Euro Spat - A Global Perspective

First topic message reminder :

So much has already been said on the subject I thought I'd look at this from a slightly different angle. I reckon the IRB will be under massive pressure from the SH Unions to sort this out and keep control of the HC.

The NZRFU, ARU and SARFU are finding it hard enough to keep their leading stars in their respective countries. If there is a much bigger pot of money available to European Clubs, and no Union control then the logical next step will see the Salary caps torn up and we will see many more high profile players heading north. That in turn will have a knock on effect on Super Rugby and ultimately on International Rugby as players will be forced to choose between club and country.

There are rights and wrongs on both sides of the argument , but Rugby belongs to us all. The integrity and future of the game is more important than a few money men cashing in on TV money.....there has to be a sustainable solution put in place to avoid Rugby going the way of football.

beshocked wrote:Oh right rodders so wiki is more reliable than Ulster themselves? Okay if you say so......

Okay they might not have complete autonomy but they call themselves a club.

Well is that not the issue rather than the terminology? The provinces are not the same as the English clubs regardless of what they call themselves, in that they have certain advantages (financial backing from the Union) and disadvantages (not full autonomy on team selection and signings).

What they have in common is they are the top tier of non-international rugby within their respective countries hence play in the HEC.

broadlandboy wrote:If the Unions are successful IMSHO this will restrict the spread of rugby out it's traditional areas. With Union success where would the players whose Unions havn't a professional team be able to play rugby full time?

Spot on. In football, the only 2 drivers of the increase in competitiveness as international level, and participation professionally worldwide, have been i) massively successful commercialisation and money and ii) a transfer market. African nations are massively competitive and ALL their players practise their trade in the best clubs in the world. [i am not claiming football as a role model, cant stand the game these days, but am highlighting why int'l competitions are now so fiercely competitive]

Union control does a lots of good, but is effectively used as a smokescreen for maintaining the current international world order, and is little to do with expanding the game and make it truly more competitive at international level. Free transfer markets, better commercialisation, and international club competitions not run by unions (whose goal is national team performance) would be a good start in truly expanding the game.

rodders you can't get a more reliable source than Ulster on whether they are a club or not. They believe they are. No matter how much you would like to shake your head then stick your head into the sand.

Never said the Irish clubs were the same. The English aren't the same as the French either. The French have more attachment to their union than the English.

You support the Ulster team - you don't support the Ulster branch of the IRFU do you? Do you feel like Ulster are winning matches in the HC for the IRFU?

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:If the Unions are successful IMSHO this will restrict the spread of rugby out it's traditional areas. With Union success where would the players whose Unions havn't a professional team be able to play rugby full time?

Spot on. In football, the only 2 drivers of the increase in competitiveness as international level, and participation professionally worldwide, have been i) massively successful commercialisation and money and ii) a transfer market. African nations are massively competitive and ALL their players practise their trade in the best clubs in the world. [i am not claiming football as a role model, cant stand the game these days, but am highlighting why int'l competitions are now so fiercely competitive]

Union control does a lots of good, but is effectively used as a smokescreen for maintaining the current international world order, and is little to do with expanding the game and make it truly more competitive at international level. Free transfer markets, better commercialisation, and international club competitions not run by unions (whose goal is national team performance) would be a good start in truly expanding the game.

Excellent post but the reality is that NZ, SA, Ireland Australia aren't going to change their models and nor are France and England. Therefore when approaching multi nation club competitions there needs to be some compromise.

FFS it doesn't matter. It's a pointless semantic argument. The team Ulster are run by the Ulster branch. Whether they call themselve a club, a province or a band of merry men doesn't matter.

What matters is that Ulster team are directly controlled by the Ulster branch of the IRFU and are infact inseperable from the IRFU.

I honestly don't undersrand your point. (edit: that was direct to beshocked).

That is almost as tedious as the "they're not rules, they're laws" stuff

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:there is no bigger picture. there is just everyone independently trying to achieve their  goals. bigger picture is just a term used to preface a different set of objectives. no more or less valid though. just a lot harder to quantify.

profit will in the long term incentivise the best growth of the game. not restrictive union control imho. people who run things for profit are not motivated by short term, ie lets take all the money from HC, but rather lets make the pie as big as we can and as sustainable as we can and get as big a share of that as we can while keeping the whole pie growing.

I completely agree that profit long term is the best way to incentivise the growth of the game, however I do not believe that current suggestions are the correct way to go about it.

I have seen you rubbish comparisons to NFL on other threads but hear me out.  

The NFL know that the best way to create growth is to create a spectacle therefore the immensely wealthy owners of the franchises all agree to the draft system which gives selection priority in the draft to teams who have not performed as well in the previous season.  This means that from season to season there is a much higher chance of teams being able to create a squad that will put their franchise in contention to win a place in the playoffs, and that no one team will dominate making the competition become stale.  This system is also employed successfully in the AFL in Australia with some slight differences.  I do not think that there should be a draft in Rugby but I do believe that there has to be an incentive for smaller teams to be able to grow their support and develop or buy players who can boost their squad and make them more competitive.  Ulster won the HEC in 1999 then did not exactly set the world on fire until the last couple of seasons and they were runners up last year, clubs have to have the chance and the opportunity to rebuild if and when they fall apart.

The PRL seems to be going down the route of trying to copy the wendyball premiership which I think would be a mistake and could kill off the club game in Europe in the long run as it would lead to a handful of teams dominating all competitions and buying large squads of the best players.  Smaller teams would have no realistic chance of taking these teams on over a season as their squads would be smaller and therefore player rotation, whilst maintaining the standard of their 1st XV would be all but impossible.  The opportunity to grow organically and take on the big boys would not be there so they would have to rely on rich sugar daddies to buy out the club and rugby cannot attract the same number of those as football as it does not have the glitz, glamour or numbers that are currently associated with football and realistically it may never have them.

A comparison of where this could lead would be F1, fans have booed Vettel at the last two GPs that he has won, because he "always" wins and while it is an amazing feat of engineering and team dynamics it is boring to the average punter who forks out for a Sky subscription or for a ticket and airfare to the GP.  This will drive fans away to other sports like motoGP etc.  I do not want to see the equivalent of this happen with Rugby, I want to see Scotland, Ireland, Wales and Italy get their f#@king act together and introduce more pro teams.  I want to see the Argies put a team in to Super Rugby, maybe a pro PI team too and pro teams develop in countries who have good rugby playing numbers but no pro structure, if this happens rugby will be more profitable to ALL involved, for this to happen people need to take the long view and not look for a quick buck to line their own pockets in the immediate future which is what I suspect the PRL/LNR are attempting.  

I understand the historical reasons why we are at the current impasse and as a Scotsman, I agree with many of them the IRB/ERC/Unions are in most circumstances not fit for purpose, would it not be better to reform these institutions and demand that they represent the fans (who pay everyone's wages in one form or another).  My own union handled the switch to pro rugby appallingly and we are still paying the price, but it is starting to turn around, the SRU has reduced its deficit for the first time last year, Edinburgh are still awful (there are glimmers of hope and they now have a decent coaching staff) but Glasgow have a genuinely classy team that could do great things this season if they build on the start they have.  There is a risk of this, and the growth of rugby internationally being stifled because of a short term attitude that will benefit a few, where a long term attitude will benefit all involved in the game.

rodders wrote:

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:If the Unions are successful IMSHO this will restrict the spread of rugby out it's traditional areas. With Union success where would the players whose Unions havn't a professional team be able to play rugby full time?

Spot on. In football, the only 2 drivers of the increase in competitiveness as international level, and participation professionally worldwide, have been i) massively successful commercialisation and money and ii) a transfer market. African nations are massively competitive and ALL their players practise their trade in the best clubs in the world. [i am not claiming football as a role model, cant stand the game these days, but am highlighting why int'l competitions are now so fiercely competitive]

Union control does a lots of good, but is effectively used as a smokescreen for maintaining the current international world order, and is little to do with expanding the game and make it truly more competitive at international level. Free transfer markets, better commercialisation, and international club competitions not run by unions (whose goal is national team performance) would be a good start in truly expanding the game.

Excellent post but the reality is that NZ, SA, Ireland Australia aren't going to change their models and nor are France and England. Therefore when approaching multi nation club competitions there needs to be some compromise.

i recognise this and agree. wish all the parties would be as open and honest (with themselves first and fans second) about what their goals and agenda are, and stop creating strawmen/fantasies/nightmares to scare everyone with. that might make compromise easier. And get rid of JP Lux asap! HC (or something else!) is always going to be the pressure cooker - it's where the rubber meets the road, etc etc in terms of club (prl/lnr) and union (celtalia) having to agree something.

To recycle the usual bunch of crap/ solid FACTS (depending on point of view) the current situation with the PRL is that they have a salary cap designed to help level the playing field in the premiership. Currently there is no desire to change the salary cap (although there are exceptions) as to do so would increase costs and therefore losses. It is true that a minority of teams tend to dominate but its also true that some of the top teams have been relegated then promoted in the last few years which shows the level of competition through the league.

Getting lots more money may change things but the PRL needs a good product to sell and that means a competitive league.

.

Solid8 wrote:

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:there is no bigger picture. there is just everyone independently trying to achieve their  goals. bigger picture is just a term used to preface a different set of objectives. no more or less valid though. just a lot harder to quantify.

profit will in the long term incentivise the best growth of the game. not restrictive union control imho. people who run things for profit are not motivated by short term, ie lets take all the money from HC, but rather lets make the pie as big as we can and as sustainable as we can and get as big a share of that as we can while keeping the whole pie growing.

I completely agree that profit long term is the best way to incentivise the growth of the game, however I do not believe that current suggestions are the correct way to go about it.

I have seen you rubbish comparisons to NFL on other threads but hear me out.  

The NFL know that the best way to create growth is to create a spectacle therefore the immensely wealthy owners of the franchises all agree to the draft system which gives selection priority in the draft to teams who have not performed as well in the previous season.  This means that from season to season there is a much higher chance of teams being able to create a squad that will put their franchise in contention to win a place in the playoffs, and that no one team will dominate making the competition become stale.  This system is also employed successfully in the AFL in Australia with some slight differences.  I do not think that there should be a draft in Rugby but I do believe that there has to be an incentive for smaller teams to be able to grow their support and develop or buy players who can boost their squad and make them more competitive.  Ulster won the HEC in 1999 then did not exactly set the world on fire until the last couple of seasons and they were runners up last year, clubs have to have the chance and the opportunity to rebuild if and when they fall apart.

The PRL seems to be going down the route of trying to copy the wendyball premiership which I think would be a mistake and could kill off the club game in Europe in the long run as it would lead to a handful of teams dominating all competitions and buying large squads of the best players.  Smaller teams would have no realistic chance of taking these teams on over a season as their squads would be smaller and therefore player rotation, whilst maintaining the standard of their 1st XV would be all but impossible.  The opportunity to grow organically and take on the big boys would not be there so they would have to rely on rich sugar daddies to buy out the club and rugby cannot attract the same number of those as football as it does not have the glitz, glamour or numbers that are currently associated with football and realistically it may never have them.

A comparison of where this could lead would be F1, fans have booed Vettel at the last two GPs that he has won, because he "always" wins and while it is an amazing feat of engineering and team dynamics it is boring to the average punter who forks out for a Sky subscription or for a ticket and airfare to the GP.  This will drive fans away to other sports like motoGP etc.  I do not want to see the equivalent of this happen with Rugby, I want to see Scotland, Ireland, Wales and Italy get their f#@king act together and introduce more pro teams.  I want to see the Argies put a team in to Super Rugby, maybe a pro PI team too and pro teams develop in countries who have good rugby playing numbers but no pro structure, if this happens rugby will be more profitable to ALL involved, for this to happen people need to take the long view and not look for a quick buck to line their own pockets in the immediate future which is what I suspect the PRL/LNR are attempting.  

I understand the historical reasons why we are at the current impasse and as a Scotsman, I agree with many of them the IRB/ERC/Unions are in most circumstances not fit for purpose, would it not be better to reform these institutions and demand that they represent the fans (who pay everyone's wages in one form or another).  My own union handled the switch to pro rugby appallingly and we are still paying the price, but it is starting to turn around, the SRU has reduced its deficit for the first time last year, Edinburgh are still awful (there are glimmers of hope and they now have a decent coaching staff) but Glasgow have a genuinely classy team that could do great things this season if they build on the start they have.  There is a risk of this, and the growth of rugby internationally being stifled because of a short term attitude that will benefit a few, where a long term attitude will benefit all involved in the game.

Thanks for the long and thoughtful post. I only rubbished a really poor and lazy NFL (all franchises are run for profit) comparison to HC (clubs/unions), and i think that was in an undignified dogfight yesterday.

Personally i have no problem with devices like salary caps, drafts, minimum requirements for local players etc. these are all rules which should be set up to help the game, as you rightly say, be as entertaining and enthralling and successful as possible. those arrangements all are rightly to be handled between domestic league and domestic union. euro cup is clearly the challenge area. not sure what the solution is, but re-writing the euro cup rules and somehow making unions accountable to fans, wouldnt be a bad start.

 Oh dear.

Solid8 wrote:

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:there is no bigger picture. there is just everyone independently trying to achieve their  goals. bigger picture is just a term used to preface a different set of objectives. no more or less valid though. just a lot harder to quantify.

profit will in the long term incentivise the best growth of the game. not restrictive union control imho. people who run things for profit are not motivated by short term, ie lets take all the money from HC, but rather lets make the pie as big as we can and as sustainable as we can and get as big a share of that as we can while keeping the whole pie growing.

I completely agree that profit long term is the best way to incentivise the growth of the game, however I do not believe that current suggestions are the correct way to go about it.

I have seen you rubbish comparisons to NFL on other threads but hear me out.  

The NFL know that the best way to create growth is to create a spectacle therefore the immensely wealthy owners of the franchises all agree to the draft system which gives selection priority in the draft to teams who have not performed as well in the previous season.  This means that from season to season there is a much higher chance of teams being able to create a squad that will put their franchise in contention to win a place in the playoffs, and that no one team will dominate making the competition become stale.  This system is also employed successfully in the AFL in Australia with some slight differences.  I do not think that there should be a draft in Rugby but I do believe that there has to be an incentive for smaller teams to be able to grow their support and develop or buy players who can boost their squad and make them more competitive.  Ulster won the HEC in 1999 then did not exactly set the world on fire until the last couple of seasons and they were runners up last year, clubs have to have the chance and the opportunity to rebuild if and when they fall apart.

The PRL seems to be going down the route of trying to copy the wendyball premiership which I think would be a mistake and could kill off the club game in Europe in the long run as it would lead to a handful of teams dominating all competitions and buying large squads of the best players.  Smaller teams would have no realistic chance of taking these teams on over a season as their squads would be smaller and therefore player rotation, whilst maintaining the standard of their 1st XV would be all but impossible.  The opportunity to grow organically and take on the big boys would not be there so they would have to rely on rich sugar daddies to buy out the club and rugby cannot attract the same number of those as football as it does not have the glitz, glamour or numbers that are currently associated with football and realistically it may never have them.

A comparison of where this could lead would be F1, fans have booed Vettel at the last two GPs that he has won, because he "always" wins and while it is an amazing feat of engineering and team dynamics it is boring to the average punter who forks out for a Sky subscription or for a ticket and airfare to the GP.  This will drive fans away to other sports like motoGP etc.  I do not want to see the equivalent of this happen with Rugby, I want to see Scotland, Ireland, Wales and Italy get their f#@king act together and introduce more pro teams.  I want to see the Argies put a team in to Super Rugby, maybe a pro PI team too and pro teams develop in countries who have good rugby playing numbers but no pro structure, if this happens rugby will be more profitable to ALL involved, for this to happen people need to take the long view and not look for a quick buck to line their own pockets in the immediate future which is what I suspect the PRL/LNR are attempting.  

I understand the historical reasons why we are at the current impasse and as a Scotsman, I agree with many of them the IRB/ERC/Unions are in most circumstances not fit for purpose, would it not be better to reform these institutions and demand that they represent the fans (who pay everyone's wages in one form or another).  My own union handled the switch to pro rugby appallingly and we are still paying the price, but it is starting to turn around, the SRU has reduced its deficit for the first time last year, Edinburgh are still awful (there are glimmers of hope and they now have a decent coaching staff) but Glasgow have a genuinely classy team that could do great things this season if they build on the start they have.  There is a risk of this, and the growth of rugby internationally being stifled because of a short term attitude that will benefit a few, where a long term attitude will benefit all involved in the game.

Every PRL/LNR supporter should read this

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Solid8 wrote:

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:there is no bigger picture. there is just everyone independently trying to achieve their  goals. bigger picture is just a term used to preface a different set of objectives. no more or less valid though. just a lot harder to quantify.

profit will in the long term incentivise the best growth of the game. not restrictive union control imho. people who run things for profit are not motivated by short term, ie lets take all the money from HC, but rather lets make the pie as big as we can and as sustainable as we can and get as big a share of that as we can while keeping the whole pie growing.

I completely agree that profit long term is the best way to incentivise the growth of the game, however I do not believe that current suggestions are the correct way to go about it.

I have seen you rubbish comparisons to NFL on other threads but hear me out.  

The NFL know that the best way to create growth is to create a spectacle therefore the immensely wealthy owners of the franchises all agree to the draft system which gives selection priority in the draft to teams who have not performed as well in the previous season.  This means that from season to season there is a much higher chance of teams being able to create a squad that will put their franchise in contention to win a place in the playoffs, and that no one team will dominate making the competition become stale.  This system is also employed successfully in the AFL in Australia with some slight differences.  I do not think that there should be a draft in Rugby but I do believe that there has to be an incentive for smaller teams to be able to grow their support and develop or buy players who can boost their squad and make them more competitive.  Ulster won the HEC in 1999 then did not exactly set the world on fire until the last couple of seasons and they were runners up last year, clubs have to have the chance and the opportunity to rebuild if and when they fall apart.

The PRL seems to be going down the route of trying to copy the wendyball premiership which I think would be a mistake and could kill off the club game in Europe in the long run as it would lead to a handful of teams dominating all competitions and buying large squads of the best players.  Smaller teams would have no realistic chance of taking these teams on over a season as their squads would be smaller and therefore player rotation, whilst maintaining the standard of their 1st XV would be all but impossible.  The opportunity to grow organically and take on the big boys would not be there so they would have to rely on rich sugar daddies to buy out the club and rugby cannot attract the same number of those as football as it does not have the glitz, glamour or numbers that are currently associated with football and realistically it may never have them.

A comparison of where this could lead would be F1, fans have booed Vettel at the last two GPs that he has won, because he "always" wins and while it is an amazing feat of engineering and team dynamics it is boring to the average punter who forks out for a Sky subscription or for a ticket and airfare to the GP.  This will drive fans away to other sports like motoGP etc.  I do not want to see the equivalent of this happen with Rugby, I want to see Scotland, Ireland, Wales and Italy get their f#@king act together and introduce more pro teams.  I want to see the Argies put a team in to Super Rugby, maybe a pro PI team too and pro teams develop in countries who have good rugby playing numbers but no pro structure, if this happens rugby will be more profitable to ALL involved, for this to happen people need to take the long view and not look for a quick buck to line their own pockets in the immediate future which is what I suspect the PRL/LNR are attempting.  

I understand the historical reasons why we are at the current impasse and as a Scotsman, I agree with many of them the IRB/ERC/Unions are in most circumstances not fit for purpose, would it not be better to reform these institutions and demand that they represent the fans (who pay everyone's wages in one form or another).  My own union handled the switch to pro rugby appallingly and we are still paying the price, but it is starting to turn around, the SRU has reduced its deficit for the first time last year, Edinburgh are still awful (there are glimmers of hope and they now have a decent coaching staff) but Glasgow have a genuinely classy team that could do great things this season if they build on the start they have.  There is a risk of this, and the growth of rugby internationally being stifled because of a short term attitude that will benefit a few, where a long term attitude will benefit all involved in the game.

Every PRL/LNR supporter should read this

Why should PRL/LNR get all the good stuff? Every supporter and every administrator should read this.

I'm sorry but while I agree with the general flow of it I don't think it is being applied correctly.

The PRL want more funding for the ACC basically. Currently it doesn't get much and the there is little interest to those that control it. The teams in this competition are by definition the poorer performing sides. And the PRL at the moment subsidize these teams by giving them some of the money they earn by being in the HEC. In addition the top teams give equal shares of the earned money to these poorer performing clubs (there is a seperate issue of the cartel and treatment of promoted sides but that's a different issue). Not only that but the clubs with the most England players (the top clubs) give some of the money they get from the RFU to the other sides that don't have the players. The PRL set up is nothing like the premiership. It's more like the German league (apparantly).

I still don't understand why not just continue the HC (providing the sponsors are still behind it - which most of them are signed into). Let the club models go off and do there thing and the provincial/regional (union based teams) slightly adjust the HC to include the SH Super Rugby Sides. I'm sure if you slide the respective Unions 5 million for what is essentially 6 games (plus any additional rounds to be additional payments), the sponsors would go with it. Can't see Sky pulling out at any rate and it gives us a chance to actually change our league calendar to mirror the SH sides which I believe will actually improve us internationally as the Autumn and Summer Tours don't work well with our league seasons.

It would also give us a opportunity which nation is actually best at provincial level. I couldn't see any real objections from SH rugby either as the increased money from the HC would give them more funds to retain players.

Surely this is what I hope our Unions are looking at because the fact is they can continue the HC if they want and let the English/French go. I also read that the BT deal has restriction in it, if it is not a European tournament so having the French in it only will hamper payments which is why they are desperate to get some defectors into the tournament.

welshmushroom
PRL claimed (they may be lying but i have to take their statement at face value) that BT money for euro games is not dependent on which nations participate.

they are keen on defectors becuase that is the only way to get the unions and hence irb to back it easily.

good luck getting the SH teams (all 15, if not which?) into a european competition so far away without English and French.

you had better hope that is not what your unions are looking at as its another desperate and financially unsound idea which is just delaying them from thinking realistically about what is actually going on.

Well it looks like the PRL don't want to negociate and WANT the HC to fail...
No mention of anything but money and control. The unions may not be perfect but I really do think it is the lesser of 2 evils.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/24224152

Premiership Rugby deputy chairman Bruce Craig has warned that Pro12 clubs face "financial oblivion" if administrators try to thwart the Rugby Champions Cup.

Craig has been central to setting up an event intended to replace the Heineken Cup, which he claims is "finished".

"If the competition is not approved then that would have absolutely catastrophic implications for Celtic rugby," Craig told BBC Sport.

"Celtic teams would be without significant revenues."

He added: "The Heineken Cup is finished, it's over. The Rugby Champions Cup is a way to save European rugby."

Premiership Rugby, the umbrella company representing top-flight English teams, and their French counterparts, the Ligue Nationale de Rugby (LNR), announced the creation of the Rugby Champions Cup for the 2014-15 season on Sunday.

All the Pro12 clubs - from Wales, Scotland, Ireland and Italy - currently participating in the Heineken Cup and Amlin Challenge Cup, which is run by the company European Rugby Cup (ERC), have received invitations to join the Anglo-French breakaway competition.

Craig, who is chairman of Bath, believes every Pro12 team is prepared to sign up to the new competition, but that they are being held back by their national governing bodies.

He has warned the national unions from interfering, and also indicated that they and the International Rugby Board (IRB) could face court action if they attempt to stop the Rugby Champions Cup.

"If all 38 [European] clubs were actually given the opportunity to come into the Rugby Champions Cup, I believe all 38 would probably agree," said Craig, a former scrum-half with Paris side Racing Metro. "It's basically the Celtic unions that would stop them from participating.

"Everyone would prefer that we didn't go down the legal route. We all want a competition that is a fabulous European competition.

"The reality though is that if there was to be a blockage there are obvious questions around restraint of trade. This new Champions Cup would generate in the region of 60 to 70 million Euros minimum, which would actually cut out a big percentage of the English and the French clubs' losses."

The English and French clubs gave notice 15 months ago of their intention to quit the Heineken Cup in 2014, citing preferential qualifying criteria for Celtic sides and uneven distribution of revenues.

Craig contends that while English clubs each receive around £800,000 annually for participating in the Heineken Cup, the figure is closer to £3 million for some Celtic clubs.

That leaves the latter severely financially exposed in the event of there being no European club competition next season, he claimed.

Play media"The amounts of money that is generated in the English and French games through our domestic leagues accounts for approximately 80% of our revenues, so the implication of not playing in a Heineken Cup is much less serious for French and English clubs as it is for the Celtic nations," said Craig, who confirmed there would be no English or French club representatives at the next ERC stakeholder meeting in Dublin on 23 October.

"At the moment, for the 2014-15 season there is no European rugby. This competition is one in which all the clubs are invited to play and there will be an equal distribution of money on a per team basis.

"The reality of it is that if the Rugby Champions Cup doesn't happen, then the Celts will not be playing in a competition and they won't have those distributions from that competition.

"People say the English and French clubs are greedy. The fact is we are losing money. Spend less, simples- the-goon

"In terms of sustainability and the future of the game, this is an opportunity for us to increase revenues into the English and French club game which gives it more viability. The unions should be approving that so there is continuity in English, French and Celtic rugby, because if there is isn't there would be financial oblivion for the Celtic countries."

Craig, who is bilingual having built up and sold a multi-million-pound pharmaceutical business in France before buying Bath, has been Premiership Rugby's chief negotiator with the French clubs, working closely with Paul Goze, president of the Ligue National de Rugby.

But a stumbling block for the Anglo-French tournament could actually come from within France, with the French Rugby Federation (FFR) having this week announced its support for ERC.

However, Craig claims that the FFR's show of support for the Heineken Cup represents an about turn. The federation had previously given notice to leave ERC too, he claimed, and had also proposed the creation of a Swiss-based company to run a new tournament.

"I find it very ambiguous that the FFR is now saying that they are not approving a competition which, in effect, they did approve," said Craig. "The negotiations with European Rugby Cup are finished.

"We've only got 12 months left until the new competition needs to start. We need to organise the event and we can't do that a month before the competition's going to start. That's why we've said the time is up now."

Solid8 wrote:

As I understand it; limiting the number of foreign players in squads/clubs is not possible in Europe due to the Bosman ruling, although the ruling was specifically about UEFA and a number various football leagues imposing limits on their players, it is in effect a EU labour law and would therefore apply to Rugby clubs and organisations as well.  Any such ruling would be a gentleman's agreement, could in no way be written as policy and would be thrown out of the window the moment that someone decided to ignore it.

ERC Regulations:   ...."(vi) Each club is permitted a maximum of two "foreign players" in each match squad."

See here: http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/31_264.php

What's that regulation about then?

How come no one has sued the IRFU or individual provinces for their limits on foreign players?

Is this regulation just conveniently ignored, or does it mean no more than two non-EU players?

And what's to stop getting the relevant  organisations, including Player representative associations signing up to an agreement about limits.  Or else make the regulation more positive and stipulate that at least 20 of a match day squad - for a European comp match - must be from or be able to play for the Union of that club.   If European level competitions - of whatever nature - are meant to prepare players in the Six Unions for test level, why isn't that enforced more positively?

If Individual leagues want to have any number of foreign players in their squads for their own league matches, let them at it.

To more than a certain extent I hope that the PRL bid fails.

Bath and Saracens both represent unsustainable models in English rugby. Sarries especially as they can't even attract week-to-week moderate crowd.

What was it 8,200 last weekend against Bath? Cardiff got nearly that against Zebre.

Mega-Millionaires don't get where they are without a bit of proverbial arm-twisting.

But their fundamental arguments do hold water. The current system stinks as a 'fair' competition (but that's a whole new article).

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:If the Unions are successful IMSHO this will restrict the spread of rugby out it's traditional areas. With Union success where would the players whose Unions havn't a professional team be able to play rugby full time?

Spot on. In football, the only 2 drivers of the increase in competitiveness as international level, and participation professionally worldwide, have been i) massively successful commercialisation and money and ii) a transfer market. African nations are massively competitive and ALL their players practise their trade in the best clubs in the world. [i am not claiming football as a role model, cant stand the game these days, but am highlighting why int'l competitions are now so fiercely competitive]

Union control does a lots of good, but is effectively used as a smokescreen for maintaining the current international world order, and is little to do with expanding the game and make it truly more competitive at international level. Free transfer markets, better commercialisation, and international club competitions not run by unions (whose goal is national team performance) would be a good start in truly expanding the game.

As an Englishman you see that as a good thing?

With one of the most financially equipped soccer leagues in the world, the England team struggle to find players because the clubs want to buy everyone else's players.

As an England fan you should be seriously sceptical of this Euro man sausage up that the PRL have caused. Its not the way forward its the way to make the club owners they represent rich fast at the expense of the game.

maestegmafia wrote:

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:If the Unions are successful IMSHO this will restrict the spread of rugby out it's traditional areas. With Union success where would the players whose Unions havn't a professional team be able to play rugby full time?

Spot on. In football, the only 2 drivers of the increase in competitiveness as international level, and participation professionally worldwide, have been i) massively successful commercialisation and money and ii) a transfer market. African nations are massively competitive and ALL their players practise their trade in the best clubs in the world. [i am not claiming football as a role model, cant stand the game these days, but am highlighting why int'l competitions are now so fiercely competitive]

Union control does a lots of good, but is effectively used as a smokescreen for maintaining the current international world order, and is little to do with expanding the game and make it truly more competitive at international level. Free transfer markets, better commercialisation, and international club competitions not run by unions (whose goal is national team performance) would be a good start in truly expanding the game.

As an Englishman you see that as a good thing?

With one of the most financially equipped soccer leagues in the world, the England team struggle to find players because the clubs want to buy everyone else's players.

As an England fan you should be seriously sceptical of this Euro man sausage up that the PRL have caused. Its not the way forward its the way to make the club owners they represent rich fast at the expense of the game.

they may have started out rich before they bought into the PRL clubs. they are less rich now. how is it wrong not to want to lose money? and being prepared to do something in order not to lose money?

I see the French, English, Scottish, Italian and Welsh games as being fundamentally flawed for many current domestic sides in Europe in pro-rugby for different reasons.

Maes
Why am I in favour u ask? Because the nation which 1. Maximises it's league commercial potential the best 2. Has a union which works complementarily with the league and 3. Attracts the best eligible talent into and through its system, is going to be the overall winner in club and international rugby for the next several decades.

And the only nation who have a shot of getting there IMHO, are England. Long way to go, but they are pointing in the right direction.

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:Maes
Why am I in favour u ask? Because the nation which 1. Maximises it's league commercial potential the best 2. Has a union which works complementarily with the league and 3. Attracts the best eligible talent into and through its system, is going to be the overall winner in club and international rugby for the next several decades.

And the only nation who have a shot of getting there IMHO, are England. Long way to go, but they are pointing in the right direction.

You are well behind the French on points 1 and 3. As for 2, after all the club v country in English rugby and its continuation you think your union complements your league? You must be having a laugh?

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:If the Unions are successful IMSHO this will restrict the spread of rugby out it's traditional areas. With Union success where would the players whose Unions havn't a professional team be able to play rugby full time?

Spot on. In football, the only 2 drivers of the increase in competitiveness as international level, and participation professionally worldwide, have been i) massively successful commercialisation and money and ii) a transfer market. African nations are massively competitive and ALL their players practise their trade in the best clubs in the world. [i am not claiming football as a role model, cant stand the game these days, but am highlighting why int'l competitions are now so fiercely competitive]

Union control does a lots of good, but is effectively used as a smokescreen for maintaining the current international world order, and is little to do with expanding the game and make it truly more competitive at international level. Free transfer markets, better commercialisation, and international club competitions not run by unions (whose goal is national team performance) would be a good start in truly expanding the game.

As an Englishman you see that as a good thing?

With one of the most financially equipped soccer leagues in the world, the England team struggle to find players because the clubs want to buy everyone else's players.

As an England fan you should be seriously sceptical of this Euro man sausage up that the PRL have caused. Its not the way forward its the way to make the club owners they represent rich fast at the expense of the game.

they may have started out rich before they bought into the PRL clubs. they are less rich now. how is it wrong not to want to lose money? and being prepared to do something in order not to lose money?

To be honest if they ran successful businesses they should know how to run their clubs better. They are trying to get an easy swift buck and are not acknowledging the consequences.

Pot Hale wrote:

Solid8 wrote:

As I understand it; limiting the number of foreign players in squads/clubs is not possible in Europe due to the Bosman ruling, although the ruling was specifically about UEFA and a number various football leagues imposing limits on their players, it is in effect a EU labour law and would therefore apply to Rugby clubs and organisations as well.  Any such ruling would be a gentleman's agreement, could in no way be written as policy and would be thrown out of the window the moment that someone decided to ignore it.

ERC Regulations:   ...."(vi) Each club is permitted a maximum of two "foreign players" in each match squad."

See here: http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/31_264.php

What's that regulation about then?

How come no one has sued the IRFU or individual provinces for their limits on foreign players?

Is this regulation just conveniently ignored, or does it mean no more than two non-EU players?

And what's to stop getting the relevant  organisations, including Player representative associations signing up to an agreement about limits.  Or else make the regulation more positive and stipulate that at least 20 of a match day squad - for a European comp match - must be from or be able to play for the Union of that club.   If European level competitions - of whatever nature - are meant to prepare players in the Six Unions for test level, why isn't that enforced more positively?

If Individual leagues want to have any number of foreign players in their squads for their own league matches, let them at it.  

That's the same regulation as PRL have - didn't know ERC have it too. It's the Kolpak thing, which has modified the effect of Bosman - the foreignness of a player is defined by whether their home country has a free trade agreement with EU. Europeans, South Africans and PI's and others aren't foreign, Kiwis and Aussies (and others) are, but can become European by passport or marriage (I think) or some other devices.

Exeter came up against it with Nemani Nadolo, a Fijian international, born in Fiji of Fijian parents, who was foreign only because he used his Aussie passport (where he was raised) for his work permit. There's been at least 3 disciplinary cases in PRL that I know of - Exe were docked 2 points and £5000 fine as I recall.

I don't know the legal basis of 2 foreigners rule - it may be a blind eye thing, or it may be that EU have agreed that 2 out of 23 is reasonable.

As I posted in the other thread. The PRL are threatening legal action against the IRB now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/24224152

Premiership Rugby deputy chairman Bruce Craig has warned that Pro12 clubs face "financial oblivion" if administrators try to thwart the Rugby Champions Cup.
Craig has been central to setting up an event intended to replace the Heineken Cup, which he claims is "finished".

"If the competition is not approved then that would have absolutely catastrophic implications for Celtic rugby," Craig told BBC Sport.
"Celtic teams would be without significant revenues."
He added: "The Heineken Cup is finished, it's over. The Rugby Champions Cup is a way to save European rugby."
Premiership Rugby, the umbrella company representing top-flight English teams, and their French counterparts, the Ligue Nationale de Rugby (LNR), announced the creation of the Rugby Champions Cup for the 2014-15 season on Sunday.
All the Pro12 clubs - from Wales, Scotland, Ireland and Italy - currently participating in the Heineken Cup and Amlin Challenge Cup, which is run by the company European Rugby Cup (ERC), have received invitations to join the Anglo-French breakaway competition.
Craig, who is chairman of Bath, believes every Pro12 team is prepared to sign up to the new competition, but that they are being held back by their national governing bodies.
He has warned the national unions from interfering, and also indicated that they and the International Rugby Board (IRB) could face court action if they attempt to stop the Rugby Champions Cup.

These guys are crackers. The bit I like best is....

"The Heineken Cup is finished, it's over. The Rugby Champions Cup is a way to save European rugby."

In other words give us what we want or European rugby is ripped apart. Its the maniacal ransom demand of a pile of nutters.

maestegmafia wrote:

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:If the Unions are successful IMSHO this will restrict the spread of rugby out it's traditional areas. With Union success where would the players whose Unions havn't a professional team be able to play rugby full time?

Spot on. In football, the only 2 drivers of the increase in competitiveness as international level, and participation professionally worldwide, have been i) massively successful commercialisation and money and ii) a transfer market. African nations are massively competitive and ALL their players practise their trade in the best clubs in the world. [i am not claiming football as a role model, cant stand the game these days, but am highlighting why int'l competitions are now so fiercely competitive]

Union control does a lots of good, but is effectively used as a smokescreen for maintaining the current international world order, and is little to do with expanding the game and make it truly more competitive at international level. Free transfer markets, better commercialisation, and international club competitions not run by unions (whose goal is national team performance) would be a good start in truly expanding the game.

As an Englishman you see that as a good thing?

With one of the most financially equipped soccer leagues in the world, the England team struggle to find players because the clubs want to buy everyone else's players.

As an England fan you should be seriously sceptical of this Euro man sausage up that the PRL have caused. Its not the way forward its the way to make the club owners they represent rich fast at the expense of the game.

they may have started out rich before they bought into the PRL clubs. they are less rich now. how is it wrong not to want to lose money? and being prepared to do something in order not to lose money?

To be honest if they ran successful businesses they should know how to run their clubs better. They are trying to get an easy swift buck and are not acknowledging the consequences.

There are plenty of very successful businesspeople who have failed to make money out of an investment in a football club for example; Alan "pointy-yourfired-finger" Sugar.  In-fact as far as I am aware the only businessmen who have taken money out of a club are the Glazers who only managed to do so by leveraging heavily against the club's assets and were not far off strip mining, the club was only saved by the IPO (which actually shaved ~ $100,000,000 off the forcast value of the club).  The rest of the big business people who invest in football tend to be bored billionaires who are engaging in a my male chicken is bigger than yours competition of epic proportions, and don't really expect to get money back, but hey, they have a lot of money that they can afford to lose.

I'm happy to be proved wrong about these points but don't think I will be.

Artful_Dodger wrote:These guys are crackers.  The bit I like best is....

"The Heineken Cup is finished, it's over. The Rugby Champions Cup is a way to save European rugby."

In other words give us what we want or European rugby is ripped apart.  Its the maniacal ransom demand of a pile of nutters.

Pretty much the exact same thought i think most sane people had when they read that report...! Well Said AD

Artful dodger. Just want to make the point that Craig is one man. Wray is another. They have at most 2 club votes in the PRL. They both want salary cap increases which the PRL refused. Not saying it's not the general PRL view but they may not be. If anything they're two of the least representative people for the PRL. Unfortunately they're also the most vocal.

Shrug, not much you can do about it.

Artful_Dodger wrote:As I posted in the other thread.  The PRL are threatening legal action against the IRB now.



Premiership Rugby deputy chairman Bruce Craig has warned that Pro12 clubs face "financial oblivion" if administrators try to thwart the Rugby Champions Cup.
Craig has been central to setting up an event intended to replace the Heineken Cup, which he claims is "finished".

"If the competition is not approved then that would have absolutely catastrophic implications for Celtic rugby," Craig told BBC Sport.
"Celtic teams would be without significant revenues."
He added: "The Heineken Cup is finished, it's over. The Rugby Champions Cup is a way to save European rugby."
Premiership Rugby, the umbrella company representing top-flight English teams, and their French counterparts, the Ligue Nationale de Rugby (LNR), announced the creation of the Rugby Champions Cup for the 2014-15 season on Sunday.
All the Pro12 clubs - from Wales, Scotland, Ireland and Italy - currently participating in the Heineken Cup and Amlin Challenge Cup, which is run by the company European Rugby Cup (ERC), have received invitations to join the Anglo-French breakaway competition.
Craig, who is chairman of Bath, believes every Pro12 team is prepared to sign up to the new competition, but that they are being held back by their national governing bodies.
He has warned the national unions from interfering, and also indicated that they and the International Rugby Board (IRB) could face court action if they attempt to stop the Rugby Champions Cup.

These guys are crackers.  The bit I like best is....

"The Heineken Cup is finished, it's over. The Rugby Champions Cup is a way to save European rugby."

In other words give us what we want or European rugby is ripped apart.  Its the maniacal ransom demand of a pile of nutters.

to humour you, lets say that "Its the maniacal ransom demand of a pile of nutters." is true. now what are you going to do? because they aren't going away. and they're not irrational so not likely to change their maniacal demands anytime soon.

cry in the corner and hope they take pity? no, methinks not, as they are clearly focused on what they have said.

so, if you were WRU or SRU or IRFU, what would you do? knowing you face nutters.

Are you suggesting that, when faced with nutters, the best course of action is to do what they ask?

HammerofThunor wrote:Artful dodger. Just want to make the point that Craig is one man. Wray is another. They have at most 2 club votes in the PRL. They both want salary cap increases which the PRL refused. Not saying it's not the general PRL view but they may not be. If anything they're two of the least representative people for the PRL. Unfortunately they're also the most vocal.

Shrug, not much you can do about it.

+1

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Are you suggesting that, when faced with nutters, the best course of action is to do what they ask?

no. i'm asking what you would do? havent suggested any course at all.

maestegmafia wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:These guys are crackers.  The bit I like best is....

"The Heineken Cup is finished, it's over. The Rugby Champions Cup is a way to save European rugby."

In other words give us what we want or European rugby is ripped apart.  Its the maniacal ransom demand of a pile of nutters.

Pretty much the exact same thought i think most sane people had when they read that report...! Well Said AD

But the Heineken Cup is finished!

Are they nutters for insisting on a competition with an equal money share for all teams and for one team one vote? I have heard arguments for and against their position but their position is hardly irrational. It may be hard headed but it is not irrational.

It would be fine if the same number of teams as now - as that is what we have now

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Are you suggesting that, when faced with nutters, the best course of action is to do what they ask?

no. i'm asking what you would do? havent suggested any course at all.

as i suspected. no suggestions. nothing. just a whinge about how unfair it all is.

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Are you suggesting that, when faced with nutters, the best course of action is to do what they ask?

no. i'm asking what you would do? havent suggested any course at all.

as i suspected. no suggestions. nothing. just a whinge about how unfair it all is.

Sums up the LNR/PRL incredibly well.

no whingeing. we left. do keep up.

You haven't left yet, and apparently can not do so for another year(?). Until then they will just continue to whinge about how they're at a disadvantage despite having a clear advantage (morons wanting more money). And you can't say they haven't been whinging for years now can you.

Unlike your world, in order to leave a contractual arrangement, notice is required. It was given in June 2012. So the reason u don't hear any whinging from prl/lnr sympathisers (who are not only English or french) is that there is no HC next year. So no inequity.

And yes if by whinging you mean unhappy then, unlike many of your fellow poster, I am glad u recognise that prl/lnr have been unhappy with ERC for many years. Which, after no accommodation, is why we are where we are.

Solid8 wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:If the Unions are successful IMSHO this will restrict the spread of rugby out it's traditional areas. With Union success where would the players whose Unions havn't a professional team be able to play rugby full time?

Spot on. In football, the only 2 drivers of the increase in competitiveness as international level, and participation professionally worldwide, have been i) massively successful commercialisation and money and ii) a transfer market. African nations are massively competitive and ALL their players practise their trade in the best clubs in the world. [i am not claiming football as a role model, cant stand the game these days, but am highlighting why int'l competitions are now so fiercely competitive]

Union control does a lots of good, but is effectively used as a smokescreen for maintaining the current international world order, and is little to do with expanding the game and make it truly more competitive at international level. Free transfer markets, better commercialisation, and international club competitions not run by unions (whose goal is national team performance) would be a good start in truly expanding the game.

As an Englishman you see that as a good thing?

With one of the most financially equipped soccer leagues in the world, the England team struggle to find players because the clubs want to buy everyone else's players.

As an England fan you should be seriously sceptical of this Euro man sausage up that the PRL have caused. Its not the way forward its the way to make the club owners they represent rich fast at the expense of the game.

they may have started out rich before they bought into the PRL clubs. they are less rich now. how is it wrong not to want to lose money? and being prepared to do something in order not to lose money?

To be honest if they ran successful businesses they should know how to run their clubs better. They are trying to get an easy swift buck and are not acknowledging the consequences.

There are plenty of very successful businesspeople who have failed to make money out of an investment in a football club for example; Alan "pointy-yourfired-finger" Sugar.  In-fact as far as I am aware the only businessmen who have taken money out of a club are the Glazers who only managed to do so by leveraging heavily against the club's assets and were not far off strip mining, the club was only saved by the IPO (which actually shaved ~ $100,000,000 off the forcast value of the club).  The rest of the big business people who invest in football tend to be bored billionaires who are engaging in a my male chicken is bigger than yours competition of epic proportions, and don't really expect to get money back, but hey, they have a lot of money that they can afford to lose.

I'm happy to be proved wrong about these points but don't think I will be.

As I said the clubs are run on short term strategies, they could be run more efficiently, it is more cost effective and future sustainable to build a team on academy players rather than buying in players. The PRL could introduce rules that limit NEQ players, they can reduce the wages cap. All these measures would inprove the premiership by making the teams closer and less likely that one of the four richest win every year.

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Are you suggesting that, when faced with nutters, the best course of action is to do what they ask?

no. i'm asking what you would do? havent suggested any course at all.

as i suspected. no suggestions. nothing. just a whinge about how unfair it all is.

Forgive me, my alarm goes off at five in the morning so I get to bed fairly early. Tell you what, I'll stay up all night tonight just in case you post on here.  

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:welshmushroom
PRL claimed (they may be lying but i have to take their statement at face value) that BT money for euro games is not dependent on which nations participate.

they are keen on defectors becuase that is the only way to get the unions and hence irb to back it easily.

good luck getting the SH teams (all 15, if not which?) into a european competition so far away without English and French.

you had better hope that is not what your unions are looking at as its another desperate and financially unsound idea which is just delaying them from thinking realistically about what is actually going on.

The BT deal is dependant on a European competition. If there isn't one then they only pay for the domestic rugby clauses which cuts the deal into more than half.

Secondly getting defectors from the Pro 12 still wont mean the Unions will back it.

Thirdly regarding the Super 15 teams joining, cash actually talks louder than the opposition. If the Australian, South African & New Zealanders where given 5 million quid each for 6 games, whether or not the French or English involved would make no difference to them. In fact the ARU would bite your hand off for a bit of that action right about now.

The only sticking point would be that commercially speaking the S15 sides would have to tour and play home matches in Europe to cater for the Sponsors. But that would also say open the door to expanded locations in Europe with first rate teams.

I don't see why this could work. In fact I think if this was taken (and providing the funding pot from SKY, Heineken & other sponsors is still there) its actually quite a realistic option. All that would need to be done from a Pro 12 perspective is to rejig the season so that the HC could be played when the S15 are available.

Don't kid yourself, that format would have world sponsors lining up providing the S15 sides took the tournament seriously and would easily replace the teams leaving the tournament in terms of quality. You could almost count the months before the English wanted back in. France will probably be lost to an expanded T14 tournament in the long term anyway as its more financially profitable.

If rabo12 could get all that done, get s15 in, get good commercial terms, change calendars, etc, then they will deserve much kudos. Lots of moving parts.

What I like best is that it does separate the club vs union model in international club rugby. There would almost have to be some kind of franglo club tournament once eng/fr excluded, just to fill up their calendars and keep turnstiles turning. Would simplify future governance issues.

I think so because essentially all the Unions would have a unified tournament that excludes a club format. So basically they can each decide their quotas etc without being disadvantaged and focus on development.

Additionally if it grows as a tournament and more money is made from it, will also help player drain to the club system.

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:And yes if by whinging you mean unhappy then, unlike many of your fellow poster, I am glad u recognise that prl/lnr have been unhappy with ERC for many years. Which, after no accommodation, is why we are where we are.

The nations that the PRL/LNR represent enter the most teams and take home the most revenue. They have the advantage, yet they've been whinging for years because they want more. The way they're going about the situation is pathetic, refusing to sort out their domestic issues and just whinging and threatening. I hope they get what is well overdue, and that will hopefully not be to the detriment of English and French rugby.

The Saint wrote:

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:And yes if by whinging you mean unhappy then, unlike many of your fellow poster, I am glad u recognise that prl/lnr have been unhappy with ERC for many years. Which, after no accommodation, is why we are where we are.

The nations that the PRL/LNR represent enter the most teams and take home the most revenue. They have the advantage, yet they've been whinging for years because they want more. The way they're going about the situation is pathetic, refusing to sort out their domestic issues and just whinging and threatening. I hope they get what is well overdue, and that will hopefully not be to the detriment of English and French rugby.

You are completely right.

What I object to is organisations like the concept of untrustworthy organisations running top level rugby.