End in sight to Euro Mess?

First topic message reminder :

Reports in the Times today that agreement may be close for pan-European competitions for the next 8 seasons including Pro12/AP/T14 teams. (cannot link due to paywall).

It seems that in the last few weeks Ian Ritchie has been hosting a series of private meetings with all relevant parties to try and thrash out a deal. Interestingly PRLs representative in these meetings has been Bruce Craig - Mark McCafferty being sidelined?
Any way it seems that compromises have been reached on qualification methods, division of finances and management of the new competition. It would seem ERC are out, but the clubs will only have a say in the new competition not the full control they demanded. It even suggests we may see BT and SKY operate as joint broadcasters!!

Supposedly this new competition is almost agreed by all the relevant stakeholders (primarily the 6 Unions but also PRL/LNR). It may all be journalistic bluster - but I see no reason why a NewsCorp paper should be peddling this line if they did not believe it. After all until very recently their stories have always been heaping the utmost scorn on PRL/RFU.


So if a deal is struck that gives us a true set of pan-European competitions I can only be really pleased. I do hope that the story is true about the private meetings - as there has been far too much public posturing from people that only serves to antagonise. A public argument is much harder to heal than a private one.

So if true I guess congrats to Ian Ritchie who has kept RFU out of the limelight. Accused of sticking his head in the sands, it would suggest that he has actually been doing something useful away from the glare of the press and internet.

I need a shower now, cannot believe I just said something decent about the RFU.

Metal Tiger wrote:

TJ wrote:

Metal Tiger wrote:And why should those 4 unions get more than the rest? How is that fair?

tehy do not - they get less.  at the momnet its 6 english, 6 french, 3 irish, 3 welsh, 2 scots, 2 italian

In the current ERC structure the Rabo gets the controlling votes (4 unions v 2), the lions share of the money whilst fielding the fewest teams and generating the least revenue.

Wrong on all counts. the english get 5 votes, the french 5, the rest 2 each. the english and french get half the profits to share, the rest get the other half shared. te revenue is generated by all.

at least be factually correct please

Well, no mystiroakey, sorry! If it is only about leagues I think we shouldn't accept it- we should schedule extra internationals for next season to cover the shortfall in revenue, whilst trying to use the IRB to legally block an Anglo-French tournament from ever taking place.

The PRL/LNR aren't going to have a tournament without IRB approval, and unless the unions give their blessing they aren't going to get it. So to be totally frank if you don't want this to end up in the courts YOU are going to have to accept that the only way there will be a European rugby competition in the next few years is if there are compromises on both sides.

TJ wrote:

lostinwales wrote:A big reason for the 4 unions loosing places at the top tier is that between them they can raise 6 or so very good teams and 6 or so less good - just like the AP and LNR

Really?  Justify that.  I can say the english clubs should have their representation reduced ads jubblies a long time since they won it.

I'll leave that to beshocked with the stats....

Notch wrote:Well, no mystiroakey, sorry! If it is only about leagues I think we shouldn't accept it- we should schedule extra internationals for next season to cover the shortfall in revenue, whilst trying to use the IRB to legally block an Anglo-French tournament from ever taking place.

The PRL/LNR aren't going to have a tournament without IRB approval, and unless the unions give their blessing they aren't going to get it. So to be totally frank if you don't want this to end up in the courts YOU are going to have to accept that the only way there will be a European rugby competition in the next few years is if there are compromises on both sides.

allocation has to be based on leagues and not unions.. unions can have any say they want- and the 4 unions within the rabbo can debate how to share out the allocation. but as far as the allocation is going to happen- it will be based on leagues- not unions..

More nonsensical assertions. how about justifying it? I tell you this. the PRL are isolated and desperately attempting to salvage something from the mess they have made. Its not worth any price to us to have a european cup and we will not accept and intrinsically unfair solution

by the way i am happy to give the rabbo more teams -8/6/6 or whatever that may be. but no pluses!!(work out the 8 spots however you want)

but in the long run i want a coefficient system that reflects the quality of the leagues teams within european comps..

So if that means the PRL get 4 teams- so be it. If its fair- its fair

Notch wrote:Well, no mystiroakey, sorry! If it is only about leagues I think we shouldn't accept it- we should schedule extra internationals for next season to cover the shortfall in revenue, whilst trying to use the IRB to legally block an Anglo-French tournament from ever taking place.

The PRL/LNR aren't going to have a tournament without IRB approval, and unless the unions give their blessing they aren't going to get it. So to be totally frank if you don't want this to end up in the courts YOU are going to have to accept that the only way there will be a European rugby competition in the next few years is if there are compromises on both sides.

On what basis should the IRB block an England France competition? Surely the only powers that such a competition would impact on is the RFU and FFR - which reduces any issue to how the respective unions get on with the respective leagues.

Again, you're just stating what you think with no reasoning or logic as to why the other side should agree to sign up to it. Same as TJ is with the Pro12s side of the argument- you are both proving my point for me. Only way there will be an agreement is if all sides agree to meet in the middle.

I've put forward a proposal where every side has to qualify for the competition and every Union gets at least one guaranteed representative- maybe a settlement will be more biased towards one side or the other, but if both sides refuse to give an inch we'll not have any European rugby this year and if thinks thats a good thing after this weekend they don't enjoy rugby.

"the PRL are isolated and desperately attempting to salvage something from the mess they have made"




TJ you think this mess is the PRL's doing- You put all the blame on the english league?

Can you expand on that nonsense please?

lostinwales wrote:

Notch wrote:Well, no mystiroakey, sorry! If it is only about leagues I think we shouldn't accept it- we should schedule extra internationals for next season to cover the shortfall in revenue, whilst trying to use the IRB to legally block an Anglo-French tournament from ever taking place.

The PRL/LNR aren't going to have a tournament without IRB approval, and unless the unions give their blessing they aren't going to get it. So to be totally frank if you don't want this to end up in the courts YOU are going to have to accept that the only way there will be a European rugby competition in the next few years is if there are compromises on both sides.

On what basis should the IRB block an England France competition? Surely the only powers that such a competition would impact on is the RFU and FFR - which reduces any issue to how the respective unions get on with the respective leagues.

I think any cross-border competition in Europe will need the approval of all relevant Unions. If the PRL/LNR want to make it about who has the biggest stick, the Unions still have plenty of sticks themselves. For instance if the RFU and FFR back a breakaway then 2015 is the last time we'll see either of those nations host a World Cup. The RFU and the FFR are already opposed to a resolution that doesn;t involve other nations and there is plenty that can be done to twist their arms further.

I DO NOT advocate this at all, I'm pointing out this is the endgame of refusing to compromise to end this dispute. Mutually assured destruction and no European club rugby for anybody.

So it's about time for the people who are all about the status quo remaining exactly the same and the people demanding the PRL/LNR get everything they want to realise that compromise is needed on both sides before this spills over and seriously damages the game world wide.

"I think any cross-border competition in Europe will need the approval of all relevant Unions. /"


did the rfu or ffr try and block the rabbo? were they involved in the negotiations at all!

TJ wrote:

timhen wrote: when he suggests the quality of teams shouldn't have a bearing on what level of competiton they play in.  .

 where have I said that.  I said its meaningless assertions about the quality of teams.  are Edinburgh worse than Sale?  are Worcester better than Cardiff?  who knows.

I have asked a pertinent question looking for some logical reasoning why the reduction in entrants for the European cup comes all from 4 unions and not from 2.  No one has been able to justify this

They have, you just don't agree with it.

You seem to think it's not possible to make a call on the comparative quality of teams, other do.

As I've stated a couple of times, the 5/5/8 +2 qualification you favour would have seen Exeter in the Amlin but Cardiff remain in the Heineken.  By comparison 6/6/6 +2 would have seen the bottom placed sides in the Heineken from the same two leagues as Treviso & Exeter.  I'd be surprised if most posters on here didn't think the latter scenario made for a closer matching of abilities to competiton level, with Exeter still a better side than Treviso.

nth wrote:

TJ wrote:

timhen wrote: when he suggests the quality of teams shouldn't have a bearing on what level of competiton they play in.  .

 where have I said that.  I said its meaningless assertions about the quality of teams.  are Edinburgh worse than Sale?  are Worcester better than Cardiff?  who knows.

I have asked a pertinent question looking for some logical reasoning why the reduction in entrants for the European cup comes all from 4 unions and not from 2.  No one has been able to justify this

They have, you just don't agree with it.

You seem to think it's not possible to make a call on the comparative quality of teams, other do.

As I've stated a couple of times, the 5/5/8 +2 qualification you favour would have seen Exeter in the Amlin but Cardiff remain in the Heineken.  By comparison 6/6/6 +2 would have seen the bottom placed sides in the Heineken from the same two leagues as Treviso & Exeter.  I'd be surprised if most posters on here didn't think the latter scenario made for a closer matching of abilities to competiton level, with Exeter still a better side than Treviso.

So the celtic nations all have to give up a place and the english and french give up none.. With this logic you'd wonder why all these discussions are taking place.

mystiroakey wrote:"I think any cross-border competition in Europe will need the approval of all relevant Unions. /"


did the rfu or ffr try and block the rabbo? were they involved in the negotiations at all!

Why would they try and block it?

The competitions have to be approved by the IRB - England & France have seats on that Board, so if they had any objections they could have blocked it there.

I believe France were really pleased that the Celts took Italy in - otherwise they would have been forced to take them into their league.

nth wrote:

TJ wrote:

I have asked a pertinent question looking for some logical reasoning why the reduction in entrants for the European cup comes all from 4 unions and not from 2.  No one has been able to justify this

They have, you just don't agree with it.

really? Please point it out to me. I have seen no explanation that makes any sense as to why all the reduction in teams must come from 4 unions witht eh least representation and none from the two unions with the most. I wouold be delighted to see one.

Sin é wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:"I think any cross-border competition in Europe will need the approval of all relevant Unions. /"


did the rfu or ffr try and block the rabbo? were they involved in the negotiations at all!

Why would they try and block it?

The competitions have to be approved by the IRB - England & France have seats on that Board, so if they had any objections they could have blocked it there.

I believe France were really pleased that the Celts took Italy in - otherwise they would have been forced to take them into their league.

I imagine the celtic nations are delighted to have them, they are currently giving each union 1 million per year for their participation in the league, plus extra gate receipts from the extra home game each season.

nth - I am perfectly prepared to accept the lowest of the rabo teams bring little to the table.  hence 5/5/8 + 2 beiong my preferred option.  any solution will throw up anomalies.  Interestingly the smaller teams - Exeter, Edinburgh, connacht this year have rather upped their game and shown why they should be included.

edit - its very hard to compare teams across different leagues. thus the "meritocratic" arguement fails as we really do not know if the 6th ap team is better than the 6th rabo team its not "meritocratic" if anyone has automatic entrants Perhpas the frencha dn english should play off to see who enters?

Whats the big deal about having 5 pools of 4 rather than 6 pools of 4. Now less games to sell to a broadcaster.

By the way, how thick are the PRL. Imagine having two bidders for the HC TV rights pitted against each other if they hadn't sold off the rights to BT and now they are likely to get the tv rights for a song because the PRL were being greedy.

Sin
If you think that the Celts are trying to spread rugby look at the facts
They have reduced the number of teams
Teams have had to withdraw due to finances
The ERC proposal was for a 32 team comp without any teams not from the 6 nation Unions
Doesn't look like trying to spread rugby

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Sin é wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:"I think any cross-border competition in Europe will need the approval of all relevant Unions. /"


did the rfu or ffr try and block the rabbo? were they involved in the negotiations at all!

Why would they try and block it?

The competitions have to be approved by the IRB - England & France have seats on that Board, so if they had any objections they could have blocked it there.

I believe France were really pleased that the Celts took Italy in - otherwise they would have been forced to take them into their league.

I imagine the celtic nations are delighted to have them, they are currently giving each union 1 million per year for their participation in the league, plus extra gate receipts from the extra home game each season.

Really - all that extra travel and low attendance for their games in Ireland.

broadlandboy wrote:Sin
If you think that the Celts are trying to spread rugby look at the facts
They have reduced the number of teams
Teams have had to withdraw due to finances
The ERC proposal was for a 32 team comp without any teams not from the 6 nation Unions
Doesn't look like trying to spread rugby

Like I said on another thread there is only so much the ERC and IRB can do to spread rugby (the IRB do seem to be doing a good job) eventually it needs the backing of the government just like Italy got. Its why Italy are where they are. Or else the teams will just go bust like the Spanish team did and like the Portuguese team is likely to do.

Considering that PRL got more for the PRL rights than ERC got for the lot could hardly be called stupid. Also proved that ERC have been underselling.

Sin é wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Sin é wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:"I think any cross-border competition in Europe will need the approval of all relevant Unions. /"


did the rfu or ffr try and block the rabbo? were they involved in the negotiations at all!

Why would they try and block it?

The competitions have to be approved by the IRB - England & France have seats on that Board, so if they had any objections they could have blocked it there.

I believe France were really pleased that the Celts took Italy in - otherwise they would have been forced to take them into their league.

I imagine the celtic nations are delighted to have them, they are currently giving each union 1 million per year for their participation in the league, plus extra gate receipts from the extra home game each season.

Really - all that extra travel and low attendance for their games in Ireland.

Munster got 13k against Zebre last year and Leinster got something like 15k against Treviso. Ulster always get a near sell out against Treviso

Notch wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Notch wrote:Well, no mystiroakey, sorry! If it is only about leagues I think we shouldn't accept it- we should schedule extra internationals for next season to cover the shortfall in revenue, whilst trying to use the IRB to legally block an Anglo-French tournament from ever taking place.

The PRL/LNR aren't going to have a tournament without IRB approval, and unless the unions give their blessing they aren't going to get it. So to be totally frank if you don't want this to end up in the courts YOU are going to have to accept that the only way there will be a European rugby competition in the next few years is if there are compromises on both sides.

On what basis should the IRB block an England France competition? Surely the only powers that such a competition would impact on is the RFU and FFR - which reduces any issue to how the respective unions get on with the respective leagues.

I think any cross-border competition in Europe will need the approval of all relevant Unions. If the PRL/LNR want to make it about who has the biggest stick, the Unions still have plenty of sticks themselves. For instance if the RFU and FFR back a breakaway then 2015 is the last time we'll see either of those nations host a World Cup. The RFU and the FFR are already opposed to a resolution that doesn;t involve other nations and there is plenty that can be done to twist their arms further.

I DO NOT advocate this at all, I'm pointing out this is the endgame of refusing to compromise to end this dispute. Mutually assured destruction and no European club rugby for anybody.

So it's about time for the people who are all about the status quo remaining exactly the same and the people demanding the PRL/LNR get everything they want to realise that compromise is needed on both sides before this spills over and seriously damages the game world wide.

Notch I'd say that a breakaway is only a breakaway if its against the wishes of the respective union. The AP and LNR have left the ERC using the correct protocol by giving proper notice.

I do think this is all hypothetical, like you. Of all the possible outcomes I think a franglo only competition is the least likely

There are signs that there will be an agreement and I am sure there will be one with compromises, even if its the kind that will leave everyone unhappy about something.

broadlandboy wrote:Sin
If you think that the Celts are trying to spread rugby look at the facts
They have reduced the number of teams
Teams have had to withdraw due to finances
The ERC proposal was for a 32 team comp without any teams not from the 6 nation Unions
Doesn't look like trying to spread rugby

And some of the teams are not around anymore. 1995 teams were:
Farul Constanta, Toulouse, Milan, Leinster, Munster, Swansea, Bordeaux-Begles, Cardiff, Treviso, Castres, Pontypridd, Ulster.

Bath, Leicester, Quins, Dax, Brive, Scarlets, Pau, Neath, Caledonia, Wasps, edinburgh, The Borders came in the following year.

Interesting that the Italians were there from the very start and now the English want to get rid of them.

Sin é wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Sin
If you think that the Celts are trying to spread rugby look at the facts
They have reduced the number of teams
Teams have had to withdraw due to finances
The ERC proposal was for a 32 team comp without any teams not from the 6 nation Unions
Doesn't look like trying to spread rugby

And some of the teams are not around anymore. 1995 teams were:
Farul Constanta, Toulouse, Milan, Leinster, Munster, Swansea, Bordeaux-Begles, Cardiff, Treviso, Castres, Pontypridd, Ulster.

Bath, Leicester, Quins, Dax, Brive, Scarlets, Pau, Neath, Caledonia, Wasps, edinburgh, The Borders came in the following year.

Interesting that the Italians were there from the very start and now the English want to get rid of them.

.
The english dont want to get rid of the italians.

Anybody who is trying to perpetuate the farcical argument that the Celtic Regions are one entity is in support of the PRL/LNF clubs attempt to grab more money for themselves. The Pro12 is not the same kind of competition as the AP or T14. It is a cross border competition. There is no way the Celts should agree to this idiotic idea to split the money three ways. The only fair deal is an equal share per region/club (+prize money). If we agree to the 3 way split then we are cutting our own throats and we will not be able to compete.

lostinwales wrote:

Sin é wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Sin
If you think that the Celts are trying to spread rugby look at the facts
They have reduced the number of teams
Teams have had to withdraw due to finances
The ERC proposal was for a 32 team comp without any teams not from the 6 nation Unions
Doesn't look like trying to spread rugby

And some of the teams are not around anymore. 1995 teams were:
Farul Constanta, Toulouse, Milan, Leinster, Munster, Swansea, Bordeaux-Begles, Cardiff, Treviso, Castres, Pontypridd, Ulster.

Bath, Leicester, Quins, Dax, Brive, Scarlets, Pau, Neath, Caledonia, Wasps, edinburgh, The Borders came in the following year.

Interesting that the Italians were there from the very start and now the English want to get rid of them.

.
The english dont want to get rid of the italians.

Yes - I wasn't aware that the English want to get rid of the Italians either. What about the French Sin? Do they or are they exempt from any criticism of yours?

the reason the prl/lnr are likely to get most of what they want is quite simply that they have the support of the RFU, and he thinks they have i_) a great piont, and ii) the right not to participate in ERC if they choose not to. The new RFU CEO Ian Ritchie is a modern rugby administrator with sports experience in tennis and football, and commercial experience running Granada TV i think it was. And he was a barrister before that.

he is commercial, pragmatic, discreet, and recognizes that helping the prl clubs get a better deal will be good for the RFU.

those who hoped/assumed RFU would "tell the prl clubs to do this, that or the other thing" were dreaming. The RFU is evolving. Professional rugby is evolving in PRL/LNR (although not FFR!). IRFU/SRU/WRU have chosen a different path. good luck to them, but i know who my money is on to win the long game. Commercial astuteness + enlightened administration.

The obvious corollary of a 6/6/6 split in the HC as proposed by the PRL is an end to pro rugby in Scotland and Italy. It might be a slow death over a few years but it would be inevitable

TJ wrote:The obvious corollary of a 6/6/6 split in the HC as proposed by the PRL is an end to pro rugby in Scotland and Italy.  It might be a slow death over a few years but it would be inevitable

Its a mystery as to why we have to change the best club tournament in the world at all, after the fantastic weekend of rugby we all just witnessed.

broadlandboy wrote:Considering that PRL got more for the PRL rights than ERC got for the lot could hardly be called stupid. Also proved that ERC have been underselling.

Really - some sort of corruption - is that what you are suggesting.

Because otherwise the idea that ERC have just waved SKY through is frankly laughable - it fits the PRL cheerleaders to have this caricature of some pished old bufties in charge - wearing blazers surrounded by Cuban cigar smoke and a glass of port in hand - but like most of their arguments it lacks any substance.

Totally if you go for a per team payment thye PRL/IRFU/SRU/WRU would get less as the LNR & FIR enter more teams (14 & 6)

I agree - just as no one has been able to justify why all the reduction has to come from 4 unions, no one has justified the reduction in teams.  I know the french want to reduce the number of games but I am not sure how a 20 team cup does this, the PRL origionally wanted 8/8/8

TJ wrote:More nonsensical assertions.  how about justifying it?  I tell you this. the PRL are isolated and desperately attempting to salvage something from the mess they have made.  Its not worth any price to us to have a european cup and we will not accept and intrinsically unfair solution

The ERC is completely RAB dominated and operate as a cartel. If they didn't we would not be in this mess.

You constantly shout about fairness but will not consider any fairness towards the Franglos in your debate and insist that the status quo remains. The minority controlling the majority. The franglos must stay at your party, by your rules and pay for the privilage.

Well the party is over. The gravey train has pulled into the station and the only two paying passengers have got off.

Good luck with that.

broadlandboy wrote:Totally if you go for a per team payment thye PRL/IRFU/SRU/WRU would get less as the LNR & FIR enter more teams (14 & 6)

Nope - we have a per team payment now - based on teams in the HC which is the only bit to make money. (apart from the scots anomoly.) Its not our fault the RFU keep some of it and distribute the rest of the money earned by 6 teams between 12

LF4L in your position I would want the status Quo as well
TJ perhaps to make the 2nd tier more viable

Metal Tiger wrote:

TJ wrote:More nonsensical assertions.  how about justifying it?  I tell you this. the PRL are isolated and desperately attempting to salvage something from the mess they have made.  Its not worth any price to us to have a european cup and we will not accept and intrinsically unfair solution

The ERC is completely RAB dominated and operate as a cartel. If they didn't we would not be in this mess.

You constantly shout about fairness but will not consider any fairness towards the Franglos in your debate and insist that the status quo remains. The minority controlling the majority.  The franglos must stay at your party, by your rules and pay for the privilage.

Well the party is over. The gravey train has pulled into the station and the only two paying passengers have got off.

Good luck with that.

The French and English already have the most repersentation in the competiton!! what is unfair about that?

Metal Tiger wrote:

TJ wrote:More nonsensical assertions.  how about justifying it?  I tell you this. the PRL are isolated and desperately attempting to salvage something from the mess they have made.  Its not worth any price to us to have a european cup and we will not accept and intrinsically unfair solution

The ERC is completely RAB dominated and operate as a cartel. If they didn't we would not be in this mess.

You constantly shout about fairness but will not consider any fairness towards the Franglos in your debate and insist that the status quo remains. The minority controlling the majority.  The franglos must stay at your party, by your rules and pay for the privilage.

Well the party is over. The gravey train has pulled into the station and the only two paying passengers have got off.

Good luck with that.

Nonsense  the french and english between them have the majority of the votes in the ERC.  Don't make nonsense up to support your wild claims

I am quite willing to accept change - just not change that penalises only one side.

edit - and the franglos have nothing to sell without the rabo unions - nor are they the only paying customers. the profit is made from selling the european cup. It takes all the teams to make the european cup. the PRL are discovering this as no one will join their RCC and thus they have no product to sell hence the desperation shown by them

TJ you give the impression that we have/want only one competition & sod the other

broadlandboy wrote:Totally if you go for a per team payment thye PRL/IRFU/SRU/WRU would get less as the LNR & FIR enter more teams (14 & 6)

There would surely be a change in the percentages and for the sake of stability this should be done. There would then be no more arguments about the share of money. However I would argue for a split of the Heineken money and a separate split of the Amlin money This would represent a fairer distribution of funding and make qualification all the more crucial. I would also give the clubs/regions a vote in the running of the competition alongside the unions. What I sincerely hope the Celtic unions do not do however, is allow the franglo clubs to dictate the terms, negotiate contracts and cream off the best portion of the money before doling out the leftovers to the Celts & Italians. The HEC is a cross border competition which represents the best each nation has to offer. The unions are also stakeholders like it or not and should be part of the running hand in hand with the clubs/regions.

broadlandboy wrote:TJ you give the impression that we have/want only one competition & sod the other

All suggestions to improve the average quality of matches in both competitions are to be avoided. much better to have some makeweight teams in the HC with guaranteed qualification and rarely a win than have them compete in the Amlin, or 3rd tier competition, and actually be competitive.

Nonsense.  Quins.  try actually reading what I write.   However to try to say its OK there will be no scots or Italians at the top table but we will be OK because we can play rubbish english sides, french second teams and semi pro Italians in the amilin that no one watches and has no money attached to it and that will be OK is nonsense.

I am prepared to accept 8 rabo union teams - top one from each country and next 4 in the league.  that gives a decent chance for everyone to have decent representation

TJ wrote:

Metal Tiger wrote:

TJ wrote:More nonsensical assertions.  how about justifying it?  I tell you this. the PRL are isolated and desperately attempting to salvage something from the mess they have made.  Its not worth any price to us to have a european cup and we will not accept and intrinsically unfair solution

The ERC is completely RAB dominated and operate as a cartel. If they didn't we would not be in this mess.

You constantly shout about fairness but will not consider any fairness towards the Franglos in your debate and insist that the status quo remains. The minority controlling the majority.  The franglos must stay at your party, by your rules and pay for the privilage.

Well the party is over. The gravey train has pulled into the station and the only two paying passengers have got off.

Good luck with that.

Nonsense  the french and english between them have the majority of the votes in the ERC.  Don't make nonsense up to support your wild claims

I am quite willing to accept change - just not change that penalises only one side.

edit - and the franglos have nothing to sell without the rabo unions - nor are they the only paying customers.  the profit is made from selling the european cup.  It takes all the teams to make the european cup.  the PRL are discovering this as no one will join their RCC and thus they have no product to sell hence the desperation shown by them

really. so how are any of these changes penalising the prl/lnr teams? every single change is penalising (compared to previously unfair arrangement) celtalian teams on average. not one of these proposed changes is penalising franglos.

ie, EVERYONE agrees that the current arrangement needs change in favour of prl/lnr. Apart from JP Lux apparently.

5/5/8 + 2.  shares the pain

Can you see the problem - you want all the giving from one side and all the taking from the other. the biggest and richest with the most representation get more, the smallest and weakest get less. Nice.

TJ wrote:Nonsense.  Quins.  try actually reading what I write.   However to try to say its OK there will be no scots or Italians at the top table but we will be OK because we can play rubbish english sides, french second teams and semi pro Italians in the amilin that no one watches and has no money attached to it and that will be OK is nonsense.

I am prepared to accept 8 rabo union teams - top one from each country and next 4 in the league.  that gives a decent chance for everyone to have decent representation

TJ do you think it matters what you are prepared to accept? you obviously have a very high opinion of your weight in the settling of this debate.

quinsforever wrote:

TJ wrote:Nonsense.  Quins.  try actually reading what I write.   However to try to say its OK there will be no scots or Italians at the top table but we will be OK because we can play rubbish english sides, french second teams and semi pro Italians in the amilin that no one watches and has no money attached to it and that will be OK is nonsense.

I am prepared to accept 8 rabo union teams - top one from each country and next 4 in the league.  that gives a decent chance for everyone to have decent representation

TJ do you think it matters what you are prepared to accept? you obviously have a very high opinion of your weight in the settling of this debate.

You keep cl;aiming I want things that I never have said I want. try not to make stuff up

TJ wrote:5/5/8 + 2.  shares the pain

Can you see the problem - you want all the giving from one side and all the taking from the other.  the biggest and richest with the most representation get more, the smallest and weakest get less.  Nice.

again, TJ, the only person proposing that is you.

quinsforever wrote:

TJ wrote:

Metal Tiger wrote:

TJ wrote:More nonsensical assertions.  how about justifying it?  I tell you this. the PRL are isolated and desperately attempting to salvage something from the mess they have made.  Its not worth any price to us to have a european cup and we will not accept and intrinsically unfair solution

The ERC is completely RAB dominated and operate as a cartel. If they didn't we would not be in this mess.

You constantly shout about fairness but will not consider any fairness towards the Franglos in your debate and insist that the status quo remains. The minority controlling the majority.  The franglos must stay at your party, by your rules and pay for the privilage.

Well the party is over. The gravey train has pulled into the station and the only two paying passengers have got off.

Good luck with that.

Nonsense  the french and english between them have the majority of the votes in the ERC.  Don't make nonsense up to support your wild claims

I am quite willing to accept change - just not change that penalises only one side.

edit - and the franglos have nothing to sell without the rabo unions - nor are they the only paying customers.  the profit is made from selling the european cup.  It takes all the teams to make the european cup.  the PRL are discovering this as no one will join their RCC and thus they have no product to sell hence the desperation shown by them

really. so how are any of these changes penalising the prl/lnr teams? every single change is penalising (compared to previously unfair arrangement) celtalian teams on average. not one of these proposed changes is penalising franglos.

ie, EVERYONE agrees that the current arrangement needs change in favour of prl/lnr. Apart from JP Lux apparently.

What we can't have is a situation where the pot of money goes up considerably and the Celtic nations are left with the same as before while the Franglo's income goes up dramatically. Neither can we afford a situation where the Franglo clubs take control and invite the rest to join them. It has to be a joint effort. I'm not arguing for the status quo - I'm arguing against creating a new order that severely disadvantages the Celtic teams.

TJ wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

TJ wrote:Nonsense.  Quins.  try actually reading what I write.   However to try to say its OK there will be no scots or Italians at the top table but we will be OK because we can play rubbish english sides, french second teams and semi pro Italians in the amilin that no one watches and has no money attached to it and that will be OK is nonsense.

I am prepared to accept 8 rabo union teams - top one from each country and next 4 in the league.  that gives a decent chance for everyone to have decent representation

TJ do you think it matters what you are prepared to accept? you obviously have a very high opinion of your weight in the settling of this debate.

You keep cl;aiming I want things that I never have said I want.  try not to make stuff up

see bits in bold.