Merged thread euro competition

[Portnoy's Complaint]

First topic message reminder :

Apparently there's a meeting today of two mighty behemoths of the English game meet to (presumably) find a common position on the wreckage of the negotiations on the future of European competition.

It will be interesting if they come to any clear (I doubt that it will be satisfactory) conclusion.

This, remember, is a discussion between two spectacularly incompetent bodies which have presided over farcical maladministration over the past decade.

The RFU, standard bearers of the ideals and ethos of the famed 57 Old Farts, have stumbled and staggered their way 'forward' since the dawn of professionalism.
vs
The PRL who have never managed to provide a satisfactory cohesive, decision which actually improves the English game with a satisfactory watertight, long term 'what if?' structured set of rules. They in their short history have represented solely the elite game through a seemingly never-ending stream of short-term, knee-jerk decisions which sow the quick-germinating seeds of insoluble and self-contradictory positions for the future. From its inception it has been nothing less than a disaster from the issue of voting shares, through parachute payments to the fundamental process of promotion/relegation itself. Bumbling incompetents.

Unfortunately they (the PRL) have the players and therefore all the cards over the RFU exactly two years before the 2015 RWC starts on English soil.

Grim and depressing innit? Especially for non-combatants.

[TJ]

London tiger - the Rabo teams have been prepared to find some middle ground - its just they are not going to make all the compromises. Negotiations from the PRL appear to be " this is what we are going to do - like it or lump it"

[Portnoy's Complaint]

Of course the PRL is a cartel. Only a nutter would believe otherwise. Its an organision dedicated to maximise the commercial advantages of its members but equally if the teleloms industry was organised on the lines of the Rabo or the IRFU or the SRU (exclusive oligopoly (Rabo), monopsonist purchaser in a monopoly market (IRFU & SRU)), then the EU would have a field day in banging out crippling fines. So people need to be careful when chucking bricks in glass houses with glass ceilings.

[Welshmushroom]

So has there been a press release after the RFU and PRL meeting? Sorry I know this is going back on thread topic here

Also if the Pro12 does resign with the HC, I know everyone is talking about the non participation here of French and English because they have pulled out. But in essence its only the PRL and LNR which have pulled out. Now from what I understand that is essentially 12 clubs in England (didn't Exeter moan recently that they are not even on the PRL board?) and the 14 clubs (although again I'm not sure its as many as that due to the relegation so the board may be just 11). So could there be a scenario where the FRU and RFU regain their control and enter teams outside of those members? Possibly lower based clubs?

[TJ]

I think that is a possibility if the lnr and prl continue to play hardball. It would be a very poor second best tho. I love to see the matchups of the giants of european rugby. Toulon. leinster, bath. Saracens etc

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

If the FFR were smart, they would acquiesce to an enlarged T16, giving the one thing that the LNR most crave, in return for them getting back on board with the ERC and proper European cup competitions - everyone's a winner ... oh, except PRL

Perhaps it is time for McCafferty to get the boot

If LNR get an expanded T16 - they would not participate in any European competition.

McCafferty has perhaps been a tw@t - but no more so than Lewis/Lux and many others on both sides. Anyone who claims that their side in this has acted in the good faith of fans and rugby is sadly deluded. Every single one of them, English, French, Irish, Italian, Scottish and Welsh has been fighting for what is best for them. The hatred and intransigence shown by many fans and posters is replicated in the board rooms it seems.

The PRL/LNR proposal was unfair.
So were the current arrangements.

No middle ground will ever be found, as no-one wishes to appear to lose anything.

They could not organise a urine up in a brewery nor an orgy in a brothel.

LT, totally agree re tw@ttage, but I would happily bar J-PLux and McCafferty from rugby for life after their behaviour. As O'Shea said, any all-encompassing tournament is going to take some folks with massive egos to get in a room together and put their heightened self-importances firmly to one side

Don't agree re a T16 meaning no French participation - a smaller European tournament can accommodate both

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

So has there been a press release after the RFU and PRL meeting?  Sorry I know this is going back on thread topic here

Also if the Pro12 does resign with the HC, I know everyone is talking about the non participation here of French and English because they have pulled out.  But in essence its only the PRL and LNR which have pulled out.  Now from what I understand that is essentially 12 clubs in England (didn't Exeter moan recently that they are not even on the PRL board?)  and the 14 clubs (although again I'm not sure its as many as that due to the relegation so the board may be just 11).  So could there be a scenario where the FRU and RFU regain their control and enter teams outside of those members?  Possibly lower based clubs?

not sure about that, mushroom - I thought that all prem teams were represented, but it is certainly true that Exe do not get an equal financial share, and won't do for years to come

[maestegmafia]

Portnoy mate

This argument you mention above, one that keeps getting banded around, regarding certain unions and their professional direction as being invalid of EU laws on restraint of trade, employment and such are incorrect.

The reverse challenge is that these measures are taken to secure jobs in those areas. Something the EU heavily funds in commercial trade. Challenging an unjust restriction to promotion on unrealistic and unnecessary targets was a sustainable challenge to EU fair trade, restricting the number of foreign nationals being employed or using a union to manage a market is not a sustainable or realistic challenge.

[Poorfour]

The PRL is not perfect, and the London Welsh promotion thing was handled badly - though the issues are, as ever, not as one-sided as the quotes imply. Even the article accepts that parachute payments make sense. Primacy of tenure is another good example - you need a supermajority of teams to control usage of their ground so you can schedule the league. The original rule allowed for some named teams to be second tenants - LW got that changed to a maximum number of (non-specified) teams.

Like the ERC, it's an imperfect body with flaws and historical issues that reflect the immaturity of the sport. Like the ERC (who, in case you forgot, couldn't even write a ban on Deano that they could make stick) they make mistakes and have done things that seem unfair. Like the ERC they represent a specific set of interests.

But in this process, they are arguing for things that I think are much more reasonable than many of the views expressed here will admit, and the way they've gone about it has been largely forced on them by the ERC's previous lack of responsiveness..

[TJ]

Poorfour. Why if the euro cup needs to have a reduced number of sides ( and I havenot even seenany real justification for this) does all that reduction have to come from 4 unions while 2 unions keep allt ehir representation. this is the major sticking point that the Rabo unions simply cannot accept - a 40% reduction in representation v no reduction in representation. Its almost as if the PRL deliberatly set out a stance they new would be unacceptable in order to ensure the negotiations collapse to break the ERC

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

The PRL is not perfect, and the London Welsh promotion thing was handled badly - though the issues are, as ever, not as one-sided as the quotes imply. Even the article accepts that parachute payments make sense. Primacy of tenure is another good example - you need a supermajority of teams to control usage of their ground so you can schedule the league. The original rule allowed for some named teams to be second tenants - LW got that changed to a maximum number of (non-specified) teams.

Like the ERC, it's an imperfect body with flaws and historical issues that reflect the immaturity of the sport. Like the ERC (who, in case you forgot, couldn't even write a ban on Deano that they could make stick) they make mistakes and have done things that seem unfair. Like the ERC they represent a specific set of interests.

But in this process, they are arguing for things that I think are much more reasonable than many of the views expressed here will admit, and the way they've gone about it has been largely forced on them by the ERC's previous lack of responsiveness..

Ah-ha, the old Nuremberg defence  

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

Poorfour.  Why if the euro cup needs to have a reduced number of sides ( and I havenot even seenany real justification for this) does all that reduction have to come from 4 unions while 2 unions keep allt ehir representation.  this is the major sticking point that the Rabo unions simply cannot accept - a 40% reduction in representation v no reduction in representation.  Its almost as if the PRL deliberatly set out a stance they new would be unacceptable in order to ensure the negotiations collapse to break the ERC

TJ, regardless of what many fans of English club teams will admit, once the PRL had signed with BT (well over a year ago), the PRL had no intention of participating in any tournament organised by the ERC, they simply couldn't without breaching their lucrative contract - the rest is a smokescreen, and even honest, well-intentioned posters have fallen for their constant stream of media bull

[beshocked]

artful dodger funny you call Quentin smith a parasite. I think that of most Pro12 clubs in the current HC.

malky1963 Edinburgh have far too many foreigners as it is.

That doesn't even count "Scots" like Cuthbert,Visser,Denton and Tonks.

[TJ]

I would stilllike someone to provide a logial reason why any reduction should all come from four countries and none from the two with the most representation?. If the cup needs to go to 20 teams why must it be 6/6/6 +2. why not 5/5/8+2 or 6/6/8?

[nathan]

London tiger - the Rabo teams have been prepared to find some middle ground - its just they are not going to make all the compromises.  Negotiations from the PRL appear to be " this is what we are going to do - like it or lump it"

What proof do we have that they are prepared to find some middle ground? Other than press releases that both sides seem to give out that seem to twist the truth.

[TJ]

Proof? the varius statements that have come out show a willingness to negotiate on numbers and qualification from the RABO but not from the PRL

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

nathan, what does it matter? Once the PRL had signed the BT Sport deal, they could not be a part of any ERC-run competition without breaching contract. Everything for the last year and some has been complete obfuscation on the part of the PRL

[nathan]

Proof? the varius statements that have come out show a willingness to negotiate on numbers and qualification from the RABO but not from the PRL

lol, so your willing to read media gruff from one side but not the other?

[nathan]

nathan, what does it matter? Once the PRL had signed the BT Sport deal, they could not be a part of any ERC-run competition without breaching contract.  Everything for the last year and some has been complete obfuscation on the part of the PRL

It matters in the fact i was replying to TJ as he mentioned the Rabo teams were willing to negotiate.

[TJ]

Oh I have read media gruff from both sides. find me a a meaningful concession from the PRL - the only one has been from 6 rabo clubs purely on league position to 6 - one from each country plus 2 from league position.

[Welshmushroom]

artful dodger funny you call Quentin smith a parasite. I think that of most Pro12 clubs in the current HC.

malky1963  Edinburgh have far too many foreigners as it is.

That doesn't even count "Scots" like Cuthbert,Visser,Denton and Tonks.

Sorry Beshocked but as a Saracens fan you really can't cast any stones at teams for foreign policy. The list of South Africans at your club is rather long, not to mention the other nationalities or the South African who have been capped by England but are still essentially South Africans. Given the Saracens are the same owners for one of the South African franchises its clearly a employment home for the white players who struggle at times to find franchises due to the racial quota policy. By my count more than one in two players in your squad is essentially non English.

I'm just pointing this out because when you actually compare Edinburgh to say Saracens they actually are not that bad.

[Totalflanker]

All else aside - the Rugby Championship Cup needs IRB to sanction it. Otherwise all of the elements that make the new competition feasible from refereeing to player insurance very difficult if not impossible. To sanction it there needs to be union support and that means compromise.

Why compromise, because without it if FFR and RFU provide support to the current format, they get ostracised in their dealings with the other 4 unions, potentially impacting nature/revenues associated with six nations and beyond in dealings with the IRB.

Neither the ERC nor PRL are covering themselves in much glory here, but unless there is something in the middle that makes sense for both (and probably more importantly, given the egos involved, allows both parties to at least save some face), then I don't see how things go ahead.

Like it or lump it this is not just a club rugby discussion it is an international rugby discussion too, which is why neither the clubs nor the unions can have it all their own way.

[TJ]

"International Rugby Board chairman Bernard Lapasset has come out in support of European Rugby Cup Ltd saying any future European tournament must be Union-run. "

" Lapasset told AFP the game's governing body "will ensure we have a European competition which fulfils its name, which is not confiscated by some nations but has a real international interest.

"The IRB will defend this principle: not a privatisation of a competition in the interest of some people," he said, adding that "unions maintain pre-eminence over the leagues... the unions must remain masters of the game."

[Guest]

London tiger - the Rabo teams have been prepared to find some middle ground - its just they are not going to make all the compromises.  Negotiations from the PRL appear to be " this is what we are going to do - like it or lump it"

What proof do we have that they are prepared to find some middle ground? Other than press releases that both sides seem to give out that seem to twist the truth.

I think there has been enough articles published to suggest that the Rabo are willing to give ground on some PRL/LNR demands. Whether or not anyone chooses to believe the claims is a matter for them. The same applies to claims made from the PRL/LNR camp.
When it comes to providing proof I think most of us are all in the same boat. Living of scraps.

[TJ]

I would like to see any evidence of willingness to realistically negotiate from the PRL side. can any provide a quote or two?

[nathan]

London tiger - the Rabo teams have been prepared to find some middle ground - its just they are not going to make all the compromises.  Negotiations from the PRL appear to be " this is what we are going to do - like it or lump it"

What proof do we have that they are prepared to find some middle ground? Other than press releases that both sides seem to give out that seem to twist the truth.

I think there has been enough articles published to suggest that the Rabo are willing to give ground on some PRL/LNR demands. Whether or not anyone chooses to believe the claims is a matter for them. The same applies to claims made from the PRL/LNR camp.
When it comes to providing proof I think most of us are all in the same boat. Living of scraps.

Exactly, there is no way to know the truth of these media reports. The more there are of them doesn't mean there closer to being true.

I just get annoyed when fans roll them out as facts.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

nathan, what does it matter? Once the PRL had signed the BT Sport deal, they could not be a part of any ERC-run competition without breaching contract.  Everything for the last year and some has been complete obfuscation on the part of the PRL

It matters in the fact i was replying to TJ as he mentioned the Rabo teams were willing to negotiate.

natham apologies, I knew that you were replying to TJ - what I was suggesting is that it wouldn't have mattered one jot whether the Celtic and Italian unions had acquiesced to PRL demands for the last year plus, because the PRL had alrady made their minds up/backed themselves into a corner - there has not been ANY room for negotiation for over a year, there simply couldn't be without the PRL breaching contract

[beshocked]

artful dodger funny you call Quentin smith a parasite. I think that of most Pro12 clubs in the current HC.

malky1963  Edinburgh have far too many foreigners as it is.

That doesn't even count "Scots" like Cuthbert,Visser,Denton and Tonks.

Sorry Beshocked but as a Saracens fan you really can't cast any stones at teams for foreign policy.  The list of South Africans at your club is rather long, not to mention the other nationalities or the South African who have been capped by England but are still essentially South Africans.  Given the Saracens are the same owners for one of the South African franchises its clearly a employment home for the white players who struggle at times to find franchises due to the racial quota policy.  By my count more than one in two players in your squad is essentially non English.

I'm just pointing this out because when you actually compare Edinburgh to say Saracens they actually are not that bad.

Welshmushroom actually I can. This is because the AP consists of 12 teams. Plus Saracens are a good side - our foreigners are top notch and add to the league. Not journeyman who add little.

The likes of Brown,Burger,Joubert,Brits are top notch foreigners. We help Namibia,Scotland,Wales and USA by helping improve their players and giving them a decent platform for example. We also release players to international duty with no worries.

Our academy is very strong too - in the last 4 years we have had a healthy amount of players in the England U18s and U20s plus now some of them are getting full international honours too.

Scotland only has two teams. It's unhealthy for one side to be stacked full of foreigners.

[LondonTiger]

London tiger - the Rabo teams have been prepared to find some middle ground - its just they are not going to make all the compromises.  Negotiations from the PRL appear to be " this is what we are going to do - like it or lump it"

My baby brother's god father has been involved in the "negotiations" as one of the PRLs legal team.

He states there were no concessions formally offered by non PRL/LNr representatives. In fact he claims that all along Monsieur Lux has offered only a take the status quo or go. Any offers were made purely via press releases once PRL/LNR had walked away.

He may be lying (and lawyers are famous for this) - but as he has been equally scathing in private of PRL, I for one believe him.

[rodders]

nathan, what does it matter? Once the PRL had signed the BT Sport deal, they could not be a part of any ERC-run competition without breaching contract.  Everything for the last year and some has been complete obfuscation on the part of the PRL

It matters in the fact i was replying to TJ as he mentioned the Rabo teams were willing to negotiate.

natham apologies, I knew that you were replying to TJ - what I was suggesting is that it wouldn't have mattered one jot whether the Celtic and Italian unions had acquiesced to PRL demands for the last year plus, because the PRL had alrady made their minds up/backed themselves into a corner - there has not been ANY room for negotiation for over a year

Exactly, the whole thing is nonsense. The PRL have signed with BT so they are gone from the heino - they are gambling on the French going with them and eventually the Rabo teams. The format of the comp is neither here nor there, its about money and wrestling control from the ERC.

This is done irreparable damage to European rugby and the best outcome for me is we all go our separate ways. The greedy and arrogant PRL can feic off. If it means reverting back to amateur rugby so be it.

[Totalflanker]

"International Rugby Board chairman Bernard Lapasset has come out in support of European Rugby Cup Ltd saying any future European tournament must be Union-run. "

" Lapasset told AFP the game's governing body "will ensure we have a European competition which fulfils its name, which is not confiscated by some nations but has a real international interest.

"The IRB will defend this principle: not a privatisation of a competition in the interest of some people," he said, adding that "unions maintain pre-eminence over the leagues... the unions must remain masters of the game."

http://www.espn.co.uk/heineken-cup-2013-14/rugby/story/199509.html

[TJ]

Thanks - I am not able to put up lnks yet as this is effectively a new account.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

London tiger - the Rabo teams have been prepared to find some middle ground - its just they are not going to make all the compromises.  Negotiations from the PRL appear to be " this is what we are going to do - like it or lump it"

My baby brother's god father has been involved in the "negotiations" as one of the PRLs legal team.

He states there were no concessions formally offered by non PRL/LNr representatives. In fact he claims that all along Monsieur Lux has offered only a take the status quo or go. Any offers were made purely via press releases once PRL/LNR had walked away.

He may be lying (and lawyers are famous for this) - but as he has been equally scathing in private of PRL, I for one believe him.

LT, would he feel able to comment on the fact that once the PRL had signed their deal with BT that they had already walked away from the negotiating table over a year ago, and that all mutterings since have been nothing more than a smokescreen? (or words to that effect if you felt that my question would only antagonise!)

[Poorfour]

An article from today's Telegraph sheds a bit of light. You have to take both sets of quotes with a pinch of salt because everyone is representing their own interests, but essentially the PRL feel they tried to negotiate for 16 months before they served notice and went off to get the BT deal; the ERC wants to negotiate now.

There's a second article where McCafferty makes it clear that the PRL are willing to negotiate with the unions but not with the ERC.

“The FFR has now officially reminded the LNR that no international game involving French clubs can take place without the advance permission of the FFR,” said Lux. “And the RFU has a similar position regarding Premiership Rugby.

“The recent media releases from the LNR and Premiership Rugby lacked respect. In June, the LNR committed to the principle of central marketing for ERC’s tournaments which has been the at the heart of European club rugby’s commercial success.

“While this process began in 2012, ERC met with the parties during the summer, with the exception of Premiership Rugby, who refused to engage. They have never entered into negotiations.

“This impasse is essentially because Premiership Rugby want to renege on a binding commercial deal in favour of their questionable TV contract with BT [Sport].

“We have another opportunity for everyone to finally engage with the process with the meeting on Oct 23 and 24 with Graeme Mew. I hope we will be able to reach an agreement. It would be disastrous to deprive so many players and fans of the opportunity of participating in such an outstanding tournament.”

A Premiership Rugby spokesman rebuffed Lux’s claims, insisting that the English clubs had taken part in earlier ERC negotiations and put forward proposals for a “new dynamic three-tier tournament based on meritocracy in qualification and distribution of revenues”.

The spokesman added: “We entered into the process but nothing happened for 16 months. We pulled out of the [ERC] accord in June 2012 so we are not part of any [television] deal for the 2014/15 season.

“We hope to be able to reach agreement for a pan-European competition. We are not trying to destroy the Heineken Cup. We are trying to make it a new and better competition.”

[Totalflanker]

No worries - wasn't trying to be smart, read your post and then went searching for the article.

[TJ]

I do think the RABO nations would settle for 8 representatives - a reduction from 10 and I think this would actually be a good thing - one from each nation plus the 4 next best. the other demands over timing are easily accomodated

I think 5/5 8 + 2 winners is the best way forward. the only real issue with that is for it to work properly Scotland wouldneed some teams in the amlin and I don't know where they wouldcome from. Join a couple of thebest clubs together for the amlin?

[TJ]

the PRL tho simply put down their proposals as written in stone and refused to accept any modification to them bar going from the top 6 rabo teams to one from each country and the two best others.  

It takes two sides to compromise - the PRL have not done so I am still waiting for any evidence of compromise from the PRl side bar the minor one above

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

Gael Force?!

[HammerofThunor]

The IRFU (I think it was) stated they had been prepared to compromise and offered alternatives. But no details of these alternatives have been released (other than the 32 team cup rejected by the French). So who's to say what they were meaningful?

[HammerofThunor]

the PRL tho simply put down their proposals as written in stone and refused to accept any modification to them bar going from the top 6 rabo teams to one from each country and the two best others.  

It takes two sides to compromise - the PRL have not done so  I am still waiting for any evidence of compromise from the PRl side bar the minor one above

But what evidence is there of ANY compromise from the unions other then them saying they did?

[itsallabouttheincentives]

Erc has been relying all along, and clearly still is, from JP lux regular statements, on rfu/ffr/irb scuppering prl/lnr. This is why EEC and the rabo participants did not negotiate and offer and compromise. They always believed they had the nuclear option with rfu/ffr/irb on their side. Shame on them.

[LondonTiger]

London tiger - the Rabo teams have been prepared to find some middle ground - its just they are not going to make all the compromises.  Negotiations from the PRL appear to be " this is what we are going to do - like it or lump it"

My baby brother's god father has been involved in the "negotiations" as one of the PRLs legal team.

He states there were no concessions formally offered by non PRL/LNr representatives. In fact he claims that all along Monsieur Lux has offered only a take the status quo or go. Any offers were made purely via press releases once PRL/LNR had walked away.

He may be lying (and lawyers are famous for this) - but as he has been equally scathing in private of PRL, I for one believe him.

LT, would he feel able to comment on the fact that once the PRL had signed their deal with BT that they had already walked away from the negotiating table over a year ago, and that all mutterings since have been nothing more than a smokescreen? (or words to that effect if you felt that my question would only antagonise!)

I will ask when I have a chance - probaly not see/speak to him till 5th October.

My understanding was that the BT contract was only ironclad for domestic matches - the european part was more a memorandum of Understanding (ie McCafferty intended to sell English games for loads of wonga but is not firmly contracted to). This is though my on read on it.

[broadlandboy]

A Logical reason for why the reduction should be from the Rabo league
Jeff 50% of top teams in top competition minimum
Top 14>50% of top teams in top competition minimum
Irish 75% top teams in top competition minimum
Wales 75% top teams in top competition minimum
Scotland & Italy 100% top teams in top competition
Can you see the inequality of where teams come from?

[Totalflanker]

Fair point Hammer - and while a little late in the day, at least there is now some mediation in place. Providing the PRL are willing to come to the table (and given the IRB's stance looks like they probably now need to) then there is hope for some compromise on both sides.

[beshocked]

Erc has been relying all along, and clearly still is, from JP lux regular statements, on rfu/ffr/irb scuppering prl/lnr. This is why EEC and the rabo participants did not negotiate and offer and compromise. They always believed they had the nuclear option with rfu/ffr/irb on their side. Shame on them.

Very true.

[TJ]

Nonsense - the PRL have set out from stage one a position they know the Rabo unions cannot sign up to and have insisted on this position without any hint of compromise.

shame on them for wanting to control everything and accumulate more money and power to a small number of clubowners with no thought for the consequences on the wider game - this is why the unions must run it - to protect the weaker countries.

the PRL proposals would ruin pro rugby in Scotland and Italy and damage it badly in Wales and Ireland - but that is of no consequence to tehm as they are not interested in a wider stronger game.

[HammerofThunor]

Poorfour.  Why if the euro cup needs to have a reduced number of sides ( and I havenot even seenany real justification for this) does all that reduction have to come from 4 unions while 2 unions keep allt ehir representation.  this is the major sticking point that the Rabo unions simply cannot accept - a 40% reduction in representation v no reduction in representation.  Its almost as if the PRL deliberatly set out a stance they new would be unacceptable in order to ensure the negotiations collapse to break the ERC

TJ, regardless of what many fans of English club teams will admit, once the PRL had signed with BT (well over a year ago), the PRL had no intention of participating in any tournament organised by the ERC, they simply couldn't without breaching their lucrative contract - the rest is a smokescreen, and even honest, well-intentioned posters have fallen for their constant stream of media bull

Well that's not necessarily true is it? They signed with BT, they deny that any new deal with Sky was agreed at any ERC board meeting, they had handed their notice in. The ERC sold the rights to a competition that notice had been given to. The PRL sold rights that they believed reverted by to them (I can understand why as the contract with RFU gives them rights to domestic rugby except for ones given to the ERC as part of the participation agreement, which ends next year). Both parties jumped the gun selling rights that only the RFU hold. The PRL mistakenly (probably) thought the rights would go them. The ERC assumed that the notice was bluff and carried on regardless.

In fact here's what Mick Dawson (on ERC Marketing committee) said in 2011

"I'm on ERC's commercial and marketing committee and I know the English clubs well. I'd say the monies generated by the TV contracts are quite big and competitive," he said.

"Everyone says 'You can get more money' until they actually have to go and get it. Is there a whole pot load of money out there that we're missing? I doubt it.

http://www.espn.co.uk/premiership-2011-12/rugby/story/154140.html

So they went out and got it.

[HammerofThunor]

Fair point Hammer - and while a little late in the day, at least there is now some mediation in place. Providing the PRL are willing to come to the table (and given the IRB's stance looks like they probably now need to) then there is hope for some compromise on both sides.

Both the PRL and LNR have said they will not be at the next meeting other than to talk about their new competition. Both have said if their competition is not approved they simply won't play in Europe. PRL have said they'll speak to the moderator over the phone to hear what he says but have no intention in meeting with him over saving the ERC.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

Fair point Hammer - and while a little late in the day, at least there is now some mediation in place. Providing the PRL are willing to come to the table (and given the IRB's stance looks like they probably now need to) then there is hope for some compromise on both sides.

Both the PRL and LNR have said they will not be at the next meeting other than to talk about their new competition. Both have said if their competition is not approved they simply won't play in Europe. PRL have said they'll speak to the moderator over the phone to hear what he says but have no intention in meeting with him over saving the ERC.

So when at last we've got all parties with the POTENTIAL to listen to each other, one of the parties signals that they won't be attending - is that because they know that their TV deal won't let them reach any agreement in fact?

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

Poorfour.  Why if the euro cup needs to have a reduced number of sides ( and I havenot even seenany real justification for this) does all that reduction have to come from 4 unions while 2 unions keep allt ehir representation.  this is the major sticking point that the Rabo unions simply cannot accept - a 40% reduction in representation v no reduction in representation.  Its almost as if the PRL deliberatly set out a stance they new would be unacceptable in order to ensure the negotiations collapse to break the ERC

TJ, regardless of what many fans of English club teams will admit, once the PRL had signed with BT (well over a year ago), the PRL had no intention of participating in any tournament organised by the ERC, they simply couldn't without breaching their lucrative contract - the rest is a smokescreen, and even honest, well-intentioned posters have fallen for their constant stream of media bull

Well that's not necessarily true is it? They signed with BT, they deny that any new deal with Sky was agreed at any ERC board meeting, they had handed their notice in. The ERC sold the rights to a competition that notice had been given to. The PRL sold rights that they believed reverted by to them (I can understand why as the contract with RFU gives them rights to domestic rugby except for ones given to the ERC as part of the participation agreement, which ends next year). Both parties jumped the gun selling rights that only the RFU hold. The PRL mistakenly (probably) thought the rights would go them. The ERC assumed that the notice was bluff and carried on regardless.

In fact here's what Mick Dawson (on ERC Marketing committee) said in 2011

"I'm on ERC's commercial and marketing committee and I know the English clubs well. I'd say the monies generated by the TV contracts are quite big and competitive," he said.

"Everyone says 'You can get more money' until they actually have to go and get it. Is there a whole pot load of money out there that we're missing? I doubt it.

http://www.espn.co.uk/premiership-2011-12/rugby/story/154140.html

So they went out and got it.

Actually I believe that it is true, and going on ERC submission post their new Sky deal (which is all that I've got), they also believed that they had the blessing of all to renegotiate

[broadlandboy]

TJ you keep saying that the Unions will protect the weaker countries yet this doesn't occur in the RABO where Italy have to pay to compete & Wales take the most money as BBCW puts the most in. Also they proposed a 32 team competition with only the 6 Nation Unions involved where as the PRL/LNR proposal includes a third tier for developing unions with possible progression to the top comp

[Sponsored content]