It's about time the RFU detailed their position and aligned themselves with either the PRL or Rugby.

by maestegmafia Sun 06 Oct 2013, 9:35 pm

First topic message reminder :

Clubs face oblivion if RFU take on PRL over Europe

Posted on October 4, 2013 by Jeff Probyn in Jeff Probyn

Financial Oblivion are the words used by Bath’s owner Bruce Craig when describing the possible fate facing the RaboDirect Pro12 if they don’t join the new Rugby Champions Cup.

There was also a threat of legal action should the IRB or Unions try to interfere or stop it. So there it is: Capitulate or there will be out and out war between the clubs and Unions.

If it is war, the big question is, would the RFU have the courage to do what’s needed to win?

I have no doubt the IRB will be up for the fight given the possible consequences of ceding power to a few rich club owners, or that if the French Union (FFR) remain strongly against any new competition, that their clubs (LNR) will back down rather than face a possible ban from the FFR – but the RFU are different.

Not since the first days of professionalism when Cliff Brittle was chairman have the RFU stood against PRL (the Premiership clubs) or its predecessors and it would be hard for them to take such a stand now, especially this close to the World Cup – but not impossible.

PRL are using the ‘carrot and stick’ approach with the Union in trying to gain their support. The ‘carrot’ is the promise of a more financially stable Premiership by their running and organising the competition in Europe.

The ‘stick’ is possible legal action and the threat of withholding players from international preparations if the RFU refuse to give their backing for the new competition.

If the RFU were strong enough to face up to this challenge from the clubs they could possibly rescue not just the English but the European game from total meltdown.

It would be incredibly painful and could involve going back to those dark days of turmoil and bankruptcy that were so much a part of those early days of the professional game in England – but let’s imagine this possible scenario…

The RFU vote against the formation of the new competition and the PRL retaliate by not releasing players for international duties stating primacy of contract and launch a restraint of trade action against the Union and the IRB.

The RFU then withdraw from negotiations to pay the clubs for player release and announce that they will form six regional teams to take part in Europe.

The RFU enter negotiations with NCA (National Clubs Association) for players to be brought into the EPS along with a number of elite academy players and, at this point, the RFU announce that from now on they will centrally contract the players for regions as they have done for the England Sevens squad.

This would enable the RFU to save the money currently paid to the PRL clubs for playing English Qualified Players and it would allow the RFU to contract only EQP for each region, should they wish to do so.

To avoid any legal or financial repercussions each step would be brought in as contracts between the RFU and PRL end, while at the same time the RFU would withdraw all non-contracted funding from PRL clubs.

With agreement from government, the RFU announce that the academies are to be removed from the Premiership clubs and transferred to universities and colleges in each of the regions along with all accompanying funding.

The PRL clubs would then form a break-away game, but without the funding from the RFU, those that don’t have rich owners prepared to cover the shortfall would quickly find themselves in financial difficulties.

Then the RFU call a special general meeting to create regional teams and restructure the leagues with a return of limited funding for all levels of the game, which is approved.

The season is restructured so that the leagues feed into a county championship that acts as a number of trials for regional selection and the European games are moved to a time that fits better with the French season to appease LNR.

Players in England would have to make tough choices when it comes to contract renewal.

Do they stay with the PRL clubs with no hope of international honours or take a chance and sign for the RFU regions with a chance to play for England and the extra earning potential that brings?

There would be short term consequences for the national side as all the current squad members are contracted to PRL clubs but that would last only until either contracts were renewed or new players emerged through the ranks, which could be just a single season.

The potential outcome would be a stable league structure in England with the RFU funding just six regional teams instead of the 24 clubs in the Premiership and Championship.

The European competitions would remain under Union control, enabling them to continue the role of developing rugby across the whole of the European rugby community while PRL would have caught the bus to their own Financial Oblivion!

by TJ Mon 07 Oct 2013, 9:03 pm

beshocked wrote:Standulstermen surely if the French and English had majority vote as you said they could change things themselves. They cannot because they don't.

england and france have 10 out of 18 votes in the ERC I believe - certainly a majority between them

by HammerofThunor Mon 07 Oct 2013, 9:05 pm

TJ wrote:
No9 wrote:This all upsets me and really p!$$ing me off....

It has nothing to do with Rugby, and is all about greed and the battle of 2 big companies, Sky and BT, who neither care two hoots about the game, only about increasing their market share.

I think most are in agreement that qualification should be based on the top places in each of the leagues and not, as the Pro 12 currently do, guaranteeing qualification from each nation. Also, have no question that the revenue should be split EVENLY between each of the leagues to split amongst qualifying teams/unions. Which makes the BT deal just as unfair giving the English and French bigger shares of the money.

Nope - only the English think this is right and a few others with soft heads. Others are prepared to accept compromise and to right historical anomalies but to think that the pro 12 which consists of four countries can be treated the same as the aviva which has only one country playing in it is nonsense. Its not our fault your structures hanicap you. Its utter arrogance to tell another country how it should run its pro game.

Didn't Mr Lewis say on scrum V that he's willing to go with the qualification and financial split? Pretty sure he did. Nothing on the control of course.

by HammerofThunor Mon 07 Oct 2013, 9:09 pm

TJ wrote:
beshocked wrote:Standulstermen surely if the French and English had majority vote as you said they could change things themselves. They cannot because they don't.

england and france have 10 out of 18 votes in the ERC I believe - certainly a majority between them

They definitely do have that split. The RFU have 2.5 and the PRL have 2.5, RFU have agreed to vote with the PRL (except in exceptional circumstances I would assume). The FFR gave 4 out of 5 to the LNR but can pull them all back (which they have done, which makes it pointless gesture).

The issue (an issue) is that the FFR don't get on with their clubs in a way that makes the PRL and RFU look like best buds. Without those votes it's 5 English votes against the rest.

by TJ Mon 07 Oct 2013, 9:11 pm

so the majority rules? democracy in action? Whistle

If the french and english case was so compelling they could have pushed it thru years ago.

by HammerofThunor Mon 07 Oct 2013, 9:19 pm

Turkeys and Christmas spring to mind. I just want October to be over and pray to Satan himself that it's resolved one way or another. Be it PRL begging for forgiveness, the unions bending over or (my favourite) something a bit more...acceptable to all. No-one should end up 100% happy because there are so many conflicting ideologies/requirements.

Personally an English cup for the PRL and English regions in a Euro cup wouldn't the worst thing.

by TJ Mon 07 Oct 2013, 9:26 pm

Aye - surely even now a compromise can be reached. Engish regions would be a mistake I think - who would they play the rest of the time apart from the HC? Join the rabble?

No need for regionalism in England - you can afford enough pro clubs and more importantly have enough players for the number of teams. It would be a shame to not see Leicester / Leinster again.

by Guest Mon 07 Oct 2013, 9:30 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:Turkeys and Christmas spring to mind. I just want October to be over and pray to Satan himself that it's resolved one way or another. Be it PRL begging for forgiveness, the unions bending over or (my favourite) something a bit more...acceptable to all. No-one should end up 100% happy because there are so many conflicting ideologies/requirements.

Personally an English cup for the PRL and English regions in a Euro cup wouldn't the worst thing.

Exactly. Turkeys and Christmas, and that's why the present system is unworkable. One wanting power over the other. That's why I believe it either has to be Union controlled or club controlled, and it's my belief that control is better in the hands of the Unions.

by Exiledinborders Mon 07 Oct 2013, 9:53 pm

Sin é wrote:
nathan wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
Recwatcher wrote:Match officials cam be offered new contracts, just like players.....

Yes but how many contract are up at the end of this season ? Also, I am sure the ref's would be more loyal to the unions in which they represent, especially when wanting to aspire to ref at international level, also there is a world cup comming up, the only answer I can see is tempting refs like Allain Rolland who is retiring at the end of the season to give it another year. But there are not many like him who are ready to retire.
Do the contracts say they are only allowed to ref in certain leagues/cups? Is there anything to say that couldn't have two contracts on the go?
Information coming out of France is that the IRB/FFR are going to ban every club, official, player etc. from international rugby who participates in any non-IRB sanctioned competition.

And the IRB are not going to sanction this competition.

Courses, accredition ect. lie with the IRB/Unions. Basically, the Franglos would have to set up a whole new organisation, providing coaching, ref training courses etc and develop their own admin because its highly unlikely that players will touch a league that prevents them from playing/officiating in international rugby and I don't see the likes of Sexton, Roberts, Lydiate, ROG etc. hanging around too long in France if they are going to be excluded in participating/coaching etc. in their own countries.

Just the opposite the players will go where the money is and that is in the Top14. If the IRB try this nonsense there will be a split and the PRL/LNR side will have most of the top players and most of the money. The union's money come from international matches but they are not worth much without the top players. How much would a match between England and Wales be worth with England fielding players from Cornish Pirates etc and Wales without half of their top players.

by justified sinner Mon 07 Oct 2013, 10:07 pm

So what you are saying is let's just get rid of the global game and grow English and French clubs interests. Very much the PRL and LNR line, driven by greedy owners.

Ain't gonna happen.

by TJ Mon 07 Oct 2013, 10:10 pm

To go back to the original question - the RFU cannot. they are desperately attempting to keep everyone on board and annoy no one - seeking compromise and consensus. I actually think they have done OK as they have a very week hand to play having conceded too much power to the clubs in the past. They cannot afford a split with either the IRB or the PRL

by Sin é Mon 07 Oct 2013, 10:12 pm

1. The Top 14 will only be able to take so many - and don't forget there are plenty of players from the SH also wanting to play in the Top 14. The money will drop in the Top 14 when there is no competition for players from elsewhere.

2. Without international honours, the players worth won't be as much.

3. Not sure the PRL clubs will want to alienate themselves from the RFU. I'd imagine the players might be a bit unhappy about playing for clubs that will ensure that they have no international rugby.

by Guest Mon 07 Oct 2013, 10:23 pm

Some folk are getting carried away and mixing fact and fiction. Suggest we all just wait and see what occurs in the next few weeks - Unless they have hard facts.....

by HammerofThunor Mon 07 Oct 2013, 10:39 pm

I don't believe for one second the PRL will go against the RFU. Nor have I seen any indication they would other than media speculation. Nor do I think they would be involved in any competition that doesn't have the backing of the unions involved.

The only way the RFU don't have total power over the PRL is if they split completely. All the PRL power is temporarily devolved and needs to be renewed in 2016.

Finally regarding control, would people have an issue if the 'control' was the same as that for the Jeff? So the PRL control the commercial deals, sponsorship, TV, etc. and handle day to day stuff (not sure what day to day stuff there is). But any major changes (to be defined) require union sign off. I see no reason why the clubs would expect more control over the cup than they do over the league.

by TJ Mon 07 Oct 2013, 10:43 pm

Especially if the french clubs would come with them I can see the PRL going for a split - - thats what happened with the premier league in football did it not. Then they could run a non relgation league and their own european cup. It would be the nuclear option in some ways but I am sure its been on the agenda of some of the owners. the question is can the RFU come up with some backbone?

by HammerofThunor Mon 07 Oct 2013, 10:47 pm

But if the PRL split it doesn't matter what the RFU do.

And it can't happen until 2016 because they have a participation agreement.

by LordDowlais Tue 08 Oct 2013, 9:03 am

HammerofThunor wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
Thunor, Roger Lewis said on tele last night that any region/club from Wales who take part will get nothing from the WRU and will not be able to play in the Rabo either.
No he didn't. I've just watched it (unless a different one was aired than is on iplayer). He said if they don't sign a participation agreement they stop being WRU regions and get nothing. Not at one moment did he suggest that if they joined the CC they would be kicked out. Given that the PRL guy was saying that anyone wanting to join would need union approval makes it a null point. To join the CC they need union approval. Only the FFR have suggested they specifically want the ERC to sort it out.

Again that doesn't mean the unions WILL agree but they haven't ruled it out.

I am sure he has said that if they go along with this CC they will not get any referees and they will not be able to play in the Rabo, also he only mentioned about signing an agreement when he was on about the extra money to keep the best players in Wales, and that last bit I would not trust him one bit on, but he did say that the WRU would not support this new competition, and if the regions went with it they would get nothing, unless I was hearing something different.

by HammerofThunor Tue 08 Oct 2013, 9:15 am

The interviewer asked him what happens if the don't sign the agreement, suggesting they might be waiting and considering jumping ship. The consequences are the same for whatever reason. Lewis never mentioned the CC other than to say they need compromise and he's willing to accept the issues on qualification and financial split (and offering his services as a go between). He also didn't mention the control aspect which is a major sticking point.

The host and guests were talking about it. Of course if they DID join a competition without the WRU then they will be dropped (and rightly so). But everything the PRL are saying suggests anyone would need union approval to get involved. The LNR have said they're doing it regardless of what the FFR say (I think, I don't speak French so relying on dodgy translations). The PRL have suggested they MAY challenge an RFU block if they thought it 'unfair'. But they haven't said it would go ahead without the RFU sanction (even if it's forced by a court).

There is a massive difference to a 'team' run competition because the unions have given them the control and a 'team' run competition because they've ignored the unions. The latter simply won't happen (IMO)

by LordDowlais Tue 08 Oct 2013, 9:21 am

So you agree then, it was all about the regions jumping ship, signing agreements with the WRU aside, as I would like to see what this agreement is before I make judgement as I do not trust Roger Lewis, when you get down to the bones of it, they were all of the opinion that if the regions jumped ship, then they would be on their own/dropped.

by HammerofThunor Tue 08 Oct 2013, 9:33 am

No, it was about the regions not signing the participation agreement by the end of the year. Since the PRL have said every will need union approval where exactly are they jumping ship to? Note they had Quentin on just before saying exactly that.

It's more to do with the regions wanting to know what their finances are going to be like if the EC goes. They're using the threat of not signing the Welsh players (and them getting hired outside of the WRU control) and the WRU are using the bigger threat of 'you will cease to exist'. The stuff about the CC was speculation from the show, nothing more (and makes even less sense when they had an interview with a guy saying they would need union backing).

I seem to remember someone saying if the regions don't sign up players before Jan they can sign up for someone else. So this needs sorting before then. I imagine the Regions want so fixed income from the WRU and the WRU want increased control over the players (central contracts) if they give money out of their own pocket.

by LordDowlais Tue 08 Oct 2013, 10:21 am

You must be hearing something different to me then, I know that Roger Lewis said that the WRU will not be backing this new European competition. I am going to watch it again tonight, I am sure the agreement was the extra million pounds to keep the best players in Wales, but I would like to see more about it, and I know he mentioned referees and the Rabo and the regions not being able to play in the league and not use the refs employed by the unions, and that had nothing to do with them signing a new agreement. I am going to watch it again so that I can tell weather you or I am listening to it properly, are there any others on here who watched it ? Perhpas somebody else could give their veiws on the interveiw.

by HammerofThunor Tue 08 Oct 2013, 10:27 am

When did they say that? They released that statement saying that their teams will not be playing in a competition not sanctioned by them or the IRB. Nothing specific.

I was listening to it with one earphone in while having a conversation with my wife and brother so I might have misheard.

by VietGwentRevisited Tue 08 Oct 2013, 10:50 am

Roger Lewis has made very clear he will not accept any European Competition where clubs have a say in what happens.

Now it seems fairly clear that the Regions have spoken to PRL/LNR about a possible structure. It is almost certain that Irish provinces and the IRFU have had informal contacts. However all that will come to naught.

We seem to have a lot of people on here who are 100% on one side or the other. Those who buy in to the PRL story (and why woudl you they have been proven to lack any impartiality) and those who believe everything coming out of ERC mouthpieces (again why would you, they too are biased and worse corrupt).

I am afraid the situation is far more complicated than the current debate which seems to revert to "my dad is bigger than yours" style arguments, with a lot of untruths being put forward as fact, and a lot of noise and whining thus generated.

I love the european cup, but I fear that the time for talking passed in the summer - if it had not already gone when PRL agreed a deal for their rights and ERC signed a contract for TV promising something that was not theirs to deliver.

Just those two facts alone are enough to suggest that neither ERC nor PRL are fit to run any cross border competition.

by LordDowlais Tue 08 Oct 2013, 10:54 am

Roger Lewis has made very clear he will not accept any European Competition where clubs have a say in what happens.

thank goodness for that, I thought I was going senile there for a moment.

by HammerofThunor Tue 08 Oct 2013, 10:56 am

VietGwentRevisited wrote:Roger Lewis has made very clear he will not accept any European Competition where clubs have a say in what happens.

Now it seems fairly clear that the Regions have spoken to PRL/LNR about a possible structure. It is almost certain that Irish provinces and the IRFU have had informal contacts. However all that will come to naught.

We seem to have a lot of people on here who are 100% on one side or the other. Those who buy in to the PRL story (and why woudl you they have been proven to lack any impartiality) and those who believe everything coming out of ERC mouthpieces (again why would you, they too are biased and worse corrupt).

I am afraid the situation is far more complicated than the current debate which seems to revert to "my dad is bigger than yours" style arguments, with a lot of untruths being put forward as fact, and a lot of noise and whining thus generated.

I love the european cup, but I fear that the time for talking passed in the summer - if it had not already gone when PRL agreed a deal for their rights and ERC signed a contract for TV promising something that was not theirs to deliver.

Just those two facts alone are enough to suggest that neither ERC nor PRL are fit to run any cross border competition.

When did he say that? Given that the RRW and WRU have equal votes on the ERC that's a bit of a u-turn. Are you sure he didn't say the unions had to have overall control?

by SecretFly Tue 08 Oct 2013, 11:00 am

VietGwentRevisited wrote:

I love the european cup, but I fear that the time for talking passed in the summer - if it had not already gone when PRL agreed a deal [that was not theirs to deliver] for rights and ERC signed a contract for TV promising something that was not theirs to deliver.

Just those two facts alone are enough to suggest that neither ERC nor PRL are fit to run any cross border competition.

by VietGwentRevisited Tue 08 Oct 2013, 11:21 am

that is arguable SecretFly - depending on the wording of the agreement.

However that is splitting hairs. Both sides effectively did similar things. anyone who decries one but not the other is surely being a hypocrite? We see that a lot in this debate - and people get so aggressive that we see very defensive stances being taken.

Seems to me we are effectively seeing:

McCafferty is pondlife (I agree) therefore everything English clubs say are lies.
Because English clubs lie, therefore ERC/Pro12 clubs/Unions are only telling the truth.

followed by "HOW DARE YOU NOT SEE OUR SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT!!!!!" from the English.

This attitude by posters does not help - as unless we actually accept that there are things to discuss and negotiate it just becomes a slagging match.

Now this is how our administrators have behaved. We as fans should try and rise above that.

by SecretFly Tue 08 Oct 2013, 11:46 am

VietGwentRevisited wrote:that is arguable SecretFly - depending on the wording of the agreement.

However that is splitting hairs.

It is arguable and therefore it was pointed that you left it out of your synopsis assesssment of PRL's position but made it part of ERC's position.

Philip Browne is IRFU head honcho. You nor I have attended any of the meetings or discussed any of the details of any plans (in detail). You nor I have seen any of the documents that must have been passed around during such meetings so that all sides know the details of PRL/BT proposals.

So what is clear from my reading is that Philip Browne did see documents and details which left him pretty damn angry that an outside rugby organisation (PRL) would claim to have already made a money deal with a broadcaster that included TV rights to English premiership club games held in a different National jurisdiction, against teams controlled by a different independent organisation.

Philip Browne believes he has seen enough in print or otherwise to claim anger that such a proposition was put to him as a negotiating tool. "Here, look - we want to make a deal with you about a new European rugby event and here's some of the deal we've already signed with a broadcasting company that includes games held in your territory."

That's negotiation? That's not claiming rights where none exist? That's not plenty cause for sides digging in and saying "you come to us with a deal like that and expect a roll-over?"

The more I think of McCafferty the more I see the resemblence between him and Bernie Ecclestone. It's a personal crusade for a personal take-over of European club rugby. He offers himself as the visionary and predicts himself as long term Emperor, calling the shots and using the guillotine on anyone who steps away from VisionMcCafferty.

by VietGwentRevisited Tue 08 Oct 2013, 11:50 am

I accept all that.

Still think it is hypocritical to deride one side but not the other.

Both were at fault and both should be excluded from discussions.

But we are beyond what is fair and right as no-one is willing to listen, but everyone is prepared to shout.

by HammerofThunor Tue 08 Oct 2013, 11:52 am

Does it include games played outside of England? I didn't think that was clarified.

by VietGwentRevisited Tue 08 Oct 2013, 11:57 am

HammerofThunor wrote:Does it include games played outside of England? I didn't think that was clarified.

From memory the original reports claimed all English matches in any future European competition - while later statements have indicated it was only home matches. Water was further muddied by suggestions that money would be pooled to enable "poorer" countries to get higher income.

none of us on here know the truth. I very much doubt anyone but the PRL and BTs lawyers actually know the truth.

What I do know is we are seeing a lot of bluster from a lot of club chairmen and a lot of Union bosses. all of whom should shut up and talk to each other in private.

by HammerofThunor Tue 08 Oct 2013, 12:01 pm

Some reports said games involving the English teams, others said games in England.

But the PRL said they believed they had the right to sell them due to the RFU agreement. That would only include the English home games.

by SecretFly Tue 08 Oct 2013, 12:20 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:Does it include games played outside of England? I didn't think that was clarified.

You didn't think it was clarified because like me and others here, you don't walk into the meetings, have phone calls, looks at documents, see financial printouts etc, etc. You don't see the detail.

And so I listen to people who have seen the detail. Philip Browne is one of them. It is in his best interests, and it is his obligation, to be fully informed about the proposals put to him. He has to have more than chat to work with. He needs to be given facts and figures about the deal between BT and PRL, so that his financial and admin people can peruse it all.

So again, what's clear to me from his statements is that I was kinda right all along in what I perceived as a large degree of arrogance and presumption from an external rugby organisation that would bring a deal already done for TV rights within a different rugby playing jurisdiction and claim it a good platform to begin a negotiation on any "fair" and "equal" future. I see it, and I think Browne sees it, as a blatant declaration of an attempted buy-out of the IRFU itself:

"From here on in, we of the PRL will look after the interests of the Irish Provinces and you will take what money is offered to you and sit in a corner until International windows crop up."

It's just not a realistic platform to bring to any negotiating table. McCafferty has watched too many Godfather movies.

And just in case there are more questions for me.... here's what McCafferty thinks of what I and Browne think - he agrees with us.

He says it's comical for the ERC to continually suggest it has already done a deal with SKY for a extension to the HEC when the reality is that PRL will not be doing business with SKY anymore ( it's business not ERC's) and have already said they are leaving the ERC operation (it's business not the ERC's). So he agrees that it is laughable to claim you have a deal that does not require the input and agreement of the teams or jurisdictions involved. SKY doesn't have the right to claim ownership of Premiership TV coverage. Neither does PRL/BT have the right to claim ownership of Irish Provincial TV coverage.

by VietGwentRevisited Tue 08 Oct 2013, 12:41 pm

How did Philip Browne see a document he had no right to see?

You are assuming things, things and applying your own spin on events.

Do you support ERCs right to sell a tournament where they guaranteed Elite inclusion from England and France?

Both parties were morally wrong - and until people accept that fact there is no going forward.

by SecretFly Tue 08 Oct 2013, 1:14 pm

VietGwentRevisited wrote:How did Philip Browne see a document he had no right to see?

You are assuming things, things and applying your own spin on events.

He has a right to see documents.... he has every right to see the details of 'agreements' he is being invited to agree to. Wink

These are closed door official meetings that have taken place. They may play poker and have drinks later on but first they discuss (in detail) what they fly in and out of hotels to discuss - the details behind the the propaganda that exists in the public domain.

So now you'd claim that external rugby organisations throughout Europe are being asked to sign a blank piece of paper without a contract written on it? Did the PRL allow the French to look at any documents they have? Of course they allowed the French to discuss (in detail) the BT/PRL proposal.

by VietGwentRevisited Tue 08 Oct 2013, 1:31 pm

He has a right to see things pertaining to what he is being asked to sign up to. However discussions had not got that far before ERC reacted in the way they did.

So, yet again, do you just disapprove of the PRL actions or do you agree both PRL and ERC were wrong?

I firmly believe both should be removed from all and any discussions going forward.

by LordDowlais Tue 08 Oct 2013, 1:32 pm

The fact of the matter is, that at this moment in time, the ERC HAVE the right to the HC, SKY own the tele rights, this was negotiated last time, now this is coming to it's end and other TV companies can bid for the rights, what right do the PRL have to just sell the HC to BT without ANY involvement from any other union TV company ECT. It's like me selling somebody else's house, but I will tell the owners, not to worry as all your family will get an equal share, but I will decide how it is shared out, if you do not like it then I am walking away and nobody can buy the house, what business of mine is that, and this is the point I am trying to get across, the PRL do not have the right to do what they are doing in any form or guise, if they walk away and the clubs follow the HC will still be there, as shown by the ERC announcing that Italy will hold the 2015 final, but the Franglos will not be there. Let's be honest, the French do not give two f's about the HC, I even remember a side a few years ago deliberately not scoring a try as they did not want to qualify for the damn thing, so what make's the English think that the French will take any other competition seriously, they only care about their own league, the whole thing should have been put up for auction properly and the PRL and the ERC/RFU should have all been involved, on the face of it I bet the ERC would have gone for the BT deal if it was not already sold to the PRL.

by VietGwentRevisited Tue 08 Oct 2013, 1:38 pm

Again,

I agree with much of what you say - but suggest that ERC did the exact same thing. We can argue about who was worse than the other till we are blue in the face - but they both did bad things.

by LordDowlais Tue 08 Oct 2013, 1:46 pm

VietGwentRevisited wrote:Again,

I agree with much of what you say - but suggest that ERC did the exact same thing. We can argue about who was worse than the other till we are blue in the face - but they both did bad things.

Look I know the ERC are not perfect, but they are the one's who were put in charge by each union to deal with all things European, that includes the HC plus any other European competitions so I would think that would cover both the Amlin and the Six Nations, I could be wrong about the six nations, so it was the ERC's job to negotiate another deal for the HC because that is what all our unions want them to do, now, would you agree, that seeing as it was all the unions who put the ERC in place, that they had the right to negotiate a new deal ? Now, all of a sudden, a new committee of people who are fed up with the "old farts" at their union decided to go off on a tangent and do something that they have no right to do with something they do not even own, without even considering ALL the unions from each country involved. Do you think this is right ? The current deal might not be fair, but that is not the argument, the argument is, that the PRL have gone and done all this when they shouldn't have.

by SecretFly Tue 08 Oct 2013, 1:52 pm

VietGwentRevisited wrote:He has a right to see things pertaining to what he is being asked to sign up to. However discussions had not got that far before ERC reacted in the way they did.

So, yet again, do you just disapprove of the PRL actions or do you agree both PRL and ERC were wrong?

I firmly believe both should be removed from all and any discussions going forward.

VietGwent, I've already stated what I believe as regards ERC and PRL. You must try to read to the end of my comments... I know, it can be a trial sometimes Wink

. but I did say not too long ago:

"So he agrees that it is laughable to claim you have a deal that does not require the input and agreement of the teams or jurisdictions involved. SKY doesn't have the right to claim ownership of Premiership TV coverage. Neither does PRL/BT have the right to claim ownership of Irish Provincial TV coverage."

That means the SKY 'deal' that ERC have signed in the absense of PRL approval. They have no more the right to sign a TV deal without the approval of PRL than PRL have the right to sign a deal without the approval of WRU, IRFU SRU etc. You don't sign deals for other people's rights - ever.... unless that's the agreement, as it originally was with the ERC.

You see you talk about removing both the ERC and PRL from discussions, but how can you do so? The PRL represent a sizable chunk of rugby in Europe (the English club bit) that needs to be negotiated with for a solution. How can you remove the PRL without removing the Premiership clubs from discussions? The Premiership clubs have chosen who speaks for them at the rugby admin table and it's the PRL. Who would negotiate for them if PRL was banned?

And on to the ERC. What is the ERC? Some here talk about the ERC as if it was an organisation remote from the main players - an organisation butting in on something that doesn't belong to it.
The ERC was created by ALL the parties that continue to have a vested interest in a Euroean rugby event. PRL are shareholders in ERC. They are not removed from it, they are part of it. So too are all the main 6N unions - All sharholders in the company they themselves formed to run a European 'club' competition.

So who speaks for all the unions and the club organisations if the ERC and PRL is banned from talks. In truth, all they are is names. The Unions and clubs are already negotiating independently from within the structure of the ERC itself. The ERC is nothing and has no power without its shareholders. It's shareholders will remain the same beasts regardless of the ERC name being consigned to history.
If a new company emerges to run a truly European event on a equal footing, then again it will consist of the same Unions, the same clubs, the same humanbeings talking to each other around a table. Banning names won't work... they'll just become new names and the same issues will remain.

by Jenifer McLadyboy Tue 08 Oct 2013, 1:53 pm

VietGwentRevisited wrote:

I firmly believe both should be removed from all and any discussions going forward.

How do you remove them though?

Who will represent the English clubs? The RFU?

by HammerofThunor Tue 08 Oct 2013, 1:57 pm

The RFU are part of the ERC so they're gone. Maybe we could get the other unions of Europe to run it. None of the big ones or the clubs. That'll be fun.

by Sin é Tue 08 Oct 2013, 2:01 pm

VietGwentRevisited wrote:Again,

I agree with much of what you say - but suggest that ERC did the exact same thing. We can argue about who was worse than the other till we are blue in the face - but they both did bad things.

As far as I know, BT don't have a broadcasting license in the Republic of Ireland, Italy or France (unlike Sky). How was that going to work? Were they hoping that Sky would buy the rights from them to these countries?

by SecretFly Tue 08 Oct 2013, 2:05 pm

So all the Unions and sundry outfits that were part of the ERC are now history? Hmmm, good chess move, Hammer!

That has solved the whole deal and onwards an upwards we go now with the Monty Python Circus Wink

All the Unions and indeed the club organisations that have a part share in ERC (PRL, FFR) are heretofore defunct.

Glad that's all over. What'll we all watch this weekend now? Don't attempt to get me interested in football!

by lostinwales Tue 08 Oct 2013, 2:09 pm

Sin é wrote:
VietGwentRevisited wrote:Again,

I agree with much of what you say - but suggest that ERC did the exact same thing. We can argue about who was worse than the other till we are blue in the face - but they both did bad things.
As far as I know, BT don't have a broadcasting license in the Republic of Ireland, Italy or France (unlike Sky). How was that going to work? Were they hoping that Sky would buy the rights from them to these countries?

Well... I shouldnt be telling you this but right after the PRL take over the world BT are going to take over the world's telecommunications and TV

by SecretFly Tue 08 Oct 2013, 2:14 pm

lostinwales wrote:
Sin é wrote:
VietGwentRevisited wrote:Again,

I agree with much of what you say - but suggest that ERC did the exact same thing. We can argue about who was worse than the other till we are blue in the face - but they both did bad things.
As far as I know, BT don't have a broadcasting license in the Republic of Ireland, Italy or France (unlike Sky). How was that going to work? Were they hoping that Sky would buy the rights from them to these countries?
Well... I shouldnt be telling you this but right after the PRL take over the world BT are going to take over the world's telecommunications and TV

McCafferty and his cat:

http://becominglayla.com/wp-content/uploads/bond-villain.jpg

by LordDowlais Tue 08 Oct 2013, 2:14 pm

Lets face it the more I look into this, the more the PRL's idea looks foundationless and the only argument they have is to not play in any HC at all, so they are willing to bit their noses off to spite their face just to be able to have a deal with BT which will amount to nothing as the other unions will not be part of it. All we are waiting on is for the RFU to come out and tell us where they stand on this just like the other unions have.

by SecretFly Tue 08 Oct 2013, 2:21 pm

Who is RFU chief Exec these days anyway? Mr Oddjob? His silence is omenous...keep your garden gnomes safely stashed in the garage for a month or two.

by LordDowlais Tue 08 Oct 2013, 2:24 pm

I cannot see the RFU upsetting the applecart, not with hosting a world cup looming.

by Casartelli Tue 08 Oct 2013, 2:24 pm

There should be a law against selling stuff that you don't own.

by Irish Londoner Tue 08 Oct 2013, 2:26 pm

Casartelli wrote:There should be a law against selling stuff that you don't own.

Post Office privatisation ? Oooh a bit of politics there, my names Ben Elton goodnight!

by Sponsored content