Merged thread euro competition pt 2

[broadlandboy]

First topic message reminder :

couldn't let it lie

[Solid8]

I suspect as ever the truth is somewhere in the middle.  However the lack of transparency from the PRL leads me to believe that the contract would contain clauses such as this and if it is such a good deal why not shout the details from the rooftops?

It would also go some way to explaining the ever more shrill and desperate sounding comments from the PRL chaps

It is intereting to me tha as tis has gone on the Rabo unions seem more and more confident and the PRL less and less.  I really think they totally misjudged the opposition the PRL proposals would engender.  The PRL thought all teams interests aligned and totally misread the situation.

It will be interesting to hear the next lot of pronouncements after this "leak"

The PRL obviously has a lot to lose if the RCC does not go ahead. Not least a loss of face from a league that touts itself as one of the best domestic leagues on the planet. I do think that there may well be some clauses in the contract that mean the PRL and its clubs will lose revenue if the RCC does not go ahead but not to the extent of the leak that is currently doing the rounds.

I would imagine that the next lot of pronouncements after this leak will either be:

1. Riddicule, this to my mind would be a sign of desperation and the leak could possibly be true.
2. Acknowledgement, which I think would indicate some form of truth in the leak.
3. They will ignore it completely, which I would take to mean that they are in a very strong position and it is all BS.

My money is on 2.

[alcoombe]

Maybe - but other sanctions are available such as the RFU stopping funding the breakaway, the french teams who do not own their grounds will have no where to play, players who play in the breakaway loose their chance to play internationals.   Waht value would a franglo cup of 12 teams have?

The BT deal was for an awful lot more than the english home games or else how can the PRL state what money the others would earn from it?

The grounds aren't owned by the union either, they're owned by the local council. There's no way they would prevent their local club playing given what most teams mean to their town and the revenue it brings in.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

I suspect as ever the truth is somewhere in the middle.  However the lack of transparency from the PRL leads me to believe that the contract would contain clauses such as this and if it is such a good deal why not shout the details from the rooftops?

It would also go some way to explaining the ever more shrill and desperate sounding comments from the PRL chaps

It is intereting to me tha as tis has gone on the Rabo unions seem more and more confident and the PRL less and less.  I really think they totally misjudged the opposition the PRL proposals would engender.  The PRL thought all teams interests aligned and totally misread the situation.

It will be interesting to hear the next lot of pronouncements after this "leak"

The PRL obviously has a lot to lose if the RCC does not go ahead.  Not least a loss of face from a league that touts itself as one of the best domestic leagues on the planet.  I do think that there may well be some clauses in the contract that mean the PRL and its clubs will lose revenue if the RCC does not go ahead but not to the extent of the leak that is currently doing the rounds.

I would imagine that the next lot of pronouncements after this leak will either be:

1. Riddicule, this to my mind would be a sign of desperation and the leak could possibly be true.
2. Acknowledgement, which I think would indicate some form of truth in the leak.
3. They will ignore it completely, which I would take to mean that they are in a very strong position and it is all BS.

My money is on 2.

It is fairly clear that there has been concerted media campaigns going on in the last month or so, an efficient one in strict PR terms from the PRL and a more disorganised ad-hoc effort from the ERC. On the one hand, we've had McCafferty ang Goze, backed up Quentin Smith (good luck with that!), then wheeling out various owners like Walkinshaw, Wray, Craig and now Scott from Scaints, vs Lux and then the Celtic and Italian unions with a line in the sand

[Scrumpy]

Bruce Craigs thought for the day

"Chase the meaningful by suffering the uncomfortable. Suffer the meaningless by chasing the comfortable."

[IanBru]

IanBru's thought for the day:

"He who burns the wood warms himself once.
He who chops the wood warms himself twice.
He who owns the axe, the trees and the stove is an enemy of the people and must be eliminated."
Chinese proverb, 1949.

[broadlandboy]

So the IRB should be eliminated then

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

I suspect as ever the truth is somewhere in the middle.  However the lack of transparency from the PRL leads me to believe that the contract would contain clauses such as this and if it is such a good deal why not shout the details from the rooftops?

It would also go some way to explaining the ever more shrill and desperate sounding comments from the PRL chaps

It is intereting to me tha as tis has gone on the Rabo unions seem more and more confident and the PRL less and less.  I really think they totally misjudged the opposition the PRL proposals would engender.  The PRL thought all teams interests aligned and totally misread the situation.

It will be interesting to hear the next lot of pronouncements after this "leak"

The PRL obviously has a lot to lose if the RCC does not go ahead.  Not least a loss of face from a league that touts itself as one of the best domestic leagues on the planet.  I do think that there may well be some clauses in the contract that mean the PRL and its clubs will lose revenue if the RCC does not go ahead but not to the extent of the leak that is currently doing the rounds.

I would imagine that the next lot of pronouncements after this leak will either be:

1. Riddicule, this to my mind would be a sign of desperation and the leak could possibly be true.
2. Acknowledgement, which I think would indicate some form of truth in the leak.
3. They will ignore it completely, which I would take to mean that they are in a very strong position and it is all BS.

My money is on 2.

No doubt giving rise to game theory consultants getting a hard-on in the respective PRL and ERC offices!

[Big]

It is fairly clear that there has been concerted media campaigns going on in the last month or so, an efficient one in strict PR terms from the PRL and a more disorganised ad-hoc effort from the ERC.  On the one hand, we've had McCafferty ang Goze, backed up Quentin Smith (good luck with that!), then wheeling out various owners like Walkinshaw, Wray, Craig and now Scott from Scaints, vs Lux and then the Celtic and Italian unions with a line in the sand

I didn't read the statements from the celtic and italian unions as any kind of support for ERC. They don't explicitly say that a tournament needs to be run by ERC, nor that it can't be new anglo-french proposal. It's just a stern reminder that any competition needs their approval for their teams to take part - particularly true for the Irish, Scots and Italians where (as I understand it) the clubs are pretty much directly owned/controlled by the unions.

As more independent entities the Welsh clubs could still stick two fingers to the WRU and compete in an unsanctioned tournament if they really wanted to. Also going on the above, if the leak is true there is one other tier 1 nation that may be interested - Argentina. The idea of additional revenue, getting a couple of pro regional teams in a decent tournament, and getting some of their players back in their own country where they have a bit more control could all appeal. Extreme travelling would be involved, but not sure it's any less manageable than the Super XV or Rugby Championship.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

Good luck with that, Big

[TJ]

Jeepers I so do not see the PRL efforts as

an efficient one in strict PR terms

to me its smacks of an uncoordinated desperate attempts to try to gain public sympathy and to put pressure on the rest of the unions. such obvious nonsense being spouted and Craig sounds increasingly ridiculous

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

Jeepers  I so do not see the PRL efforts as

an efficient one in strict PR terms

to me its smacks of an uncoordinated desperate attempts to try to gain public sympathy and to put pressure on the rest of the unions.  such obvious nonsense being spouted and Craig sounds increasingly ridiculous

TJ, I was simply following the old adage that 'all publicity is good publicity', not stating my personal admiration!!

[TJ]

Ah - yes its got the PRLc ase out there but boy do they look amateurish, desperate and semi detached in the case of Craig

[Dubbelyew L Overate]

The "leaked contract" was posted on here a couple of days ago on the "blueprint" fred by a new poster, E is no Den. He may well be lurking (not that I'm paranoid, but they are all out to get me).

It seems well written and quite believable and I shall be keeping an eye on further developments to see if they fit the profile, but the draconian penalties make it less believable.

I also ask myself which of the parties involved might be most likely to indulge in smears, dirty tricks or black propaganda. A few years ago, I might have thought the RFU, who had more leaks than Liza's bucket, but they seem to have cleaned up their act.

Answers on a postcard to:
Lockup Towers,
Clink Street
Dinna Bendoon

[TJ]

Interssting piece from Jeff Probyn
.therugbypaper.co.uk/features/columnists/jeff-probyn/11120/jeff-probyn-money-is-not-the-root-of-all-success-in-europe/ ( once aqgain put the http www at the beginning)

He makes a good point - what is going to happen with he Amlin if the PRL / LNR pull out? even if the franglo cup gets a go ahead will this incorporate all top division French and English clubs?

[Big]

Good luck with that, Big

It was tongue in cheek - I consider it about as likely as the supposed leak being entirely true. I'll believe the leak if/when it appears in a more credible source.

[Notch]

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  

[Notch]

It's not just the Celts who have a lot to lose- it's in everyones interests to get a deal made and we can stop this RCC from happening so it's a wee bit one sided.

[Cyril]

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

Notch, as I'm sure you're well aware this is a Welsh journalist writing in a British (not English) newspaper. You can buy the Guardian outside of London, you know

When something bad happens it's strange how the quickly the British bit becomes English.

Not saying I agree with Butler (he writes a lot of quasi-poetic tosh normally).

[Notch]

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

Notch, as I'm sure you're well aware this is a Welsh journalist writing in a British (not English) newspaper. You can buy the Guardian outside of London, you know

When something bad happens it's strange how the quickly the British bit becomes English.

Not saying I agree with Butler (he writes a lot of quasi-poetic tosh normally).

Aye, and I do read it- but I've never seen a match report of a Pro12 game in there. Coverage of rugby is pretty much exclusively targeted at an English audience, as is their football.

Brilliant newspaper, read it for a lot of other things not pertaining to sport, but they do aim their sport at an English audience therefore they are pretty much a English paper at least with regards to sport- an International paper in many other respects.

[St John The Enforcer]

Interssting piece from Jeff Probyn
www.therugbypaper.co.uk/features/columnists/jeff-probyn/11120/jeff-probyn-money-is-not-the-root-of-all-success-in-europe/ ( once aqgain put the http www at the beginning)

He makes a good point - what is going to happen with he Amlin if the PRL / LNR pull out? even if the franglo cup gets a go ahead will this incorporate all top division French and English clubs?

Ok

[Cyril]

Notch,

True enough, it is largely aimed at English sport. Numbers(!) as Jiffy would say.

Would you say Butler is writing to a script then? Or is he just being his usual controversial self.

[nathan]

Notch,

True enough, it is largely aimed at English sport. Numbers(!) as Jiffy would say.

Would you say Butler is writing to a script then? Or is he just being his usual controversial self.

he's sticking to the "look at me" style of writing.

[Notch]

Notch,

True enough, it is largely aimed at English sport. Numbers(!) as Jiffy would say.

Would you say Butler is writing to a script then? Or is he just being his usual controversial self.

I think he is being his usual guff spouting self with a slight slant for the publication he's writing in. Maybe there is a perception that the PRL hold all the cards- and as long as the LNR are behind them, they hold most of them but not enough to end this stalemate without a negotiated truce- but I think more than anything else he is projecting Welsh insecurity onto the rest of us. The Welsh are much, much closer to the English than the other three nations involved in this.

The really big draw come European Cup time in Ireland are the likes of Toulouse and Clermont Auvergne. As long as the French clubs are on the PRLs side they have our attention- but there is this English tendency to grossly over-estimate their own importance. In the last five years they've been unable to break Irish and French dominance in the Heineken Cup or surpass Welsh dominance in the Six Nations so to read that in a British paper is quite ridiculous really!

They're a big country and I'm sure they'll win a few titles at international level in the next decade and provide their fair share of winners if there is a genuine pan-European competition but really they've not been dominant at club or international level in a while really makes a line like "the Celts, whose very existence is defined by wanting to play against England." really seem odd when talking about nations who've been doing better than England. Poor form Eddie Butler and the guardian.

Glad I got that off my chest to be honest   

[2ndtimeround]

A question that needs asking regarding the French clubs is will the clubs back the LNR if it comes down to having no tournament, or will the desire of the fans of a team like Clermont for example take precence, if the CA fans want their team chasing the elusive ERC title will CA actually pull out?
Just a thought.

[nth]

Painful posturing overshadows euro launch
John Taylor
September 30, 2013

Heineken Cup launches have traditionally been glitzy affairs with everyone eulogising about the wonderful treat in store but today's celebrations will have a huge cloud hanging over them. This - the 19th season of a great competition, loved by every rugby fan around Europe - could be the last unless the warring factions can stop posturing and get down to some serious talks about restructuring the tournament.

The stance of ERC appears to be that the English and French clubs are just being greedy, getting too big for their boots and should be forced back into line. They totally underestimated how serious the clubs were and thought they could bludgeon them into submission, refusing even to discuss their grievances for more than a year. That was a bad mistake so now, reluctantly, they have put forward the idea of an independent arbiter (appointed by them without consulting PRL or LNR) overseeing a meeting in late October.

With the backing of all the European national governing bodies apart from the RFU and with supportive noises coming from the International Rugby Board they are still trying to argue that any sort of breakaway is illegal instead of discussing the very real grievances, further muddying the waters by accusing the English and French of abandoning their weaker cousins and endangering the whole structure of professional rugby in Europe.

The biggest scandal is the failure on the part of ERC to engage in constructive dialogue over the past 12 months. I sat on the Board of PRL last year and can confirm that they did indeed follow protocol and gave notice in June 2012, as required, that they were not prepared to allow ERC to renegotiate television rights going forward. The current deal with Sky expires at the end of this season.

That should have immediately triggered meaningful discussions but ERC preferred a stand-off. Everybody, PRL and LNR included, wants a pan European tournament to continue but the Heineken Cup was rushed into service as soon as the game became professional and everyone knows the format and financial arrangements are flawed and need changing.

Last season, as the managing director of a struggling Aviva Premiership club, the changes being proposed made good sense. They were a glimmer of hope for the future - a reason to be optimistic about the viability of professional rugby in England, a carrot for potential investors.

At present, 52% of the television and sponsorship revenue goes to the Celtic League representatives whilst only 48% goes to the English and French Leagues even though they provide more than half the competing sides. PRL and LNR are proposing that each league takes one third and to sweeten the pill they have already negotiated a new television deal that is advantageous for everybody. PRL's new partners, BT Sport have promised a substantial increase if they get the rights so that there will be more money on the table for Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Italy even if their overall share is reduced.

Money is only part of the problem, however. The English and French also want major changes in the structure of the competition. They argue with some justification that the whole qualification process is a farce.

Whilst their clubs have to battle for a place in the top six of their domestic competition to qualify, three of the four Welsh and Irish sides are guaranteed entry as are both Scottish districts and the two Italian teams. This season Newport Gwent Dragons are the only Celtic League side not competing in the Heineken Cup.

This 'security' means that the Celtic League is not as competitive as it should be with players often being rested and saved for the big European matches. Whilst English and French attendances are on the up, some of the crowds in the Celtic League are pitifully poor.

With the second tier of European competition, the Amlin Challenge Cup, a pale shadow of the Heineken - clubs frequently play second string sides and with four Italian sides, one Portuguese and one Romanian team there are frequent mis-matches - it is not as if there is worthwhile competition for the English and French clubs that do not make it into the main draw either.

It is against this background that PRL and LNR have refused to negotiate with ERC - threat and counter-threat being batted back and forth almost daily. PRL have now said they do not even recognise ERC and insist a new company be set-up to run European Cups in future.

The reality, as always has to be compromise. As a Welshman I believe a really competitive European Cup is absolutely essential for the health of the national team because the Celtic League is not strong enough but I do believe that competition would improve if there was more to fight for. I accept that each of the Six Nations should be guaranteed at least one representative in the Heineken Cup to ensure it remains a truly European tournament but some sort of pre-qualifying round for the final pool places might spice things up.

If ERC would agree to that and address the distribution of finances I still believe the English and French clubs will come back to the fold - something has to give, the Heineken Cup is too good and too important to lose.

In the mean-time Toulouse and Saracens must be wondering how they got to be so lucky. Being in Pool 3 with Connacht and Zebre should guarantee they both progress to the knock-out stages. Contrast that with Pool 1 - Castres, Northampton, Ospreys and Leinster - same tournament, different class - that sort of anomaly is what the English and French are complaining about.

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd

John Taylor is a former Wales international who toured with the British & Irish Lions in 1968 and 1971. Since retiring he has worked in the media and has covered the last eight Lions tours as a commentator or journalist

http://www.espn.co.uk/heineken-cup-2013-14/rugby/story/200391.html

[broadlandboy]

What part that when a party leaves they have to be incentivised back through the door doesnt he get?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/10344409/Heineken-Cup-exodus-can-still-be-resolved-at-October-summit-says-ERC-chief-Derek-McGrath.html

[Poorfour]

The "leaked contract" was posted on here a couple of days ago on the "blueprint" fred by a new poster, E is no Den. He may well be lurking (not that I'm paranoid, but they are all out to get me).

It seems well written and quite believable and I shall be keeping an eye on further developments to see if they fit the profile, but the draconian penalties make it less believable.

I also ask myself which of the parties involved might be most likely to indulge in smears, dirty tricks or black propaganda. A few years ago, I might have thought the RFU, who had more leaks than Liza's bucket, but they seem to have cleaned up their act.

Answers on a postcard to:
Lockup Towers,
Clink Street
Dinna Bendoon

Well written, yes. Believable, no. The main issue with the so-called deal is that it represents a nuclear option not only for the PRL but also for BT. The "deal" is structured in such a way that unless the PRL pull off a miraculous feat of negotiation at the first attempt, BT have to stump up much less cash for both the AP games and any European tournament. The supposed terms look like they would cripple the English clubs if they don't get a tournament off the ground at the first attempt.

That's got to be good news for BT, right? They save cash if they don't get a top notch tournament. Well, actually, no.

BT is trying to do the exact same thing that Sky did in the 90s by buying up football. By having exclusive content, BT wants to encourage consumers to buy its phone and broadband services and not shift the whole lot to Sky or Virgin. And there's one important difference between Sky then and BT now: BT already has a huge subscriber base and deep pockets, and they are trying to defend that base.

Point is, BT needs content. And they need to persuade providers of content that they are a good place to be. Imagine you are BT and the RCC doesn't get off the ground. Which is the more appealing position:

1) The AP teams are seriously out of pocket and the viability of their league is threatened. Their negotiating position at the European table is seriously weakened and everyone knows it. That means you're less likely to get the outcome you want, and if it all falls apart no-one will want to deal with you because they will believe you imposed terms on the AP that could never work for them. But hey, you're saving a bit of cash.

2) The AP domestic position is secure, they have enough cash from that to play a waiting game in Europe and meanwhile you can work with them on making the AP coverage a really attractive product. The Euro cash is still there if the Celts want to play ball, meaning the AP teams are in a strong position. You're in a position to play a waiting game.

I don't doubt that the deal does contain some incentives and penalty clauses. But seriously, "travel expenses only"? Why would you even bother having a tournament if that was all that was being paid? The French and English alone are what, 140m pairs of eyeballs. With the right promotion even a 2-way tournament can be made to work.

It's a clever wind-up, but it's unsubstantiated and ultimately implausible. And it is a wind-up.

[The Great Aukster]

The supposed deal reads differently to me.
1. There is a base level of money for the AP rights unaffected by Europe
2. This base level is more that the Sky deal
3. There is a special bonus in the first year for the PRL to make the switch, and because the majority of BT subscribers who watch the AP will switch in the first year
4. In subsequent years the bonus reverts to zero unless there is attractive European content.
5. The amount of the subsequent bonus is on a sliding scale dependent on the number of Tier 1 countries involved.

So the PRL are better off than they were before BT, but not as good as they could be with a full pan-european competition. Sounds commercially plausible from both parties and not unbelievable at all.

[HammerofThunor]

The supposed deal reads differently to me.
1. There is a base level of money for the AP rights unaffected by Europe
2. This base level is more that the Sky deal
3. There is a special bonus in the first year for the PRL to make the switch, and because the majority of BT subscribers who watch the AP will switch in the first year
4. In subsequent years the bonus reverts to zero unless there is attractive European content.
5. The amount of the subsequent bonus is on a sliding scale dependent on the number of Tier 1 countries involved.

So the PRL are better off than they were before BT, but not as good as they could be with a full pan-european competition. Sounds commercially plausible from both parties and not unbelievable at all.

If you are talking about the 'leaked' deal then if there is no European competition then the amount paid out for the premiership is less Han the current sky deal.

https://www.606v2.com/t48202p50-why-have-the-prl-and-bt-not-explained-their-blue-print-for-their-concept-competition

The big thing for me that screams cowpat is that it claims it's for the home games in Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Note that in all the reports/complaints so far have it that the ERC have control over these rights, the PRL claim they revert to them and the RFU say that they revert to them. That would only apply to the English home games. The PRL planned this very carefully and were confident they had the euro rights post-ERC. That simply wouldn't be the case for the other games and the PRL would be arguing from just the point of "this is better for everyone" and whether the English rights are theirs would be irrelevant. What this comes from is the misunderstanding a lot of people seem to have that the union controls the rights for sale in their country rather than the rights of games played in their country. IMO.

[hawalsh]

This comment from the ERC CEO yesterday sums up why the LNR & PRL want to jump ship:

"The future is best served by doing what we have all been doing for 18 years"

[BigTrevsbigmac]

This comment from the ERC CEO yesterday sums up why the LNR & PRL want to jump ship:

"The future is best served by doing what we have all been doing for 18 years"

Exactly! Well written article by John Taylor in full above.

[broadlandboy]

Are the IRB so anti PRL/LNR "What he does expect to see is a continuation of the South Seas rugby migration to Europe – and whatever his national coach might say, the International Rugby Board wants to see it too. The sport’s governing body has never said so publicly, but it sees club rugby in England and France as a valuable finishing school for the Fijians, Samoans and Tongans – a place where they can learn the harsher, darker realities of the union game at professional level and use their new-found expertise as a counterweight to the wilder, more exuberant and infinitely less structured brand of rugby they play in the islands."
A quote from an article in the Indy http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/news-comment/aviva-premiership-the-invasion-of-south-seas-players-8845299.html

[Guest]

Taylor hasn't really added anything to the debate other than he believes PRL/LNR may be willing to enter discussion with ERC if certain conditions are met.
Other than that it's the same PRL line we've heard over, and over, and over, and....

[TJ]

No comment from the PRL over the leaked "BT deal" yet is there. I am suprised

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

A little more on the nature of the alleged PRL deal/new Ridonkerous Name Cup thingy:

Obviously in this litigious society no one should make statements in relation to other peoples private dealings without having proof. Therefore all we can do is make Hypothetical assumptions about what may be going on. Let's pretend an imagined employee of a national rugby union had seen a copy of the BT deal. He could then give hypothetical explanations to the following recent occurrences.
1) Why the PRL have been so vocal about trying to push their new European league on the rest of us and increasingly so as the deadline draws near.
2) Why the RFU have been so quiet about the whole matter.
3) The French clubs interest over an extended T14.
4) LNR representatives making references to “Contracts being signed” and “having to help the English from the mess they have created”.
5) And most importantly why no one has been shown a copy of the BT agreement except the RFU.

This imagined employee might say that the BT deal "Allegedly" states that:

1) The European pot is highly dependent on the number of tier 1 nation clubs taking part. Less than four nations and only travel costs for each team are paid. Only four and 50% is paid, 5 nation’s means 75% and all 6 are needed for the full 100%.

2) The European pot is for a “NEW” European cup of which the PRL, LNR and BT are the majority shareholders and control 60% of the vote,

3) The amount paid for the premier league is also highly dependent on the formation of a new PRL/LNR European Cup. The figure paid this year consists of a significant % of a “Signing on bonus” this applies to the first year only. For each successive year, a similar bonus exists dependent on the PRL having provided BT with a new European Cup. This is also graded according to the number of Tier 1 nations clubs involved, identical to the conditions above. Zero for less than 4, 75% for 5 etc. If PRL are not able to provide a new European Cup their league payments drop to a lower figure than the previous SKY deal.

4) The BT deal applies to all home games in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. The percentages offered to Scotland, Wales and Ireland as stated by PRL are correct. They however receive around 50% of the total pot and France receives the remainder. How can this be true? Why is the LNR share smaller than now and Italy have none.

5) The LNR have been offered a share of the pot equal to that of Wales, Scotland and Ireland but have also been given the right to negotiate their own TV deal of which PRL will receive, an equal percentage as the LNR receive from the BT deal. To legitimise this based on TV markets, the Italians are allowed (have to) negotiate their own TV deal.
What would this all mean? Yes the other nations would all make more money than they are now. The PRL clubs will however make substantially more money than the Celts. 50% of BT deal plus 11% of LNR deal compared to just 11% of the BT deal for the Celts. The French stand to make even more from a new deal due to the competition between Canal and a new competitor.

However if a new European Cup does not come about the PRL will receive no European money, even for a French/English league. They will also lose their bonus league payments leaving them worse off financially than they are now. By signing the deal they excluded themselves from taking part in any ERC competition, hence it’s all or nothing for them. The LNR have signed a contract for a new European CUP but it is also conditional on having four Tier one nation members before coming into affect. This provides them with the guarantees but it also means they are not prohibited from re-entering the ERC.

This would explain why the RFU are the only ones who have been shown the Deal, and why they have refused to come out against the clubs. Despite not being in favour of the PRL’s actions they now have no choice but to allow a new European Cup or else most of the premier clubs will be bankrupt in time for the World Cup.

[Scrumpy]

No comment from the PRL over the leaked "BT deal" yet is there.  I am suprised

Bruce is working on it.

[TJ]

I shall look forward to hearing from him

[Sin é]

This comment from the ERC CEO yesterday sums up why the LNR & PRL want to jump ship:

"The future is best served by doing what we have all been doing for 18 years"

What do you expect him to say. He is just a spokesperson for the Board of Directors of the ERC.

Mind you, its quite interesting that an ERC Director is actively trying to destroy his own company.


By the way, I wonder would the Heineken Cup be regarded as the best club rugby competition in the world now if the greedy PRL got their hands on it before now.

[HammerofThunor]

A little more on the nature of the alleged PRL deal/new Ridonkerous Name Cup thingy:

Obviously in this litigious society no one should make statements in relation to other peoples private dealings without having proof. Therefore all we can do is make Hypothetical assumptions about what may be going on. Let's pretend an imagined employee of a national rugby union had seen a copy of the BT deal. He could then give hypothetical explanations to the following recent occurrences.
1) Why the PRL have been so vocal about trying to push their new European league on the rest of us and increasingly so as the deadline draws near.
2) Why the RFU have been so quiet about the whole matter.
3) The French clubs interest over an extended T14.
4) LNR representatives making references to “Contracts being signed” and “having to help the English from the mess they have created”.
5) And most importantly why no one has been shown a copy of the BT agreement except the RFU.

This imagined employee might say that the BT deal "Allegedly" states that:

1) The European pot is highly dependent on the number of tier 1 nation clubs taking part. Less than four nations and only travel costs for each team are paid. Only four and 50% is paid, 5 nation’s means 75% and all 6 are needed for the full 100%.

2) The European pot is for a “NEW” European cup of which the PRL, LNR and BT are the majority shareholders and control 60% of the vote,

3) The amount paid for the premier league is also highly dependent on the formation of a new PRL/LNR European Cup. The figure paid this year consists of a significant % of a “Signing on bonus” this applies to the first year only. For each successive year, a similar bonus exists dependent on the PRL having provided BT with a new European Cup. This is also graded according to the number of Tier 1 nations clubs involved, identical to the conditions above. Zero for less than 4, 75% for 5 etc. If PRL are not able to provide a new European Cup their league payments drop to a lower figure than the previous SKY deal.

4) The BT deal applies to all home games in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. The percentages offered to Scotland, Wales and Ireland as stated by PRL are correct. They however receive around 50% of the total pot and France receives the remainder. How can this be true? Why is the LNR share smaller than now and Italy have none.

5) The LNR have been offered a share of the pot equal to that of Wales, Scotland and Ireland but have also been given the right to negotiate their own TV deal of which PRL will receive, an equal percentage as the LNR receive from the BT deal. To legitimise this based on TV markets, the Italians are allowed (have to) negotiate their own TV deal.
What would this all mean? Yes the other nations would all make more money than they are now. The PRL clubs will however make substantially more money than the Celts. 50% of BT deal plus 11% of LNR deal compared to just 11% of the BT deal for the Celts. The French stand to make even more from a new deal due to the competition between Canal and a new competitor.

However if a new European Cup does not come about the PRL will receive no European money, even for a French/English league. They will also lose their bonus league payments leaving them worse off financially than they are now. By signing the deal they excluded themselves from taking part in any ERC competition, hence it’s all or nothing for them. The LNR have signed a contract for a new European CUP but it is also conditional on having four Tier one nation members before coming into affect. This provides them with the guarantees but it also means they are not prohibited from re-entering the ERC.

This would explain why the RFU are the only ones who have been shown the Deal, and why they have refused to come out against the clubs. Despite not being in favour of the PRL’s actions they now have no choice but to allow a new European Cup or else most of the premier clubs will be bankrupt in time for the World Cup.

That's not new. It was posted on here, pretty much word for word least Wednesday.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

Apologies, Thunor - I hadn't seen it, only a considerably shorter version

[broadlandboy]

You would think that if there was any truth in it the Rabo nation Media(esp the Irish) would have had something to say about it

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

You would think that if there was any truth in it the Rabo nation Media(esp the Irish) would have had something to say about it

Less sure about that, bb, but would certainly have expected the Murdoch media empire to be shouting it from the roof tops - curious

[HammerofThunor]

No apologies needed.

https://www.606v2.com/t48202p50-why-have-the-prl-and-bt-not-explained-their-blue-print-for-their-concept-competition

About half way down. Is that where you got it from or was it somewhere else? This was posted the day before the other internet blog mentioned something similar. It would be completely reasonable that it was picked up from here. Also the poster then made comments suggesting they were on the negotiating team.

A few random musings:
Obviously in this litigious society no one should make statements in relation to other peoples private dealings without having proof. Therefore all we can do is make Hypothetical assumptions about what may be going on. Let's pretend an imagined employee of a national rugby union had seen a copy of the BT deal. He could then give hypothetical explanations to the following recent occurrences.
1) Why the PRL have been so vocal about trying to push their new European league on the rest of us and increasingly so as the deadline draws near.
2) Why the RFU have been so quiet about the whole matter.
3) The French clubs interest over an extended T14.
4) LNR representatives making references to “Contracts being signed” and “having to help the English from the mess they have created”.
5) And most importantly why no one has been shown a copy of the BT agreement except the RFU.

This imagined employee might say that the BT deal "Allegedly" states that:
1) The European pot is highly dependent on the number of tier 1 nation clubs taking part. Less than four nations and only travel costs for each team are paid. Only four and 50% is paid, 5 nation’s means 75% and all 6 are needed for the full 100%.
2) The European pot is for a “NEW” European cup of which the PRL, LNR and BT are the majority shareholders and control 60% of the vote,
3) The amount paid for the premier league is also highly dependent on the formation of a new PRL/LNR European Cup. The figure paid this year consists of a significant % of a “Signing on bonus” this applies to the first year only. For each successive year, a similar bonus exists dependent on the PRL having provided BT with a new European Cup. This is also graded according to the number of Tier 1 nations clubs involved, identical to the conditions above. Zero for less than 4, 75% for 5 etc. If PRL are not able to provide a new European Cup their league payments drop to a lower figure than the previous SKY deal.
4) The BT deal applies to all home games in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. The percentages offered to Scotland, Wales and Ireland as stated by PRL are correct. They however receive around 50% of the total pot and France receives the remainder. How can this be true? Why is the LNR share smaller than now and Italy have none.
5) The LNR have been offered a share of the pot equal to that of Wales, Scotland and Ireland but have also been given the right to negotiate their own TV deal of which PRL will receive, an equal percentage as the LNR receive from the BT deal. To legitimise this based on TV markets, the Italians are allowed (have to) negotiate their own TV deal.
What would this all mean? Yes the other nations would all make more money than they are now. The PRL clubs will however make substantially more money than the Celts. 50% of BT deal plus 11% of LNR deal compared to just 11% of the BT deal for the Celts. The French stand to make even more from a new deal due to the competition between Canal and a new competitor.
However if a new European Cup does not come about the PRL will receive no European money, even for a French/English league. They will also lose their bonus league payments leaving them worse off financially than they are now. By signing the deal they excluded themselves from taking part in any ERC competition, hence it’s all or nothing for them. The LNR have signed a contract for a new European CUP but it is also conditional on having four Tier one nation members before coming into affect. This provides them with the guarantees but it also means they are not prohibited from re-entering the ERC.
This would explain why the RFU are the only ones who have been shown the Deal, and why they have refused to come out against the clubs. Despite not being in favour of the PRL’s actions they now have no choice but to allow a new European Cup or else most of the premier clubs will be bankrupt in time for the World Cup.
Just as well this is all Hypothetical

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

Nah, picked it up on a club unoffy site - clearly doing the rounds!

[nth]

This comment from the ERC CEO yesterday sums up why the LNR & PRL want to jump ship:

"The future is best served by doing what we have all been doing for 18 years"

When you tie that up with the commercial and marketing committee saying

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

and how glacial the ERC have been in taking proactive measures to try and resolve things these last couple of years, it highlights the heady mix of complacency and incompetence at the top of the organisation.

[TJ]

Remember that over the years the HC has been tweaked and tweaked again to enable the English to enter then get more entrants and to give decent chances to the smaller nations? I would say they have done a good job of balancing conflicting demands and keeping the balance right. I was watching games in the first season of the european cup. Its all about balance and also things that have value but not a price.

[Sin é]

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.

[Poorfour]

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.

[broadlandboy]

Some confussion at the involvment of the IRB,but possible as three weeks before the ERC proposed meeting. The PRL said they were willing to talk to the mediator but that they would have no involvment with ERC.IMHO the ERC has been the biggest stumbling block

[Guest]

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.

Think the 'European Rugby Club' might be a translation error.

[Sponsored content]