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

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!

Hound of Harrow wrote:

SecretFly wrote: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.

Neither the RFU CEO or President have been silent on the subject, SF. This was what they had to say about a month ago...



http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/sep/17/heineken-cup-rugby-union-world-cup

Note the bit about the RFU being in a 'difficult position'. Ian Ritchie is far more astute than I think you realise.

Until the RFU have something more concrete to say, then it is right that they say no more.

I trust Ritchie and Beaumont to be working hard to persuade the PRL representatives to attend the (farcically delayed) ERC meeting on 23rd Oct.

The timescale given for anyone else wanting to join the RCC of 31st Oct is, I believe, to allow some meaningful discussion/negotiation to take place at the 23rd October meeting to rescue the HC.

Yes, there has now been some concessions offered by certain people from the Pro12 unions, but none of these have been formally proposed or debated at the extremely intermittent meetings that ERC have convened since the issue surfaced 18 months ago.

The most interesting inside information from that article is Lux saying... Referring to harmony and the ERC continuing to run a great tournament..

"It's not possible. I went to a meeting last week where the chief executive of the RFU Ian Ritchie and the president Bill Beaumont clearly said they had told their clubs there would be no new competition. All the federations hope that ERC continues to run the [European] competitions."

HammerofThunor wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:And they said they wouldn't permit their teams in a competition without the approval of their union (obviously) and the IRB (obviously). It doesn't say anything specifically about the Champions Cup or the ERC. They were rather pointless statements really as they didn't say anything. The only thing they DID do is suggest that the unions were willing to work outside the ERC (and that was only by omission).

Yep the erc was the only notable omission. I still don't see that they would be willing to work in a competition that isn't heavily union controlled or rather influenced but you're right. As things stand though they won't work outside the erc. They might be persuaded to do so if details of the BT deal were announced and there could be negotiation on monetary distribution but given that the PRL have already stated they won't budge on the money I doubt they will go there.

So Roger Lewis said that, and Roger Lewis is the head of WRU, so unless the WRU approve of the new competition then the regions will have to jump ship to play in it, and seeing as the WRU will not back a competition that is run by the clubs then you can work it out for yourself.

I know you would love for the Welsh/Irish/ Scottish to come and play with you and you are turning anything said out of contexed into a vague hope to assure yourself that the PRL are going to win, but truth be told, none of the Rabo teams at this moment in time, look as though they will be playing in this BT champions cup competition.

When has the WRU said they would not back a competition run by the clubs (clubs being teams, not just 'clubs')?

All unions bar the RFU, who are apparently still fumbling around regarding their stance, stated on the 26th of September 2013, that they will only back a union run competition. Only two weeks ago, your memory is getting worse.

From ESPN.com

The Unions in charge of the game in Italy, Scotland, Wales and Ireland have all released statements saying their respective teams will not be taking part in any European tournament which does not have the approval of the relevant Unions or the International Rugby Board.

Fantastic selective reading there again. According to you the unions have said their teams 'will not be taking part in any European tournament which does not have the approval of the relevant Unions or the International Rugby Board'.

Says squat all about who is going to run it - just that they have to approve of it and there is a big gap right there

The question asked was "When has the WRU said they would not back a competition run by the clubs (clubs being teams, not just 'clubs')?".

The answer was the 26th of September 2013. I answered the question. You repeated the answer.

Five of the six unions involved, want a union run competition. They do not want to be part of this PRL concept cup. NO ONE appears to want to join. McCafferty is so desperate that he is threatening the welsh regions with deadlines for joining. BT are distancing themselves from the PRL too. Recently announcing that they didn't mean to cause all these issues.

As far as anyone can see this Concept European alternative that McCafferty has dreamed up is dead in the water.

Those statements say nothing about who runs them. Just that they have to be sanctioned by the unions. Like every single competition.

Hammer - not really sure that it matters what has been specifically said or not said. The important point as you mention is that it has to be sanctioned by the unions.

Putting myself in the unions shoes and probably feeling bloody annoyed with the PRLs actions and knowing full well that the IRB back the union point of view, if I am being forced away from the ERC structure which I was happy and familiar with, I am pretty unlikely to support the structures and controls that my potenial assassin has just come up with.

You seem educated so readings isn't an issue. You're quick to point out that headlines aren't actually representative of the the situation when it's a negative story about Wales in some way so I know you're aware of that. But still you insist on the saying the RFU said the BT deal is illegal.

This is the article you mentioned.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/9544678/RFU-refuses-to-endorse-Premiership-Rugbys-bumper-152-million-TV-rights-deal-with-BT-vision.html

The RFU quote is

“The RFU will continue to liaise with all stakeholders, in order to help reach a conclusion which benefits all,” said the RFU in a statement last night. “While the RFU has not given consent to Premiership Rugby to grant European Broadcasting Rights, we believe it is important to work with them and with all parties involved to find common ground. We anticipate that this process will begin at the ERC stakeholder meeting on Tuesday.”

Note "illegal" isn't mentioned there at all. Note there is no mention that the RFU won't give their consent, just that they haven't. They also have to give their consent for the league games post 2016 (the deal was up to 2018) as that is beyond the current Participation agreement. It was Lux who said it was illegal.

But anyway. I think you're you're a snake and have done ever since your disgusting comments when Chris Ashton was glassed. Nothing you've said since then has weakened that perception. I congratulate you. You won the internet.

I'm offski

Hound of Harrow wrote:

SecretFly wrote: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.

Neither the RFU CEO or President have been silent on the subject, SF. This was what they had to say about a month ago...



http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/sep/17/heineken-cup-rugby-union-world-cup

Note the bit about the RFU being in a 'difficult position'. Ian Ritchie is far more astute than I think you realise.

Until the RFU have something more concrete to say, then it is right that they say no more.

I trust Ritchie and Beaumont to be working hard to persuade the PRL representatives to attend the (farcically delayed) ERC meeting on 23rd Oct.

The timescale given for anyone else wanting to join the RCC of 31st Oct is, I believe, to allow some meaningful discussion/negotiation to take place at the 23rd October meeting to rescue the HC.

Yes, there has now been some concessions offered by certain people from the Pro12 unions, but none of these have been formally proposed or debated at the extremely intermittent meetings that ERC have convened since the issue surfaced 18 months ago.

Thanks for that Hound.  

I'll just say I didn't make any assumptions about Mr Ian Richie's astuteness, a man I have scant knowledge of.  I simply asked who he was.  

And as he said... the matter needs to be dealt with "urgently" and therefore you get a sense of why people might become impatient with the line that the RFU are in a difficult position.  We all I'm sure appreciate that; but it's the position we've all been dealt - heads in the sand aren't going to help progress the debate that appears to be an urgent one.  Yes, I'm sure there is a bundle of chat going on in the background.  RFU though must realise they are central to the very debate as the PRL are their pet

It certainly is a position we have all been dealt and the sooner Ritchie, Beaumont and Andrew state their line the sooner this will be resolved.

I wonder if the PRL are going to express their disgust on how the PRO12 teams have rested all their top players for Europe.
Got to say looking at the team sheets over the last month in the PRO12 the daft argument made by the English that the PRO12 have it easy because its a weak competition who never play the International lads.

SF - I posted that to inform after you likened a man (who you admittedly did't know) to a Bond villain. Check the guy's credentials before posting stuff is all I ask.

Rather interesting is the make up of the teams from 16 years ago.


http://m.ercrugby.com/eng/matchcentre/fixtures_heineken_cup.php?includeref=411&season=1997-1998&round=1

It was a Celtic conspiracy back then.









Just trying to add a bit of lightheartedness.

maestegmafia wrote:HT you always resort to insults which is pathetic. Every time you ask for evidence to back up something that is in the press it is shown to you and you forget time and time again and resort to insulting.

12th of September 2012

"The RFU refuse to endorse Premier Rugby's BT deal"

Oh the irony

DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:I wonder if the PRL are going to express their disgust on how the PRO12 teams have rested all their top players for Europe.
Got to say looking at the team sheets over the last month in the PRO12 the daft argument made by the English that the PRO12 have it easy because its a weak competition who never play the International lads.

Come on... we have debated the rest/rotation situation enough. Some of this is enforced by the unions, and some it is a policy by certain teams.

Every team* wants to go into the HC to maximise their chances of doing well. Sarries made 12 changes against Wasps last weekend (and still won ). Mind you, they were the only team in the AP to make that many changes. Definitely concentrating on this weekend.

* some of the French teams go the other way and exasperate me by fielding weak teams in HC away games, as they often do in the T14.

HammerofThunor wrote:But anyway. I think you're you're a snake and have done ever since your disgusting comments when Chris Ashton was glassed. Nothing you've said since then has weakened that perception. I congratulate you. You won the internet.

I'm offski

Congratulations, Maes. Is that two posters in two days?

Come on Luckless, I have not seen Maes do anything wrong on this thread, he has backed up what he is saying with actual evidence, Hammer on the other hand seems to be like a kid wishing for something at Christmas. If he believes hard enough then it will happen, whilst I do not agree with insulting people, a forum is all about debate, if people cannot debate in a tidy manner then perhaps an internet forum is not the place for them.

LordDowlais wrote:If people cannot debate in a tidy manner then perhaps an internet forum is not the place for them.

That applies to all posters, Dowlais.

LordDowlais wrote:Come on Luckless, I have not seen Maes do anything wrong on this thread, he has backed up what he is saying with actual evidence, Hammer on the other hand seems to be like a kid wishing for something at Christmas. If he believes hard enough then it will happen, whilst I do not agree with insulting people, a forum is all about debate, if people cannot debate in a tidy manner then perhaps an internet forum is not the place for them.

One, possibly two long standing and decent posters leave and yet 'nobody has done anything wrong' - its like the European rugby debate in miniature.

Debate is a great thing, and I appreciate you cant always expect respect (though it would be nice). Debate shouldnt just be about shouting anyone with a dissenting opinion down.

Hound of Harrow wrote:

DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:I wonder if the PRL are going to express their disgust on how the PRO12 teams have rested all their top players for Europe.
Got to say looking at the team sheets over the last month in the PRO12 the daft argument made by the English that the PRO12 have it easy because its a weak competition who never play the International lads.

Come on... we have debated the rest/rotation situation enough. Some of this is enforced by the unions, and some it is a policy by certain  teams.

Every team* wants to go into the HC to maximise their chances of doing well. Sarries made 12 changes against Wasps last weekend (and still won ). Mind you, they were the only team in the AP to make that many changes. Definitely concentrating on this weekend.

* some of the French teams go the other way and exasperate me by fielding weak teams in HC away games, as they often do in the T14.

It's not about concentrating on the HC. It's about playing the long game - keeping players well rested throughout the season. An injury ravaged Wasps at home was the perfect opportunity to give guys a much needed rest. With Toulouse and Saints to come in the next few weeks a week off was needed for some players like Borthwick and Burger. As last season showed you can be well set for 90% of the season but if you don't fire right at the business end it's all for nothing.

Saints and Tigers didn't have the luxury of rotation.

Saints in particular have a brutal workout - Leicester away,Castres away, Ospreys home,Saracens home. Could play into Sarries' hands that.

So how come the teams in the Pro12 get slated for rotating their squad? We've been asking you lot this for years.

Even if the rabo teams rotate and rest players more - this is nothing to do with the PRL. Its up to each union how its places in the european cup are allocated.

I know, but I just think it's ironic given how they whine about it all the time. It's amazing how greed can warp people's minds.

Who has been whining about it on this thread? I have acknowledged that all teams rest and rotate players throughout the season. Some changes are union enforced and others are by choice, as beshocked said.

What has player rotation got to do with this debate ?

You've been whining about it for years. The PRL and LNR have whined about it too.

Deluded started it...

This whole situation is deeply depressing.Oil and water scenario means that resolution is impossible.The dark side of me sees the end of our Game as the respective egos and agendas rip Rugby apart.Grim.

Taffineastbourne wrote:This whole situation is deeply depressing.Oil and water scenario means that resolution is impossible.The dark side of me sees the end of our Game as the respective egos and agendas rip Rugby apart.Grim.

I can't see the unions, (including the RFU), or IRB let that happen. It is in no ones interest to do so. Which is why when Lux shows such a promising insight that the RFU will not back the PRL we have some hope.

Agreed Taff. Let's hope something positive happens on 23rd.

Definitely.

So far as we know the only people not going to be present are the LNR and PRL reps, Bouscatel and Wheeler.

When all parties have right on their side it always ends nastily.

maestegmafia wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:This whole situation is deeply depressing.Oil and water scenario means that resolution is impossible.The dark side of me sees the end of our Game as the respective egos and agendas rip Rugby apart.Grim.

I can't see the unions, (including the RFU), or IRB let that happen. It is in no ones interest to do so. Which is why when Lux shows such a promising insight that the RFU will not back the PRL we have some hope.

Hope of what? I think a court hearing for restraint of trade will follow any such decision. I suspect that is why the RFU a not saying much.

I am now pretty much resigned to the English and French teams not being in the HC next year and probably not setting up a new competition. Whether or not the HC continues with rubbish French and English sides i do not know but it will be pretty meaningless.

The following year I suspect a new competition will start on pretty much PRL/LNR terms.

Exiledinborders wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:This whole situation is deeply depressing.Oil and water scenario means that resolution is impossible.The dark side of me sees the end of our Game as the respective egos and agendas rip Rugby apart.Grim.

I can't see the unions, (including the RFU), or IRB let that happen. It is in no ones interest to do so. Which is why when Lux shows such a promising insight that the RFU will not back the PRL we have some hope.

Hope of what? I think a court hearing for restraint of trade will follow any such decision. I suspect that is why the RFU a not saying much.

I am now pretty much resigned to the English and French teams not being in the HC next year and probably not setting up a new competition. Whether or not the HC continues with rubbish French and English sides i do not know but it will be pretty meaningless.

The following year I suspect a new competition will start on pretty much PRL/LNR terms.

While the English clubs might win that battle,French law is different and LNR can't win on those grounds (I'm not an expert on this but it's been widely reported that this is true).That would leave the English free to set up and play in a a European competition but with no other major European nation to play against.

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/anglo-french-club-alliance-means-war-over-future-of-european-rugby-1.1537664?page=1

Unlike the English clubs, who only need the approval of an RFU more concerned with hosting the 2015 World Cup, for the French clubs to enter such a competition they would need the approval of the French Federation and the French Minister of Sport.

This is enshrined in French law since 1998, and the FFR, as well as the IRB, have re-iterated their opposition to the Anglo-French clubs’ proposed new competition.

There is no restraint of trade. the PRL clubs can join the european cup as set up by the unions. they could set up their own tourney.

The top teams from England and France will probably not be in the tournament - as we all know the time for negotiations passed ages ago. Whether the tournament exists then becomes up to News Corp.

The English and the French have a variety of issues with the current set-up. Whilst most may be down to money, we were rather stupid to refuse to even talk to them about these issues. I feel we forced this issue and basically issued a "status-quo, take it or leave it deal" a couple of years ago.

Now I am pretty sure what PRL want is not fair, that does not mean that the status quo was fair. We have seen numerous players and bosses recently from Wales, Ireland and Scotland suggest that changes would be fair. It is true that per team England and France get less (though per Union they get more). Is that fair? Surely playing expenses are the same on an individual team basis. some say that England and France should change their playing structures in line with other countries (yet get offended when the reverse is suggested) but without those extra teams and matches, revenues from TV and Sponsorship would drop.

France of course have very different objections to those expressed by PRL. French clubs are really in a battle for control with FFR, while English seem to care most about money.

If we had agreed to talk to them when they raised the issues, hell we could easily have split them then and won the arguement. As it is by refusing to talk, by signing a TV deal where we made promises we cannot keep for an amount substantially less than had been proposed for matches "under PRL control" , by proposing a tournament that abandoned the smaller countries and teams - well by doing all that we surrendered the moral high ground that PRL were desperate to give us with that buffoon of a mouthpiece they possess.

VietGwentRevisited wrote:The top teams from England and France will probably not be in the tournament - as we all know the time for negotiations passed ages ago. Whether the tournament exists then becomes up to News Corp.

The English and the French have a variety of issues with the current set-up. Whilst most may be down to money, we were rather stupid to refuse to even talk to them about these issues. I feel we forced this issue and basically issued a "status-quo, take it or leave it deal" a couple of years ago.

Now I am pretty sure what PRL want is not fair, that does not mean that the status quo was fair. We have seen numerous players and bosses recently from Wales, Ireland and Scotland suggest that changes would be fair. It is true that per team England and France get less (though per Union they get more). Is that fair? Surely playing expenses are the same on an individual team basis. some say that England and France should change their playing structures in line with other countries (yet get offended when the reverse is suggested) but without those extra teams and matches, revenues from TV and Sponsorship would drop.

France of course have very different objections to those expressed by PRL. French clubs are really in a battle for control with FFR, while English seem to care most about money.

If we had agreed to talk to them when they raised the issues, hell we could easily have split them then and won the arguement. As it is by refusing to talk, by signing a TV deal where we made promises we cannot keep for an amount substantially less than had been proposed for matches "under PRL control" , by proposing a tournament that abandoned the smaller countries and teams - well by doing all that we surrendered the moral high ground that PRL were desperate to give us with that buffoon of a mouthpiece they possess.

I dont think you belong here that is all much too sensible..

Now, now liw - we don't want another one leaving.