Merged thread euro competition pt 2

[broadlandboy]

First topic message reminder :

couldn't let it lie

[niwatts]

Munsterfans have a couple of French posters who update us on what is happening in the French papers. The latest from there is:

Directed by mediator Graeme Mew , negotiations between the IRB and the clubs have entered a critical phase. Because, contrary to statements by Bruce Craig , Vice -President of the English league, who had insisted they would not talk to the mediator and had ruled out a return to the negotiating table, the two men have met . Bernard Lapasset , stated that " the negotiation [would] be the solution " to the current crisis and he wanted to see the mediation process currently being carried out to completion.

.... the IRB is ready to give assurances to the French and English leagues ....[on financial distribution] " three thirds " (a three way split PRL, LBR, Pro12 33% each ) should be adopted.

The IRB is inclined to make concessions on some points, but will not compromise on the fundamental principle that the power of European rugby should remain in the hands of the IRB and federations and should not fall into (the hands of the) of the clubs.

http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/article/2013/10/01/rugby-la-coupe-d-europe-bis-ne-verra-pas-le-jour_3487656_3242.html

Looks like the IRB have taken control of negotiations.

Great to see the IRB stepping up.  Regarding the highlighted point, the PRL hadn't said they wouldn't talk to Mew at all, just that they wouldn't talk to him regarding them staying in the ERC.

"We are prepared to talk to the mediator but only on the basis that we will under no circumstances be part of ERC from next season,"

[Sin é]

Not sure how seriously to take that. Le Monde is a reasonably serious paper, but the journo thinks that ERC stands for European Rugby Club.

By the way, the PRL never said they wouldn't talk to Mew, just that it would be a very short conversation unless he was authorised to discuss a tournament that would not be run by the ERC.

And if you think the ERC have done a good job of balancing people's interests, you're ignoring the facts. They have hacked off the organisations that represent over 2/3 of their entrants to the point that they've left, they have failed to achieve or even discuss what a large part of their constituency consider an equitable distribution of money or places, they appear to have failed to achieve the commercial outcome they could have done in negotiating with Sky, they've failed to develop the Amlin into anything like what it could be, and their disciplinary process is a bad joke.

Other than that, they've done OK.

To put it another way: their only job was to keep the parties who make up the European rugby tournaments engaged so that the competition could run. Everything else they do is in support of that.

The ERC has the same board members (the Unions) as the IRB has. Of course the IRB are going to look after their own interests (the promotion of the sport of rugby) which is what the ERC are instructed to do by their board.

Most the PRL & French clubs are running at a loss - maybe they could learn a thing or two from the Union owned/managed clubs who have to cut their cloth to suit their budget and still manage to be reasonable successful.

I'd be quite worried about how long BT are going to survive - from what I can gather they are not getting the numbers that they thought and have failed to publish their viewership figures 2 weeks ago. Their best soccer game offering had 10,000 less viewers than Sky's worst offering.

Sky have put a lot of broadcasters out of business - I doubt if BT will achieve what so many have failed to do. Where to then for the PRL then and any new competition (which won't be sanctioned by the IRB).

[Poorfour]

The IRB has some overlap with the ERC, but it also has the SH nations and minnows involved. Plus, it exists for a completely different purpose. The IRB does run a competition, it's called the RWC. It has nowt to do with domestic or regional contests apart from authorising them.

The PRL and French clubs are making losses, mostly. Many of them wouldn't if ERC revenues were shared equally at club level. Your suggestion that they could learn a thing or two from union-run clubs ignores some important differences. For one thing, wasn't it reported recently that the IRFU is running a pretty sizeable deficit itself?

Sky has indeed bankrupted a lot of broadcasters, but BT is not just a broadcaster. It's a much bigger company in which broadcasting is a defensive move to protect the main sources of revenue. BT are in for the long haul, because to give up is effectively to consign their vast consumer business to a long lingering death. BSB, ITV Sport and Setanta had to show they could turn a profit or cut their losses quick. BT has to stem the tide of defecting subscribers and can subsidise broadcasting losses for as long as they think the whole exercise isn't a lost cause.

[Sin é]

As I've stated before - the IRB's Board of Directors is made up of representatives from member Unions. Just the same as the ERC. The only difference is that the ERC is confined to the NH IRB directors/members.

Now, I know that some of the English PRL people don't have a problem with trying to do away with a company that they are directors of, but I doubt if that is the norm - most company directors have a Fiduciary duty to protect the organisation that they are directors of.

BT are giving it away at the moment and they can't get as many subscribers as Sky. I wonder how long the will be popular with their shareholders/customers if they continue to put up the price of their products to people who have no interest in sport whatsoever to fund that product.

[broadlandboy]

Only the 6 Nation unions are members not NH Unions
As has tried to be explained BT were hemorrhaging broadband subscribers to Sky/Virgin & realised that they had to become content providers to combat them. Also,IIRC,BT is bigger than SKY & has the cash to support it. BT Sport is a loss leader to keep Broadband subscribers

[Sin é]

And you think the Russian or Georgian Rugby Union are going to side with the PRL? I'd imagine that they are observing what the clubs want to do with the Italians and note who is standing in their corner.

This is a new venture for BT and not their core business. They increased their charges last week - pouring money down a drain on sport isn't going to go down well with their consumers.

And, it would appear they can't give the broadband subs away!

[21st Century Schizoid Man]

Coverage of this has just hit a new low in England;

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2013/sep/28/heineken-cup-european-rugby-union

Look at this last paragraph.

The Rugby Champions Cup will not go ahead unless ratified by the International Rugby Board and the Board will give its approval only if the national unions give their assent. Would the governing bodies of Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy hold out against the unanimous wish of their professional teams? Scotland are less risk-averse than the image of a tartan rug placed over elderly knees in the wooden stand at Netherdale might suggest. Italy would presumably go with the Celts, whose very existence is defined by wanting to play against England. By the rebel route or down the official channel I suspect European rugby will be with us next season, however doomed it appears at the moment.

the Celts, whose very existence is defined by wanting to play against England

the Celts, whose very existence is defined by wanting to play against England

 

How patronising can you get... this is what passes for rugby punditry in the Guardian, even after the best part of a decade dominated by the Irish provinces and French clubs! Eddie, if you gave us a Cup where we could play the big French clubs every year whilst the English were out in the cold we'd bite your whole arm off. We want to play the top teams in Europe because it's profitable for us but the one or two top English sides would be a loss we could take  

Butler is and always will be a total idiot ! His newspapers (The Guardian and Observer)are bloody crap too - a very anti-Scottish editorial policy.

[Dubbelyew L Overate]

And you think the Russian or Georgian Rugby Union are going to side with the PRL? I'd imagine that they are observing what the clubs want to do with the Italians and note who is standing in their corner.This is a new venture for BT and not their core business. They increased their charges last week - pouring money down a drain on sport isn't going to go down well with their consumers.

And, it would appear they can't give the broadband subs away!

It would be interesting to hear what the "minnow" European Nations think of this spat. Scratching their heads in a state of bemusement I should think, but may well be interested in the tier 3 competition proposed by PRL/LNR.

The Spanish may have some issues having been unceremoniously dumped by ERC for the heinous crime of pauperism. The Portuguese now get a spot in the Amlin, but might be wondering why they're deemed good enough to compete as emergency replacements, but haven't been accepted in the past.

The Russians might be influenced by their current and past national coaches, and it'll be fresh in their memory that they received 2 invitations to the PRL's World Club 7's tournament in August. VVA Saracens have a formal link with Saracens, hence their new name, and Nigel Wray may well have been spreading his word from Moscow to Siberia.

But the biggest thing they may be thinking is what has the ERC ever done for us in their 18 years of existence.

None of the above is particularly relevant to the IRB's opinion - FIRA-AER has only one Board member, and whilst IRB have recently shown a commitment to expand and broaden the game, national interests amongst the "upper class" of IRB Board Unions are likely to show the toe of their boot to anything that may threaten their cosy lifestyle.

[broadlandboy]

When the matches would be played
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/news/10348520/English-clubs-rival-to-Heineken-Cup-will-have-April-final-to-clear-May-for-climax-to-domestic-leagues.html

[timhen]

And you think the Russian or Georgian Rugby Union are going to side with the PRL? I'd imagine that they are observing what the clubs want to do with the Italians and note who is standing in their corner.

This is a new venture for BT and not their core business. They increased their charges last week - pouring money down a drain on sport isn't going to go down well with their consumers.

And, it would appear they can't give the broadband subs away!

Prices go up every year.  Virgin & Sky recently announced price increases greater than BT's.

With profits of £2.5bn last year and them spending more money on fibre rollout than on sport, it's a stretch to say the price increases are due to their sport business.

Meanwhile, 130% rise in TV audiences is definitely a good thing for the Premiership.

[The Great Aukster]

When the matches would be played
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/news/10348520/English-clubs-rival-to-Heineken-Cup-will-have-April-final-to-clear-May-for-climax-to-domestic-leagues.html

It clear where PRL/LNR put Europe in their pecking order - devaluing the competition by not having it as the climax of the season shows where their priorities lie. Ironically this also devalues their own domestic competitions, by allowing some domestic teams not involved in the final European stages three weeks without rugby, while those teams still involved have up to three weeks hard rugby. When they resume their domestic leagues there could be some surprising results.

[HammerofThunor]

How does that devalue the league? It'll mean that those involved in the playoffs and still in Europe won't be disadvantaged compared with those out of Europe. I can hear Cockerill's complaints now, after losing to someone not in Europe, but I think he likes to complain so he should be happy over all.

Also, Europe is an extra competition, not THE competition.

[Sin é]

And you think the Russian or Georgian Rugby Union are going to side with the PRL? I'd imagine that they are observing what the clubs want to do with the Italians and note who is standing in their corner.This is a new venture for BT and not their core business. They increased their charges last week - pouring money down a drain on sport isn't going to go down well with their consumers.

And, it would appear they can't give the broadband subs away!

It would be interesting to hear what the "minnow" European Nations think of this spat. Scratching their heads in a state of bemusement I should think, but may well be interested in the tier 3 competition proposed by PRL/LNR.

The Spanish may have some issues having been unceremoniously dumped by ERC for the heinous crime of pauperism. The Portuguese now get a spot in the Amlin, but might be wondering why they're deemed good enough to compete as emergency replacements, but haven't been accepted in the past.

The Russians might be influenced by their current and past national coaches, and it'll be fresh in their memory that they received 2 invitations to the PRL's World Club 7's tournament in August. VVA Saracens have a formal link with Saracens, hence their new name, and Nigel Wray may well have been spreading his word from Moscow to Siberia.

But the biggest thing they may be thinking is what has the ERC ever done for us in their 18 years of existence.

None of the above is particularly relevant to the IRB's opinion - FIRA-AER has only one Board member, and whilst IRB have recently shown a commitment to expand and broaden the game, national interests amongst the "upper class" of IRB Board Unions are likely to show the toe of their boot to anything that may threaten their cosy lifestyle.

What use is a Tier 3 competition cup to these unions. They need a league that they can play regularly in. (That is why the celts formed the Pro 12 - they knew they couldn't compete with the other European teams unless they were playing week-in and week-out.

Good luck to the teams having to play their games in Siberia and Moscow in the middle of their winter  

Its amusing to hear you spout on about the PRL developing Rugby (which the PRL know nothing about) when all they want to do is kill off rugby in the celtic nations and Italy.

I'd also imagine the PRL's treatment of London-Welsh will not go unnoticed by the minnows before throwing their lot in with the PRL (who won't be allowed run a competition anyway by the IRB - and righly so because they are incompetent).

Anyway, any chance of the PRL letting anyone know what the deal is with BT?

[Sin é]

Only the 6 Nation unions are members not NH Unions
As has tried to be explained BT were hemorrhaging broadband subscribers to Sky/Virgin & realised that they had to become content providers to combat them. Also,IIRC,BT is bigger than SKY & has the cash to support it. BT Sport is a loss leader to keep Broadband subscribers

Big loss leader to try and sustain.

[BigTrevsbigmac]

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/game-crisis-put-key-questions-6122571

Interesting interview with PR Chairman Quentin Smith

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

"We don’t criticise them for that. That’s just a geographical issue." How generous!  

[lostinwales]

So are you going to pick up on individual phrases to try and prove a point or are you going to try understanding the message as a whole?

And no I dont think he always comes across that well but the message is consistent.

[Luckless Pedestrian]

Is it me, or is there some sort of kn0b on Roger Lewis's head in that photo?

[Guest]

For the most part Smith is simply side-stepping the questions. How does the following response from Smith actually answer the question:

ST: There have been claims that the full BT funds will only be released if there are four tier one countries involved in the Champions Cup and that’s why you are so keen to have the Welsh and other Celtic teams on board. Can you respond to that?

QS: Rubbish.

Look, there is a lot of mischief and misinformation out there and a lot of self-serving argument which is specious.

Not exactly a clear rebuttal is it? Why rubbish? Because there are also other reasons they are so keen to have the Welsh, and others on board?

That full BT funds will only be released if there are four tier one countries involved is not in fact true?

Odd that the answer was so short, and not at all clear.

A weak interview. The interviewer should have pressed for clarity on an important question.

[Luckless Pedestrian]

You sound surprised, given the organ responsible for the interview. (And I mean the Western Mail, not Simon Thomas, who's actually a decent journalist. They do have another 'journalist' who really is an organ, but that's neither here nor there.)

[Sin é]

And still nobody knows if the figures of its putative Anglo-French rival, the Rugby Champions Cup, really stack up. Mainly because few have seen them.

"As a sport, we're not doing ourselves any favours in terms of taking it forward," says ERC chief executive Derek McGrath. "It would be better if we could do this around the table and not in public."

But they have tried – on 15 occasions – to do just this.

All seem to have failed, notwithstanding the megaphone diplomacy of some of the egos in the Anglo-French contingent.

There is obviously little sympathetic understanding between the warring factions – take your pick between BT v Sky, unions v clubs, Anglo-French v Celtic fringe. But, amidst the fog, there are clear issues emerging. Some sense of rapprochement is inevitable.

Firstly, between the unions and its clubs, for they cannot be mutually exclusive. Then, between the rival broadcasters, neither of whom can afford not to have an all-embracing European competition.

And finally between the Anglo-French aggrandisers and their Celtic cousins, for whom there remains at least some common ground on the merits of restructuring.

"None of the unions were intending to say that the ERC would no longer be part of the equation," McGrath says. "That's not a position that they would support.

"In fact they've all said that the current institutions are the best vehicle in order to take the competition involved. And when you have all that experience in the ERC, it would be crazy to take that away and just go straight to a start-up operation after 18 years.

"The ERC is in effect a convenor, we're not in control of the participants. We can convene and encourage, translate all the various positions off the parties. The nine parties control their own positions.

"The unions made strong statements that what currently exists should continue under the current regulations. We have no concerns that we're being sidelined or issues are being raised in terms of governance.

"Clubs have raised that issue. If they come to the table, nobody is going to suggest as a pre-condition that ERC is done and dusted. It's how we make those decisions, that's the bone of contention."

"Neither the BT deal nor the new competition received approval from their unions, it wasn't even sought so it couldn't be given," adds McGrath. "For those involved in governing the game, we can only reject that.

"What we've heard of this new competition, it's built on the same format, even its valuations seem to be leveraged in the same way.

"Numbers that are being quoted about what this competition could generate are based on very flimsy estimates, backing into the BT deal – but that represents only a small amount. The other amount comes from TV deal in France, but that has to be backed by the FFR, which it is not."

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/david-kelly-stakes-too-high-for-heineken-cup-impasse-to-last-29626701.html

The twain have met – 15 meetings in 15 months smack of negotiations that would exhaust even UN officials and indicates just how far apart both sides are in the negotiations, which are now at a critical stage.

Sounds like the PRL have only one agenda - thats look after themselves.

[Guest]

You sound surprised, given the organ responsible for the interview. (And I mean the Western Mail, not Simon Thomas, who's actually a decent journalist. They do have another 'journalist' who really is an organ, but that's neither here nor there.)

Owned by the Mirror group according to Wiki, but I see Donald Woods was one of their reporters, so not all bad. Not saying that Thomas is, but the interview could have been more probing.

No not surprised really. I expected more of the same dross that has been published recently, and that's what I got.

[Dubbelyew L Overate]

And you think the Russian or Georgian Rugby Union are going to side with the PRL? I'd imagine that they are observing what the clubs want to do with the Italians and note who is standing in their corner.This is a new venture for BT and not their core business. They increased their charges last week - pouring money down a drain on sport isn't going to go down well with their consumers.

And, it would appear they can't give the broadband subs away!

It would be interesting to hear what the "minnow" European Nations think of this spat. Scratching their heads in a state of bemusement I should think, but may well be interested in the tier 3 competition proposed by PRL/LNR.

The Spanish may have some issues having been unceremoniously dumped by ERC for the heinous crime of pauperism. The Portuguese now get a spot in the Amlin, but might be wondering why they're deemed good enough to compete as emergency replacements, but haven't been accepted in the past.

The Russians might be influenced by their current and past national coaches, and it'll be fresh in their memory that they received 2 invitations to the PRL's World Club 7's tournament in August. VVA Saracens have a formal link with Saracens, hence their new name, and Nigel Wray may well have been spreading his word from Moscow to Siberia.

But the biggest thing they may be thinking is what has the ERC ever done for us in their 18 years of existence.

None of the above is particularly relevant to the IRB's opinion - FIRA-AER has only one Board member, and whilst IRB have recently shown a commitment to expand and broaden the game, national interests amongst the "upper class" of IRB Board Unions are likely to show the toe of their boot to anything that may threaten their cosy lifestyle.

What use is a Tier 3 competition cup to these unions. They need a league that they can play regularly in. (That is why the celts formed the Pro 12 - they knew they couldn't compete with the other European teams unless they were playing week-in and week-out.

Supposing some of these Unions run relatively strong professional domestic leagues - where would they go to further develop their clubs and players, and test their abilities?

Good luck to the teams having to play their games in Siberia and Moscow in the middle of their winter  

Perhaps that's why the 10 team Russian professional league runs from May to October, and why the proposed Tier 3 competition might be held in September.

Its amusing to hear you spout on about the PRL developing Rugby (which the PRL know nothing about) when all they want to do is kill off rugby in the celtic nations and Italy.

Spouting? Moi? There was me thinking that some pertinent musings might add to the debate. Silly me.

I'd also imagine the PRL's treatment of London-Welsh will not go unnoticed by the minnows before throwing their lot in with the PRL (who won't be allowed run a competition anyway by the IRB - and righly so because they are incompetent).

I should think that the minnows would be better informed than that - there would be much more serious questions about PRL's conduct to be answered than the London Welsh affair

Anyway, any chance of the PRL letting anyone know what the deal is with BT?

Apart from RFU, doesn't seem likely at the moment.

[Irish Londoner]

For the most part Smith is simply side-stepping the questions. How does the following response from Smith actually answer the question:

ST: There have been claims that the full BT funds will only be released if there are four tier one countries involved in the Champions Cup and that’s why you are so keen to have the Welsh and other Celtic teams on board. Can you respond to that?

QS: Rubbish.

Look, there is a lot of mischief and misinformation out there and a lot of self-serving argument which is specious.

There must be some level of funding contingent on getting others on board rather than just PRL and the French, otherwise why are they so desperate to do so? If they get the same money whether it's one team (in what would effecively be a domestic cup) the two nation Franglo or a cross Europe competition surely it would make more sense to say we don't want or need anyone else as it's more money for us - if there's only the PRL involved then they get 100% of the cash not a third of it which would be great for the Jeff club.

[lostinwales]

For the most part Smith is simply side-stepping the questions. How does the following response from Smith actually answer the question:

ST: There have been claims that the full BT funds will only be released if there are four tier one countries involved in the Champions Cup and that’s why you are so keen to have the Welsh and other Celtic teams on board. Can you respond to that?

QS: Rubbish.

Look, there is a lot of mischief and misinformation out there and a lot of self-serving argument which is specious.

There must be some level of funding contingent on getting others on board rather than just PRL and the French, otherwise why are they so desperate to do so? If they get the same money whether it's one team (in what would effecively be a domestic cup) the two nation Franglo or a cross Europe competition surely it would make more sense to say we don't want or need anyone else as it's more money for us - if there's only the PRL involved then they get 100% of the cash not a third of it which would be great for the Jeff club.

There is going to be X amount for the AP and Y amount for the Euro games. The suggestion seems to be that the Y amount gets stuck into a pot with whatever the other teams can get from their respective euro rugby TV deals and split evenly between the 3 leagues

[HammerofThunor]

It cracks me up. ERC, IRB, Unions, etc all want all countries (at least the big oneS) involved because of the joy of the game, it will be a better competition, etc, etc. The PRL want everyone involved, but why? What's in it for them? It must be because the BT deal hangs on it. Or maybe it's because having more people will make it a better competition and, unsurprisingly, the PRL know this. Just because they won't be held hostage into continuing it under it's current format doesn't mean they don't see the benefits.

And it was said that the BT euro money is not dependant on the number of countries involved. It may well be dependant on the number of teams involved and the quality of those teams (note that's not the same as the League deal being dependant on the Euro comp.).

[Guest]

It cracks me up. ERC, IRB, Unions, etc all want all countries (at least the big oneS) involved because of the joy of the game, it will be a better competition, etc, etc. The PRL want everyone involved, but why? What's in it for them? It must be because the BT deal hangs on it. Or maybe it's because having more people will make it a better competition and, unsurprisingly, the PRL know this. Just because they won't be held hostage into continuing it under it's current format doesn't mean they don't see the benefits.

And it was said that the BT euro money is not dependant on the number of countries involved. It may well be dependant on the number of teams involved and the quality of those teams (note that's not the same as the League deal being dependant on the Euro comp.).

Who is holding who hostage here, Hammer  

It was PRL/LNR that stated that unless they got what they wanted they were going to 'walk away' from the HEC. They didn't get what they wanted, and now have walked away.
Now they are saying that they are offering a new super sparkly competition, and unless the Celt's, and Italians join in those same Unions will be destroyed financially.

"We are so big, and so strong, we of the PRL/LNR will survive without a Euro competition. You puny unions will shrivel, and die."

Not a word for word quote, but in effect this is what they are saying.

On the other side the Unions are saying that they are prepared to compromise, and the door remains open for PRL/LNR to enter into negotiations, but that they will not sanction a Club run Euro competition.
If PRL/LNR want a competition they are free to go ahead, but it will be a breakaway from the Unions. Maybe they should quit the sabre rattling, and go ahead. After all this is what they have been threatening.
PRL/LNR are expecting turkey's to vote for Christmas. Not going to happen.

[Poorfour]

Munchkin, even a couple of months ago the boot was on the other foot. The PRL and LNR had been asking for years to discuss qualification, governance and the way the cash was to be shared and were repeatedly told there would be no change.

Even when they served notice there was no offer of serious negotiations or any meaningful compromise from the current position. It was only when they actually carried through on their determination to leave that the other unions very belatedly started muttering about compromise.

The PRL and LNR have repeatedly said that they are willing to talk as long as it's not about continuing under the ERC.

And if they really are holding a gun to the Celts' heads, why not just pull the trigger? If they can survive without European rugby for a year, and the other unions can't, then the best negotiating tactic would be to scotch any deal and then be able to dictate terms.

Instead, they are willing to negotiate, and what little factual points we know about what's been offered does not sound like the witterings of power crazed despots:
- Money shared equally between leagues and everyone gets more than today even before all the rights are negotiated
- Qualification based on league position with equal qualifiers from each league (possible concession to ensure all unions represented)
- Serious second (and possibly third) tier competition
- Voting rights broadly aligned to clubs, without the ability of unions (read: the FFR) to arbitrarily arrogate clubs' (read: LNR) votes.

The Rugby Paper yesterday quoted an (unnamed) RRW source who said that the regions were willing to go with what was on offer and happy to be in a PRL-run tournament, but worried that the WRU would block it. So whatever is on the table can't actually be that unreasonable.

I'll probably get panned for this, but the parallel here is with political unrest. The Rabo unions effectively have the power today, and have set up a state of affairs that suits them and is superficially justifiable but is deeply unsatisfactory to the other parties involved. It has take extreme (though in this case legal) action to make anything happen. And yet certain elements keep insisting that the English and French should be happy to be kept to the back end of the bus.

[Luckless Pedestrian]

No offence, but if you're genuinely trying to compare the PRL and LNR's actions with the civil rights movement, you deserve to get panned.

[Guest]

Munchkin, even a couple of months ago the boot was on the other foot. The PRL and LNR had been asking for years to discuss qualification, governance and the way the cash was to be shared and were repeatedly told there would be no change.

Even when they served notice there was no offer of serious negotiations or any meaningful compromise from the current position. It was only when they actually carried through on their determination to leave that the other unions very belatedly started muttering about compromise.

The PRL and LNR have repeatedly said that they are willing to talk as long as it's not about continuing under the ERC.

And if they really are holding a gun to the Celts' heads, why not just pull the trigger? If they can survive without European rugby for a year, and the other unions can't, then the best negotiating tactic would be to scotch any deal and then be able to dictate terms.

Instead, they are willing to negotiate, and what little factual points we know about what's been offered does not sound like the witterings of power crazed despots:
- Money shared equally between leagues and everyone gets more than today even before all the rights are negotiated
- Qualification based on league position with equal qualifiers from each league (possible concession to ensure all unions represented)
- Serious second (and possibly third) tier competition
- Voting rights broadly aligned to clubs, without the ability of unions (read: the FFR) to arbitrarily arrogate clubs' (read: LNR) votes.

The Rugby Paper yesterday quoted an (unnamed) RRW source who said that the regions were willing to go with what was on offer and happy to be in a PRL-run tournament, but worried that the WRU would block it. So whatever is on the table can't actually be that unreasonable.

I'll probably get panned for this, but the parallel here is with political unrest. The Rabo unions effectively have the power today, and have set up a state of affairs that suits them and is superficially justifiable but is deeply unsatisfactory to the other parties involved. It has take extreme (though in this case legal) action to make anything happen. And yet certain elements keep insisting that the English and French should be happy to be kept to the back end of the bus.

Hi, Poorfour.

There's claims, and counter-claims, of what exactly happened in any negotiations between the Clubs, and Unions, and personally I'm not believing either side until the evidence is there in print.
It also needs to be considered that negotiations don't have to mean compromise. Because you ask for something at the table doesn't mean you're going to get it, but it's my understanding that PRL/LNR have gained ground in negotiations throughout their involvement in the HEC. More teams to qualify, etc. Were do the Unions draw the line though, or is it expected that the Unions simply grant the demands of PRL/LNR?
As for who holds the power? Well maybe the power rests with those able to dismantle European competition, and without serious consequences to their own leagues. To my mind; only the LNR have that sort of leverage.

[HammerofThunor]

It cracks me up. ERC, IRB, Unions, etc all want all countries (at least the big oneS) involved because of the joy of the game, it will be a better competition, etc, etc. The PRL want everyone involved, but why? What's in it for them? It must be because the BT deal hangs on it. Or maybe it's because having more people will make it a better competition and, unsurprisingly, the PRL know this. Just because they won't be held hostage into continuing it under it's current format doesn't mean they don't see the benefits.

And it was said that the BT euro money is not dependant on the number of countries involved. It may well be dependant on the number of teams involved and the quality of those teams (note that's not the same as the League deal being dependant on the Euro comp.).

Who is holding who hostage here, Hammer  

It was PRL/LNR that stated that unless they got what they wanted they were going to 'walk away' from the HEC. They didn't get what they wanted, and now have walked away.
Now they are saying that they are offering a new super sparkly competition, and unless the Celt's, and Italians join in those same Unions will be destroyed financially.

"We are so big, and so strong, we of the PRL/LNR will survive without a Euro competition. You puny unions will shrivel, and die."

Not a word for word quote, but in effect this is what they are saying.

On the other side the Unions are saying that they are prepared to compromise, and the door remains open for PRL/LNR to enter into negotiations, but that they will not sanction a Club run Euro competition.
If PRL/LNR want a competition they are free to go ahead, but it will be a breakaway from the Unions. Maybe they should quit the sabre rattling, and go ahead. After all this is what they have been threatening.
PRL/LNR are expecting turkey's to vote for Christmas. Not going to happen.

From day one of this the reaction on here from the vocal minority (majority?) is that the PRL are greedy scum for not sticking with the status quo. Various insults have give JUST for giving notice to a compeitition they had been unhappy with for years. The attitude was they should stick with because it benefited everyone else. So yes, if they had carried on they would have been held hostage.

We've been told many many times that the English aren't needed, don't bring anything to the competition, are only crying because they're rubbish, etc So I'm struggling to see how they're holding anyone hostage. Certainly not because one rich knob says the unions face being financially crippled without the money he brings. He might want to be right but that doesn't make it so.

Poorfour, I would have said this was more about devolution rather than civil rights (Back of the bus? Really? Poor form Poorfour)

[HammerofThunor]

Munchkin, even a couple of months ago the boot was on the other foot. The PRL and LNR had been asking for years to discuss qualification, governance and the way the cash was to be shared and were repeatedly told there would be no change.

Even when they served notice there was no offer of serious negotiations or any meaningful compromise from the current position. It was only when they actually carried through on their determination to leave that the other unions very belatedly started muttering about compromise.

The PRL and LNR have repeatedly said that they are willing to talk as long as it's not about continuing under the ERC.

And if they really are holding a gun to the Celts' heads, why not just pull the trigger? If they can survive without European rugby for a year, and the other unions can't, then the best negotiating tactic would be to scotch any deal and then be able to dictate terms.

Instead, they are willing to negotiate, and what little factual points we know about what's been offered does not sound like the witterings of power crazed despots:
- Money shared equally between leagues and everyone gets more than today even before all the rights are negotiated
- Qualification based on league position with equal qualifiers from each league (possible concession to ensure all unions represented)
- Serious second (and possibly third) tier competition
- Voting rights broadly aligned to clubs, without the ability of unions (read: the FFR) to arbitrarily arrogate clubs' (read: LNR) votes.

The Rugby Paper yesterday quoted an (unnamed) RRW source who said that the regions were willing to go with what was on offer and happy to be in a PRL-run tournament, but worried that the WRU would block it. So whatever is on the table can't actually be that unreasonable.

I'll probably get panned for this, but the parallel here is with political unrest. The Rabo unions effectively have the power today, and have set up a state of affairs that suits them and is superficially justifiable but is deeply unsatisfactory to the other parties involved. It has take extreme (though in this case legal) action to make anything happen. And yet certain elements keep insisting that the English and French should be happy to be kept to the back end of the bus.

Hi, Poorfour.

There's claims, and counter-claims, of what exactly happened in any negotiations between the Clubs, and Unions, and personally I'm not believing either side until the evidence is there in print.
It also needs to be considered that negotiations don't have to mean compromise. Because you ask for something at the table doesn't mean you're going to get it, but it's my understanding that PRL/LNR have gained ground in negotiations throughout their involvement in the HEC. More teams to qualify, etc. Were do the Unions draw the line though, or is it expected that the Unions simply grant the demands of PRL/LNR?
As for who holds the power? Well maybe the power rests with those able to dismantle European competition, and without serious consequences to their own leagues. To my mind; only the LNR have that sort of leverage.

It sounds more and more like the PRL said from the beginning "We're not staying the ERC, we want something new" and the ERC repsonded "We're staying". It seems it went on like that for 15 months.

Also, do you know what the unions got out of those increases in teams? Did Sky say they'd pay more money if more English teams were involved? We have no idea. The RFU did give the PRL a share of their stake in the ERC but that's an internal thing.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

Munchkin, even a couple of months ago the boot was on the other foot. The PRL and LNR had been asking for years to discuss qualification, governance and the way the cash was to be shared and were repeatedly told there would be no change.

Even when they served notice there was no offer of serious negotiations or any meaningful compromise from the current position. It was only when they actually carried through on their determination to leave that the other unions very belatedly started muttering about compromise.

The PRL and LNR have repeatedly said that they are willing to talk as long as it's not about continuing under the ERC.

And if they really are holding a gun to the Celts' heads, why not just pull the trigger? If they can survive without European rugby for a year, and the other unions can't, then the best negotiating tactic would be to scotch any deal and then be able to dictate terms.

Instead, they are willing to negotiate, and what little factual points we know about what's been offered does not sound like the witterings of power crazed despots:
- Money shared equally between leagues and everyone gets more than today even before all the rights are negotiated
- Qualification based on league position with equal qualifiers from each league (possible concession to ensure all unions represented)
- Serious second (and possibly third) tier competition
- Voting rights broadly aligned to clubs, without the ability of unions (read: the FFR) to arbitrarily arrogate clubs' (read: LNR) votes.

The Rugby Paper yesterday quoted an (unnamed) RRW source who said that the regions were willing to go with what was on offer and happy to be in a PRL-run tournament, but worried that the WRU would block it. So whatever is on the table can't actually be that unreasonable.

I'll probably get panned for this, but the parallel here is with political unrest. The Rabo unions effectively have the power today, and have set up a state of affairs that suits them and is superficially justifiable but is deeply unsatisfactory to the other parties involved. It has take extreme (though in this case legal) action to make anything happen. And yet certain elements keep insisting that the English and French should be happy to be kept to the back end of the bus.

PRL = Arab Spring!!! Hilarious  

[Poorfour]

Well, no, the PRL and LNR didn't initially propose to break away from the ERC. They pushed for change multiple times over several years and got told that they weren't getting any change. That's pretty well documented by the PRL side and I've never seen a rebuttal from the  ERC side.

It was only after that that they served notice. Then they negotiated the BT deal. Then (and according to the PRL AFTER the ERC'd been reminded that they wouldn't have the rights once the notice period was up) the ERC signed with Sky.

The civil rights parallel is maybe a bit extreme, but the underlying analogy is worth thinking about. A (sometimes majority) group that is different and currently has less of the shared resources wants something closer to parity, the group that has those resources refuses to change the distribution. What then?

p.s. Perhaps, AsLong, if you considered the parallel rather than assuming I'm arguing equivalence and taking the cheap shot, we might get somewhere.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

I think if you considered the thousands dead and millions displaced for even one second you'd find the analogy thoroughly inappropriate

[Guest]

From day one of this the reaction on here from the vocal minority (majority?) is that the PRL are greedy scum for not sticking with the status quo. Various insults have give JUST for giving notice to a compeitition they had been unhappy with for years. The attitude was they should stick with because it benefited everyone else. So yes, if they had carried on they would have been held hostage.

We've been told many many times that the English aren't needed, don't bring anything to the competition, are only crying because they're rubbish, etc So I'm struggling to see how they're holding anyone hostage. Certainly not because one rich knob says the unions face being financially crippled without the money he brings. He might want to be right but that doesn't make it so.[/quote]



The insults have been flying from both sides of the debate, Hammer, and it does nothing to advance the cause of either. Thus far, neither have the scare, or conquer and divide, tactics we read in the papers. It's cheap.

Sometimes the emotions rule the head, and it is obviously an emotive subject. Of course the English are needed, just as are the French, the Welsh, Scots, Italians and Irish. True that the competition can survive without one of the above, but it would lessen the value, the quality, of the tournament, whether it's the loss of a top dog, or an underdog. Many love the top team clashes. Everyone likes to shout for the underdog, and everyone loves an upset, unless it's against their own team of course. There are those from both sides claiming that any tournament will do just fine without the active participation of certain others. Might be true, but it still lessens any tournament.

[Casartelli]

I hope and pray that Bruce Craig doesn't get wind of this whole 'civil rights' analogy.

In tomorrow's press release;

"...I'm aware that there is a groundswell of opinion comparisonizing me to Martin Luther King. Although this is a big ask, I do indeed have a dream...."

When a rugby thread starts making delusional comparisons to hostage situations and the civil rights movement then it is officially over.

Do a best all-time XV of the pro era or something instead?

[Poorfour]

You know what's most offensive in all this? It's the utter lack of effort to understand anyone else's point of view in the desperate search for points to score.

I've tried extremely hard to be patient, polite, honest and reasoned in what I've posted. I try to make a serious point about power and the perception of fairness and I get branded delusional.

I've met at least a couple of you in person and know you to be reasonable folk face-to-face. What is it about the internet that renders people unable to argue constructively or credit those with differing viewpoints with honest intent and a modicum of sanity and intelligence?

Oh well. "If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken / Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools / Then get yourself on 606v2, my son"

[Sin é]

Poorfour - maybe its because there is an awful lot of deja vu about what happens every time the Heineken Cup comes up for renewal. Interesting reading from the last time:

You’ve just gotta hand it to Syd
By Diarmuid O’Flynn
Tuesday, May 08, 2007

SOMETIMES, even in the most civilised of societies, you just have to let fly with both barrels.

That’s why I have so much admiration for what Syd Miller did a few weeks ago. The Heineken Cup was under threat from the big, greedy, English and French clubs.

Millar is top man at the IRB, the International Rugby Board. Normally what you’d hear from the suited and respectable man in that position would be soft-speak, diplomat talk, as people tried to grease the road to a solution. Not Syd though, not on this occasion.

Syd isn’t just a rugby administrator, he is also a former player and was an international of some renown. He has a passion for rugby and was thrilled at the recent growth in the game, especially the fantastic response to the relatively-new competition that is the Heineken Cup.

Now, with the threat by the French and English clubs that they would withdraw unless they could get even more of the Heineken Cup booty, would withdraw unless they could have a greater say in how the competition was run, he had had enough. He let rip, from the hip; no holding back, no indirect padded criticism. Syd was up front and personal, named names, called it as it was.

Serge Blanco, former mesmerising French full-back, now head honcho in Biarritz, one of the wealthiest and most ambitious clubs in France, took the brunt of Syd’s blast. "The decision by the French and English clubs to withdraw from the European Rugby Cup has been described as regrettable, unfortunate and shameful. It is more than that. It is absolutely disgraceful and selfish to destroy a tournament which has developed into a hugely successful and special annual rugby event.’’

This decision is not about fixing match schedule congestion in France as was first suggested. He (Blanco) talks now of support for the English premiership clubs, he talks of respect. What respect has he shown for those who have worked hard to develop this tournament into the excellent event that it has become?

What respect is he showing for other European rugby nations who will suffer financial hardship with a direct consequence to player employment?

What respect is there for the players who enjoy and want to play in the tournament?

What respect is there for the supporters who have travelled in their tens of thousand throughout Europe in support of their teams therefore producing a great festival of rugby?

What respect is he showing for the sponsors and media who have made their contribution to the tournament? None.

What respect has he shown for the French Rugby Federation and French rugby in a year that is hugely important for the game in France as it hosts the Rugby World Cup in September and October?

He says he has no dispute with his own National Union but why is he interfering with the affairs of another Union? It is unbelievable that one man should be allowed to bring European rugby to this state. Is there no-one among the clubs of France who has the courage to say no, we will not be part of this?"

Syd went on to castigate the owners of the big English clubs, to pour scorn on the suggestion of a new format for a new European Cup. "We don’t need a new one, we have one," he blasted. "What next, a new 6 Nations run by the Premiership clubs?"

Ah Syd – a man after me own heart. Within days, shocked by the bluntness of the language in the above statement, the ferocity behind the language, all parties were back around the table. The owners recognised, if their greed could provoke such a response from the white-collar people who were charged with running the game at the highest level, what would be the response of the fans?

Here in Ireland, in Munster, Ulster, Leinster, Connacht, we would have been devastated at the prospect of losing the Heineken Cup, those eternally memorable fantastic evenings in Thomond Park, those weekend trips abroad, to France especially. But do you think the fans of Leicester and Wasps, who meet in this year’s final, would have taken this lying down?

Perhaps the French are different, I don’t know, and certainly their own championship is huge, but what of those tumultuous days in Toulouse, in Castres, even in San Sebastian, where Blanco’s Biarritz played their big European games? Surely those French fans also got something from the Heineken Cup, the European Cup? More than anything else the

European Heineken Cup has made rugby the major sport it now is in the northern hemisphere.

Here in Ireland it has given us something home-grown to cheer, for a change, something home-based.

Ulster, then Munster, European champions, and mostly with native players, how good did that feel?

Thanks to Syd’s outburst, the future of that competition is now secure for another five or six years at least. Maybe we should have a bit more plain talk from people, across the board.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2007/0508/sport/youve-just-gotta-hand-it-to-syd-32227.html

[TJ]

You know what's most offensive in all this? It's the utter lack of effort to understand anyone else's point of view in the desperate search for points to score.

this forum is better than many for reasoned discourse.  I think two things go on - nuance is lost in text based conversation and people believe the point is not understood if its not agreed with.  I believe I understand the basic point of view of the PRL.  I just believe its wrong for a number of reasons.  I find it hard to accept I can explain why its wrong and people do not agree with me.  In person you would simply move on to something else.

some folk have got down to petty point scoring and some folk don't understand.  However most folk do - just have reached different conclusions from the same data

[Sin é]

Some more of Syd's rant  

Dr Millar then suggested Blanco was being 'used' by English clubs who are mounting a campaign to 'destroy' the ERC - governing body of the Heineken Cup - and 'challenge the way club rugby is governed through national unions and the International Rugby Board.'
He attacked the motives and egos of the businessmen whose investments have helped build the Premiership clubs.
Dr Millar said: 'The Premiership clubs in the main are owned by entrepreneurs who are not used to and do not like deferring to governing bodies such as the RFU.
'They do not want to have a governing body which controls the game for the good of all and not just for a handful of elite professional clubs.
The most significant and illuminating statement as to the clubs' true intent came in a Sunday newspaper where Mr Barwell of the Northampton club was quoted as saying: 'We'll run our own business and the RFU can mind their own business.
'What does he mean? Indeed it is difficult to get from the clubs what they want as their objectives seem to change regularly.'
Dr Millar dismissed Blanco's arguments that fixture congestion caused by the World Cup means they cannot find room for the Heineken Cup.
He insisted there is still time for a deal to be struck - but it will need the clubs to backtrack from their militant stance.

Plus ça change!

[HammerofThunor]

You know what's most offensive in all this? It's the utter lack of effort to understand anyone else's point of view in the desperate search for points to score.

this forum is better than many for reasoned discourse.  I think two things go on - nuance is lost in text based conversation and people believe the point is not understood if its not agreed with.  I believe I understand the basic point of view of the PRL.  I just believe its wrong for a number of reasons.  I find it hard to accept I can explain why its wrong and people do not agree with me.  In person you would simply move on to something else.

some folk have got down to petty point scoring and some folk don't understand.  However most folk do - just have reached different conclusions from the same data

First thing you've written I agree with in about a year  

 

[Luckless Pedestrian]

I hope and pray that Bruce Craig doesn't get wind of this whole 'civil rights' analogy.

In tomorrow's press release;

"...I'm aware that there is a groundswell of opinion comparisonizing me to Martin Luther King.  Although this is a big ask, I do indeed have a dream...."

When a rugby thread starts making delusional comparisons to hostage situations and the  civil rights movement then it is officially over.

Do a best all-time XV of the pro era or something instead?

He'll be singing 'We Shall Overcome' by the end of the week.

[Sponsored content]