilst a league that just isn't supported and is failing. I also don't understand the idea that the PRL or their French equivalent owe the Celtic nations and Italians. Lets remember it was the PRL and French that wanted a competition to help the Russians, Georgians etc. that is growing the game not just spoon feeding poorly run Celtic Unions.

by maestegmafia Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:47 am

Poorfour wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
Student-A1 wrote:AsLongAsBut100ofUs, I don't get your attitude here. You quote two people one you agree with and one you don't then spout that one is obviously gospel and the other as nonsense.

I fail to see what the English and French clubs are doing wrong. They wanted change, they gave the notice as per the contract they were signed up to. They are not happy with the contract as it stands and have been unable to get to a point where they agree to sign up to a contract to go on from 2014. What should they do?? Sign up to a contract that they do not believe in and do not want?? I have no issues with the other nations in the ERC not signing on to the new club competition being mentioned as that is their right just as it is the English and French clubs right to not agree to extend a deal due to expire.
Student, at a minimum, I'd ask the PRL not to lie about the negotiating process - furry nuff if you don't care about that
How do you know that they are lying?

All we've seen are a bunch of press releases in which both sides are briefing their perspective. You only have the other side's word for it that they are lying, and they are hardly impartial.

At least the PRL have maintained a consistent position over the last year or so and have set out what they've asked for and the outline of what they've offered.

What have the PRL offered...?

This is part of the whole distrust. They sell rights that they have no right to sell for a competition that a year later no one has seen the format of.

why would anyone in the right mind think that what the PRL has is a better offer for European rugby... As far as we can see they don't have an offer.

by Tattie Scones RRN Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:47 am

beshocked wrote:tattie scones you don't like it when your poor record stares you in the face?

Well said Scrumpy. It's quite odd that people actually want unions to run a club competition.

I don't want the RFU involved either. Bunch of bloated fat cats on the gravy train.

Notch 26 AP and Top 14 clubs vs 12 Pro12 clubs - 26-12. Pro12 clubs are in the minority.

Mr Bru was taking the pash.....which obviously went way over your head.

Its not that poor - it was only last year that Edinburgh reached the semi's no?

Keep an eye on Glasgow this year. They'll be pretty confident of making it out of their group and from then on, who knows.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:52 am

Poorfour wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
Student-A1 wrote:AsLongAsBut100ofUs, I don't get your attitude here. You quote two people one you agree with and one you don't then spout that one is obviously gospel and the other as nonsense.

I fail to see what the English and French clubs are doing wrong. They wanted change, they gave the notice as per the contract they were signed up to. They are not happy with the contract as it stands and have been unable to get to a point where they agree to sign up to a contract to go on from 2014. What should they do?? Sign up to a contract that they do not believe in and do not want?? I have no issues with the other nations in the ERC not signing on to the new club competition being mentioned as that is their right just as it is the English and French clubs right to not agree to extend a deal due to expire.
Student, at a minimum, I'd ask the PRL not to lie about the negotiating process - furry nuff if you don't care about that
How do you know that they are lying?

All we've seen are a bunch of press releases in which both sides are briefing their perspective. You only have the other side's word for it that they are lying, and they are hardly impartial.

At least the PRL have maintained a consistent position over the last year or so and have set out what they've asked for and the outline of what they've offered.

Poorfour, you're an intelligent man, I'm pretty sure you will work out which side is closer to the truth

by Poorfour Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:55 am

Munchkin wrote:
Poorfour wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
beshocked wrote:tattie scones you don't like it when your poor record stares you in the face?

Well said Scrumpy. It's quite odd that people actually want unions to run a club competition.

I don't want the RFU involved either. Bunch of bloated fat cats on the gravy train.

Notch 26 AP and Top 14 clubs vs 12 Pro12 clubs - 26-12. Pro12 clubs are in the minority.
26 AP teams? Really?

So you think voting rights should be based on amount of clubs, and not each to a Union? I don't think you are doing your credibility much good here, beshocked.
Credibility with whom? With a bunch of fans who know that their vested interest lies in defending a status quo that gives their side of the argument a disproportionate share of the power and money?

And you think that clubs should be forced to toe the line and accept terms negotiated by a group of unions that has very different interests and priorities and where the bulk of the voting power lies with the unions that represent the minority of clubs (and players)?

Neither position (union domination or club domination) is ideal, and there needs to be a balance. The current position is overwhelming biased in favour of the unions. That's simply not sustainable if you genuinely want a "best of Europe" competition (which is what several of you repeatedly claim you want).
Credibility with anyone interested in facts, and intellectual honesty, I would think, Poorfour.

As to that which is highlighted in bold. Absolutely, yes, because the interest of those same Unions lies in the growth, and welfare, of the game throughout Europe, and not in shallow self-interested ambition for short-term financial gain.

So, what you've written there is in effect accusing me of being intellectually dishonest and having no interest in the facts. Please could you point to where I have displayed either of these traits, because in my mind I have consistently tried to argue only from the available facts and be intellectually honest about where I stand and why I feel my views are worth consideration? In response to which, I should add, I have largely received responses that merely restate a position with no serious effort to consider the other side of the argument, and have been distinctly sparing in consideration of facts.

It takes a lot to offend me, but you've done it.

Take your last point, for example. Where are the facts that show the unions have the long term interests of the game at heart? Or that the club owners are only in it for short term profit? The WRU are accused of lining their pockets and damaging the regions chances by playing extra AIs; the SRU is struggling even to maintain two teams; the RFU were asleep at the wheel when professionalism started and are regularly accused of ripping off fans.

Meanwhile, the much despised money-men behind the PRL have bankrolled the game to the tune of about £6-10m per club over the last 15 years. Most of them are yet to see a profit and most of them have invested heavily in trying to make the game sustainable. Which, by the way, even the RFU doesn't have deep enough pockets to achieve. I am not saying they're spotless - but to accuse them of short term profit taking is in direct contradiction of the facts.

Where's your intellectual honesty now?

by ScarletSpiderman Thu 12 Sep 2013, 10:55 am

Student-A1 wrote:AsLongAsBut100ofUs, what proof of a lie do you have?? I have been completely underwhelmed by the willingness to negotiate from the other Unions, and the nonsense on here about improving the game as a whole is a lie. They are concerned solely about there own Unions/Clubs. As is there priority and right, but the only proposals that would of included helping emerging nations was the one by the English/French.

Yes they want more money and control, but why shouldn't they negotiate to get a package they believe is fair? I struggle to see how the argument of 6 nations so that's how it is split. It's 3 leagues that provide the competitors so having the money split equally between those 3 leagues is just plain logical.
My opinion of the two quotes of paper articles is that one comes over as a reasoned approach and the other as a bitter sulking baby who has just realized the other side were not bluffing. Obviously these opinions will mean I don't care about rugby but oh well. Before getting invlved in this thread I really didn't care that much about which way it went, but now I hope the split happens. I just fail to see why two leagues that are constantly aiming to get more successful and competitive are frowned upon whilst a league that just isn't supported and is failing. I also don't understand the idea that the PRL or their French equivalent owe the Celtic nations and Italians. Lets remember it was the PRL and French that wanted a competition to help the Russians, Georgians etc. that is growing the game not just spoon feeding poorly run Celtic Unions.

So IF we stop entering our regions/provinces and instead enter Pontypridd and Llanelli RFC (top two welsh representives), Moglanio and Overmach Parma (Instead of Zbre and Treviso), Glasgow Academicals and Ayr (for Scotland) and, Ballynahinch and Clontarf (as the Irish sides), then we should be getting an equal share, as it is then four leagues? After all going by leagues is the logical way of doing things!

Logic is brilliant as it all depends onthe idividual, and how their mind works, and can be easily bent to suit your arguement.

by Standulstermen Thu 12 Sep 2013, 11:00 am

A lot of people are underestimating how successful a new Celtic league with sky could be. Especially given that as the vast majority of teams are subsidised heavily by unions and the lack of HEC mean said unions can use those weekends to generate that money be it through restructuring the league or looking at some international forms.

Yes there would definitely Be obstacles but no more so for the English and French given their product would be devalued.

by Student-A1 Thu 12 Sep 2013, 11:01 am

ScarletSpiderman, yes that is what I mean by equal money for the leagues. I would go slightly further and say that if a league had say 6 positions that were available for qualification and one had 2 out of a total of 24 then I would say that the money should be split 6/24 and 2/24 to the relevant leagues. As the countries are not capable of running there own leagues it won't happen, but I don't believe that the English and French clubs should not have equal share due to other countries inability to run successful leagues.

by broadlandboy Thu 12 Sep 2013, 11:02 am

Lets see A side that has kept to the agreement & given notice because of no negiotations against a side that has constantly said that it wants the status quo. A side that wants to develop a third tier to promote rugby in other European countries v a side whose only proposal has been a closed competition between 32 teams from only 6 Unions

by **profitius** Thu 12 Sep 2013, 11:04 am

It looks like this will all blow up in the PRL's face. Among the lastest lies, threats and ultimatums there was this little gem in the last paragraph.. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/10303492/Welsh-plea-to-English-and-French-to-save-Heineken-Cup.html

"If the RFU and the FFR decide not to support us then there will be no European club rugby. Some of the best rugby played is in the European Cup competition. There is no way back.”

Sounds like they're threatening on the one hand and pleading with the RFU on the other hand. They're not in such a strong position after all.

What I take from that is there'll be no HEC cup and there'll be no Anglo French cup. Therefore the PRL lose out on their BT contract or a large part of that contract. In other words it looks like a massive gamble on their part and they're not sure of it succeeding. It all depends on the RFU and FFR and we all know what they think of the clubs already.

by trebellbobaggins Thu 12 Sep 2013, 11:05 am

Standulstermen wrote:A lot of people are underestimating how successful a new Celtic league with sky could be. Especially given that as the vast majority of teams are subsidised heavily by unions and the lack of HEC mean said unions can use those weekends to generate that money be it through restructuring the league or looking at some international forms.

Yes there would definitely Be obstacles but no more so for the English and French given their product would be devalued.

Would the viewing numbers be high enough for sky to see it as a viable replacement for the hc?

by beshocked Thu 12 Sep 2013, 11:07 am

Well said broadlandboy.

Tattie scones oh right back to Edinburgh's flash in a pan.Remind me how did last season in the HC?

I know about Glasgow. The amount of hype surrounding them I expect them to lift the trophy!

by **profitius** Thu 12 Sep 2013, 11:09 am

broadlandboy wrote:Lets see A side that has kept to the agreement & given notice because of no negiotations against a side that has constantly said that it wants the status quo. A side that wants to develop a third tier to promote rugby in other European countries v a side whose only proposal has been a closed competition between 32 teams from only 6 Unions

Actually the clubs are the ones who have not budged an inch in negotiations. They also want the clubs to dominate Europe by having the most money, thereby putting professional rugby at threat in some countries where its currently growing. More could be done to grow the game from everyone but if you're seriously suggesting the clubs are interested in growing the game then you could not be more wrong.

by Student-A1 Thu 12 Sep 2013, 11:09 am

Standulstermen, this in no way is meant to be read as I am having a go at your comment but the issue you mention about more internationals has been raised a few times. But people have mentioned IRB approval here about and English French cup but it would be needed here, international windows and all. Then you have player release from the English and French clubs. It just seems to be easy to say but would be so difficult to sort out if at all possible. I would also have my doubts over especially with the Welsh RFU over how much money the regions would see from any extra internationals as they make the English RFU seem well run which is something I never thought I would say.
With the Sky deal coming in I have no doubt the Rabo will be more successful as they will push it better than the BBC, so this I believe strengthens the argument for each league getting equal money for the HEC and a different qualifying process. I am sure Sky will want a league where teams in 7th and 8th are fighting for that 6th spot. Anything to pull in viewers.

by Luckless Pedestrian Thu 12 Sep 2013, 11:09 am

profitius wrote:It looks like this will all blow up in the PRL's face. Among the lastest lies, threats and ultimatums there was this little gem in the last paragraph.. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/10303492/Welsh-plea-to-English-and-French-to-save-Heineken-Cup.html

"If the RFU and the FFR decide not to support us then there will be no European club rugby. Some of the best rugby played is in the European Cup competition. There is no way back.”
Sounds like they're threatening on the one hand and pleading with the RFU on the other hand. They're not in such a strong position after all.

What I take from that is there'll be no HEC cup and there'll be no Anglo French cup. Therefore the PRL lose out on their BT contract or a large part of that contract. In other words it looks like a massive gamble on their part and they're not sure of it succeeding. It all depends on the RFU and FFR and we all know what they think of the clubs already.

Or if there is an Anglo-French cup, it'll be outside the auspices of the IRB and could land the RFU and FFR in deep trouble. The English and French clubs' money will still tempt players from other countries, but that lure would be weakened if they knew that, by signing, they ran the risk of making themselves ineligible to play Test rugby.

Someone here's already mentioned Kerry Packer, haven't they?

by **Rugby Fan** Thu 12 Sep 2013, 11:16 am

Munchkin wrote:...the interest of those same Unions lies in the growth, and welfare, of the game throughout Europe, and not in shallow self-interested ambition for short-term financial gain.

That claim doesn't tally with the actions of the unions. No side has a monopoly on greed, ambition and self-interest. Presenting it as a clear dichotomy is a recipe for getting no agreement.

by Toadfish Thu 12 Sep 2013, 11:18 am

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:
profitius wrote:It looks like this will all blow up in the PRL's face. Among the lastest lies, threats and ultimatums there was this little gem in the last paragraph.. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/10303492/Welsh-plea-to-English-and-French-to-save-Heineken-Cup.html

"If the RFU and the FFR decide not to support us then there will be no European club rugby. Some of the best rugby played is in the European Cup competition. There is no way back.”
Sounds like they're threatening on the one hand and pleading with the RFU on the other hand. They're not in such a strong position after all.

What I take from that is there'll be no HEC cup and there'll be no Anglo French cup. Therefore the PRL lose out on their BT contract or a large part of that contract. In other words it looks like a massive gamble on their part and they're not sure of it succeeding. It all depends on the RFU and FFR and we all know what they think of the clubs already.
Or if there is an Anglo-French cup, it'll be outside the auspices of the IRB and could land the RFU and FFR in deep trouble. The English and French clubs' money will still tempt players from other countries, but that lure would be weakened if they knew that, by signing, they ran the risk of making themselves ineligible to play Test rugby.

Someone here's already mentioned Kerry Packer, haven't they?

Why would it be outside the auspices of the IRB? The French and English have no contractual obligation to play in a competition from the end of next season. Why would they stop a new competition? I suppose the other option for them would be to force both countries into a competition they didn't want to be part but last I checked the IRB weren't some kind of fascist dictatorship?

Also if you are trying to use the Packer reference as a stick to beat the PRL with you don't really know your history.

by Standulstermen Thu 12 Sep 2013, 11:18 am

trebellbobaggins wrote:
Standulstermen wrote:A lot of people are underestimating how successful a new Celtic league with sky could be. Especially given that as the vast majority of teams are subsidised heavily by unions and the lack of HEC mean said unions can use those weekends to generate that money be it through restructuring the league or looking at some international forms.

Yes there would definitely Be obstacles but no more so for the English and French given their product would be devalued.
Would the viewing numbers be high enough for sky to see it as a viable replacement for the hc?

Sky are on board anyway but obviously the money will not be near HEC proportions. How any future Celtic league would be structured needs to be thought out to make up the shortfall or indeed can it be done through international rugby. Who knows. Some of the language coming from the French is quite spicy now.

"(The IRB) understands our message - and, besides, nobody can prevent us from establishing a new competition.
That's taken from Paul Goze. I'm not sure of there is a translation issue but the reality is that both the unions and the IRB can stop them dead in their tracks.

by Luckless Pedestrian Thu 12 Sep 2013, 11:19 am

Rugby Fan, fair point, but it's a fact that PRL care only for its small number of clubs. Each union, on the other hand, looks after hundreds of clubs.

by ScarletSpiderman Thu 12 Sep 2013, 11:23 am

Student-A1 wrote:ScarletSpiderman, yes that is what I mean by equal money for the leagues. I would go slightly further and say that if a league had say 6 positions that were available for qualification and one had 2 out of a total of 24 then I would say that the money should be split 6/24 and 2/24 to the relevant leagues. As the countries are not capable of running there own leagues it won't happen, but I don't believe that the English and French clubs should not have equal share due to other countries inability to run successful leagues.

I can't get my head around the arguement your making. You would be willing to give more money to the celtic regions, if we entered our semi-pro sides instead, as they would be from our leagues? Also going by other peoples arguements if we did do this then the number of teams allowed in from the JEff/T14 should be cut too. In th einterest of fairness, and logic seeing as there would be 6 leagues involved, then that should be 4 teams per league, and the money spread evenly amongst the 6 leagues involved. I would be all for that!

by Sponsored content