Mediator appointed- Will the Clubs Engage?

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/sep/20/heineken-cup-dispute-lawyer?CMP=twt_gu

The ERC has appointed Graeme Mew, a Canadian lawyer specialising in dispute resolution, to try and get the English and French back in the room and negotiate a future for European rugby. I'm not sure we can hope for much resolution within the framework of the ERC but hopefully we can have all the decision makers meet and not rule anything out- be it continuing within the ERC or forming a new successor body.

We could probably have used this about 3 months ago tbh.

Make that 3 years and you'd be closer...

Great news Notch.

Notch wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/sep/20/heineken-cup-dispute-lawyer?CMP=twt_gu

The ERC has appointed Graeme Mew, a Canadian lawyer specialising in dispute resolution, to try and get the English and French back in the room and negotiate a future for European rugby. I'm not sure we can hope for much resolution within the framework of the ERC but hopefully we can have all the decision makers meet and not rule anything out- be it continuing within the ERC or forming a new successor body.

We could probably have used this about 3 months ago tbh.

Notch, I commented this meeting should have been NOT in 6 weeks, but at the most 6 days, the ERC are proving themselves incompetent yet again, I know the majority of RRW would happily join up with the Franglos, it might even be all.

I hope the PRL and LNR hold to their removal and say they refuse to discuss new competitions with the ERC. If the various unions want to discuss the new competition it will be in a separate meeting.

Now that the mediator has been appointed sooner than expected, they are talking about bringing that October 23rd date forward. I twas pretty disappointed at that date too.

The ERC could be a burden- central issue is ERC are contracted to Sky, PRL are contracted to BT Sport and a fresh start might be necessary. But the best way to do that is for the PRL and LNR to rejoin these talks, divulge the details of this TV deal and then the decision makers can decide whether it makes sense for all parties to proceed either with or without the ERC.

HammerofThunor wrote:I hope the PRL and LNR hold to their removal and say they refuse to discuss new competitions with the ERC. If the various unions want to discuss the new competition it will be in a separate meeting.

They said the refuse to discuss and then the next day went to an ERC meeting and signed up to the afore mentioned meeting with the ERC that is to have a mediator

Notch wrote:Now that the mediator has been appointed sooner than expected, they are talking about bringing that October 23rd date forward. I twas pretty disappointed at that date too.

The ERC could be a burden- central issue is ERC are contracted to Sky, PRL are contracted to BT Sport and a fresh start might be necessary. But the best way to do that is for the PRL and LNR to rejoin these talks, divulge the details of this TV deal and then the decision makers can decide whether it makes sense for all parties to proceed either with or without the ERC.

Yes that is exactly right...!

There is absolutely no reason for the PRL to not attend this meeting whatsoever. It would only prove that it is they who are the obstacle and not the other parties...

Thankfully they agreed to attend the day after they said there was no way they would.

Actually the PRL announced that due to lack of progress of the negotiations they can only assume they're over. As a response the ERC progressed by hiring a mediator. So they can carry on.

But then I'm not the PRL nor does anything I think have a baring on anything, so I can happy say leave it as it means nothing in reality.

The way I've heard it, is the next meeting is going to be the last. It be a case of pretty much locking the doors and discussing it untill an agreement is reached, it could go on for days. It won't be anymore of the meet disagree agree to meet later. After this one we'll either have a new H-cup or the parties involved will agree to go there own ways. Whatever happens this meeting will be the end of the saga.
Think they put in untill October to make sure every party has everything they need gathered, and are prepared for what could be a multiple day lock in untill something is agreed.

Poorfour wrote:Make that 3 years and you'd be closer...

Maybe the 'Franglo' organisations should have spent less time whinging to the media then. Nice to see that the Pro12 teams are going the right about the ordeal.

I don't think so. I initially thought the French and English clubs were saying what they wanted as a starting negotiating position. Sure they were releasing aggressive media statements and generally going about things in a rather ugly way. But in the end they'd negotiate.

But it now seems to me that they don't want to negotiate and never have wanted to. They've rejected any proposals the unions have made. What they want is what they are setting up. A new competition that they control. And they're not going to negotiate. Because with new bigger TV deals they know they have more power and force others to go along with what they want.

So no, I don't think this mediator will help anything.

What proposals have they rejected? I know it's been stated that they have, but what were they?

Feckless Rogue wrote:I don't think so. I initially thought the French and English clubs were saying what they wanted as a starting negotiating position. Sure they were releasing aggressive media statements and generally going about things in a rather ugly way. But in the end they'd negotiate.

But it now seems to me that they don't want to negotiate and never have wanted to. They've rejected any proposals the unions have made. What they want is what they are setting up. A new competition that they control. And they're not going to negotiate. Because with new bigger TV deals they know they have more power and force others to go along with what they want.

So no, I don't think this mediator will help anything.

Feckless, you're ignoring the extended period in which the PRL and LNR requested negotiations to change the structure that were turned down repeatedly, followed by the period in which they served notice that they would leave the tournament, during which negotiations continued to go nowhere (and during which period they went public about what they were asking for and negotiated the BT deal - both of which are tactics consistent with trying to force negotiations when the other side are stonewalling). It's only after those talks have repeatedly shown no progress and PRL/LNR have declared that they areprepared to set up an alternative tournament that the ERC and Pro12 unions have said they are prepared to negotiate (and mentioned anything about discussing the specific things that the LNR/PRL want to change).

The power today, simply put, is in the hands of the Pro12 unions, meaning that 12 of the competing teams can effectively dictate the tournament and control a disproportionate share of the money and qualifying slots. The PRL and LNR's view is, simply put, that a tournament should be controlled by the teams that compete in it with power, money and qualifying proportionate to the number of teams. I've explained elsewhere that I don't think the PRL and LNR are stupid enough to want to create another imbalanced power structure that will only implode in a few years.

Seems some of the PRL supporters on here are making it up as they go along. First of all the Rabo nations wouldn't even negotiate and the reason for the proposed new league was this refusal to negotiate. Now its becoming fairly obvious that the PRL are the ones with no interest in negotiating.

Artful_Dodger wrote:Seems some of the PRL supporters on here are making it up as they go along.  First of all the Rabo nations wouldn't even negotiate and the reason for the proposed new league was this refusal to negotiate.  Now its becoming fairly obvious that the PRL are the ones with no interest in negotiating.

Exactly - back in June the SRU CEO Mark Dodson stated clearly that the SRU accepted the need in future for meritocratic qualifying and therefore that one of Edinburgh or Glasgow might not be in the HEC - PRL do not appear to have moved on anything

Artful_Dodger wrote:Seems some of the PRL supporters on here are making it up as they go along.  First of all the Rabo nations wouldn't even negotiate and the reason for the proposed new league was this refusal to negotiate.  Now its becoming fairly obvious that the PRL are the ones with no interest in negotiating.

Why? The refusal to negotiate was before notice was given. Since then both sides have said they're willing to negotiate but we don't have any of the rejected proposals so we have no idea how much any party is willing to negotiate. The only proposal we know of was the 32 team one that was rejected by the French last year (mainly because it didn't answer a single one of their issues).

Well, you can (and obviously will) believe what you like, but the analogy here is that you go to your boss for a raise and he won't talk about it. After several years of asking in vain, you hand in your notice and get ready to start your own company. And then he says, "let's talk." Be honest, would you feel like talking, or if you did, would you expect to change your mind? Would you be willing even to work for a company that would string you along like that? Wouldn't you rather be your own boss and control your own destiny?

The PRL and LNR have tried to negotiate over an extended period of time and have offered at least one compromise position (1 guaranteed spot per union, rather than strict meritocracy). It's the Pro12 unions and ERC who have suddenly changed their tone at the 11th hour and 59th minute, and only when their bluff was called.

Yes, the SRU said that they might compromise back in June - and were roundly condemned on this very board for being splitters and caving in. The IRFU said something similar on RTE last night, by the way - but wouldn't compromise on ceding control to the clubs, something which is a sine qua non for the PRL. Not much point in negotiating if a change in governance is not on the table but is one of your must haves.

Poorfour wrote:Well, you can (and obviously will) believe what you like, but the analogy here is that you go to your boss for a raise and he won't talk about it. After several years of asking in vain, you hand in your notice and get ready to start your own company. And then he says, "let's talk." Be honest, would you feel like talking, or if you did, would you expect to change your mind? Would you be willing even to work for a company that would string you along like that? Wouldn't you rather be your own boss and control your own destiny?

Except here we're talking about a european competition that doesn't really need fixing (but I'm all for stopping HEC teams dropping down into the challenge cup). Also, I wouldn't want to play in a competition dictated by the clubs, especially French and English ones.

The Saint wrote:

Poorfour wrote:Well, you can (and obviously will) believe what you like, but the analogy here is that you go to your boss for a raise and he won't talk about it. After several years of asking in vain, you hand in your notice and get ready to start your own company. And then he says, "let's talk." Be honest, would you feel like talking, or if you did, would you expect to change your mind? Would you be willing even to work for a company that would string you along like that? Wouldn't you rather be your own boss and control your own destiny?

Except here we're talking about a european competition that doesn't really need fixing (but I'm all for stopping HEC teams dropping down into the challenge cup). Also, I wouldn't want to play in a competition dictated by the clubs, especially French and English ones.

But doesn't that depend on your viewpoint Saint?

If the Franglo's run the European competition it's going to be like French rugby in my opinion. Some strong clubs buying everyone's players and gash international teams. The SH teams (including Arg) pull further away.

I agree that there needs to be a lot of care applied to whatever else is set up. However if it turns out to be club led there are lots of smaller clubs who will collectively be able to influence the others. This might act as some kind of safeguard against the scenario you describe...

Money seems to the motivator for the Franglo's (or is it seeing as they can't make their mind up?). I'd prefer focus for the most part to stay on rugby. God forbid should this sport go down the football route.

I wonder if they have considered a professional service. In the UK we have ACAS (the Arbitration and Conciliation Advisory Service). That would be fairly independent I'd have thought.

Although usually concerning employment problems, I recall them being called in with a wider remit as conciliation and arbitration are both skilled professional processes.

Neutrality at this juncture would be vital.

stub wrote:I agree that there needs to be a lot of care applied to whatever else is set up. However if it turns out to be club led there are lots of smaller clubs who will collectively be able to influence the others. This might act as some kind of safeguard against the scenario you describe...

Do you refer to smaller clubs within the catchment area of the big clubs? In that case your club's future might depend on whether Toulon or Glasgow are your neighbouring clubs. Or maybe I've misunderstood you.

The Saint wrote:

stub wrote:I agree that there needs to be a lot of care applied to whatever else is set up. However if it turns out to be club led there are lots of smaller clubs who will collectively be able to influence the others. This might act as some kind of safeguard against the scenario you describe...

 

Do you refer to smaller clubs within the catchment area of the big clubs? In that case your club's future might depend on whether Toulon or Glasgow are your neighbouring clubs. Or maybe I've misunderstood you.

No, I was thinking along the lines of - if we end up with a set up where clubs have equal shares and votes then the likes of Worcester (my team) and Newcastle etc may have more in common with smaller French and Pro 12 clubs and therefore would be able to act as a block to balance out some of the potentially damaging aims of the Toulons etc...

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:I wonder if they have considered a professional service. In the UK we have ACAS (the Arbitration and Conciliation Advisory Service). That would be fairly independent I'd have thought.

Although usually concerning employment problems, I recall them being called in with a wider remit as conciliation and arbitration are both skilled professional processes.

Neutrality at this juncture would be vital.

+1

The Saint wrote:

Poorfour wrote:Well, you can (and obviously will) believe what you like, but the analogy here is that you go to your boss for a raise and he won't talk about it. After several years of asking in vain, you hand in your notice and get ready to start your own company. And then he says, "let's talk." Be honest, would you feel like talking, or if you did, would you expect to change your mind? Would you be willing even to work for a company that would string you along like that? Wouldn't you rather be your own boss and control your own destiny?

Except here we're talking about a european competition that doesn't really need fixing (but I'm all for stopping HEC teams dropping down into the challenge cup). Also, I wouldn't want to play in a competition dictated by the clubs, especially French and English ones.

The prosecution rests, m'lud.

You don't think it needs fixing, but then Fidel Castro probably doesn't think the Cuban regime needs fixing. Plenty of people do, though. And the majority of the teams that play in the competitions think they need fixing.

Which part of it needs fixing and how will the proposed Franglo competition address this?

Do we really have to go over this again?

What the PRL and LNR want is:
- Qualification needs to be competitive and meritocratic for all the teams
- Fewer teams in the top tier competition to create more room in the season
- Stronger second and possibly third tier competitions
- More even distribution of revenue across the teams involved
- Club competition governed by clubs not unions (otherwise a minority of the teams involved will always be able to outvote the majority)

Personally, I agree with most of that. I would be ok with keeping a 24 team top tier, but if you do that it makes meritocratic entry and stronger second and third tiers much harder to achieve, so I can see how a smaller top tier is important to the overall package.

This is a desperation move by the ERC who are probably desperate to stay in a job mismanaging one of the biggest competitions in rugby. They've used the Rabo vote bulk voting to nullify any attempt to negotiate since 2007 when issues were first raised.

I still hold that the ERC could have brought round the PRL months back by allowing them to sell their own tv rights, but no they renewed with Sky for a pittance instead further angering the PRL. That move was petty and stupid.

Poorfour wrote:Do we really have to go over this again?

What the PRL and LNR want is:
- Qualification needs to be competitive and meritocratic for all the teams
- Fewer teams in the top tier competition to create more room in the season
- Stronger second and possibly third tier competitions
- More even distribution of revenue across the teams involved
- Club competition governed by clubs not unions (otherwise a minority of the teams involved will always be able to outvote the majority)

Personally, I agree with most of that. I would be ok with keeping a 24 team top tier, but if you do that it makes meritocratic entry and stronger second and third tiers much harder to achieve, so I can see how a smaller top tier is important to the overall package.

It's a set of rules that creates advantages for the ones who already have the advantages (Franglo's) and disadvantages the ones who are already at a disadvantage (Pro12). I don't believe there are enough professional teams for a 3 tier competition, looking at the teams in Italy, Georgia and Romania here. If the Franglo's have their way, rugby in these countries will cease to exist.

As it is, the European competition encompasses a fair repsresentation from the leading nations in Europe, this in-turn helps developing nations such as Italy, Romania, etc. The revenue and viewing figures continues to grow year by year. I enjoy the competition as I'm sure most rugby fans do. It doesn't need fixing.

The Saint wrote:

Poorfour wrote:Do we really have to go over this again?

What the PRL and LNR want is:
- Qualification needs to be competitive and meritocratic for all the teams
- Fewer teams in the top tier competition to create more room in the season
- Stronger second and possibly third tier competitions
- More even distribution of revenue across the teams involved
- Club competition governed by clubs not unions (otherwise a minority of the teams involved will always be able to outvote the majority)

Personally, I agree with most of that. I would be ok with keeping a 24 team top tier, but if you do that it makes meritocratic entry and stronger second and third tiers much harder to achieve, so I can see how a smaller top tier is important to the overall package.

It's a set of rules that creates advantages for the ones who already have the advantages (Franglo's) and disadvantages the ones who are already at a disadvantage (Pro12). I don't believe there are enough professional teams for a 3 tier competition, looking at the teams in Italy, Georgia and Romania here. If the Franglo's have their way, rugby in these countries will cease to exist.

In what way do the current "rules" advantage the PRL and LNR teams? They have to qualify for top tier tournament, with 50% or fewer of their teams qualifying. Meanwhile, the Pro12 unions each get automatic qualification for 75%+ of the teams they are able to sustain, which has knock-on benefits in terms of seeding and managing players to focus on the HEC games. The 12 Pro12 teams get, between them, about 50% of the revenue, whereas the PRL and LNR teams - who are not subsidised by their unions - get 50% between 26 teams. In terms of governance, one third of the teams (or their governing bodies) control two thirds of the votes.

In what conceivable way does that constitute an advantage for English or French teams? Unless you actually live in the kind of warped reality dreamed up by Orwell, Kafka or Philip K. Dick, in which case I feel sorry for you and/or your therapist.

The LNR and PRL have asked for equal numbers to qualify from each league, for a distribution of the money that gives each team roughly the same (and nobody less than they get today), and the power distributed so that the clubs control the tournament. Equality, in other words.

Poorfour wrote:

The Saint wrote:

Poorfour wrote:Do we really have to go over this again?

What the PRL and LNR want is:
- Qualification needs to be competitive and meritocratic for all the teams
- Fewer teams in the top tier competition to create more room in the season
- Stronger second and possibly third tier competitions
- More even distribution of revenue across the teams involved
- Club competition governed by clubs not unions (otherwise a minority of the teams involved will always be able to outvote the majority)

Personally, I agree with most of that. I would be ok with keeping a 24 team top tier, but if you do that it makes meritocratic entry and stronger second and third tiers much harder to achieve, so I can see how a smaller top tier is important to the overall package.

The
It's a set of rules that creates advantages for the ones who already have the advantages (Franglo's) and disadvantages the ones who are already at a disadvantage (Pro12). I don't believe there are enough professional teams for a 3 tier competition, looking at the teams in Italy, Georgia and Romania here. If the Franglo's have their way, rugby in these countries will cease to exist.

In what way do the current "rules" advantage the PRL and LNR teams? They have to qualify for top tier tournament, with 50% or fewer of their teams qualifying. Meanwhile, the Pro12 unions each get automatic qualification for 75%+ of the teams they are able to sustain, which has knock-on benefits in terms of seeding and managing players to focus on the HEC games. The 12 Pro12 teams get, between them, about 50% of the revenue,  whereas the PRL and LNR teams - who are not subsidised by their unions - get 50% between 26 teams. In terms of governance, one third of the  teams (or their governing bodies) control two thirds of the votes.

In what conceivable way does that constitute an advantage for English or French teams? Unless you actually live in the kind of warped reality dreamed up by Orwell, Kafka or Philip K. Dick, in which case I feel sorry for you and/or your therapist.

The LNR and PRL have asked for equal numbers to qualify from each league, for a distribution of the money that gives each team roughly the same (and nobody less than they get today), and the power distributed so that the clubs control the tournament. Equality, in other words.

This has been done to death, orginally Wales England and France got to enter 4 teams each, Scotland 3 ireland 3 and Italy 2.
Over the years England and France have demanded more teams at the expense of Wales and Scotland and have it expanded so they can enter more teams, now they are saying because we have the most teams we want more say in it and we also want to change our minds about expaning it to allow an extra French and English team in it, but instead of the French and English team that joined dropping out we want it to be celtic/italian teams.

And they already have a larger share of the pot Kingshu.

Ah nice to see we are back to 'there is no reason for there to be a problem so there isnt one' again.  

The Saint wrote:

Poorfour wrote:Well, you can (and obviously will) believe what you like, but the analogy here is that you go to your boss for a raise and he won't talk about it. After several years of asking in vain, you hand in your notice and get ready to start your own company. And then he says, "let's talk." Be honest, would you feel like talking, or if you did, would you expect to change your mind? Would you be willing even to work for a company that would string you along like that? Wouldn't you rather be your own boss and control your own destiny?

Except here we're talking about a european competition that doesn't really need fixing (but I'm all for stopping HEC teams dropping down into the challenge cup). Also, I wouldn't want to play in a competition dictated by the clubs, especially French and English ones.

No, we're talking about two existing European competitions, one of which could do with some improvement, and one of which is in desperate need of fixing. It's clearly my opinion on the need for improvement/fixing, but it's an undeniable fact that it is 2 competitions that are under discussion.

Kingshu wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

The Saint wrote:

Poorfour wrote:Do we really have to go over this again?

What the PRL and LNR want is:
- Qualification needs to be competitive and meritocratic for all the teams
- Fewer teams in the top tier competition to create more room in the season
- Stronger second and possibly third tier competitions
- More even distribution of revenue across the teams involved
- Club competition governed by clubs not unions (otherwise a minority of the teams involved will always be able to outvote the majority)

Personally, I agree with most of that. I would be ok with keeping a 24 team top tier, but if you do that it makes meritocratic entry and stronger second and third tiers much harder to achieve, so I can see how a smaller top tier is important to the overall package.

The
It's a set of rules that creates advantages for the ones who already have the advantages (Franglo's) and disadvantages the ones who are already at a disadvantage (Pro12). I don't believe there are enough professional teams for a 3 tier competition, looking at the teams in Italy, Georgia and Romania here. If the Franglo's have their way, rugby in these countries will cease to exist.

In what way do the current "rules" advantage the PRL and LNR teams? They have to qualify for top tier tournament, with 50% or fewer of their teams qualifying. Meanwhile, the Pro12 unions each get automatic qualification for 75%+ of the teams they are able to sustain, which has knock-on benefits in terms of seeding and managing players to focus on the HEC games. The 12 Pro12 teams get, between them, about 50% of the revenue,  whereas the PRL and LNR teams - who are not subsidised by their unions - get 50% between 26 teams. In terms of governance, one third of the  teams (or their governing bodies) control two thirds of the votes.

In what conceivable way does that constitute an advantage for English or French teams? Unless you actually live in the kind of warped reality dreamed up by Orwell, Kafka or Philip K. Dick, in which case I feel sorry for you and/or your therapist.

The LNR and PRL have asked for equal numbers to qualify from each league, for a distribution of the money that gives each team roughly the same (and nobody less than they get today), and the power distributed so that the clubs control the tournament. Equality, in other words.

This has been done to death, orginally Wales England and France got to enter 4 teams each, Scotland 3 ireland 3 and Italy 2.
Over the years England and France have demanded more teams at the expense of Wales and Scotland and have it expanded so they can enter more teams, now they are saying because we have the most teams we want more say in it and we also want to change our minds about expaning it to allow an extra French and English team in it, but instead of the French and English team that joined dropping out we want it to be  celtic/italian teams.

The ERC does not just govern the HC, it also governs the Amlin.  Since England joined, France and England have always had the most teams involved in Europe and a disproportionate say in how the ERC runs those competitions in relation to the number of their entrants.  Wales also used to have far more teams, but their domestic game couldn't support them.

Given their lack of involvement in it, it's understandable that most PRO12 supporters and their unions don't consider and couldn't really care less about the Amlin and how it fits in the European puzzle or the ERC's plans and income generation, but the PRL & LNR's job is to represent all their teams and since the beginning more than half of them have been in the Amlin.

" I don't believe there are enough professional teams for a 3 tier competition, looking at the teams in Italy, Georgia and Romania here. If the Franglo's have their way, rugby in these countries will cease to exist."

The third tier would promote a funded and viable competition for developing nations and was a key part of the Franglo's Euro Competition concept along with a more competitive second tier platform. A third tier would grow interest in developing rugby nations by offering a competition they could participate in and have success in rather than just take a kicking in the second tier.

Of course the cash isn't in the pot to bring this tournament into effect because the Rabo backed ERC time and time again under sell the tournaments and grab all the cash they can get their hands on. The FrAnglo offer includes separate tv deals and renegotiated sponsorship deals that would land the Rabo unions the same money the currently receive, a third tier and an increase for the AP and the French.

formerly known as Sam wrote:" I don't believe there are enough professional teams for a 3 tier competition, looking at the teams in Italy, Georgia and Romania here. If the Franglo's have their way, rugby in these countries will cease to exist."

The third tier would promote a funded and viable competition for developing nations and was a key part of the Franglo's Euro Competition concept along with a more competitive second tier platform. A third tier would grow interest in developing rugby nations by offering a competition they could participate in and have success in rather than just take a kicking in the second tier.

Of course the cash isn't in the pot to bring this tournament into effect because the Rabo backed ERC time and time again under sell the tournaments and grab all the cash they can get their hands on. The FrAnglo offer includes separate tv deals and renegotiated sponsorship deals that would land the Rabo unions the same money the currently receive, a third tier and an increase for the AP and the French.

Apparently the Tooth Fairy is in charge of the bit in bold.
As an aside would you be interested in some plots of land that I have available in Outer Mongolia - there is almost certainly gold, silver AND oil lying beneath these one off opportunities

Maybe the ERC could be the tooth fairy?

Just saying.............

How difficult is it to organise subsidised transport for semi pro teams and find a sponsor and broadcasting rights to put money in their unions pocket? Hardly pie in the sky stuff. If the ERC bothered to maximise the revenue generated by the the HEC and the Amlin there would be resources available for such projects. The ERC are however, happy in their incompetence and the voting block of the Rabo stifle any attempt at change so we are stuck with one competition that works and one that does not.

Just to say the are 10 pro teams in Russia and 8 in Georgia. They won't all be semi pro

Looks like the mediator task is only getting tougher :

http://www.premiershiprugby.com/m/news/28965.php

Does that mean the winners of that cup can call themselves champions of rugby?

whocares wrote:Looks like the mediator task is only getting tougher :

http://www.premiershiprugby.com/m/news/28965.php

So no more details until after the ERC meeting?

I can't see the appointment of a mediator making any difference as the PRL/LNR seem determined to smash the ERC come what may.

At least the whole thing will be brought to a head and the PRO12 Unions will have a bit of time to organise something post HEC.

maestegmafia wrote:

whocares wrote:Looks like the mediator task is only getting tougher :

http://www.premiershiprugby.com/m/news/28965.php

So no more details until after the ERC meeting?

Surely no precise proposals can be put forward until such time as it has been established who is party to the agreement. Otherwise maybe there would have to be contingency plans for all combinations of possible outcomes.

The PRL has no experience of drawing up effective contingency plans. As an organising body, it has to be admitted that they are rubbish. Ask those bods in Oxford.

But they are not alone in being rubbish at sports administration.

The bods in Oxford took the RFU to court in order to get into the AP.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-2166651/London-Welsh-win-appeal-play-Aviva-Premiership.html

The entry requirements for the AP was nothing to do with the PRL.