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.

[broadlandboy]

Unlike thr ERC who sold the rights to a competition that didnt excist,Oh that's right both as bad as each other only difference is that the PRL got more than the ERC after the ERC repeatedly said that they got the best deal possible

[itsallabouttheincentives]

Any answers?  go on - you know you really want to.  or will you admit I was right.  You couldn't evenget it right about the PRL negotiating position.  6/6/6/2 was a hardening of their position not a compromise.

compared to leaving it is clearly a compromise

[HammerofThunor]

It showed some willingness to compromise and to seek other alternatives and I also gave other compromises as well offered.  I afgree it wasn't muchuse but it showed the point that  itsallabouttheincentives was talking out of his hat when he said the PRL would compromise and the PRO12 wouldn't.

I would really like to know how the PRL have compromised at all.  I have seen none.   The 6/6/2 was actually a hardeneing of their position from the original 8/8/8 they proposed and less acceptable to the pro 12 but meant they could side with the french.

Its clear to most of us the PRL set out with the objective of using this as a lever to gain total control of the club game aiming for a setup like the premiership and champions league in football.  Selling the TV rights to a competition that does not exist dn they do not control hardly shows good faith.  

Regarding the bit in bold. What were they? I can't remember myself.

[TJ]

More nonsense.

Are you really claiming the PRL wanted out of any european competition but decided to stay as a compromise?

Do you actually understand the original PRL position was 8/8/8 and 6/6/6 was only adopted to fit with the french? 6/6/6 is a hardening of the position. hardly a compromise.

So come on - admit you are wrong. be the bigger man. the pro 12 have made a series of compromises or suggestions and the PRL have done nothing but harden their position.

[TJ]

Accepting some greater element of merit based qualification. accepting only one scottish club to be represented as of right. two big pills to swallow.

Other stuff around the fringe as well.  Its not a lot and its not great for the scots but it shows more willingness to compromise than the PRL have shown

[itsallabouttheincentives]

What did LNR/PRL (LNR initiated by the way) do in Jun2012 - announce intention to withdraw from HC.

what offer was made by LNR/PRL? 6/6/6/2 in order to stay in a governance structure they didnt want, the terms of this were what they would expect in order to give up the governance issue.

that, my friend, is the very definition of a compromise. now you dont think it is because it is unpalatable to you.

kind of like ERC's counter-compromise was unpalatable to FFR/PRL/LNR.

PRL/LNR were not joking when they filed not to renew HC participation. So they clearly are happy to leave. That is their first negotiating position just like ERC's first position is status quo. Most of ERC's compromises/suggestions have been aired unoffically by unauthrised individual union members via the media. these do not constitute anything other than noise.

[HammerofThunor]

That was a comment on the absolute minimum of what the SRU could accept to the press wasn't it? Did they say that in the ERC meetings? The PRL said they would make allowances for all unions to be represented.

Both are minor changes in position.

[TJ]

More nonsense - do you not bother to read? are you really claiming the PRL notice to quit was their preferred option but 6/6/6/ was a compromise to enable them to stay? Do you actually understand what a compromise is?


the original PRL proposal was for 8/8/8. How even in your weird world does 6/6/6 become a compromise.

so you can ignore the multiple pro 12 offers as nothing but noise even those presented formally at meetings and a hardening of the prl position becomes a compromise. You are looking more and more ridiculous

Look - you just need to admit you were wrong and misinformed and accept the PRL have made no compromises at all - merely hardened their position throughout this

[TJ]

I agree its not a lot. all I set out to do was correct the ridiculous assertion that the PRL were willing to compromise and the Pro12 were not. I am still awaiting some indication of any compromises the PRL have made - or do you agree with out semi detached friend?

[itsallabouttheincentives]

More nonsense - do you not bother to read?  are you really claiming the PRL notice to quit was their preferred option but 6/6/6/ was a compromise to enable them to stay?  Do you actually understand what a compromise is?


the original PRL proposal was for 8/8/8.  How even in your weird world does 6/6/6 become a compromise.

so you can ignore the multiple pro 12 offers as nothing but noise even those presented formally at meetings and a hardening of the prl position becomes a compromise.  You are looking more and more ridiculous

Look - you just need to admit you were wrong and misinformed and accept the PRL have made no compromises at all - merely hardened their position throughout this

yes. yes (and subsequent events have given me and most posters here greater confidence that that was indeed what PRL were hoping for, especially if they got the BT deal they were clearly already contemplating, if not actually in. discussions with BT about). and yes.

are you claiming it is not my opinion that PRL's preferred ultimate outcome was leaving ERC? interesting.

[broadlandboy]

IIRC the PRL agreed to all union representation rather than just top 6 from the RABO

[HammerofThunor]

I've just told you a compromise. They said they would accept fixing it so each union had a representative at the top level. Again, not much but it's a change. The SRU (and only the SRU) saying they would lose one fixed spot (but keep it as a possibility) AND keep the same money regardless isn't any better.

[TJ]

No try reading. I am asking you if you believe the PRLs preferred option was leaving. careful how yu answer because if that is so then its even more clear they have not tried to negotiate seriously as we all know. So according to you right from the start the aim was to leave and to set up their own competition. That does fit the facts but does nothing to show your point thsat the PRL were willing to compromise. Indeed it ws clearly our way or the highway right from the start.

How about the fact tht the orginal PRL position was 8/8/8 and the hardening of their psition to 6/6/6 is viewed by yo as a compromise?

are you really sure you are a hot shot legal / negotiating bod - with skills like yours you should be in the WRU Yo clearly have no grasp of logic or facts.

[Guest]

I've just told you a compromise. They said they would accept fixing it so each union had a representative at the top level. Again, not much but it's a change. The SRU (and only the SRU) saying they would lose one fixed spot (but keep it as a possibility) AND keep the same money regardless isn't any better.

Think it all depends on how you look at it, Hammer. All unions were already represented, and so it can't be PRL that compromised, but the Rabo Unions. The PRL may have climbed down slightly from their original demands, but still at no loss to them, but a loss to those Unions who lose out entering a team into the HEC.
I'm not saying that isn't right, but just not a compromise from PRL/LNR.

[TJ]

I've just told you a compromise. They said they would accept fixing it so each union had a representative at the top level. Again, not much but it's a change. .

yes - its the only compromise rhe PRL have made from their original position and accepted by me as such. negotiation requires all sides to move to the middle. this is the only tiny step the PRL have made

[Guest]

Just curious, what alternative meaningful compromises have the R12 got to give? A top down centralised structure gives Unions very little room for options.

The french clubs have said they won't participate in any euro competition without the english clubs, so if the FFR do block any new competition, it will be a pretty hollow victory for the Unions.

It does show how weak the R12 Unions are though, having to rely on some outgoing french rugby administrators. The club owners haven't even got going yet - this saga will run a fair while yet.

[itsallabouttheincentives]

i love your posts. they're great. although i have to admit to getting a bit dizzy with the goalposts moving so frequently.

263 rabid posts in 2 days. awesome.

have to admit i am curious. having shared with you what i do in order to stop you accusing me of being some kind of PRL stooge, why dont you tell us what you do?

[TJ]

The main things the Pro12 could give are - loss of two places from 10 to 8 ( 6 is cleary unacceptable) tis would mean some form of merit based qualification. there is no great issue over times and so on Maybe a bit of room on division of the profits.

[Notch]

Why should PRL worry about what happens to the game in Scotland, their job is to get a good deal for the English clubs.
 
The argument 'oh it will weaken the 6 nations' so what!
Maybe Scotland should pull out of the 6 nations and accept defeat, I'm sure Romania, Georgia or Russia would replace them.

How can you post this and then post an article about how unjust it is that the English clubs and their apparatchiks are derided for damaging the wider game! And why would you as a rugby fan want the 6 Nations or the Scottish Pro sides to suffer? Isn't that a bad thing for anyone who loves the game? Don't you think it would be sad, a loss to the sport?

I may post about how the PRL are a threat to the game but I don't want the English clubs or national side to go bust and can't see why anyone else would! I think the English clubs have some valid concerns and have long hoped a compromise could be found that would leave all sides happy but really... this attitude of "We're Alright, so everyone else can go to hell" is the opposite of the spirit the game was buil;t on.

[HammerofThunor]

I've just told you a compromise. They said they would accept fixing it so each union had a representative at the top level. Again, not much but it's a change. The SRU (and only the SRU) saying they would lose one fixed spot (but keep it as a possibility) AND keep the same money regardless isn't any better.

Think it all depends on how you look at it, Hammer. All unions were already represented, and so it can't be PRL that compromised, but the Rabo Unions. The PRL may have climbed down slightly from their original demands, but still at no loss to them, but a loss to those Unions who lose out entering a team into the HEC.
I'm not saying that isn't right, but just not a compromise from PRL/LNR.

Not quite, as there was no competition from 2014. The initial stance was nothing or top 6 of each (after the compromise made with the French).

[HammerofThunor]

I've just told you a compromise. They said they would accept fixing it so each union had a representative at the top level. Again, not much but it's a change. .

yes - its the only compromise rhe PRL have made from their original position and accepted by me as such. negotiation requires all sides to move to the middle.  this is the only tiny step the PRL have made

And so far the SRU are the only members of the ERC to make a tiny compromise. Excluding the ridiculous 32 team competition that wasn't presented to the ERC as a whole.

[itsallabouttheincentives]

Just curious, what alternative meaningful compromises have the R12 got to give? A top down centralised structure gives Unions very little room for options.

The french clubs have said they won't participate in any euro competition without the english clubs, so if the FFR do block any new competition,  it will be a pretty hollow victory for the Unions.

It does show how weak the R12 Unions are though, having to rely on some outgoing french rugby administrators. The club owners haven't even got going yet - this saga will run a fair while yet.

i agree, no meaningful compromise options available as there is no-one to offer them to!

the R12 unions misjudged the seriousness of PRL/LNR from the beginning and i bet you they wish they could go back in time and they would bite the hand off the 6/6/6+2 offer.

[TJ]

i love your posts. they're great. although i have to admit to getting a bit dizzy with the goalposts moving so frequently.

263 rabid posts in 2 days. awesome.

have to admit i am curious. having shared with you what i do in order to stop you accusing me of being some kind of PRL stooge, why dont you tell us what you do?

I am a nurse looking after people in Edinburgh. ( bored on holiday right now) I have not moved the goalposts once. completely consistent

I dislike you and your patronising condescending manner, your attempt to put me down and your unwillingness to accept when you have been caught out blustering. What you could do is admit you are wrong. The PRL original position was 8/8/8 as you should know. he move to 6/6/6 in no way reflects a compromise. the Pro 12 have shown willingness to compromise as I have shown you but yo have not accepted you were wrong. Your lack of logic in now claiming the PRL wanted to leave all along just shows you clothing at straws.

I dislike ill-informed bombastic posters. I am perfectly happy to discuss and argue with people who do not have a closed mind and who knowwhat they are talking about even if I disagree with tehm You know what. ignore list might be best for you.

[TJ]

Just curious, what alternative meaningful compromises have the R12 got to give? A top down centralised structure gives Unions very little room for options.

The french clubs have said they won't participate in any euro competition without the english clubs, so if the FFR do block any new competition,  it will be a pretty hollow victory for the Unions.

It does show how weak the R12 Unions are though, having to rely on some outgoing french rugby administrators. The club owners haven't even got going yet - this saga will run a fair while yet.

i agree, no meaningful compromise options available as there is no-one to offer them to!

the R12 unions misjudged the seriousness of PRL/LNR from the beginning and i bet you they wish they could go back in time and they would bite the hand off the 6/6/6+2 offer.

Nonsense 6/6/6 is never going to be acceptable. It want then it isn't now. anyway I thoght you sid the PRL wanted out no matter what - or are you changing your tune AGAIN You really do not understand do you.

[itsallabouttheincentives]

Why should PRL worry about what happens to the game in Scotland, their job is to get a good deal for the English clubs.
 
The argument 'oh it will weaken the 6 nations' so what!
Maybe Scotland should pull out of the 6 nations and accept defeat, I'm sure Romania, Georgia or Russia would replace them.

How can you post this and then post an article about how unjust it is that the English clubs and their apparatchiks are derided for damaging the wider game! And why would you as a rugby fan want the 6 Nations or the Scottish Pro sides to suffer? Isn't that a bad thing for anyone who loves the game? Don't you think it would be sad, a loss to the sport?

I may post about how the PRL are a threat to the game but I don't want the English clubs or national side to go bust and can't see why anyone else would! I think the English clubs have some valid concerns and have long hoped a compromise could be found that would leave all sides happy but really... this attitude of "We're Alright, so everyone else can go to hell" is the opposite of the spirit the game was buil;t on.

the game was built on COMPETITION. when it was amateur there was no profit motive, but it was still build on WINNING. now it's professional can you please explain why Gloucester (made 3rd successive profit this yr) should give 2 farts about the SRU? or vice versa?

[itsallabouttheincentives]

this whole debate stinks of hypocrisy. celtic nations want their club games to be raised up by PRL/LNR money (through some kind of spirit of equality) so that their national teams can have a decent chance of WINNING EVERYTHING THEY CAN.

are you freaking kidding me?

[TJ]

Ah that feels better no more patronising and condescending posts from an ignorant fool. who when caught out is not enough of a man to admit he was wrong.

[Guest]

I've just told you a compromise. They said they would accept fixing it so each union had a representative at the top level. Again, not much but it's a change. The SRU (and only the SRU) saying they would lose one fixed spot (but keep it as a possibility) AND keep the same money regardless isn't any better.

Think it all depends on how you look at it, Hammer. All unions were already represented, and so it can't be PRL that compromised, but the Rabo Unions. The PRL may have climbed down slightly from their original demands, but still at no loss to them, but a loss to those Unions who lose out entering a team into the HEC.
I'm not saying that isn't right, but just not a compromise from PRL/LNR.

Not quite, as there was no competition from 2014. The initial stance was nothing or top 6 of each (after the compromise made with the French).

I would need you to clarify that a bit, Hammer. Do you mean a PRL/LNR condition on re-entering the HEC 2014? That before they will sign the dotted line then Rabo must agree on merit based qualification? If that is so then PRL/LNR would still have gave nothing, no loss to them, no demands to compromise the position they previously held within the HEC. The only loss would be to those Rabo Unions which had to genuinely compromise on how many of their teams auto qualify for the HEC.

[itsallabouttheincentives]

i think you are actually reading impaired. i wrote 2 sentences in plain english and you have managed to completely misread them. then fling insults based on completely misreading something. awesome.

[itsallabouttheincentives]

nice i see you removed your retarded post. try reading what people say before posting next time?

[itsallabouttheincentives]

nice i see you removed your retarded post. try reading what people say before posting next time?

i take it back. you didnt remove the post.

[TJ]

Is he still chuntering on? will someone let me know if he ever accepts he was wrong? ta.

[itsallabouttheincentives]

please please please put me on your ignore list

[TJ]

Still - what a funny chap

[Guest]

nice i see you removed your retarded post. try reading what people say before posting next time?

i take it back. you didnt remove the post.

 

[TJ]

Nice - using offensive insults now.

[Biltong]

Guys I am merging all these Euro Competition threads, please don't open more until this one has reached 1000 posts.

[itsallabouttheincentives]

World according to Jeremy...

"Dear Jerry, do you believe the English and French clubs are purely driven by utter greed? Jack
Hi Jack, this is my short answer: no, I don't think the English and French clubs are being greedy in wanting to run and control what is essentially a provincial/regional/club competition. The European competition is great but the qualification and distribution of funds isn't fair or equal on a team-by-team basis.
ERC have been running it since it began and should have realised this would one day happen and made the changes necessary before this time, just as Uefa did.
I don't blame the clubs in France and England wanting to maximise the revenue they can generate because they have invested millions to keep the game sustainable in those countries. In England and France it has been the clubs that have supported the international game, not the other way round; they have developed and provided them with the players who represent France and England.
The club game in England and France has grown, the TV contracts negotiated have been pretty unbelievable considering where they were when the game went professional. That tells me they have a product in huge demand.
It's not been so much the same for the other teams in European competition because the Welsh, Irish and Scottish teams are funded by their unions. These unions see they could lose some control, but they needn't worry.
All they have to do is work with their regions and provinces to come up with the solution which shouldn't be hard, it is just a case of distributing the money fairly. The unions of course should receive some money because they provide the officials."

[itsallabouttheincentives]

And another re Zebre's first win and implications...
"Hi Jerry, Zebre's win over Cardiff highlights the developmental value of the Pro12 and current Heineken set up, meaning Italy and in-turn the Six Nations and in turn the European international teams as a whole benefit. Will England and France realise this at some point and scrap their club-centric European abomination? Scott Hastings
Hi Scott. I, like you, really enjoy the Heineken Cup matches and Pro12 games but my argument would be the same as Harlequins director of rugby Conor O'Shea mentioned on a RTE programme recently.
Why shouldn't Zebre develop in their own class rather than deny a better team a place in the first tier of European competition? Let them work their way up, not by getting hammered every week, but by really competing against teams of similar ability in the second-tier European competition?
People are always afraid of change but they shouldn't be worried in this case. The new proposal will make every tier of European competition more competitive, thus making the international game in the northern hemisphere stronger.
Essentially we are only talking about changing how you qualify and who runs the competition. Every team will get equal share from revenue generated from TV income and sponsorship."

[broadlandboy]

LNR's view as read on another forum
The LNR like the premier league won't negotiate with the Erc
I would have said they are very much on board this is their chairman
[www.lerugbynistere.fr]. It's in French but basically it says if the FFR try to make them play in the Hcup they'll just send Federal 1 teams. The FFR really *** up when over riding them about Lux. They managed to achieve the practically unachievable unite the lot of them. If they now try to force the Club's hand they will go to the European court and apparently are likely to win about Ffr restrictive practices. The Vice President of the league has been in discussions with government ministers about the unsuitability of a load of amateurs having power over professional sport and apparently this is also bearing fruit

[justified sinner]

Err you do know Jeremy knows nothing about rugby outside England?

[Hound of Harrow]

Hey folks - I'm not a mod (or aspiring to be) but please calm down for the sake 9f decent discussion.

Yes, I have a view on the subject, which might not please people on both sides of this fence. Although, I must say I will be very unhappy at the demise of the HC  as the pinnacle of European club rugby. I've met too many good rugby people from the Pro12 nations at HC meet ups to want it to end.

However, I fully understand the Franglos desire for tougher qualification from the Pro12 and teams earning the right to play in a competition most of us are justly proud of.

While I don't agree with the stance PRL and LNR have taken, they did abide by ERC rules in serving their required notice to quit the accord.

The fact that ERC, when faced by such a potential crisis, buried their heads in the sand, says a lot about their ineptitude. As someone earlier said, if they were senior execs in charge of a major company, they would lose their jobs.

Let's hope we see a resolution to this sorry situation.



PS - I wondered why this wouldn't work on the thread I was posting on. Threads merged

[stub]

Err you do know Jeremy knows nothing about rugby outside England?

He's a regular on Scrum 5 isn't he? Or do they just have him for comedy value!

[justified sinner]

Err you do know Jeremy knows nothing about rugby outside England?

He's a regular on Scrum 5 isn't he? Or do they just have him for comedy value!

Mostly.

[Notch]

Why should PRL worry about what happens to the game in Scotland, their job is to get a good deal for the English clubs.
 
The argument 'oh it will weaken the 6 nations' so what!
Maybe Scotland should pull out of the 6 nations and accept defeat, I'm sure Romania, Georgia or Russia would replace them.

How can you post this and then post an article about how unjust it is that the English clubs and their apparatchiks are derided for damaging the wider game! And why would you as a rugby fan want the 6 Nations or the Scottish Pro sides to suffer? Isn't that a bad thing for anyone who loves the game? Don't you think it would be sad, a loss to the sport?

I may post about how the PRL are a threat to the game but I don't want the English clubs or national side to go bust and can't see why anyone else would! I think the English clubs have some valid concerns and have long hoped a compromise could be found that would leave all sides happy but really... this attitude of "We're Alright, so everyone else can go to hell" is the opposite of the spirit the game was buil;t on.

the game was built on COMPETITION. when it was amateur there was no profit motive, but it was still build on WINNING. now it's professional can you please explain why Gloucester (made 3rd successive profit this yr) should give 2 farts about the SRU? or vice versa?

Because there's more to life than money and profit margins. Games aren't played in the board room, they are played on the pitch and we'll get the best games when we have the most even spread of resources. Presumably the people running Gloucester love this game, are fans of this game. Why would they then want the Calcutta Cup- amongst the longest running rivalries in world sport- to become uncompetitive, or even stop existing?

You can throw around words like COMPETITION and WINNING like some dead eyed, soulless neo-liberal if you want, but on the pitch I can't see how a real rugby fan would want less competition on the field of play as a result of more competition off it. Rugby will thrive when people approach problems like this with an attitude of working together to create the best possible compromise. Despite what you've been told, greed is not good.

I'm not asking that the PRL neglect their own interests, but they have to listen to the other Unions and accept they have needs which are in the best interest of the game and the other parties have to appreciate the needs of the PRL. If English clubs are not willing to care about the SRU and vice versa then we're not going to get a European Cup and everyone will suffer. The RFU, so derided on here, and the FFR both seem to want a compromise that benefits European Rugby as a whole and not just their clubs. So there's still hope.

[stevetynant]

How big a hypocrite is guscott .apparantly it's better for zebra to compete in a lower league than get pasted by superior sides. How often do we hear that England and all the other 6n sides need to play New Zealand more often than they do to improve their game. England play the blacks 4 times in the next 12 months I believe. We will soon see how much they have improved.

[TJ]

If its all about the free market and competition why does the RFU distribute the European cup money t gets equally to 12 clubs? surely it should only be to the 6 who generate it as the amilin does not really generate any money.

thats the same logic they use to say they subsidise the SRU

[Hound of Harrow]

If its all about the free market and competition why does the RFU distribute the European cup money t gets equally to 12 clubs?  surely it should only be to the 6 who generate it as the amilin does not really generate any money.

thats the same logic they use to say they subsidise the SRU

TJ - I'm going to have to disagree with you. Scottish teams have no experience of the Amlin. The Italian and 2nd tier nations club qualifiers get most of their seasons profits from the visiting English, French (and Dragons ) fans who turn up in numbers for away games.

[itsallabouttheincentives]

Why should PRL worry about what happens to the game in Scotland, their job is to get a good deal for the English clubs.
 
The argument 'oh it will weaken the 6 nations' so what!
Maybe Scotland should pull out of the 6 nations and accept defeat, I'm sure Romania, Georgia or Russia would replace them.

How can you post this and then post an article about how unjust it is that the English clubs and their apparatchiks are derided for damaging the wider game! And why would you as a rugby fan want the 6 Nations or the Scottish Pro sides to suffer? Isn't that a bad thing for anyone who loves the game? Don't you think it would be sad, a loss to the sport?

I may post about how the PRL are a threat to the game but I don't want the English clubs or national side to go bust and can't see why anyone else would! I think the English clubs have some valid concerns and have long hoped a compromise could be found that would leave all sides happy but really... this attitude of "We're Alright, so everyone else can go to hell" is the opposite of the spirit the game was buil;t on.

the game was built on COMPETITION. when it was amateur there was no profit motive, but it was still build on WINNING. now it's professional can you please explain why Gloucester (made 3rd successive profit this yr) should give 2 farts about the SRU? or vice versa?

Because there's more to life than money and profit margins. Games aren't played in the board room, they are played on the pitch and we'll get the best games when we have the most even spread of resources. Presumably the people running Gloucester love this game, are fans of this game. Why would they then want the Calcutta Cup- amongst the longest running rivalries in world sport- to become uncompetitive, or even stop existing?

You can throw around words like COMPETITION and WINNING like some dead eyed, soulless neo-liberal if you want, but on the pitch I can't see how a real rugby fan would want less competition on the field of play as a result of more competition off it. Rugby will thrive when people approach problems like this with an attitude of working together to create the best possible compromise. Despite what you've been told, greed is not good.

I'm not asking that the PRL neglect their own interests, but they have to listen to the other Unions and accept they have needs which are in the best interest of the game and the other parties have to appreciate the needs of the PRL. If English clubs are not willing to care about the SRU and vice versa then we're not going to get a European Cup and everyone will suffer. The RFU, so derided on here, and the FFR both seem to want a compromise that benefits European Rugby as a whole and not just their clubs. So there's still hope.

games arent played in the board room? really? RFU (albeit not so bad now they have a CEO from another sport), WRU, FFR? at least within clubs everything is fairly transparent. i mistrust these anonymous groups old people directing the game from on high. it feels all wrong to me.

I want more competition off the field which will lead to better competition on it. subsidy/development/transfer/leveling the playing field, call it whatever you want, it creates dependency. which is a very bad thing. Scottish rugby is crippled yet addicted to HC funding. how is that a sustainable situation?

[stub]

How big a hypocrite is guscott .apparantly it's better for zebra to compete in a lower league than get pasted by superior sides. How often do we hear that England and all the other 6n sides need to play New Zealand more often than they do to improve their game. England play the blacks 4 times in the next 12 months I believe. We will soon see how much they have improved.

England did manage to win the last fixture....

Must confess though one win and respectable performances in the other three would greatly please me.
 

[Sponsored content]