HEC dead

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.

butterfingers wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:

Notch wrote:I don't disagree with you. Thats been something fans on all sides have wanted from the start.

It's very difficult to get that with the English negotiating tactics. It's not even so what they want- its the way they're trying to bully everyone else into 'breaking' instead of meeting us half-way.

I really don't see how anyone is bullying anyone else. The negotiations have been pathetic by all side, the contract was up and there was zero Urgency so I do ask the question whether the current ERC is competent enough to run such a complex tournament of nations.

With negotiations seemingly going nowhere notice was given by the French and English. In what was that bullying?? Why didn't the other nations offer alternative proposals??
Then with time seemingly run out and no deal reached the two sides who have the issue have come together asking what should they do. And they have come to the idea of a new competition.

I have always loved the Heineken and also the Amlin but if two parties are that against the format for multiple reasons and the others are unwilling to budge or offer any alternative then I can't see what alternative they had. To just say ok lets sign up to the same deal would be wrong as they have genuine concerns.

Student

You need to read up a touch, the PRL and LNR are in no way together. The PRL have sold the rights to a tournament they do not own in an attempt to bully everyone else, the PRL are the hugely silly aggressors, in a particularly uncomplicated scenario. They have hired a corporate psycho to fight for every inch and the only way he knows how is to bully, intimidate, and focus on nothing more than rugbys equivilant of a coup on the ERC!

Prob best not questioning my knowledge on this could go badly for you.
Lets recap, the PRL as have stated were signed up to a contract where the ERC sorted out the TV rights. News flash for you, the contract is up before the TV deal they have signed begins, hence why all the hysteria now about no cup competition. They are signed up to no contracts with anyone that says ERC continues to sort out TV contracts after this current campaign. Also should be noted that a superior package was negotiated, it helps when you aren't cosying up to SKY and actually sell your product to a competitive market.

Who sanctions this non existant tournament that the PRL have sold? Who participates in this fictional tournament? It's quite simple you can't sell what you don't own, and if you sell imaginary rights to a tournament you have pulled out of your going to come unstuck when the owners laugh at you!

So you'd be happy if Wales sell the rights for the same non existant tournament to lets say ESPN for similar money to the BT deal but Wales benefit massively over the other nations, but England barely benefits?

It isn't for me to judge Wales if they did that, the fact would be that they would be well within their rights to as they are not signed up to any ERC contract that says they cannot. I can honestly say I wouldn't have the breakdown that some people have had with what the PRL have done.

Student-A1 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:"Lets recap, the PRL as have stated were signed up to a contract where the ERC sorted out the TV rights. News flash for you, the contract is up before the TV deal they have signed begins, hence why all the hysteria now about no cup competition. They are signed up to no contracts with anyone that says ERC continues to sort out TV contracts after this current campaign. Also should be noted that a superior package was negotiated, it helps when you aren't cosying up to SKY and actually sell your product to a competitive market"

What are the terms of that contract?

Not really the main point there is it?? Regardless of what it is I don't care, it could be one penny and a banana but the fact is they are not bound by any contract that says they couldn't sign such a deal.

Of course it's the main point. You're trying to argue in support of a contract of which you don't know the details of, and neither anyone else but the PRL bosses, and BT apparently.

butterfingers wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:The Great Aukster, do you mean giving each club in the competition an equal share so to promote a more competitive league when you say about the Aviva?? Thus meaning that all teams have it within their means to get to the qualification process if managed/coached correctly.

I love the arguments on here saying the clubs are greedy. It is a product (the Euro Cup) where the commodities that create the money are the clubs. It is each of these clubs that should be equally rewarded. If one league/Union is providing a third of the clubs then they should get a third of the royalties produced from the overall product.

It is the job of each Union to look after their own nation primarily, it is not the job of other Unions to help other non-emerging nations Unions. I am all in favour of helping out nations like Georgia and so forth but Wales and Ireland are in no way an emerging nation.

To say the international game will suffer because of any of this is stupid. Having a meaningless Amlin cup doesn't help but one which had better teams in would. A third tier competition for emerging nations would help. These are all proposals made by the big bad horrible PRL.

But neither the PRL or the LNR supply a third of the clubs. Or are you talking about the proposed league? If there was compromise I suspect you still wouldn't see the PRL and LNR supplying a third of teams as the Rabo would insist on 8 spaces. Just my two cents. No one knows how any negotiations would pan out

Your still not recognising the 2 key points though...

The ERC is owned by the unions, and therefore any money earnt by the ERC is distributed to the unions!

Also if you want to give the clubs the power, then the PRL, LNR + Irish version, Scottish version, Italian version and Welsh versions of such would all have to split the pie surely. which will still see a pot split unevenly because England and France WANT more teams than anyone else.

I do get that point and this is something that is what the failed negotiations are about. I believe that both the PRL and LNR have said that they are happy for people to join the competition they want to organize and funds would be distributed accordingly, something that they would NEGOTIATE. Just because the clubs are owned by the Unions in one country does not mean that in another they have to be. So therefore there will be a conflict of interest and to condemn a body that is looking after the interests of the people it represents is plain ridiculous.

Reread what you just wrote? Why would everyone skip out on the tournament they hold more than 50% of the shares in as a unit, to a tournament owned outright by the PRL/LNR? It isn't a level playing field now, imagine how bad that would get if the aggressors owned the tournament?!

Why would the PRL and LNR sign up to a competition where they have a minority stake in the way the voting system works?? Thus meaning that any issue with how the qualification process, money distribution and any other disagreement gets ignored due to 4 Unions always voting as one due to their own vested interests, not as some would say for the good of the game. This is what signing the same contract again means.

THEY HAVE A MINORITY STAKE BECAUSE THEY ARE 2 UNIONS IN A 6 UNION SHAREHOLD!!!! They hold however far more share than the 33.3% of the shareholders they are. Would you be happy if Wales and Ireland did similar and said as recent strongest 6N teams they deserve more on the club stage, and if the PRL were interested they could join a Wales and Ireland club tourny? Would you be happy if Wales and IReland held a 48% share of the 6N?

Couple of points:
The current contract has the sharehold as you say, contract is coming to an end and they do not have to sign a new one the same with the SHAREHOLD the same as it was.
Secondly, you cannot compare a CLUB competition with an international one, whether it be run by Unions or not it is a club competition.

Which unions created the HC, and ERC and for what reasons? I'll give you 15 mins to google it.

The old contract that is ending. Why do you think that because they signed to it before that it is legally binding for the rest of time. Whether you agree with what their reasons are, they do not want to and will not sign the same contract. Why the contract and competitions were set up is irrelevant now. Since it started how many clubs in Italy and Scotland have gone?? So did the plan work?? To be honest I don't care about the answer to that as it is irrelevant to the debate discussions taking place now.

As a proud Englishman I am very vocally anti the PRL, especially with this coup style negotiating. Do you think if the PRL get their way, begin a new tournament they hold 50% of ownership from and can import the best players around the globe that they will be satisfied?

Firstly if the PRL get their way the young english talent will get limited exposure.

More worryingly if the PRL get their way, they will then officially look at the biggest threat to their playing abilities. They will look to the next cause of player fatigue/injury, and that will be the international game.

There is no love loss between the PRL and RFU, and if they go head to head the loser will be the English international rugby fan!

Munchkin wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:"Lets recap, the PRL as have stated were signed up to a contract where the ERC sorted out the TV rights. News flash for you, the contract is up before the TV deal they have signed begins, hence why all the hysteria now about no cup competition. They are signed up to no contracts with anyone that says ERC continues to sort out TV contracts after this current campaign. Also should be noted that a superior package was negotiated, it helps when you aren't cosying up to SKY and actually sell your product to a competitive market"

What are the terms of that contract?

Not really the main point there is it?? Regardless of what it is I don't care, it could be one penny and a banana but the fact is they are not bound by any contract that says they couldn't sign such a deal.

Of course it's the main point. You're trying to argue in support of a contract of which you don't know the details of, and neither anyone else but the PRL bosses, and BT apparently.

No I am arguing that they have the right to sign a new contract with whoever as they are no longer tied to the current contract. They have fulfilled their obligations to the current contact to the full and have decided (it seems) not to extend. Perfectly fair and reasonable in any sensible persons mind. I do not see them demanding anything.

The Great Aukster wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:The truth is that if the HEC had only 8 or 12 teams it would still command all the interest and money from sponsors. No one cares about second tier competitions never mind third tier ones. The rugby might be marginally better in division two but it won't make one iota of difference to its financial attractiveness. People want to see the best teams European countries can produce, not also-rans.

Meritocracy works on the principle that if there are 24 teams in a competition then the pot should be divided by 24 and each given their share. What those teams do with their money thereafter is up to them. They could give it to their union, share with other teams, give it to the referees' retirement home or whatever - that's outside the competition and up to them.

That's sheer blwdi arrogance for you. Anyone who follows a team in the second tier cares about that tier. There's thousands upon thousands of English and French rugby fans following Championship, ProD2 and lower level teams who would give their eye teeth to see their team in the Amlin.

I don't have the words to condemn that attitude enough.

Apparently not WL/8, the English and French need to have better teams in it. Anyway... the context was sponsorship money, not individual fan's passion for their team.

The point you made is valid, the way you made it is .......

butterfingers wrote:As a proud Englishman I am very vocally anti the PRL, especially with this coup style negotiating. Do you think if the PRL get their way, begin a new tournament they hold 50% of ownership from and can import the best players around the globe that they will be satisfied?

Firstly if the PRL get their way the young english talent will get limited exposure.

More worryingly if the PRL get their way, they will then officially look at the biggest threat to their playing abilities. They will look to the next cause of player fatigue/injury, and that will be the international game.

There is no love loss between the PRL and RFU, and if they go head to head the loser will be the English international rugby fan!

Disagree, the PRL will know that the biggest pull in the game is the international game, it is what attracts League players over too (along with the money yes).
The relations between the RFU(who have been clowns for yrs but seem to be getting better) and the PRL is much better, the player release contract will not decrease the player availability. It just won't happen.
Look at Englands age groups going up, all performing very well, obviously topped off with the U20s win. This has all come at a time when the PRL has been around for years.
You can have a strong league and a successful international team.

Apparently the deal the PRL signed with BT Sport covers all matches in this as yet non-existent tournament... including games in Ireland. Unfortunately that's the IRFU CEOs 'understanding' because the PRL haven't disclosed the details. So it seems that they are selling the rights for games that may take place outside their jurisdiction without the knowledge/consent of other unions.

Still think this is a good way to do business Student? It's called alienating people before negotiations even begin...

Student-A1 wrote:

butterfingers wrote:As a proud Englishman I am very vocally anti the PRL, especially with this coup style negotiating. Do you think if the PRL get their way, begin a new tournament they hold 50% of ownership from and can import the best players around the globe that they will be satisfied?

Firstly if the PRL get their way the young english talent will get limited exposure.

More worryingly if the PRL get their way, they will then officially look at the biggest threat to their playing abilities. They will look to the next cause of player fatigue/injury, and that will be the international game.

There is no love loss between the PRL and RFU, and if they go head to head the loser will be the English international rugby fan!

Disagree, the PRL will know that the biggest pull in the game is the international game, it is what attracts League players over too (along with the money yes).
The relations between the RFU(who have been clowns for yrs but seem to be getting better) and the PRL is much better, the player release contract will not decrease the player availability. It just won't happen.
Look at Englands age groups going up, all performing very well, obviously topped off with the U20s win. This has all come at a time when the PRL has been around for years.
You can have a strong league and a successful international team.

I would love to agree but Englands age grade teams have been hugely dominant in the past, they have gone through a period of refocus recently that hasn't payed off at all times.

But is the FFR benefiting from a bountifull league system, that is doing well and attracting players from all over?

Student-A1 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:"Lets recap, the PRL as have stated were signed up to a contract where the ERC sorted out the TV rights. News flash for you, the contract is up before the TV deal they have signed begins, hence why all the hysteria now about no cup competition. They are signed up to no contracts with anyone that says ERC continues to sort out TV contracts after this current campaign. Also should be noted that a superior package was negotiated, it helps when you aren't cosying up to SKY and actually sell your product to a competitive market"

What are the terms of that contract?

Not really the main point there is it?? Regardless of what it is I don't care, it could be one penny and a banana but the fact is they are not bound by any contract that says they couldn't sign such a deal.

Of course it's the main point. You're trying to argue in support of a contract of which you don't know the details of, and neither anyone else but the PRL bosses, and BT apparently.

No I am arguing that they have the right to sign a new contract with whoever as they are no longer tied to the current contract. They have fulfilled their obligations to the current contact to the full and have decided (it seems) not to extend. Perfectly fair and reasonable in any sensible persons mind. I do not see them demanding anything.

Student, neither you, nor I, know the terms of that contract, and neither of us really know the legality of it. In the absence of information I have to question whether any package comes attached with conditions which have to be met before any deal can be finalised. A condition which may require more than a 2 nation competition for example.

Notch wrote:Apparently the deal the PRL signed with BT Sport covers all matches in this as yet non-existent tournament... including games in Ireland. Unfortunately that's the IRFU CEOs 'understanding' because the PRL haven't disclosed the details. So it seems that they are selling the rights for games that may take place outside their jurisdiction without the knowledge/consent of other unions.

Still think this is a good way to do business Student? It's called alienating people before negotiations even begin...

I take it where you say 'apparently' you mean gossip says but I have no idea?? If they have sold rights to games they don't have the jurisdiction then that is wrong, that is plain simple. But selling the ones they do is fine.
To expect as the Irish have that they should sign up to a contract that is outdated is also wrong. Do you agree that is not good business Notch??

Munchkin wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:"Lets recap, the PRL as have stated were signed up to a contract where the ERC sorted out the TV rights. News flash for you, the contract is up before the TV deal they have signed begins, hence why all the hysteria now about no cup competition. They are signed up to no contracts with anyone that says ERC continues to sort out TV contracts after this current campaign. Also should be noted that a superior package was negotiated, it helps when you aren't cosying up to SKY and actually sell your product to a competitive market"

What are the terms of that contract?

Not really the main point there is it?? Regardless of what it is I don't care, it could be one penny and a banana but the fact is they are not bound by any contract that says they couldn't sign such a deal.

Of course it's the main point. You're trying to argue in support of a contract of which you don't know the details of, and neither anyone else but the PRL bosses, and BT apparently.

No I am arguing that they have the right to sign a new contract with whoever as they are no longer tied to the current contract. They have fulfilled their obligations to the current contact to the full and have decided (it seems) not to extend. Perfectly fair and reasonable in any sensible persons mind. I do not see them demanding anything.

Student, neither you, nor I, know the terms of that contract, and neither of us really know the legality of it. In the absence of information I have to question whether any package comes attached with conditions which have to be met before any deal can be finalised. A condition which may require more than a 2 nation competition for example.

I mostly agree, but you must agree that they are under no obligation to sign up to a contract they don't want to for the reasons they have stated??

European Rugby chiefs have questioned the validity of a new four-year £152m broadcast partnership announced by Premiership Rugby and BT.

Premiership Rugby, the umbrella body for English rugby's leading clubs, released details of the 'ground-breaking' deal earlier today that will see BT Vision become the exclusive broadcast partner for the Aviva Premiership from the start of the 2013-14 season.

In addition, the deal includes exclusive rights to any "matches played by Aviva Premiership Rugby clubs in any future European competitions from 2014-15 for three years" by which stage the current shareholder agreement governing the Heineken Cup and Amlin Challenge Cup will have expired.

However, European Rugby Cup Ltd (ERC), the organisers of both competitions, have since issued a statement insisting that any such deal "would be in breach both of IRB regulations and of a mandate from the ERC Board itself".

ERC also appeared to counter the deal struck by Premiership Rugby and BT with confirmation that they have agreed a four-year extension to their existing broadcasting deal with Sky Sports until the end of the 2017-18 season that clashes with the terms and the coverage detailed in the agreement between Premiership Rugby and BT.

ERC's deal with Sky Sports, that has been the exclusive UK broadcast partner for both European competitions for over a decade, covers: "Exclusive live matches from each of the first four rounds, plus all knock-out stages and finals for a further four seasons, across the UK and Ireland."

This would appear to conflict with the deal struck by Premiership Rugby and BT with question marks surrounding their ability to claim rights to away games played by English clubs while the release that accompanied their announcement made no mention of the knock-out stages or the final that would no doubt be played on a neutral ground.

ERC is adamant that Premiership Rugby has gone against a previous understanding. "European club rugby's six participant Unions have granted the authority to sell broadcast rights to its tournaments solely to ERC," the ERC statement added.

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

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

The boobie-for-tat exchange continued with Premiership Rugby rubbishing ERC's claims of misconduct. "Premiership Rugby notes the announcement by ERC concerning a broadcast deal with Sky Sports for the coverage of ERC competitions from 2014-15," it said in its most recent statement.

"ERC and its Board acknowledged and accepted that notice was served on the ERC Accord on 1 June 2012 by Premiership Rugby and Ligue Nationale de Rugby which means the Accord comes to an end in 2014. Sky Sports have been made fully aware of this.

"As a result of notice being served, ERC is not entitled after 2014 to sell the broadcast rights of matches involving Premiership Rugby clubs. On 27 July 2012 ERC was reminded of this in writing, and this was copied to Sky Sports.

"We also note ERC's reference to its Board Meeting on 6 June 2012. No specific broadcast deal was presented or voted on at this or any subsequent ERC Board meeting. In any case any such deal could not have included matches involving Premiership Rugby clubs.

"ERC's suggestion that Premiership Rugby may be in breach of IRB regulations is wrong. Following Premiership Rugby's agreement with the RFU, dated 16 October 2007 Premiership Rugby has specific consent to control the broadcast rights of its clubs.

"The deal which Premiership Rugby has completed with BT is financially strong for Premiership Rugby clubs and future European competitions bringing up to £152m into the game over the next four years. When any future European competition launches in 2014, BT will have exclusive rights to broadcast the matches played by Premiership Rugby clubs."

The public spat between two of the major stakeholders in the northern hemisphere is just the latest development in a simmering row over the future of the European club game with England's leading clubs seemingly intent on forcing a shake-up.

The current Shareholder Agreement between the leading sides from England, France, Ireland, Italy, Scotland and Wales, that governs the structure of the competitions, expires at the end of next season with the future of European rugby beyond that date currently being reviewed after Premiership Rugby and their French counterparts triggered a renegotiation period by serving notice to leave the competition.

The English and French clubs have threatened to go it alone if concerns about the qualification process, that they suggest favours RaboDirect PRO12 clubs, were not addressed, with proposals for a re-vamp already announced.

All ERC stakeholders are scheduled to convene in Dublin next Tuesday to begin the formulation of a new Shareholder Agreement for the 2014-15 season and beyond with Premiership Rugby chief executive Mark McCafferty quick to deflect any criticism of his organisation's bold step with the claim the BT deal will benefit the European game as a whole.

"We anticipate that this is the beginning of an excellent partnership with BT," he said in an earlier statement. "It's an outstanding deal to support the continued development of Premiership Rugby and in addition, the value of the European element from our clubs' rights will serve to help strengthen European rugby in its future competitions.

"Although the exact format of European competitions post 2014 is not yet agreed between the parties in Europe, this deal will certainly strengthen European club rugby for all parties.

"We are committed to finding an agreement including competitions which not only involve all teams from the existing European countries but also the emerging rugby markets. It is important that rugby continues to expand and grow. We have made proposals and we look forward to progressing discussions."


This is from ESPN - exactly a year ago - we haven't come far from this.

Hope something can be sorted as I love the HC. We need an agreement where everyone comes out with some respect dignity and some money.

http://www.espn.co.uk/heineken-cup-2012-13/rugby/story/169756.html

It could yet happen...

butterfingers wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:

butterfingers wrote:As a proud Englishman I am very vocally anti the PRL, especially with this coup style negotiating. Do you think if the PRL get their way, begin a new tournament they hold 50% of ownership from and can import the best players around the globe that they will be satisfied?

Firstly if the PRL get their way the young english talent will get limited exposure.

More worryingly if the PRL get their way, they will then officially look at the biggest threat to their playing abilities. They will look to the next cause of player fatigue/injury, and that will be the international game.

There is no love loss between the PRL and RFU, and if they go head to head the loser will be the English international rugby fan!

Disagree, the PRL will know that the biggest pull in the game is the international game, it is what attracts League players over too (along with the money yes).
The relations between the RFU(who have been clowns for yrs but seem to be getting better) and the PRL is much better, the player release contract will not decrease the player availability. It just won't happen.
Look at Englands age groups going up, all performing very well, obviously topped off with the U20s win. This has all come at a time when the PRL has been around for years.
You can have a strong league and a successful international team.

I would love to agree but Englands age grade teams have been hugely dominant in the past, they have gone through a period of refocus recently that hasn't payed off at all times.

But is the FFR benefiting from a bountifull league system, that is doing well and attracting players from all over?

No the French are not doing well but they are running their league different to the premiership. Plus I think most would agree they are producing an abundant amount of talent as they have done for decades but they are unable to utilize that talent.
I have been very critical of the RFU over the years, the failings after the 2003 success is almost comical, but with it seemingly running better and less of a cosy place for old friends, things are improving and fast.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:The truth is that if the HEC had only 8 or 12 teams it would still command all the interest and money from sponsors. No one cares about second tier competitions never mind third tier ones. The rugby might be marginally better in division two but it won't make one iota of difference to its financial attractiveness. People want to see the best teams European countries can produce, not also-rans.

Meritocracy works on the principle that if there are 24 teams in a competition then the pot should be divided by 24 and each given their share. What those teams do with their money thereafter is up to them. They could give it to their union, share with other teams, give it to the referees' retirement home or whatever - that's outside the competition and up to them.

That's sheer blwdi arrogance for you. Anyone who follows a team in the second tier cares about that tier. There's thousands upon thousands of English and French rugby fans following Championship, ProD2 and lower level teams who would give their eye teeth to see their team in the Amlin.

I don't have the words to condemn that attitude enough.

Apparently not WL/8, the English and French need to have better teams in it. Anyway... the context was sponsorship money, not individual fan's passion for their team.

The point you made is valid, the way you made it is despicable.

... and indeed the way you choose to read something into it that isn't there.

butterfingers wrote:As a proud Englishman I am very vocally anti the PRL, especially with this coup style negotiating. Do you think if the PRL get their way, begin a new tournament they hold 50% of ownership from and can import the best players around the globe that they will be satisfied?

Firstly if the PRL get their way the young english talent will get limited exposure.

More worryingly if the PRL get their way, they will then officially look at the biggest threat to their playing abilities. They will look to the next cause of player fatigue/injury, and that will be the international game.

There is no love loss between the PRL and RFU, and if they go head to head the loser will be the English international rugby fan!

Hmm, a proud Englishman whose brief posting history shows upon a quick glance:

butterfingers wrote:And I know the plight of the AP teams, I am a Glos fan, and English through and through. I fail to understand how my compatriates agree with anything the PRL has to say!

Yet he hasn't posted on any premiership or Glos specific threads.  In fact the only club specific thread he's posted on is a Glasgow v Cardiff one where he states:

butterfingers wrote:When we kicked clear and the ball stayed in Glasgow ran it back, kept us under pressure and didn't allow us an easy out by kicking straight back at us. As soon as Glasgow raised the tempo and moved the ball they blew us off the park, surely you aren't suggesting that Glasgows tactics were poor? until then Glasgow looked as nervous as us.

I smell a reincarnation

Student-A1 wrote:

Notch wrote:Apparently the deal the PRL signed with BT Sport covers all matches in this as yet non-existent tournament... including games in Ireland. Unfortunately that's the IRFU CEOs 'understanding' because the PRL haven't disclosed the details. So it seems that they are selling the rights for games that may take place outside their jurisdiction without the knowledge/consent of other unions.

Still think this is a good way to do business Student? It's called alienating people before negotiations even begin...

I take it where you say 'apparently' you mean gossip says but I have no idea?? If they have sold rights to games they don't have the jurisdiction then that is wrong, that is plain simple. But selling the ones they do is fine.
To expect as the Irish have that they should sign up to a contract that is outdated is also wrong. Do you agree that is not good business Notch??

I'm saying apparently because the chairman of the IRFU is going to the press and saying he's heard this, this and this through unofficial channels but the PRL haven't clued them in to the nature of the contract they have with BT and instead presented this deal as a fait accompli. He also says this has been the main stumbling block for negotiations thus far.

On your last point- the IRFU have indicated they are willing to negotiate on qualification, representation etc. but so far they have been presented with terms that are entirely unsuitable and no compromise is on the table.

Student-A1 wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:

butterfingers wrote:As a proud Englishman I am very vocally anti the PRL, especially with this coup style negotiating. Do you think if the PRL get their way, begin a new tournament they hold 50% of ownership from and can import the best players around the globe that they will be satisfied?

Firstly if the PRL get their way the young english talent will get limited exposure.

More worryingly if the PRL get their way, they will then officially look at the biggest threat to their playing abilities. They will look to the next cause of player fatigue/injury, and that will be the international game.

There is no love loss between the PRL and RFU, and if they go head to head the loser will be the English international rugby fan!

Disagree, the PRL will know that the biggest pull in the game is the international game, it is what attracts League players over too (along with the money yes).
The relations between the RFU(who have been clowns for yrs but seem to be getting better) and the PRL is much better, the player release contract will not decrease the player availability. It just won't happen.
Look at Englands age groups going up, all performing very well, obviously topped off with the U20s win. This has all come at a time when the PRL has been around for years.
You can have a strong league and a successful international team.

I would love to agree but Englands age grade teams have been hugely dominant in the past, they have gone through a period of refocus recently that hasn't payed off at all times.

But is the FFR benefiting from a bountifull league system, that is doing well and attracting players from all over?

No the French are not doing well but they are running their league different to the premiership. Plus I think most would agree they are producing an abundant amount of talent as they have done for decades but they are unable to utilize that talent.
I have been very critical of the RFU over the years, the failings after the 2003 success is almost comical, but with it seemingly running better and less of a cosy place for old friends, things are improving and fast.

Well with the way things are heading the AP are 2 years or so behind the T14, and with the guys in charge thats exactly where they want to be heading, the RFU could be run by the best around, but they cannot counter the problems the PRL are about to cause.

Notch wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:

Notch wrote:Apparently the deal the PRL signed with BT Sport covers all matches in this as yet non-existent tournament... including games in Ireland. Unfortunately that's the IRFU CEOs 'understanding' because the PRL haven't disclosed the details. So it seems that they are selling the rights for games that may take place outside their jurisdiction without the knowledge/consent of other unions.

Still think this is a good way to do business Student? It's called alienating people before negotiations even begin...

I take it where you say 'apparently' you mean gossip says but I have no idea?? If they have sold rights to games they don't have the jurisdiction then that is wrong, that is plain simple. But selling the ones they do is fine.
To expect as the Irish have that they should sign up to a contract that is outdated is also wrong. Do you agree that is not good business Notch??

I'm saying apparently because the chairman of the IRFU is going to the press and saying he's heard this, this and this through unofficial channels but the PRL haven't clued them in to the nature of the contract they have with BT and instead presented this deal as a fait accompli. He also says this has been the main stumbling block for negotiations thus far.

On your last point- the IRFU have indicated they are willing to negotiate on qualification, representation etc. but so far they have been presented with terms that are entirely unsuitable and no compromise is on the table.

They were offered a proposal why not offer a counter proposal. You can't just decline something and say that is us showing we a prepared to negotiate. Negotiate then, say how far you are willing to compromise. And i don't know maybe they could meet halfway.

hawalsh wrote:

butterfingers wrote:As a proud Englishman I am very vocally anti the PRL, especially with this coup style negotiating. Do you think if the PRL get their way, begin a new tournament they hold 50% of ownership from and can import the best players around the globe that they will be satisfied?

Firstly if the PRL get their way the young english talent will get limited exposure.

More worryingly if the PRL get their way, they will then officially look at the biggest threat to their playing abilities. They will look to the next cause of player fatigue/injury, and that will be the international game.

There is no love loss between the PRL and RFU, and if they go head to head the loser will be the English international rugby fan!

Hmm, a proud Englishman whose brief posting history shows upon a quick glance:

butterfingers wrote:And I know the plight of the AP teams, I am a Glos fan, and English through and through. I fail to understand how my compatriates agree with anything the PRL has to say!

Yet he hasn't posted on any premiership or Glos specific threads.  In fact the only club specific thread he's posted on is a Glasgow v Cardiff one where he states:

butterfingers wrote:When we kicked clear and the ball stayed in Glasgow ran it back, kept us under pressure and didn't allow us an easy out by kicking straight back at us. As soon as Glasgow raised the tempo and moved the ball they blew us off the park, surely you aren't suggesting that Glasgows tactics were poor? until then Glasgow looked as nervous as us.

I smell a reincarnation

Seems incredibly likely...

hawalsh wrote:

butterfingers wrote:As a proud Englishman I am very vocally anti the PRL, especially with this coup style negotiating. Do you think if the PRL get their way, begin a new tournament they hold 50% of ownership from and can import the best players around the globe that they will be satisfied?

Firstly if the PRL get their way the young english talent will get limited exposure.

More worryingly if the PRL get their way, they will then officially look at the biggest threat to their playing abilities. They will look to the next cause of player fatigue/injury, and that will be the international game.

There is no love loss between the PRL and RFU, and if they go head to head the loser will be the English international rugby fan!

Hmm, a proud Englishman whose brief posting history shows upon a quick glance:

butterfingers wrote:And I know the plight of the AP teams, I am a Glos fan, and English through and through. I fail to understand how my compatriates agree with anything the PRL has to say!

Yet he hasn't posted on any premiership or Glos specific threads.  In fact the only club specific thread he's posted on is a Glasgow v Cardiff one where he states:

butterfingers wrote:When we kicked clear and the ball stayed in Glasgow ran it back, kept us under pressure and didn't allow us an easy out by kicking straight back at us. As soon as Glasgow raised the tempo and moved the ball they blew us off the park, surely you aren't suggesting that Glasgows tactics were poor? until then Glasgow looked as nervous as us.

I smell a reincarnation

hahaha Malvern born, Glos bread, uni at UWIC and played with a few boys who stepped up for Blues. Can't help but to have a huge soft spot for the town you uni in, most of my friends were Blues, and I was a season ticket holder, something about those Taffs that is pretty attractive to follow. Doesn't hurt that Blues have threads all over here and Glos aren't exactly over populated on these boards.

I also follow Brumbies after going down under and studying there for a few months, just in case you see me describing them as us.

Student-A1 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:"Lets recap, the PRL as have stated were signed up to a contract where the ERC sorted out the TV rights. News flash for you, the contract is up before the TV deal they have signed begins, hence why all the hysteria now about no cup competition. They are signed up to no contracts with anyone that says ERC continues to sort out TV contracts after this current campaign. Also should be noted that a superior package was negotiated, it helps when you aren't cosying up to SKY and actually sell your product to a competitive market"

What are the terms of that contract?

Not really the main point there is it?? Regardless of what it is I don't care, it could be one penny and a banana but the fact is they are not bound by any contract that says they couldn't sign such a deal.

Of course it's the main point. You're trying to argue in support of a contract of which you don't know the details of, and neither anyone else but the PRL bosses, and BT apparently.

No I am arguing that they have the right to sign a new contract with whoever as they are no longer tied to the current contract. They have fulfilled their obligations to the current contact to the full and have decided (it seems) not to extend. Perfectly fair and reasonable in any sensible persons mind. I do not see them demanding anything.

Student, neither you, nor I, know the terms of that contract, and neither of us really know the legality of it. In the absence of information I have to question whether any package comes attached with conditions which have to be met before any deal can be finalised. A condition which may require more than a 2 nation competition for example.

I mostly agree, but you must agree that they are under no obligation to sign up to a contract they don't want to for the reasons they have stated??

I do agree, Student. Of course PRL are not obligated to participate in the HEC once their contractual obligations have expired, but then whether they're free to start a new competition is not so clear, as each side in the debate refute the argument of the other. Something else to consider is how dependant is this deal on the agreement of the Rabo Unions to take part in any new competition?
My hope is that resolution is found quickly, and that the HEC remains, but I am pessimistic about any further progress this year.

I'm sure that's right, I'll look out for your future prolific posting on your true side's (Gloucester) threads bl..utterfingers

Munchkin wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:"Lets recap, the PRL as have stated were signed up to a contract where the ERC sorted out the TV rights. News flash for you, the contract is up before the TV deal they have signed begins, hence why all the hysteria now about no cup competition. They are signed up to no contracts with anyone that says ERC continues to sort out TV contracts after this current campaign. Also should be noted that a superior package was negotiated, it helps when you aren't cosying up to SKY and actually sell your product to a competitive market"

What are the terms of that contract?

Not really the main point there is it?? Regardless of what it is I don't care, it could be one penny and a banana but the fact is they are not bound by any contract that says they couldn't sign such a deal.

Of course it's the main point. You're trying to argue in support of a contract of which you don't know the details of, and neither anyone else but the PRL bosses, and BT apparently.

No I am arguing that they have the right to sign a new contract with whoever as they are no longer tied to the current contract. They have fulfilled their obligations to the current contact to the full and have decided (it seems) not to extend. Perfectly fair and reasonable in any sensible persons mind. I do not see them demanding anything.

Student, neither you, nor I, know the terms of that contract, and neither of us really know the legality of it. In the absence of information I have to question whether any package comes attached with conditions which have to be met before any deal can be finalised. A condition which may require more than a 2 nation competition for example.

I mostly agree, but you must agree that they are under no obligation to sign up to a contract they don't want to for the reasons they have stated??

I do agree, Student. Of course PRL are not obligated to participate in the HEC once their contractual obligations have expired, but then whether they're free to start a new competition is not so clear, as each side in the debate refute the argument of the other. Something else to consider is how dependant is this deal on the agreement of the Rabo Unions to take part in any new competition?
My hope is that resolution is found quickly, and that the HEC remains, but I am pessimistic about any further progress this year.

Me too. Too good to let it die. Let's hope good sense prevails.

hawalsh wrote:I'm sure that's right, I'll look out for your future prolific posting on your true side's (Gloucester) threads bl..utterfingers

Good to know!

You'll probably have more luck finding me on the England threads though  

butterfingers wrote:

hawalsh wrote:

butterfingers wrote:As a proud Englishman I am very vocally anti the PRL, especially with this coup style negotiating. Do you think if the PRL get their way, begin a new tournament they hold 50% of ownership from and can import the best players around the globe that they will be satisfied?

Firstly if the PRL get their way the young english talent will get limited exposure.

More worryingly if the PRL get their way, they will then officially look at the biggest threat to their playing abilities. They will look to the next cause of player fatigue/injury, and that will be the international game.

There is no love loss between the PRL and RFU, and if they go head to head the loser will be the English international rugby fan!

Hmm, a proud Englishman whose brief posting history shows upon a quick glance:

butterfingers wrote:And I know the plight of the AP teams, I am a Glos fan, and English through and through. I fail to understand how my compatriates agree with anything the PRL has to say!

Yet he hasn't posted on any premiership or Glos specific threads.  In fact the only club specific thread he's posted on is a Glasgow v Cardiff one where he states:

butterfingers wrote:When we kicked clear and the ball stayed in Glasgow ran it back, kept us under pressure and didn't allow us an easy out by kicking straight back at us. As soon as Glasgow raised the tempo and moved the ball they blew us off the park, surely you aren't suggesting that Glasgows tactics were poor? until then Glasgow looked as nervous as us.

I smell a reincarnation

hahaha Malvern born, Glos bread, uni at UWIC and played with a few boys who stepped up for Blues. Can't help but to have a huge soft spot for the town you uni in, most of my friends were Blues, and I was a season ticket holder, something about those Taffs that is pretty attractive to follow. Doesn't hurt that Blues have threads all over here and Glos aren't exactly over populated on these boards.

I also follow Brumbies after going down under and studying there for a few months, just in case you see me describing them as us.

I've always wondered what the best rugby pubs in Malvern were...

Here's some thoughts from a non European.

Facts:
1: The Heineken cup brings together the top teams from 6 nations in a yearly tournament.
2: The French and English clubs are talking about setting up a new tournament.
3: the proposed tournament has more teams and a different income sharing model

I hope they work it out. However I struggle to see how rugby will ultimately evolve and grown at a club level in Europe under either proposal.

I'd be looking at the football model. Include the German, Spanish, Russian and Georgian champions. Even if it involves a promotion relegation initially. 10 years and you'll probably have clubs from outside the 6 nations competing in the quarters and nations outside the 6 nations improving.

Opinion:
1: it generates a lot of money
2: clubs would like a bigger share of the cash
3: all nations want more than one of their clubs involved
4: more than one broadcaster is interested
5: the season is already too long and too busy
6: the relationship between Welsh, English and French clubs and there rugby unions is poor and impacts on the process

butterfingers wrote:

markb wrote:Are people that surprised that the French & English clubs consider the current money sharing system unfair?  The clubs feel they are making a similar effort to compete as those from the other unions yet are getting paid less each for their endeavours.  If there was someone at my work doing the same job as me but getting paid more I wouldn't be too pleased either..

 

Let's play with yet another analogy - its not 'your work', its actually a different firm, and thankfully we don't have common wage setting across the whole industry

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

markb wrote:Are people that surprised that the French & English clubs consider the current money sharing system unfair?  The clubs feel they are making a similar effort to compete as those from the other unions yet are getting paid less each for their endeavours.  If there was someone at my work doing the same job as me but getting paid more I wouldn't be too pleased either..

 

Let's play with yet another analogy - its not 'your work', its actually a different firm, and thankfully we don't have common wage setting across the whole industry

Exactly, the other firm has less employees, they earn the same amount as your firm but you're getting a smaller piece of the same sized pie. To make things even worse, their firm has been far more successful than yours.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

markb wrote:Are people that surprised that the French & English clubs consider the current money sharing system unfair?  The clubs feel they are making a similar effort to compete as those from the other unions yet are getting paid less each for their endeavours.  If there was someone at my work doing the same job as me but getting paid more I wouldn't be too pleased either..

 

Let's play with yet another analogy - its not 'your work', its actually a different firm, and thankfully we don't have common wage setting across the whole industry

Well, we can do that id you like, but let's try to be intellectually honest about it. What's missing from that analogy is the income sharing element of the ERC structure. So to make it a fair analogy you have to imagine that we have six firms who are in a joint venture to sell a product that they manufacture together in their respective territories.

The territories are different sizes, and generate different levels of sales. Each firm also sells its own products domestically. All the companies depend on both domestic and joint venture income to survive, so the sales teams are sized to sell both products. The joint venture product is the premium product and has scarcity value (i.e. you can only make a certain amount of it), so is shared out across the firms.

Under the current arrangement, four of the companies get a full quota of the premium product for each of their senior sales people. But they are operating in smaller markets and bring in a smaller share of the income. Even so, each of their sales people gets a bigger share of the money than the sales people in the other two companies.

The other two only have enough product to cover the quota for their top 6 salespeople, and the whole salesforce competes each year to earn a slot. The income sharing agreement gives them less money per sales person, too, even though the bulk of the sales come from their territories.

Doesn't that strike you as a weird arrangement? Doesn't it seem reasonable that the PRL and LNR should want to bring the revenue sharing more closely into alignment with the costs of competing? If not, why not?

Oh, and the "Ireland's been much more successful so they deserve more" is a porcelain vessel of you-know-what from the intestines of an equine animal. And you know it.

Yes, Ireland have done well. They've made the most of a great generation of players and whatever advantages the current tournament structure gives. But these things go in cycles.

Wind the clock back a few years to when Leicester, Toulouse and Wasps dominated the tournament. It would be equally spurious to claim that they were "worth" more and that the Irish teams were not fit competition.

The English and French clubs that are in the tournament in any given year are there because they have earned a place through competition. This is more than you can say for any of the Rabo teams, unless it's the 4th Welsh team and they've won the LV=.

Wasn't the principle behind the tournament to bring together the best teams from each of the European unions to compete?

Roger Lewis today on the BBC

Lewis said: "We are prepared to look at meritocratic qualification.
"We're prepared to look at how revenues are distributed."

Similar has been said by the Irish this week so I have no idea why the PRL are saying that the Celts are being accused of not wanting to budge on these discussions...

This whole debacle is looking more and more like the PRL playing silly buggers in the press...

maestegmafia wrote:Roger Lewis today on the BBC

Lewis said: "We are prepared to look at meritocratic qualification.
"We're prepared to look at how revenues are distributed."

Similar has been said by the Irish this week so I have no idea why the PRL are saying that the Celts are being accused of not wanting to budge on these discussions...

This whole debacle is looking more and more like the PRL playing silly buggers in the press...

Perhaps because they haven't been prepared to budge until now? An equally valid interpretation, on the limited and heavily spun information available from both sides, would be that the Celtic unions are frantically backtracking in an attempt to save the ERC structure.

We don't know, and probably won't until we see what tournament(s) emerge at the end.

It reminds me of the time my former employer (Andersen Consulting, as was) finally parted company from Arthur Andersen, following an arbitration decision. Both sides were awarded two of the four things at stake in the arbitration. Both declared victory. Only one side's managing partner resigned the same day. Actions speak louder than spin.

So the Rabo have been conceding to the Franglo demands all along?

I don't recall any indication of that in the past eighteen months of pointless, fruitless meetings.

maestegmafia wrote:Roger Lewis today on the BBC

Lewis said: "We are prepared to look at meritocratic qualification.
"We're prepared to look at how revenues are distributed."

Similar has been said by the Irish this week so I have no idea why the PRL are saying that the Celts are being accused of not wanting to budge on these discussions...

This whole debacle is looking more and more like the PRL playing silly buggers in the press...

More or less. Personally I dont think there should be any change at all. The system is completly fair as is.

Poorfour wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:Roger Lewis today on the BBC

Lewis said: "We are prepared to look at meritocratic qualification.
"We're prepared to look at how revenues are distributed."

Similar has been said by the Irish this week so I have no idea why the PRL are saying that the Celts are being accused of not wanting to budge on these discussions...

This whole debacle is looking more and more like the PRL playing silly buggers in the press...

Perhaps because they haven't been prepared to budge until now? An equally valid interpretation, on the limited and heavily spun information available from both sides, would be that the Celtic unions are frantically backtracking in an attempt to save the ERC structure.

We don't know, and probably won't until we see what tournament(s) emerge at the end.

It reminds me of the time my former employer (Andersen Consulting, as was) finally parted company from Arthur Andersen, following an arbitration decision. Both sides were awarded two of the four things at stake in the arbitration. Both declared victory. Only one side's managing partner resigned the same day. Actions speak louder than spin.

It is again they are saying what they have to in the press, but what he is saying means nothing. Not one proposal, he is happy to discuss he says about qualification and finances. Well say what your proposal is, you can't not say this is what we offer and just say we are happy to discuss.

The Welsh and Irish media monkeys have been saying pretty much nothing, just we are happy to negotiate without ever negotiating. Make your proposal of the way forward then you have indeed done something Mr Lewis

Student-A1 wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:Roger Lewis today on the BBC

Lewis said: "We are prepared to look at meritocratic qualification.
"We're prepared to look at how revenues are distributed."

Similar has been said by the Irish this week so I have no idea why the PRL are saying that the Celts are being accused of not wanting to budge on these discussions...

This whole debacle is looking more and more like the PRL playing silly buggers in the press...

Perhaps because they haven't been prepared to budge until now? An equally valid interpretation, on the limited and heavily spun information available from both sides, would be that the Celtic unions are frantically backtracking in an attempt to save the ERC structure.

We don't know, and probably won't until we see what tournament(s) emerge at the end.

It reminds me of the time my former employer (Andersen Consulting, as was) finally parted company from Arthur Andersen, following an arbitration decision. Both sides were awarded two of the four things at stake in the arbitration. Both declared victory. Only one side's managing partner resigned the same day. Actions speak louder than spin.

It is again they are saying what they have to in the press, but what he is saying means nothing. Not one proposal, he is happy to discuss he says about qualification and finances. Well say what your proposal is, you can't not say this is what we offer and just say we are happy to discuss.

The Welsh and Irish media monkeys have been saying pretty much nothing, just we are happy to negotiate without ever negotiating. Make your proposal of the way forward then you have indeed done something Mr Lewis

Roger Lewis needs to be very careful what he says in the press, he came out and whinged about how the Lions money was broken down. This will be used by the PRL to stick it to him at these negotiations, and will most likely be used by the regions come the renual of the participation agreement too.

I swear he just likes getting his name in the papers and can't help himself.

have listened to Paul Goze (LNR chief) interview on the radio yesterday.
To summarise his pov, there was absolutely NO progress after 15 month of 20+ meetings organised by the ERC and he sees no reason why it would change now.
Paul Goze said that the ERC is dead. so not necessarly the european competition but the current organiser. I think what people have been been underestimating are the governance problems (or lack of) there which are as important (if not more) as the issues around profit sharing and number of participant. hence, the threat about doing something with the English only probably really meant scr*w the ERC (not the other unions).

whocares wrote:have listened to Paul Goze (LNR chief) interview on the radio yesterday.
To summarise his pov, there was absolutely NO progress after 15 month of 20+ meetings organised by the ERC and he sees no reason why it would change now.
Paul Goze said that the ERC is dead.  so not necessarly the european competition but the current organiser. I think what people have been been underestimating are the governance problems (or lack of) there which are as important (if not more) as the issues around profit sharing and number of participant. hence, the threat about doing something with the English only probably really meant scr*w the ERC (not the other unions).

The fact that there has been no movement by the ERC whatsoever to me suggests there are no governance issues what so ever. As governing body it is their responsibility to ensure there is a level playing field. Under the current set up the France and English leagues already get favorable treatment so the ERC is absolutly right not to entertain the LNR and PRL and their illegitimate and anti competition proposals.

Dean Ryan's take on the situation in the Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2013/sep/12/heineken-cup-reform-english-french


Dean Ryan

The Guardian, Thursday 12 September 2013 22.02 BST

The Heineken Cup is so perfect that from the outside looking in it's hard to see why anyone would want to damage it. Yet here we are heading at 90mph towards a car crash that looks like ending a competition that for close on two decades has been the envy of so many other sports. You have to ask why.

As usual the messages coming from the meeting rooms in Dublin this week have been mixed. The Welsh talk of a possible third-party mediator, the Irish that everyone is still talking, while the English and the French, or the English speaking for the French, say they are adamant; they have a new competition on the stocks and the Celts and the Italians can come and join them if they want.

I've experienced the Heineken as a punter, a coach and a television commentator and it would seem the English and the French are, at last, in accord and have the bit firmly between their teeth.

From next season their clubs, even if the Welsh, Irish, Scottish and Italians keep their distance, will be going head-to-head for something other than that huge lump of silverware Jonny Wilkinson and his Toulon team-mates lifted in Dublin in May.

Tampering with the huge reservoir of goodwill that comes with European rugby as presently configured is a gamble, but obviously one that Premier Rugby and the Ligue Nationale de Rugby in France feel they have to take.

Perhaps a personal perspective is useful here. I would put Heineken on a par with Test rugby. Different, but equal. Big Heineken days – coaching during passionate (and endless) battles between Gloucester and Munster, the night when in the blink of an eye a hatful of tries were scored at record speed at Ravenhill, the days as a punter when I watched Scarlets beat Toulouse and then commentating when Leinster rose to the top of the European tree – have punctuated my career since I stopped playing.

But that's the emotional stuff. The stuff of memories and bar-room chat. I know we are in a business and one where clubs and their benefactors, the guys who dig into their own pockets to finance the game, are continually frustrated by a system of governance that means the English and French can be outvoted at every turn.

A quick example. The Heineken frames everything a team does. From the first game of the season the target is a spot in the top six of the Premiership that books a place at Europe's top table. It's a sweat and we wouldn't have it any other way. But we do want others to sweat equally hard for their place at that table so watching the Italian and Scottish franchises and the Welsh and Irish regions arrive more or less as a right can get up the nose.

Equally, if the Heineken is the prime competition, which it clearly is, why does it bring such – relatively – poor financial rewards? Match-by-match it limps along behind the Premiership and, unbelievably, in the distant slipstream of the LV Cup. That's got to be wrong and rightly irks those who bankroll the big English and French clubs and who collectively have now taken the other four countries to the edge of the financial cliff and asked them to look over.

Understandably, the Welsh and the Irish, already suffering a drain of playing talent to France and England, fear the threat of increased French and English financial muscle, but the reality – and the view from the top of that cliff – looks like being either a "modest" increase in existing income under the Anglo-French proposal versus a 25% cut.

We all know what such a cut would mean in Wales, but the loss of three 50,000 gates in Dublin would be a big hit even for Leinster and it won't just be the tug of the pound or euro that lures players away, it will be the desire to play in the best competition going.

If the arrival of BT has made it possible for the English to bang the negotiating table, then the Welsh, Irish, Scots and Italians also have to ask about the sustainability, in financial terms, of any residual European competition they may run without the countries who provide the bulk of the playing and paying public. Television won't break the bank to buy into what is the RobotDirect by another name.

If that's hard-nosed, then it's the consequence of how we got from there to here. As one of the owners said this week: "If you spend two years hitting your head against a brick wall, sometimes you have to turn round and walk the other way."

If that brings an immediate return to meaningful negotiations (and there have been precious few signs of any intent judging by the silence since May) so well and good. If it's otherwise, then England and France not only have to produce an alternative for next season, they also have to start thinking of what it looks like two years down the line. That's when then and now will be judged.

GG, there are governance issues according to french clubs at least...number 1) being that ERC is based in Dublin and mainly run by pro celts folks (and dont mention that puppet JP Lux), 2) the discipline commission is biaised and 3) "ERC limited" accounts are not exactly a model of transparency...
their assesment might not be fair but if the ERC disapear they would probably not drop a tear.

whocares wrote:GG, there are governance issues according to french clubs at least...number 1) being that ERC is based in Dublin and mainly run by pro celts folks (and dont mention that puppet JP Lux), 2) the discipline commission is biaised and 3) "ERC limited" accounts are not exactly a model of transparency...
their assesment might not be fair but if the ERC disapear they would probably not drop a tear.

What do you mean by 'pro celts folk', and how do you know this is true? Why is there a problem with ERC based in Dublin? What would you suggest? A new competition based in London run mainly by pro PRL/LNR folk?

Thanks for putting that up Toadfish. I had read a number of years ago that the HEC was making less per match than the Powergen Cup (as was). Interesting to see from someone who is presumably relatively well connected that it's still generating stuff all. The heineken cup should be making more per match than any other NH club/regional competition. That it isn't suggests very strongly that it is still being undersold - whether that's because certain organisations are too friendly, or because they are just incompetent at marketing the event I don't know. I can't see why the Rabo fans aren't up in arms about this (especially supporters of cash strapped Welsh and Scottish regions). I can see both sides of the argument when it comes to qualification and structure, but on this point surely there is no doubt that ERC have failed and need to be brought to task.

Munchkin wrote:

whocares wrote:GG, there are governance issues according to french clubs at least...number 1) being that ERC is based in Dublin and mainly run by pro celts folks (and dont mention that puppet JP Lux), 2) the discipline commission is biaised and 3) "ERC limited" accounts are not exactly a model of transparency...
their assesment might not be fair but if the ERC disapear they would probably not drop a tear.

What do you mean by 'pro celts folk', and how do you know this is true? Why is there a problem with ERC based in Dublin? What would you suggest? A new competition based in London run mainly by pro PRL/LNR folk?

Come on Munkain, even Welsh fans have often questioned the ERC decisions on banning players etc, and it does seem sometimes that certain nations get and easier ride than others. I can understand the French wondering why the ERC HQ is in a country that has half the amount of teams in it as the French do.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

whocares wrote:GG, there are governance issues according to french clubs at least...number 1) being that ERC is based in Dublin and mainly run by pro celts folks (and dont mention that puppet JP Lux), 2) the discipline commission is biaised and 3) "ERC limited" accounts are not exactly a model of transparency...
their assesment might not be fair but if the ERC disapear they would probably not drop a tear.

What do you mean by 'pro celts folk', and how do you know this is true? Why is there a problem with ERC based in Dublin? What would you suggest? A new competition based in London run mainly by pro PRL/LNR folk?

Come on Munkain, even Welsh fans have often questioned the ERC decisions on banning players etc, and it does seem sometimes that certain nations get and easier ride than others.  I can understand the French wondering why the ERC HQ is in a country that has half the amount of teams in it as the French do.

besides this is not my own opinion. however it seems to be the french clubs and often media one! never said all of this is true and am not suggesting that something based in London or Paris would be better. why do you think soccer governing bodies are based in switzerland (appart from tax optimisation obviously).

Big wrote:Thanks for putting that up Toadfish.  I had read a number of years ago that the HEC was making less per match than the Powergen Cup (as was).  Interesting to see from someone who is presumably relatively well connected that it's still generating stuff all.  The heineken cup should be making more per match than any other NH club/regional competition.  That it isn't suggests very strongly that it is still being undersold - whether that's because certain organisations are too friendly, or because they are just incompetent at marketing the event I don't know.  I can't see why the Rabo fans aren't up in arms about this (especially supporters of cash strapped Welsh and Scottish regions).  I can see both sides of the argument when it comes to qualification and structure, but on this point surely there is no doubt that ERC have failed and need to be brought to task.

From what I understand under the PRL proposal for any new competition the financial gain for the Celts, and Italians wouldn't be much more than they are getting now.

I do take your point on the HEC possibly being undersold though, and think that is something that should be questioned. Personally, if more money was made available I would like to see it go into a pot to help develop rugby union in other European countries such as Spain.

whocares wrote:Why do you think soccer governing bodies are based in switzerland (appart from tax optimisation obviously).

For the skiing?

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

whocares wrote:GG, there are governance issues according to french clubs at least...number 1) being that ERC is based in Dublin and mainly run by pro celts folks (and dont mention that puppet JP Lux), 2) the discipline commission is biaised and 3) "ERC limited" accounts are not exactly a model of transparency...
their assesment might not be fair but if the ERC disapear they would probably not drop a tear.

What do you mean by 'pro celts folk', and how do you know this is true? Why is there a problem with ERC based in Dublin? What would you suggest? A new competition based in London run mainly by pro PRL/LNR folk?

Come on Munkain, even Welsh fans have often questioned the ERC decisions on banning players etc, and it does seem sometimes that certain nations get and easier ride than others.  I can understand the French wondering why the ERC HQ is in a country that has half the amount of teams in it as the French do.

As the ERC are part of the IRB they share the same building Huguenot House in St Stephens Green Dublin. Its all quite transparent.

Whocares mon amis, from what I read in L'Equipe's article discussing Goze's recent statements he seemed more concerned with the Irish that the Celts or Rabbo P12. He didn't mention them, he just mentioned that he considers that the Irish have had an unfair advantage.

Munchkin wrote:

Big wrote:Thanks for putting that up Toadfish.  I had read a number of years ago that the HEC was making less per match than the Powergen Cup (as was).  Interesting to see from someone who is presumably relatively well connected that it's still generating stuff all.  The heineken cup should be making more per match than any other NH club/regional competition.  That it isn't suggests very strongly that it is still being undersold - whether that's because certain organisations are too friendly, or because they are just incompetent at marketing the event I don't know.  I can't see why the Rabo fans aren't up in arms about this (especially supporters of cash strapped Welsh and Scottish regions).  I can see both sides of the argument when it comes to qualification and structure, but on this point surely there is no doubt that ERC have failed and need to be brought to task.

From what I understand under the PRL proposal for any new competition the financial gain for the Celts, and Italians wouldn't be much more than they are getting now.

I do take your point on the HEC possibly being undersold though, and think that is something that should be questioned. Personally, if more money was made available I would like to see it go into a pot to help develop rugby union in other European countries such as Spain.

Yes sometimes you have to wonder whether the PRL think this sport is about making money or having rugby matches... I am soundly convinced it is the later and the former should be reinvested into the sport in as many beneficial ways as possible.