Said from day one,looks like i may be right

First topic message reminder :

Soon as i heard about this English French competition i said the English are fools getting in bed with the French because they would stab them in the back at the first chance.
The French Union is now blocking any such Competition from happening, take into account most of the French favour the top 14 " soon to be expanded to top 16" over Europe anyway what trouble will they have from reverting to type and submit?!

England are now owned by BT and cant stay in the HC anyway because SKY own the rights of the HC!
The English look more premature than little Billy on Prom night. 

Couldn't happen to a better bunch as far as im concerned! Wot Wot chin up old boys and sip on some Pimms.

Biltong,
the problem in modern day rugby ie professional is that the clubs are the one paying the players and have to to look for revenues themselves. the unions dont have in my opinion the required skills for that, they couldnt land any decent sponsorship deal at local level and are not good negociators full stop. they are a bunch of amateurs who are hardly good enough to look at the amateur game. that's my view on the FFR anyway.

Biltong it's just a different model. The elite English clubs have been around a long time and are (just about, or will be once they renegotiate tv/euro cash) financially profitable. SH teams in the top league have been created from provinces, is that correct? Were there ever clubs in the top comps down under? How about when there was no intl elite league, only domestic?

Anyway, the reality is, competition and the free market, and sharp business people have certainly grown the game faster in Eng/Fr and commercialised it more successfully, than the union-only run nations. Like it or hate, it is what it is, and all players are getting paid better as a result. It's not clear if it really benefits eng/fr national teams and recent evidence seems to be slightly to the contrary (although I would argue the ffr is the dinosaur holding back fr intl team).

The reason for all the hysteria on this forum (re breakdown of HC and loss of monies to pro12 clubs) is that lots of people can't separate club and national team performance when the recent evidence indicates they should welcome the change.

The genie is out of the bottle and no amount Of wishing or gnashing of teeth can change that. All participants will and should do whatever they can to get the best deal for themselves. Competition makes us stronger. Dependence creates weakness. Apols for typos am on smartphone.

Biltong wrote:What I don't understand is the power that the clubs have.

In SA, OZ and NZ, it is the national unions that dictate, arrange, and negotiate the different levels and structure of rugby.

In other words SARU, the NZRU and the ARU decides what competitions there are.

It seems that the PRL and LNR basically wants to negotiate their own competitions and how it will be structured.

What do the FFRU and RFU actually do then?

Biltong - I don't think the PRL clubs would mind the RFU determining what competitions there are, there are changes they've requested (e.g. on ringfencing and league size) and they've had to accept the RFU decisions. However, the RFU also gives them fairly free reign on the commercial side (which is I assume what they are really interested in) as they are the ones paying for and running the clubs. Their issue is that they think it is the collective Irish, Welsh, Scottish and Italian unions forcing a structure and commercial agreements on them that are in their view unfair and undersold.

The SANZAR clubs may be happy working within the structure set up by their unions, but the SANZAR unions have always had a lot more sense and been far more reasonable than their counterparts up here. And they have undoubtedly created a much better structure for the clubs to work in.

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:Biltong it's just a different model. The elite English clubs have been around a long time and are (just about, or will be once they renegotiate tv/euro cash) financially profitable. SH teams in the top league have been created from provinces, is that correct? Were there ever clubs in the top comps down under? How about when there was no intl elite league, only domestic?

Anyway, the reality is, competition and the free market, and sharp business people have certainly grown the game faster in Eng/Fr and commercialised it more successfully, than the union-only run nations. Like it or hate, it is what it is, and all players are getting paid better as a result. It's not clear if it really benefits eng/fr national teams and recent evidence seems to be slightly to the contrary (although I would argue the ffr is the dinosaur holding back fr intl team).

The reason for all the hysteria on this forum (re breakdown of HC and loss of monies to pro12 clubs) is that lots of people can't separate club and national team performance when the recent evidence indicates they should welcome the change.

The genie is out of the bottle and no amount Of wishing or gnashing of teeth can change that. All participants will and should do whatever they can to get the best deal for themselves. Competition makes us stronger. Dependence creates weakness. Apols for typos am on smartphone.

I have been sitting here thinking how best to express the situation and then I figured that someone else will come in and write something much better and clearer than I could have. This is it.

The only thing I'd add (or rather echo) is what Beshocked said about the importance of keeping a balance between the RFU and the clubs for the sake of the health of all levels of rugby and the international team in particular. Right now the balance in England seems good, with the EQP scheme in particular incentivising the use of young English (qualified) talent. There is of course no guarantee that will last, but nothing stays fixed forever.

Biltong wrote:

beshocked wrote:Well in a sense it does begin and end with them.  The English and French international sides will be pretty screwed without the players from those clubs.

That statement says a lot more than what you just said there.

The clubs operate under the auspices of the RFU and FFRU, don't they?

It is sanctioned via the IRB and national Unions?

In other words without the RFU, the FFRU and the IRB, they have no controlling body?

What if the RFU and FFRU kicked them out, and started a new structure with which they have more control?

Where does that leave the PRL and LNR?

The PRL and RFU have an agreement in plan that runs from 2007-2016 (I think). This includes the handling of EPS players (release time, union medicial and training control, compensation, etc), running of academies, financial incentives for English players in the league. It also set up the Professional Game Board (or something like that) which is made up of the RFU and club representatives (and someone from the Players Association?). And finally it gives control over the sponsorship and TV for the league to the clubs to sort out (which makes sense as the money would just go to them anyway). All competition structures changes have to be agreed by the RFU. But the RFU basically let them get on with it unless they think it would be a probably. They said they wouldn't allow an expansion to 14 teams (probably because the the RFU two, 10 team, professional tiers).

Also I haven't read anywhere that the PRL would set up a breakaway competition from the RFU. They've said they can't see why the RFU would block it and would look to challenge it legally. They've also said if the RFU dosen't sanction they just won't be in Europe.

whocares wrote:just to clarify one thing :
- the LNR sole role is to organise the professional game on french territory, this includes top14 and pro d2 (dont think federale 1 is in their portfolio eventhough its semi pro these day).
- the LNR takes all their powers from the FFR. such mandates can be in theory discontinued...
 
for instance the FFR casually reminded the LNR recently that they can only sign a new tv agreement for 2014 onwards with their consent (this is the most important thing for french club who hope to get a 100M€ deal with the help of the new entrant in french tv).
now the FFR reminding the LNR that they cannot take part in a internatinal competition without their consent as well... although i suspect the FFR clique to have some (financial?) interest in the ERC to still exist ... this is just a case of a daddy reminding his teenager brat who is in charge...although they are not really in charge as the kid might just runaway!
At the end of the day we are likely to see a trade off :
- LNR gets to do what they want. in my opinion the franglo cup is either just noise or possibly just a back up in case the tv deal doesnt go through
- FFR gets more access to players for preparation of test matches, 6N etc... and also get to organise an extra international game which means more €€ to support their new stadium project.
 
the latter is the key thing as far as I am concerned so a T16 with no cup would be better for the french international team than a T14 with the current ERC set up.

Do you think there is any chance of an EPS deal similar to the English one? And would that be desirable?

So, commercial responsibility for T14 given to the LNR. Fixed extra release time for French squad players. Incentives for playing French players. But all competitions still sanctioned by the FFR.

Also, I don't understand all this stuff about French law being different. The IRB say that a cross-boarder competition has to be sanctioned by the unions. Any domestic competition has to be sanctioned by the unions. The unions control the TV rights. How is this any different in any country?

England is a small country (in terms of land area) with a large/condensed population. This has meant that you can have national club rivalries. The travelling distances involved in SA and NZ (and the lack of players in aus) means that this would never happen. The other weekend when Bath hosted Tigers it was 100 years since the first meeting. More localised rivalries are much more longstanding. There is a strong history. In NZ the Ranfurly shield is still a massive thing, while in SA Currie Cup is still treasured.


Is there a correct model that works for all? Probably not. After all it could be argued that the current model in SA is actually detrimental to rugby in that country.

Now, and only speaking for myself, I watch Tigers live perhaps up to 20 times in a season. Since retiring from playing, watching them is what rugby is all about. They are my kids, say. I love them deeply and when they are doing well am happy. England i see once in a blue moon now (saw them much more when I was playing and got free tickets) I want them to do well, but it just isn't the same level of emotion.

England losing in Cardiff earlier this year affected me far less than Leicester getting hammered in Ravenhill a couple of seasons ago. Leicester beating Ospreys made me far happier than England beating Ireland.

London Tiger wrote:Is there a correct model that works for all? Probably not. After all it could be argued that the current model in SA is actually detrimental to rugby in that country.

Why?

LostinWales wrote:keeping a balance between the RFU and the clubs for the sake of the health of all levels of rugby and the international team in particular

But is there balance?

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:This includes the handling of EPS players (release time, union medicial and training control, compensation, etc), running of academies, financial incentives for English players in the league. It also set up the Professional Game Board (or something like that) which is made up of the RFU and club representatives (and someone from the Players Association?). And finally it gives control over the sponsorship and TV for the league to the clubs to sort out (which makes sense as the money would just go to them anyway).

I understand that, the Clubs are privately owned, therefor they can negotiate their own revenue streams, but why then was there an issue with the BT deal?

We have a players association as well, but the Franchises even though they are businesses, the SARU has stake in all of them. Perhaps the RFU should acquire a percentage stakeholding in these clubs?

itsallaboutheincentives wrote:The elite English clubs have been around a long time and are (just about, or will be once they renegotiate tv/euro cash) financially profitable. SH teams in the top league have been created from provinces, is that correct? Were there ever clubs in the top comps down under? How about when there was no intl elite league, only domestic?

From what I have read in the past, not all these clubs are financially profitable, weren't there two clubs last year that needed to be bailed out?

In SA we have only amateur clubs, the Provinces have been there since the 1880's.

Biltong wrote:
...

LostinWales wrote:keeping a balance between the RFU and the clubs for the sake of the health of all levels of rugby and the international team in particular

But is there balance?
...

itsallaboutheincentives wrote:The elite English clubs have been around a long time and are (just about, or will be once they renegotiate tv/euro cash) financially profitable. SH teams in the top league have been created from provinces, is that correct? Were there ever clubs in the top comps down under? How about when there was no intl elite league, only domestic?

From what I have read in the past, not all these clubs are financially profitable, weren't there two clubs last year that needed to be bailed out?

I think there is balance between clubs and RFU at the moment. It hasnt always been this good. They seem to broadly share the same vision of how to develop the league and feed into the international team.

Profitability is an issue as has frequently been stated here. Broadly speaking the pro teams are either moving in the right direction or have wealthy backers, or both. But of course there have been casualties in the process (Richmond being a good example). The LW debacle was of course linked to regulations trying to makes sure that clubs entering the top tier were financially viable - its just that the regulations could not be enforced.

Biltong wrote:

London Tiger wrote:Is there a correct model that works for all? Probably not. After all it could be argued that the current model in SA is actually detrimental to rugby in that country.

Why? Probably just picked it up from people like yourself complaining about it  

LostinWales wrote:keeping a balance between the RFU and the clubs for the sake of the health of all levels of rugby and the international team in particular

But is there balance? I'd say yes. The PRL have commercial control over their league. However this is only because the RFU renews the agreement to do so. If they didn't it would return to the RFU. Any competition changes have to be approved by the RFU (and they have stopped some in recent years). They get the same release time as (for example) the Welsh based players with the RFU. There are incentives for the clubs to keep at least 65% of their playing squad English (all of them have made this I believe and that is at least 180 professional English players in the league week. So I would say the balance is there, PRL are happy and the RFU are happy.

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:This includes the handling of EPS players (release time, union medicial and training control, compensation, etc), running of academies, financial incentives for English players in the league. It also set up the Professional Game Board (or something like that) which is made up of the RFU and club representatives (and someone from the Players Association?). And finally it gives control over the sponsorship and TV for the league to the clubs to sort out (which makes sense as the money would just go to them anyway).

I understand that, the Clubs are privately owned, therefor they can negotiate their own revenue streams, but why then was there an issue with the BT deal? I believe that was me not itsallabouttheincentives. The clubs don't negotiate their own revenue streams because they're privately owned. They do it because the RFU have granted them that power. They have commercial control over all competitions they're involved in except the ERC HEC and ACC. The PRL believed that because they are leaving the ERC the european rights would revert to them due to the first part. The RFU have said because they were exempt before they revert back to the RFU. What this means is that the ERC always had to be disbanded. The PRL were negotiating for a new body to be set up. That didn't happen.

We have a players association as well, but the Franchises even though they are businesses, the SARU has stake in all of them. Perhaps the RFU should acquire a percentage stakeholding in these clubs?  What would be the purpose of that? They already have to sanction every completition change. The only thing the RFU have given up completely (temporarily) is the commercial stuff. Why would they care what happens to the TV rights or sponsorship?

itsallaboutheincentives wrote:The elite English clubs have been around a long time and are (just about, or will be once they renegotiate tv/euro cash) financially profitable. SH teams in the top league have been created from provinces, is that correct? Were there ever clubs in the top comps down under? How about when there was no intl elite league, only domestic?

From what I have read in the past, not all these clubs are financially profitable, weren't there two clubs last year that needed to be bailed out?

In SA we have only amateur clubs, the Provinces have been there since the 1880's.

Wasps were bought by someone who took on their debts (I think). Not sure about the other one. Only 4 were profitable in 2010. The combined deficit (I think that's the right term) was £16M and had been reduced by 25% from the previous year. I don't think anyone but the usual suspects have shouted about new profit since then so we can assume they're still losing money, but that amount might have reduced.

That's my take on it anyway.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Do you think there is any chance of an EPS deal similar to the English one? And would that be desirable?

So, commercial responsibility for T14 given to the LNR. Fixed extra release time for French squad players. Incentives for playing French players. But all competitions still sanctioned by the FFR.

Also, I don't understand all this stuff about French law being different. The IRB say that a cross-boarder competition has to be sanctioned by the unions. Any domestic competition has to be sanctioned by the unions. The unions control the TV rights. How is this any different in any country?

yes - a french EPS would be ideal but keep in mind the RFU indemnify the english clubs for using their players. the FFR doesnt.

it's not about French law being different, it's about mandates and LNR mandate from FFR is about organising french professional game on french territory and they are the one controlling the tv rights for top14 not the FFR.

HammerofThunor wrote:

whocares wrote:just to clarify one thing :
- the LNR sole role is to organise the professional game on french territory, this includes top14 and pro d2 (dont think federale 1 is in their portfolio eventhough its semi pro these day).
- the LNR takes all their powers from the FFR. such mandates can be in theory discontinued...
 
for instance the FFR casually reminded the LNR recently that they can only sign a new tv agreement for 2014 onwards with their consent (this is the most important thing for french club who hope to get a 100M€ deal with the help of the new entrant in french tv).
now the FFR reminding the LNR that they cannot take part in a internatinal competition without their consent as well... although i suspect the FFR clique to have some (financial?) interest in the ERC to still exist ... this is just a case of a daddy reminding his teenager brat who is in charge...although they are not really in charge as the kid might just runaway!
At the end of the day we are likely to see a trade off :
- LNR gets to do what they want. in my opinion the franglo cup is either just noise or possibly just a back up in case the tv deal doesnt go through
- FFR gets more access to players for preparation of test matches, 6N etc... and also get to organise an extra international game which means more €€ to support their new stadium project.
 
the latter is the key thing as far as I am concerned so a T16 with no cup would be better for the french international team than a T14 with the current ERC set up.

Do you think there is any chance of an EPS deal similar to the English one? And would that be desirable?

So, commercial responsibility for T14 given to the LNR. Fixed extra release time for French squad players. Incentives for playing French players. But all competitions still sanctioned by the FFR.

Also, I don't understand all this stuff about French law being different. The IRB say that a cross-boarder competition has to be sanctioned by the unions. Any domestic competition has to be sanctioned by the unions. The unions control the TV rights. How is this any different in any country?

OK lets deal with the French law red herring. Yes french law is different, from UK, which is different from Italian. Irrelevant though. What is relevant as you say is the IRB/Union structure which is very clear. If there were to be a fallout within this arrangement and commercial clubs in one country, about the HC for example, that would be resolved ultimately by EU law as it is cross border. No-one knows what would happen there.

Within a nation, if a dispute happens between PRL/RFU, then english law would apply if worst came to worst and it wasnt resolvable.

In France, lots of posters here who are not French, not lawyers, and not studies of government institutions keep referring to "statutory powers" in a mythical semi-reverent way as if this will save the Heineken Cup. Statutory powers only refer to the following which i will reproduce in full. The FFR was set up and given its authority by a branch of government (article in full in french below). even if President Hollande wants to get the LNR to do something, he can only do so within the confines of french law, and the FFR can only get the LNR to do something within the confines of the regulations between FFR and LNR. And in the event of a disagreement, guess what, it will be decided by French law or possibly arbitration depending on the issue. And i have said this a few times on this site, and will say it again. No-one can compel a commercially run privately owned entity to enter into a commercial contract. Cajole, encourage, bribe, temp, bully yes. Compel no. read this from RCToulon president yday..."Parce que la fédération peut nous empêcher de jouer, ça c’est certain. Mais elle ne peut pas nous obliger à jouer. S’ils veulent, ils enverront les équipes de Fédérale 1 jouer cette compétition qu’ils auront mis en place." - they can stop us playing but they can't make us play. enter the Federale1 (3rd tier) into the new competition if they want.


Statuts de la FFR

TITRE 1

Dispositions générales

Article 1 - L'association dite « Fédération Française de Rugby » (désignée ci-après par les initiales F.F.R.), fondée en 1919 et reconnue d'utilité publique le 27 novembre 1922, a pour objet : d'encourager et développer la pratique du jeu de rugby (rugby à XV, rugby à 7, et toute autre forme de rugby appliquant les règles du jeu fixées par l’International Rugby Board), de diriger et de réglementer le rugby et d'en défendre les intérêts.

La FFR veille au respect de la Charte de déontologie du sport, établie par le Comité national olympique et sportif français.

Sa durée est illimitée.

Elle a son siège social à Marcoussis.

Le siège social peut être transféré dans une autre commune par délibération de l'Assemblée Générale.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Biltong wrote:

London Tiger wrote:Is there a correct model that works for all? Probably not. After all it could be argued that the current model in SA is actually detrimental to rugby in that country.

Why? Probably just picked it up from people like yourself complaining about it  

LostinWales wrote:keeping a balance between the RFU and the clubs for the sake of the health of all levels of rugby and the international team in particular

But is there balance? I'd say yes. The PRL have commercial control over their league. However this is only because the RFU renews the agreement to do so. If they didn't it would return to the RFU. Any competition changes have to be approved by the RFU (and they have stopped some in recent years). They get the same release time as (for example) the Welsh based players with the RFU. There are incentives for the clubs to keep at least 65% of their playing squad English (all of them have made this I believe and that is at least 180 professional English players in the league week. So I would say the balance is there, PRL are happy and the RFU are happy.

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:This includes the handling of EPS players (release time, union medicial and training control, compensation, etc), running of academies, financial incentives for English players in the league. It also set up the Professional Game Board (or something like that) which is made up of the RFU and club representatives (and someone from the Players Association?). And finally it gives control over the sponsorship and TV for the league to the clubs to sort out (which makes sense as the money would just go to them anyway).

I understand that, the Clubs are privately owned, therefor they can negotiate their own revenue streams, but why then was there an issue with the BT deal? I believe that was me not itsallabouttheincentives. The clubs don't negotiate their own revenue streams because they're privately owned. They do it because the RFU have granted them that power. They have commercial control over all competitions they're involved in except the ERC HEC and ACC. The PRL believed that because they are leaving the ERC the european rights would revert to them due to the first part. The RFU have said because they were exempt before they revert back to the RFU. What this means is that the ERC always had to be disbanded. The PRL were negotiating for a new body to be set up. That didn't happen.

We have a players association as well, but the Franchises even though they are businesses, the SARU has stake in all of them. Perhaps the RFU should acquire a percentage stakeholding in these clubs?  What would be the purpose of that? They already have to sanction every completition change. The only thing the RFU have given up completely (temporarily) is the commercial stuff. Why would they care what happens to the TV rights or sponsorship?

itsallaboutheincentives wrote:The elite English clubs have been around a long time and are (just about, or will be once they renegotiate tv/euro cash) financially profitable. SH teams in the top league have been created from provinces, is that correct? Were there ever clubs in the top comps down under? How about when there was no intl elite league, only domestic?

From what I have read in the past, not all these clubs are financially profitable, weren't there two clubs last year that needed to be bailed out?

In SA we have only amateur clubs, the Provinces have been there since the 1880's.

Wasps were bought by someone who took on their debts (I think). Not sure about the other one. Only 4 were profitable in 2010. The combined deficit (I think that's the right term) was £16M and had been reduced by 25% from the previous year. I don't think anyone but the usual suspects have shouted about new profit since then so we can assume they're still losing money, but that amount might have reduced.

That's my take on it anyway.

i know. although some of the losses were due to 1-off ground investments so unlikely to be recurring. anyway, i suspect that is a large driver of the new BT contract and re-jigged HC which according to my back of envelope calcs (given bit of guesswork on BT value), may bring on average the whole premiership into p&l balance. or almost.

whocares wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Do you think there is any chance of an EPS deal similar to the English one? And would that be desirable?

So, commercial responsibility for T14 given to the LNR. Fixed extra release time for French squad players. Incentives for playing French players. But all competitions still sanctioned by the FFR.

Also, I don't understand all this stuff about French law being different. The IRB say that a cross-boarder competition has to be sanctioned by the unions. Any domestic competition has to be sanctioned by the unions. The unions control the TV rights. How is this any different in any country?

yes - a french EPS would be ideal but keep in mind the RFU indemnify the english clubs for using their players. the FFR doesnt.

it's not about French law being different, it's about mandates and LNR mandate from FFR is about organising french professional game on french territory and they are the one controlling the tv rights for top14 not the FFR.

It thought so. That's the same for everyone as a starting position.

Regarding the 'indemnify' do you mean the RFU compensate the clubs for player time? Or do you mean taking on the insurance? The RFU only pay the PRL for the extra time with the players outside the window. To be honest given the similarity between the French and English general set-up an almost carbon copy would probably be good. The FFR would only have to temporary give up commercial control over the T14 and pay for the extra time with French players (like everyone does).

HammerofThunor wrote:

Biltong wrote:

London Tiger wrote:Is there a correct model that works for all? Probably not. After all it could be argued that the current model in SA is actually detrimental to rugby in that country.

Why? Probably just picked it up from people like yourself complaining about it  

LostinWales wrote:keeping a balance between the RFU and the clubs for the sake of the health of all levels of rugby and the international team in particular

But is there balance? I'd say yes. The PRL have commercial control over their league. However this is only because the RFU renews the agreement to do so. If they didn't it would return to the RFU. Any competition changes have to be approved by the RFU (and they have stopped some in recent years). They get the same release time as (for example) the Welsh based players with the RFU. There are incentives for the clubs to keep at least 65% of their playing squad English (all of them have made this I believe and that is at least 180 professional English players in the league week. So I would say the balance is there, PRL are happy and the RFU are happy.

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:This includes the handling of EPS players (release time, union medicial and training control, compensation, etc), running of academies, financial incentives for English players in the league. It also set up the Professional Game Board (or something like that) which is made up of the RFU and club representatives (and someone from the Players Association?). And finally it gives control over the sponsorship and TV for the league to the clubs to sort out (which makes sense as the money would just go to them anyway).

I understand that, the Clubs are privately owned, therefor they can negotiate their own revenue streams, but why then was there an issue with the BT deal? I believe that was me not itsallabouttheincentives. The clubs don't negotiate their own revenue streams because they're privately owned. They do it because the RFU have granted them that power. They have commercial control over all competitions they're involved in except the ERC HEC and ACC. The PRL believed that because they are leaving the ERC the european rights would revert to them due to the first part. The RFU have said because they were exempt before they revert back to the RFU. What this means is that the ERC always had to be disbanded. The PRL were negotiating for a new body to be set up. That didn't happen.

We have a players association as well, but the Franchises even though they are businesses, the SARU has stake in all of them. Perhaps the RFU should acquire a percentage stakeholding in these clubs?  What would be the purpose of that? They already have to sanction every completition change. The only thing the RFU have given up completely (temporarily) is the commercial stuff. Why would they care what happens to the TV rights or sponsorship?

itsallaboutheincentives wrote:The elite English clubs have been around a long time and are (just about, or will be once they renegotiate tv/euro cash) financially profitable. SH teams in the top league have been created from provinces, is that correct? Were there ever clubs in the top comps down under? How about when there was no intl elite league, only domestic?

From what I have read in the past, not all these clubs are financially profitable, weren't there two clubs last year that needed to be bailed out?

In SA we have only amateur clubs, the Provinces have been there since the 1880's.

Wasps were bought by someone who took on their debts (I think). Not sure about the other one. Only 4 were profitable in 2010. The combined deficit (I think that's the right term) was £16M and had been reduced by 25% from the previous year. I don't think anyone but the usual suspects have shouted about new profit since then so we can assume they're still losing money, but that amount might have reduced.

That's my take on it anyway.

Thanks for that, just one more question.

Was it miscommunication that the Clubs went ahead with the BT deal, and did they know the ERC must be disbanded before they moved towards the BT deal?

ERC needed to be renewed by all participants in order to continue beyond 2014. Absent ERC, european rights revert back to the Unions of respective countries. PRL are gambling that RFU will retrospectively grant them the ability to have negotiated those Euro rights with BT.

So when PRL/LNr filed 2yr intention not to renew ERC, ERC ceased to exist beyond 2014. full stop. TV deal cant start until ERC ceases to exist, but obviously deal needs to be negotiatied commercially at least a year before that.

We dont know precise wording of PRL/BT contract, but it appears to cover domestic and euro games, irrespective of the number of nations represented in the new tournament (seems well negotiated by PRL if we believe them).

So there was no miscommunication whatsoever. bit of gambling that PRL will have RFU onside. And gambling by ERC that they will be able to renew the participation agreement (seems v unlikely now). But nothing illegal has been done by either side. all above board, just a bit confusing.

LondonTiger wrote:England is a small country (in terms of land area) with a large/condensed population. This has meant that you can have national club rivalries. The travelling distances involved in SA and NZ (and the lack of players in aus) means that this would never happen. The other weekend when Bath hosted Tigers it was 100 years since the first meeting. More localised  rivalries are much more longstanding. There is a strong history. In NZ the Ranfurly shield is still a massive thing, while in SA Currie Cup is still treasured.


Is there a correct model that works for all? Probably not. After all it could be argued that the current model in SA is actually detrimental to rugby in that country.

Now, and only speaking for myself, I watch Tigers live perhaps up to 20 times in a season. Since retiring from playing, watching them is what rugby is all about. They are my kids, say. I love them deeply and when they are doing well am happy. England i see once in a blue moon now (saw them much more when I was playing and got free tickets) I want them to do well, but it just isn't the same level of emotion.

England losing in Cardiff earlier this year affected me far less than Leicester getting hammered in Ravenhill a couple of seasons ago. Leicester beating Ospreys made me far happier than England beating Ireland.

This is at the root of quite a lot of the misunderstanding from the Celtic countries.  When Rugby went professional the English and French system built on the foundation of club rugby.  The Welsh and Scottish unions decided to build a completely new professional structure with no regard for history. This is not because the RFU was wiser than WRU or SRU just that they were so incapable of making decisions that the decisions were taken out of their hands. In retrospect the English/French way has proved more successful. As a Gloucester supporter I have kept my love of Gloucester through the process. I now live in the Scottish Borders which as many know was a hotbed of rugby with clubs at the heart of communities. Much of that has been destroyed by the SRU. I do not know a single person who has ever been to watch Edinburgh play even though it is only twenty miles or so away. Fairly regularly I will watch Peebles play with Scottish friends.

This lack of real love for the regions is why Scots and Welsh supporters put the national team above all else and think regional rugby exists solely to support the national teams. It also explains why regional rugby attract little support or interest and so little money.

The Irish system is different again because is was built on long standing provincial rugby so like the English system the support could be built on. This has resulted in the Irish teams being better supported and more successful.

Biltong wrote:
Thanks for that, just one more question.

Was it miscommunication that the Clubs went ahead with the BT deal, and did they know the ERC must be disbanded before they moved towards the BT deal?

I don't think it was miscommunication, and they still don't need ERC to be disbanded. The component of the deal for the premiership is much better than they had before with Sky - and will allegedly maintain current income even in the event of no European Cup.

Biltong wrote:Thanks for that, just one more question.

Was it miscommunication that the Clubs went ahead with the BT deal, and did they know the ERC must be disbanded before they moved towards the BT deal?

It's not 100% clear.

What I've seen is:

1) In 2011 there was an article with a guy from IRFU who said he is involved in the Commercial committee of the ERC. He said that people always said that there was more money out there until they had to go out and find it. He said he didn't believe they were underselling the ERC competitions.

2) On the 1st June 2012 the LNR, FFR and PRL gave two years notice for pulling out of the ERC.

3) In Septemeber 2012 the PRL announce a new TV deal with BT covering the English league and any future English games in European comeptitions. There is/was some confusion in what exactly they sold (some reports games involving the English teams, other said games in England) but, from the language and dicussions since, I believe (emphasis on believe) they sold the TV rights to the English home games.

4) Either later that day or the day after the ERC announced a new 4 year deal with Sky for the ERC competitions. They said the new deal was agreed at a board meeting on June 6th 2012 (after the announcement to pull out). The board included PRL rep.

5) PRL issued a statement saying that the Sky deal nor any other deal was not discussed at the board meeting. And even if it did they could not sell the rights to the English club games as they were pulling out.

6) After a bit of furious studying of the contract between the PRL and RFU, the RFU announced they believe that the European games are exempt from the deal giving rights to the PRL. After reading some of the stuff on the deal (not the actual contact obviously) I can see why the PRL thought they would go to them.

7) What this meant is that the PRL could not continue to be part of the ERC and needed a new body to set up. They wanted this to be made up of the teams involved in the competition (some people see 'club controlled' as English and French club controlled as the others aren't technically clubs. I believe this is wrong).


So one thing we KNOW is that at best the Sky deal with the ERC was sorted AFTER the LNR, FFR and PRL gave notice. We don't know when exactly the BT deal was finalised but it was announced 3 months after notice was given. The BT deal also started after the ERC (as it is now) ends. The whole point of giving notice was to force the participation agreeement to be written again from scratch

Beshocked, 2 questions
1) Have you just bought a thesaurus and discovered the word "sanctimonious"
2) How many threads can you crowbar "Saracens have a great academy" into?

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

whocares wrote:just to clarify one thing :
- the LNR sole role is to organise the professional game on french territory, this includes top14 and pro d2 (dont think federale 1 is in their portfolio eventhough its semi pro these day).
- the LNR takes all their powers from the FFR. such mandates can be in theory discontinued...
 
for instance the FFR casually reminded the LNR recently that they can only sign a new tv agreement for 2014 onwards with their consent (this is the most important thing for french club who hope to get a 100M€ deal with the help of the new entrant in french tv).
now the FFR reminding the LNR that they cannot take part in a internatinal competition without their consent as well... although i suspect the FFR clique to have some (financial?) interest in the ERC to still exist ... this is just a case of a daddy reminding his teenager brat who is in charge...although they are not really in charge as the kid might just runaway!
At the end of the day we are likely to see a trade off :
- LNR gets to do what they want. in my opinion the franglo cup is either just noise or possibly just a back up in case the tv deal doesnt go through
- FFR gets more access to players for preparation of test matches, 6N etc... and also get to organise an extra international game which means more €€ to support their new stadium project.
 
the latter is the key thing as far as I am concerned so a T16 with no cup would be better for the french international team than a T14 with the current ERC set up.

Do you think there is any chance of an EPS deal similar to the English one? And would that be desirable?

So, commercial responsibility for T14 given to the LNR. Fixed extra release time for French squad players. Incentives for playing French players. But all competitions still sanctioned by the FFR.

Also, I don't understand all this stuff about French law being different. The IRB say that a cross-boarder competition has to be sanctioned by the unions. Any domestic competition has to be sanctioned by the unions. The unions control the TV rights. How is this any different in any country?

OK lets deal with the French law red herring. Yes french law is different, from UK, which is different from Italian. Irrelevant though. What is relevant as you say is the IRB/Union structure which is very clear. If there were to be a fallout within this arrangement and commercial clubs in one country, about the HC for example, that would be resolved ultimately by EU law as it is cross border. No-one knows what would happen there.

Within a nation, if a dispute happens between PRL/RFU, then english law would apply if worst came to worst and it wasnt resolvable.

In France, lots of posters here who are not French, not lawyers, and not studies of government institutions keep referring to "statutory powers" in a mythical semi-reverent way as if this will save the Heineken Cup. Statutory powers only refer to the following which i will reproduce in full. The FFR was set up and given its authority by a branch of government (article in full in french below). even if President Hollande wants to get the LNR to do something, he can only do so within the confines of french law, and the FFR can only get the LNR to do something within the confines of the regulations between FFR and LNR. And in the event of a disagreement, guess what, it will be decided by French law or possibly arbitration depending on the issue. And i have said this a few times on this site, and will say it again. No-one can compel a commercially run privately owned entity to enter into a commercial contract. Cajole, encourage, bribe, temp, bully yes. Compel no. read this from RCToulon president yday..."Parce que la fédération peut nous empêcher de jouer, ça c’est certain. Mais elle ne peut pas nous obliger à jouer. S’ils veulent, ils enverront les équipes de Fédérale 1 jouer cette compétition qu’ils auront mis en place." - they can stop us playing but they can't make us play. enter the Federale1 (3rd tier) into the new competition if they want.


Statuts de la FFR

TITRE 1

Dispositions générales

Article 1 - L'association dite « Fédération Française de Rugby » (désignée ci-après par les initiales F.F.R.), fondée en 1919 et reconnue d'utilité publique le 27 novembre 1922, a pour objet : d'encourager et développer la pratique du jeu de rugby (rugby à XV, rugby à 7, et toute autre forme de rugby appliquant les règles du jeu fixées par l’International Rugby Board), de diriger et de réglementer le rugby et d'en défendre les intérêts.

La FFR veille au respect de la Charte de déontologie du sport, établie par le Comité national olympique et sportif français.

Sa durée est illimitée.

Elle a son siège social à Marcoussis.

Le siège social peut être transféré dans une autre commune par délibération de l'Assemblée Générale.

incentives, pls note that Scots law is different to English law

tatterd wrote:Beshocked, 2 questions
1) Have you just bought a thesaurus and discovered the word "sanctimonious"
2) How many threads can you crowbar "Saracens have a great academy" into?

Tatterd

1) No, my grasp of the English language is sufficient. I do not need a thesaurus.

2) I don't know - perhaps as many as are necessary to try and challenge perceptions that are held?

beshocked wrote:"The BT Sport television deal has given the English clubs more of a chance to redress that imbalance. The unions should run the national team and some of the grassroots and the clubs should run the club game. That is what happens in most mature professional sports. I think it is just a matter of time before that happens in rugby."

Problem is, the French and English are the exception in terms of how rugby is run not the rule. It's not just the Celtic and Italians who are run with a heavy emphasis on the club sides being feeder sides to the Unions but SANZAR as well, and- as an Irish fan- long may that continue. They need to ease off on this anti-Union rhetoric because any settlement, either within the ERC or not, will involve the English and French clubs doing a deal with the rest of Europe where Unions are the guardians of the game at every level and therefore a balance needs to be struck between the needs of the clubs and the needs of the Unions.

Their internal civil wars are one thing, but they still don't seem to grasp the point that if they want Pro12 sides on board that means continuing to deal with other Unions. Essentially if they pull the plug on the Pro12 they are relying on four unions to get into bed with them or they face very significant obstacles in getting their tournament off the ground at all.

To get the involvement of the Pro12 sides they need to understand and accommodate some of the needs of the Celtic Unions, which they refused to do in the ERC negotiations. I would also be wary of seeing a tournament set up without the involvement of the RFU and FFR.

Notch wrote:Problem is, the French and English are the exception in terms of how rugby is run not the rule.

Exactly.

Notch wrote:

beshocked wrote:"The BT Sport television deal has given the English clubs more of a chance to redress that imbalance. The unions should run the national team and some of the grassroots and the clubs should run the club game. That is what happens in most mature professional sports. I think it is just a matter of time before that happens in rugby."

Problem is, the French and English are the exception in terms of how rugby is run not the rule. It's not just the Celtic and Italians who are run with a heavy emphasis on the club sides being feeder sides to the Unions but SANZAR as well, and- as an Irish fan- long may that continue. They need to ease off on this anti-Union rhetoric because any settlement, either within the ERC or not, will involve the English and French clubs doing a deal with the rest of Europe where Unions are the guardians of the game at every level and therefore a balance needs to be struck between the needs of the clubs and the needs of the Unions.

Their internal civil wars are one thing, but they still don't seem to grasp the point that if they want Pro12 sides on board that means continuing to deal with other Unions. Essentially if they pull the plug on the Pro12 they are relying on four unions to get into bed with them or they face very significant obstacles in getting their tournament off the ground at all.

To get the involvement of the Pro12 sides they need to understand and accommodate some of the needs of the Celtic Unions, which they refused to do in the ERC negotiations. I would also be wary of seeing a tournament set up without the involvement of the RFU and FFR.

Region system is working really well for the Welsh right?

ERC negotiations? The ERC have been so sluggish. You would think there would be a bit more urgency on their part.

The English and French clubs are willing to deal with unions but don't want to be bullied by them.

Just because the region system works in Ireland doesn't mean it suits all. Certainly would not suit the English and French.

beshocked wrote:The Saint I hop between them because I need to give most of you PRO12 fan boys a reality check.

Yes but you're talking utter nonsense. When you discuss the Pro12 you come across as very ignorant without the slightest idea what you're on about. Referring to the Irish teams is lapdogs and Wales' third string losing to Japan for example.

The Saint wrote:

beshocked wrote:The Saint I hop between them because I need to give most of you PRO12 fan boys a reality check.

Yes but you're talking utter nonsense. When you discuss the Pro12 you come across as very ignorant without the slightest idea what you're on about. Referring to the Irish teams is lapdogs and Wales' third string losing to Japan for example.

You are calling me ignorant? That's a nice joke. 

Irish teams are controlled by their unions no? Perhaps I could have put in a nicer way but it's the IRFU who hold the power in Ireland.

Wales losing to Japan? That did happen. I know you would like to delete it from your memory. You can make excuses if you want. You still lost. Even with the best fly half in the NH, Dan Biggar pulling the strings. 

Yes, a lot of your posts on this subject have been about the Pro12. You and a few others show complete ignorance when discussing the teams (in particular the Irish teams) and structure. Do yourself a favour and just listen to the folks who watch this league regularly, you might learn a few things.

I believe some Irish rugby fans from rival provinces already explained it to you. Did you not understand?

I know Wales' third team lost to Japan and I would like to delete it from my memory, hopefully we (as a team, coaching division and union) can learn from the mistakes made . You pulled out the Dan Biggar gag a few weeks ago and it wasn't even funny back then.

30-3 .

The Saint well it's hardly surprising is it? Most of the opposition to the French and English clubs has come from the Pro12 clubs.

Yes I understood. I also explained to Irish rugby fans that Ulster themselves actually call themselves a club.

Perhaps you should taken your own advice?

Wales' 3rd team? It won't go down in the history books as that - it will go down as a loss for Wales vs Japan.

30-3 - as long as you beat the English no? Perhaps if you stopped being obsessed with beating England you might win matches against SH sides.

Well you still remember the Dan biggar gag so it must mean something to you.

Perhaps stopping making mistakes might actually help. Wales are a pretty good international side - you shouldn't be losing to the likes of Japan,Samoa,Fiji and Argentina.

Plus Wales are ranked below England and even France.

beshocked wrote:I also explained to Irish rugby fans that Ulster themselves actually call themselves a club.

Yes, but you seem to be unwilling to understand that the structure and ownership of that "club" is totally different to what you have in England. The "club" is run by the IRFU. The body in charge of appointing the CEO etc. of Ulster Rugby is the Ulster Branch of the IRFU. While Ulster are run as a professional rugby club on the pitch with a similar relationship between players, coaches etc. as you'd find elsewhere in Europe they are run in the interests of the IRFU as part of the IRFU. Call it a club a province or whatever you want, it has a very different relationship to the Irish Union than the English clubs have to theirs and when the debate is "club or union?" thats a very important difference. For instance, all players are centrally contracted to the IRFU and the vast majority of players sign a contract to play for Ulster and Ireland. Only exceptions are NIQ players and the IRFU need to centrally approve every signing of a player who is not Irish qualified.

Please do not return to this line of argument as you make yourself look foolish and the effort of correcting you is tiresome.

No notch I have acknowledged it's different but then again Ulster do call themselves a club so don't give me that Love sacks about them not being a club.

If you complain about Ulster calling themselves a club ring them up. Ask them to change their twitter and website because you say so.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

whocares wrote:just to clarify one thing :
- the LNR sole role is to organise the professional game on french territory, this includes top14 and pro d2 (dont think federale 1 is in their portfolio eventhough its semi pro these day).
- the LNR takes all their powers from the FFR. such mandates can be in theory discontinued...
 
for instance the FFR casually reminded the LNR recently that they can only sign a new tv agreement for 2014 onwards with their consent (this is the most important thing for french club who hope to get a 100M€ deal with the help of the new entrant in french tv).
now the FFR reminding the LNR that they cannot take part in a internatinal competition without their consent as well... although i suspect the FFR clique to have some (financial?) interest in the ERC to still exist ... this is just a case of a daddy reminding his teenager brat who is in charge...although they are not really in charge as the kid might just runaway!
At the end of the day we are likely to see a trade off :
- LNR gets to do what they want. in my opinion the franglo cup is either just noise or possibly just a back up in case the tv deal doesnt go through
- FFR gets more access to players for preparation of test matches, 6N etc... and also get to organise an extra international game which means more €€ to support their new stadium project.
 
the latter is the key thing as far as I am concerned so a T16 with no cup would be better for the french international team than a T14 with the current ERC set up.

Do you think there is any chance of an EPS deal similar to the English one? And would that be desirable?

So, commercial responsibility for T14 given to the LNR. Fixed extra release time for French squad players. Incentives for playing French players. But all competitions still sanctioned by the FFR.

Also, I don't understand all this stuff about French law being different. The IRB say that a cross-boarder competition has to be sanctioned by the unions. Any domestic competition has to be sanctioned by the unions. The unions control the TV rights. How is this any different in any country?

OK lets deal with the French law red herring. Yes french law is different, from UK, which is different from Italian. Irrelevant though. What is relevant as you say is the IRB/Union structure which is very clear. If there were to be a fallout within this arrangement and commercial clubs in one country, about the HC for example, that would be resolved ultimately by EU law as it is cross border. No-one knows what would happen there.

Within a nation, if a dispute happens between PRL/RFU, then english law would apply if worst came to worst and it wasnt resolvable.

In France, lots of posters here who are not French, not lawyers, and not studies of government institutions keep referring to "statutory powers" in a mythical semi-reverent way as if this will save the Heineken Cup. Statutory powers only refer to the following which i will reproduce in full. The FFR was set up and given its authority by a branch of government (article in full in french below). even if President Hollande wants to get the LNR to do something, he can only do so within the confines of french law, and the FFR can only get the LNR to do something within the confines of the regulations between FFR and LNR. And in the event of a disagreement, guess what, it will be decided by French law or possibly arbitration depending on the issue. And i have said this a few times on this site, and will say it again. No-one can compel a commercially run privately owned entity to enter into a commercial contract. Cajole, encourage, bribe, temp, bully yes. Compel no. read this from RCToulon president yday..."Parce que la fédération peut nous empêcher de jouer, ça c’est certain. Mais elle ne peut pas nous obliger à jouer. S’ils veulent, ils enverront les équipes de Fédérale 1 jouer cette compétition qu’ils auront mis en place." - they can stop us playing but they can't make us play. enter the Federale1 (3rd tier) into the new competition if they want.


Statuts de la FFR

TITRE 1

Dispositions générales

Article 1 - L'association dite « Fédération Française de Rugby » (désignée ci-après par les initiales F.F.R.), fondée en 1919 et reconnue d'utilité publique le 27 novembre 1922, a pour objet : d'encourager et développer la pratique du jeu de rugby (rugby à XV, rugby à 7, et toute autre forme de rugby appliquant les règles du jeu fixées par l’International Rugby Board), de diriger et de réglementer le rugby et d'en défendre les intérêts.

La FFR veille au respect de la Charte de déontologie du sport, établie par le Comité national olympique et sportif français.

Sa durée est illimitée.

Elle a son siège social à Marcoussis.

Le siège social peut être transféré dans une autre commune par délibération de l'Assemblée Générale.

incentives, pls note that Scots law is different to English law

noted. thx. should have said "england and wales" law.

beshocked wrote:No notch I have acknowledged it's different but then again Ulster do call themselves a club so don't give me that Love sacks about them not being a club.

If you complain about Ulster calling themselves a club ring them up. Ask them to change their twitter and website because you say so.

I don't care what they call themselves. We're trying to explain to you that regardless of what they are called they are a very different entity to amateur club sides in Ireland and professional club sides in England.

I call Ulster a club offhand sometimes too, but in this clubs vs unions debate it's a misleading term because we're not an equivalent organisation to English or French clubs in many ways. When using the term club in the context of the current European rugby deadlock people are using the word clubs as shorthand for privately owned English and French teams. Ulster are not privately owned. We are part and parcel of the IRFU itself.

Right, I need to do something easier and more relaxing than trying to explain Irish rugby to beshocked so I'm off to teach a donkey to tap dance. Enjoy yourself kids

Notch wrote:
Right, I need to do something easier and more relaxing than trying to explain Irish rugby to beshocked so I'm off to teach a donkey to tap dance. Enjoy yourself kids

Say hi to rava for me Notch! .....

beshocked wrote:The Saint well it's hardly surprising is it? Most of the opposition to the French and English clubs has come from the Pro12 clubs.

Yes I understood. I also explained to Irish rugby fans that Ulster themselves actually call themselves a club.

Perhaps you should taken your own advice?

Wales' 3rd team? It won't go down in the history books as that - it will go down as a loss for Wales vs Japan.

30-3 - as long as you beat the English no? Perhaps if you stopped being obsessed with beating England you might win matches against SH sides.

Well you still remember the Dan biggar gag so it must mean something to you.

Perhaps stopping making mistakes might actually help. Wales are a pretty good international side - you shouldn't be losing to the likes of Japan,Samoa,Fiji and Argentina.

Plus Wales are ranked below England and even France.

Oh dear, why are we having this discussion.

Why do myself and yourself have to go around in circles over the Wales versus Japan games? I've pretty much agreed with all your points over the course of threads where we have had this discussion, however I've always merely asked you to fathom the factors that contributed to us losing. Think of how people mis-use some stats, it's the same ideology. Just go to the previous match threads where I explained all of this to you as I'm tired of educating the ill-educated. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with the Euro rugby dispute.

Oh dear that old chesnut. Yes I lowered myself to your level. However you shouldn't coat-tail other teams that have beaten us in the past because the team you support can not beat us, let alone score a bleeding try. Plus it's embarrassing for you.

Again with the IRB rankings, which has nothing to do with the euro discussion. This is why I've pointed your posts are ignorant and off-topic. I'm sorry, but you're just an idiot and there's no other way to put it.

I can see you're still going around in circles over Ulster so good luck in trying to understand what's going on here now anyway.

Notch I do understand. Please stop the sanctimonious clap trap.

I already said I acknowledged they have different structures.

There's that word again. Have you got one of those calendars with a 'word of a week'?

rodders wrote:

Notch wrote:
Right, I need to do something easier and more relaxing than trying to explain Irish rugby to beshocked so I'm off to teach a donkey to tap dance. Enjoy yourself kids

Say hi to rava for me Notch! .....

Bravo!

whocares wrote:just to clarify one thing :
- the LNR sole role is to organise the professional game on french territory, this includes top14 and pro d2 (dont think federale 1 is in their portfolio eventhough its semi pro these day).
- the LNR takes all their powers from the FFR. such mandates can be in theory discontinued...
 
for instance the FFR casually reminded the LNR recently that they can only sign a new tv agreement for 2014 onwards with their consent (this is the most important thing for french club who hope to get a 100M€ deal with the help of the new entrant in french tv).
now the FFR reminding the LNR that they cannot take part in a internatinal competition without their consent as well... although i suspect the FFR clique to have some (financial?) interest in the ERC to still exist ... this is just a case of a daddy reminding his teenager brat who is in charge...although they are not really in charge as the kid might just runaway!
At the end of the day we are likely to see a trade off :
- LNR gets to do what they want. in my opinion the franglo cup is either just noise or possibly just a back up in case the tv deal doesnt go through
- FFR gets more access to players for preparation of test matches, 6N etc... and also get to organise an extra international game which means more €€ to support their new stadium project.
 
the latter is the key thing as far as I am concerned so a T16 with no cup would be better for the french international team than a T14 with the current ERC set up.

Only just seen this Whocares - thanks - very interesting. So the bit in bold - what are the chances of the LNR simply running away? Could they even simply play off French soil? Or are they intertwined and playing a purely French game?

One thing about the French that seems to have been missed - as well as tyhe bollox talked about eh legal set up which is much stronger and different to anywhere else is that many of the french teams do not own their grounds - they are owned by various municipalities - so a LNR club who does not own their own ground could find not only do they have no games to play but they have no ground to play in either.

contrary to the nonsense talked by itsallaboutthePRLPR the FFR actually hold a very strong hand - much more than a veto.  
the other issue is refs - how many refs  are the PRL going to get to ref their games when the price of doing so will be those refs are exiled from all other competitions including the WC and internationals?

Good point - but potentially it won't just be the refs affected but the players too. The IRB have made it clear they don't want any non-ERC cross-border tournament. If the PRL and LNR go ahead regardless, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that they could tell the RFU and FFR (and indeed the WRU, IRFU etc.) that they're not allowed to select players from those clubs for Test matches.

Perfectly possible - we have parallels from the past in cricket. It took a decade for the Aus cricket team ( read the england rugby team) to recover from this post Packer

No restraint of trade case could be made either.

TJ wrote:One thing about the French that seems to have been missed - as well as tyhe bollox talked about eh legal set up which is much stronger and different to anywhere else is that many of the french teams do not own their grounds - they are owned by various municipalities - so a LNR club who does not own their own ground could find not only do they have no games to play but they have no ground to play in either.

contrary to the nonsense talked by itsallaboutthePRLPR the FFR actually hold a very strong hand - much more than a veto.  
the other issue is refs - how many refs  are the PRL going to get to ref their games when the price of doing so will be those refs are exiled from all other competitions including the WC and internationals?

please define "much more than a veto"

TJ wrote:One thing about the French that seems to have been missed - as well as tyhe bollox talked about eh legal set up which is much stronger and different to anywhere else is that many of the french teams do not own their grounds - they are owned by various municipalities - so a LNR club who does not own their own ground could find not only do they have no games to play but they have no ground to play in either.

contrary to the nonsense talked by itsallaboutthePRLPR the FFR actually hold a very strong hand - much more than a veto.  
the other issue is refs - how many refs  are the PRL going to get to ref their games when the price of doing so will be those refs are exiled from all other competitions including the WC and internationals?

please define "much more than a veto". is that like, a double veto, or a really big veto?

According to the resident Frenchy (whocares) it's nothing to do with French law. They have the same set-up as everyone else. Union has all the power and can defer the power to other bodies. Like the FFR have done with the LNR and the RFU has with PRL. The PRL can't actually sell league TV rights after 2016 without the RFU's consent.

The law gives the FFR a stronger position compared to the RFU in a disgreement between the clubs and the unions

TJ wrote:The law gives the FFR a stronger position compared to the RFU in a disgreement between the clubs and the unions

In what way?

HammerofThunor wrote:

TJ wrote:The law gives the FFR a stronger position compared to the RFU in a disgreement between the clubs and the unions

In what way?

The fairies told him

Fair enough.

Because thats the way its set up. the RFU only governs with consent. the FFR governs with the force of law. It acts as a branch of the government.