End in sight to Euro Mess?

by VietGwentRevisited Fri 11 Oct 2013, 9:40 am

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.

by TJ Sun 13 Oct 2013, 10:12 pm

Yes - I have no issue with that. However to then say equal shares for the rest means the english are subsidising them is humbug and cant. they try to claim this both ways. subsidings lower AP clubs good when it is a real subsidy ie transfer of money, "subsidy" of Scottish teams bad when all it is is equal shares and there is no transfer of money.

by broadlandboy Sun 13 Oct 2013, 10:16 pm

The difference is that they get the same amount not some getting up to 3* as much as others

by quinsforever Sun 13 Oct 2013, 10:16 pm

TJ wrote:the money generated is tiny. it will never have any significant value. Its only because the PRL wanbt to grab an unfair share of the money they pretend its of equal vlalue.

its part of their humbug. according tothe PRL Glasgow are subsidised by the English despite getting an equal share of the money and thats wrong, but newcastle should get the same as Leicester despite playing in a lower tournament that generates no significnt money and thats not s subsidy and its OK.

the reason the english clubs get less each is to do with the policy of the RFU they recveive the same per entrant in the HC as everyone else

otherwise english clubs would not have agreed to compete in the amlin cup at all.

utter tosh to say the amlin has no value and everyone apart from you knows it.

but as mark says, its irrelevant at this juncture as the ERC looks fairly likely to be toast. whats important is the future format. and once again i back commercially-driven pro clubs being able to organise more valuable commercial tournaments (which bring in more money for everyone and really help the club game spread and develop internationally) than a small bunch of parochials who think the amlin is worth nothing and just want to preserve the status quo.

by malky1963 Sun 13 Oct 2013, 10:18 pm

lostinwales wrote:
TJ wrote:the money generated is tiny. it will never have any significant value. Its only because the PRL wanbt to grab an unfair share of the money they pretend its of equal vlalue.

its part of their humbug. according tothe PRL Glasgow are subsidised by the English despite getting an equal share of the money and thats wrong, but newcastle should get the same as Leicester despite playing in a lower tournament that generates no significnt money and thats not s subsidy and its OK.

the reason the english clubs get less each is to do with the policy of the RFU they recveive the same per entrant in the HC as everyone else
That mean nasty mercenary PRL wants everyone in the AP to get the same money which just goes to show how unfair they naturally are

I have to say I find it so amusing to watch all you pathetic little PRL cheerleaders lining up behind people that you have nothing in common with other than a misguided view that 'it's England innit'
Please have a think if you are an Exeter or Newcastle fan - you are next.

by TJ Sun 13 Oct 2013, 10:22 pm

broadlandboy wrote:The difference is that they get the same amount not some getting up to 3* as much as others

As repeatedly explained. ALL UNIONS GET THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY PER CLUB IN THE HC that is how its worked out. pretending otherwise is stupid and wrong ( apart from the scots anomaly which is unfair.) The reason some clubs get mote than others is due to their unions decisions about haow to di8stribute the money. for example some of th scots share goes to grass roots game.

by LeinsterFan4life Sun 13 Oct 2013, 10:23 pm

quinsforever wrote:
TJ wrote:Quins - its the reality.

so by your logic the scots could enter the entire first division into the amilin and thus end up with loads more money? Its a part of the reason the scots do not have any teams in the amlin - no money for doing so.

its the hypocicy of saying the english are subsidising the italians by getting equal shares and thats wrong, but its OK to subsidise the weaker english teams who do nothing to earn the money.

the money from the eureopena cup is shared on an equal shares basis to the teams in the HC. thats how it works. the english get 24% of the money right now
franglo teams, 48% of ERC money, 26 teams in Europe = 1.85% per team

celtalian teams 52% of ERC money, 17? (incl 4 italian teams in amlin) = 3.05% per team (obviously more if just sru,wrfu,irfu teams considered)

if i have the wrong figures pls correct me anyone. i dont know how much lusitanos and bucarest get in amlin but i imagine not much!

Figures might be right but I dont know why you are bunching all the celtitalian teams together as they are all seperate unions. 52% divided by 4 is 13%. So around 13% each.

by quinsforever Sun 13 Oct 2013, 10:26 pm

LeinsterFan4life wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
TJ wrote:Quins - its the reality.

so by your logic the scots could enter the entire first division into the amilin and thus end up with loads more money? Its a part of the reason the scots do not have any teams in the amlin - no money for doing so.

its the hypocicy of saying the english are subsidising the italians by getting equal shares and thats wrong, but its OK to subsidise the weaker english teams who do nothing to earn the money.

the money from the eureopena cup is shared on an equal shares basis to the teams in the HC. thats how it works. the english get 24% of the money right now
franglo teams, 48% of ERC money, 26 teams in Europe = 1.85% per team

celtalian teams 52% of ERC money, 17? (incl 4 italian teams in amlin) = 3.05% per team (obviously more if just sru,wrfu,irfu teams considered)

if i have the wrong figures pls correct me anyone. i dont know how much lusitanos and bucarest get in amlin but i imagine not much!
Figures might be right but I dont know why you are bunching all the celtitalian teams together as they are all seperate unions. 52% divided by 4 is 13%. So around 13% each.

that would be okay if anybody had been talking about unions for the last 2hours. the discussion had moved to money per team. which some posters unfortunately had claimed was categorically equal on a per team basis. i did apologise for intruding some facts onto the discussion.

by malky1963 Sun 13 Oct 2013, 10:29 pm

Whatever the numbers are you would think that this weekend has shown what a 6n comp. brings
However I think there are still enough swivel - headed loons (you know who you are) that think Engurland'll be OK without Europe

by LeinsterFan4life Sun 13 Oct 2013, 10:31 pm

If your going to talk about how the money is divided then do it right. Its not like the irish teams are getting a share of 52% of the stake. You can't bunch the celtitalians together just because they play in the same league.

by malky1963 Sun 13 Oct 2013, 10:31 pm

quinsforever wrote:
LeinsterFan4life wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
TJ wrote:Quins - its the reality.

so by your logic the scots could enter the entire first division into the amilin and thus end up with loads more money? Its a part of the reason the scots do not have any teams in the amlin - no money for doing so.

its the hypocicy of saying the english are subsidising the italians by getting equal shares and thats wrong, but its OK to subsidise the weaker english teams who do nothing to earn the money.

the money from the eureopena cup is shared on an equal shares basis to the teams in the HC. thats how it works. the english get 24% of the money right now
franglo teams, 48% of ERC money, 26 teams in Europe = 1.85% per team

celtalian teams 52% of ERC money, 17? (incl 4 italian teams in amlin) = 3.05% per team (obviously more if just sru,wrfu,irfu teams considered)

if i have the wrong figures pls correct me anyone. i dont know how much lusitanos and bucarest get in amlin but i imagine not much!
Figures might be right but I dont know why you are bunching all the celtitalian teams together as they are all seperate unions. 52% divided by 4 is 13%. So around 13% each.
that would be okay if anybody had been talking about unions for the last 2hours. the discussion had moved to money per team. which some posters unfortunately had claimed was categorically equal on a per team basis. i did apologise for intruding some facts onto the discussion.

Here is a fact for you - you got well beaten at home by a supposedly inferior Pro 12 team - suck it loser

by Sin é Sun 13 Oct 2013, 10:32 pm

Actually TJ, I think it was the PRL decided they were going to split the money the RFU gave them between all the PRL clubs.

LiW, the PRL just want to rob Peter to pay Paul.

by TJ Sun 13 Oct 2013, 10:32 pm

Quins - IT IS EQUAL PER TEAM. that is how its calculated. Please go an look at it on an independent source. the revenue from the HC is divided by the number of teams in it. No one gets anything from the amlin as it barely covers costs.

You may wish for a different distribution and there might be merit in it but its a simple fact. all teams participating in the HC get an equal share ( apart from scotland who still get 3 shares as they had 3 teams) No one in the amilin gets anything from a central fund

by quinsforever Sun 13 Oct 2013, 10:33 pm

TJ wrote:
broadlandboy wrote:The difference is that they get the same amount not some getting up to 3* as much as others
As repeatedly explained. ALL UNIONS GET THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY PER CLUB IN THE HC that is how its worked out. pretending otherwise is stupid and wrong ( apart from the scots anomaly which is unfair.) The reason some clubs get mote than others is due to their unions decisions about haow to di8stribute the money. for example some of th scots share goes to grass roots game.

you have explained nothing TJ. you just state the same bare-faced rubbish without 1 single piece of data, source or anything to back it up.

in bold above, what you say is total cac. complete and utter rubbish. that is how you work out something to fit your devotion to a financially imbalanced status quo. how "its" worked out is when in 2007 all the unions and clubs came together to hammer out the terms of HC and Amlin and the money distributed to all participants for the duration of the next 7 year participation agreement of the ERC. end of story. how the prl/lnr work it out is that its not a really crappy deal for them and they want a new one. so how "its" worked out all depends who is doing the working out.

please at least stop making these sweeping statements as though they are unalterable unchallengable truths. even if you hadnt said them they would still get severely challenged Very Happy

by quinsforever Sun 13 Oct 2013, 10:35 pm

malky1963 wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
LeinsterFan4life wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
TJ wrote:Quins - its the reality.

so by your logic the scots could enter the entire first division into the amilin and thus end up with loads more money? Its a part of the reason the scots do not have any teams in the amlin - no money for doing so.

its the hypocicy of saying the english are subsidising the italians by getting equal shares and thats wrong, but its OK to subsidise the weaker english teams who do nothing to earn the money.

the money from the eureopena cup is shared on an equal shares basis to the teams in the HC. thats how it works. the english get 24% of the money right now
franglo teams, 48% of ERC money, 26 teams in Europe = 1.85% per team

celtalian teams 52% of ERC money, 17? (incl 4 italian teams in amlin) = 3.05% per team (obviously more if just sru,wrfu,irfu teams considered)

if i have the wrong figures pls correct me anyone. i dont know how much lusitanos and bucarest get in amlin but i imagine not much!
Figures might be right but I dont know why you are bunching all the celtitalian teams together as they are all seperate unions. 52% divided by 4 is 13%. So around 13% each.
that would be okay if anybody had been talking about unions for the last 2hours. the discussion had moved to money per team. which some posters unfortunately had claimed was categorically equal on a per team basis. i did apologise for intruding some facts onto the discussion.
Here is a fact for you - you got well beaten at home by a supposedly inferior Pro 12 team

yes we lost, but i'm not sure scarlets are inferior. trevor40 seems to have a strong view on this.

note i'm happy to concede facts when introduced? i welcome them. even when they are hurtful Very Happy

by quinsforever Sun 13 Oct 2013, 10:38 pm

LeinsterFan4life wrote:If your going to talk about how the money is divided then do it right. Its not like the irish teams are getting a share of 52% of the stake. You can't bunch the celtitalians together just because they play in the same league.

of course i can. where have you been? prl/lnr/rfu/ffr/sru ceo/wru ceo all said they recognise the point being argued about league vs union qualification and finances. philip brown has indeed been quiet, but hes definitely in the minority.

by TJ Sun 13 Oct 2013, 10:40 pm

Quins - you even agree that was the agreement - equal shares based on representation.

quins wrote:how "its" worked out is when in 2007 all the unions and clubs came together to hammer out the terms of HC and Amlin and the money distributed to all participants for the duration of the next 7 year participation agreement of the ERC

Now maybe you want to renegotiate that. maybe it should be but its a simple fact that for the past 7 yeasrs all teams have an equal share of the money. thts what the agreement was for. EQUAL SHARES.

by malky1963 Sun 13 Oct 2013, 10:42 pm

quinsforever wrote:
TJ wrote:
broadlandboy wrote:The difference is that they get the same amount not some getting up to 3* as much as others
As repeatedly explained. ALL UNIONS GET THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY PER CLUB IN THE HC that is how its worked out. pretending otherwise is stupid and wrong ( apart from the scots anomaly which is unfair.) The reason some clubs get mote than others is due to their unions decisions about haow to di8stribute the money. for example some of th scots share goes to grass roots game.
you have explained nothing TJ. you just state the same bare-faced rubbish without 1 single piece of data, source or anything to back it up.

in bold above, what you say is total cac. complete and utter rubbish. that is how you work out something to fit your devotion to a financially imbalanced status quo. how "its" worked out is when in 2007 all the unions and clubs came together to hammer out the terms of HC and Amlin and the money distributed to all participants for the duration of the next 7 year participation agreement of the ERC. end of story. how the prl/lnr work it out is that its not a really crappy deal for them and they want a new one. so how "its" worked out all depends who is doing the working out.

please at least stop making these sweeping statements as though they are unalterable unchallengable truths. even if you hadnt said them they would still get severely challenged

You don't really understand arithmetic do you - I think adult classes are still available.
The value of the HEC (source ERC) is £62M
The value of the Franglo is : travelling expenses

Therefore the VALUE ADDED from involving the Pro 12 is probably around £40-50m
For the already mentioned swivel headed loons - this does not mean that Pro12 rugby is worth £40-50m.
It means that a proper 6N tournament remains huge.

by timhen Sun 13 Oct 2013, 10:44 pm

markb wrote:The idea that the Amlin doesn't generate any money is rubbish. If it doesn't, what happens to the sponsorship money from Amlin Insurance and the other secondary sponsors who are plastered around the match venues? What happens to the money generated by the broadcasters from selling ad time around the Amlin pool and knock-out stage games?

However, irrespective of whetever it's value was in the past, what we're talking about now is it's value in the future after the restructuring. More higher quality sides, resulting in more competitve matches will attract more viewers. And with more broadcasters with the rights to show more of those matches it's value will increase to them. Sponsors will pay more to be visible at the more watched matches.

Based on last season the introduction of a third tier with a top two of twenty each would have seen an Amlin comprised of:

Connacht, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Dragons, Zebre
Bath, Wasps, Irish, Sale, Worcester, Newcastle
Bayonne, Biarritz, Stade, Grenoble, Bordeaux, Brive, Oyonnax
Mogliano, Cavalieri

Are people seriously suggesting that those clubs' supporters wouldn't tune in to watch their games just because it's the Amlin? Broadcasters put on games between those sides when it's just within the same league.

Exactly, many posters on here just don't understand and undervalue the Amlin because they don't tune in until some of their sides drop down from the HC in the QFs onwards. The Amlin games I've been to have been well attended and I'd rather watch my team in the Amlin than many HC games, particularly the uncompetitive ones involving sides that should really be in the Amlin

The ERC and SKY have done a poor job making the most of the Amlin so far and there is huge scope to make much, much more of it once it's upgraded, particularly with the rights split between BT and SKY, more channel space for more games. The ERC's lack of commitment to the Amlin is a big part of why the French and English sides want out and know they can/have found more money for it.

by TJ Sun 13 Oct 2013, 10:47 pm

come off it - you all know the second teir competition is worthless compared to the top teir. thats ewhy no one gets any money for playing it it and why most of the games are not televised. if its so good then lets put 8 english clubs in it then the celts don't need to lose any teams in the top teir, after all english entrants 5 and 6 are not worth much are they. and the amlin is so great the teams dropping down will not lose anything. thats the arguemnt you use to justify putting scots cand italian teams permanently out of the toip teir.

by lostinwales Sun 13 Oct 2013, 10:48 pm

Sin é wrote:Actually TJ, I think it was the PRL decided they were going to split the money the RFU gave them between all the PRL clubs.

LiW, the PRL just want to rob Peter to pay Paul.

Small cake divided one way bigger cake divided another. Aspects of that have of course been done to death, and the semantics of the conversation have a lot to do with the problems. I dont always get the idea that people might be happier with less money if it at least means that someone else is even worse off.

by quinsforever Sun 13 Oct 2013, 10:48 pm

TJ wrote:Quins - you even agree that was the agreement - equal shares based on representation.
quins wrote:how "its" worked out is when in 2007 all the unions and clubs came together to hammer out the terms of HC and Amlin and the money distributed to all participants for the duration of the next 7 year participation agreement of the ERC
Now maybe you want to renegotiate that. maybe it should be but its a simple fact that for the past 7 yeasrs all teams have an equal share of the money. thts what the agreement was for. EQUAL SHARES.

i think this is the most embarrassing discussion i have ever been part of. where in my quote is the word "representation"? what i have described is a NEGOTIATION. just like what is happening NOW. PRL/LNR had a very weak hand at the last 2007 negotiation so had no choice but to take the deal. the agreement in 2007 was nothing todo with equal shares per se, it was just what ended up being acceptable. this time it is very very different as they have the superior TV commercial deal in their pocket in addition to having filed 2 year notification to withdraw. much stronger position.

by quinsforever Sun 13 Oct 2013, 10:51 pm

lostinwales wrote:
Sin é wrote:Actually TJ, I think it was the PRL decided they were going to split the money the RFU gave them between all the PRL clubs.

LiW, the PRL just want to rob Peter to pay Paul.
Small cake divided one way bigger cake divided another. Aspects of that have of course been done to death, and the semantics of the conversation have a lot to do with the problems. I dont always get the idea that people might be happier with less money if it at least means that someone else is even worse off.

its the opposite of progress and evolution...envy thy neighbour etc

by lostinwales Sun 13 Oct 2013, 10:53 pm

timhen wrote:
markb wrote:The idea that the Amlin doesn't generate any money is rubbish. If it doesn't, what happens to the sponsorship money from Amlin Insurance and the other secondary sponsors who are plastered around the match venues? What happens to the money generated by the broadcasters from selling ad time around the Amlin pool and knock-out stage games?

However, irrespective of whetever it's value was in the past, what we're talking about now is it's value in the future after the restructuring. More higher quality sides, resulting in more competitve matches will attract more viewers. And with more broadcasters with the rights to show more of those matches it's value will increase to them. Sponsors will pay more to be visible at the more watched matches.

Based on last season the introduction of a third tier with a top two of twenty each would have seen an Amlin comprised of:

Connacht, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Dragons, Zebre
Bath, Wasps, Irish, Sale, Worcester, Newcastle
Bayonne, Biarritz, Stade, Grenoble, Bordeaux, Brive, Oyonnax
Mogliano, Cavalieri

Are people seriously suggesting that those clubs' supporters wouldn't tune in to watch their games just because it's the Amlin? Broadcasters put on games between those sides when it's just within the same league.
Exactly, many posters on here just don't understand and undervalue the Amlin because they don't tune in until some of their sides drop down from the HC in the QFs onwards. The Amlin games I've been to have been well attended and I'd rather watch my team in the Amlin than many HC games, particularly the uncompetitive ones involving sides that should really be in the Amlin

The ERC and SKY have done a poor job making the most of the Amlin so far and there is huge scope to make much, much more of it once it's upgraded, particularly with the rights split between BT and SKY, more channel space for more games. The ERC's lack of commitment to the Amlin is a big part of why the French and English sides want out and know they can/have found more money for it.

HC is exciting for many clubs if they can get out of the groups, but at the end of the day there must be a 90% chance that the winner is going to come out of 4 or 5 choices.

Look at the above possible list for the Amlin/tier 2 and its wide open. It could be a lot of fun.

by TJ Sun 13 Oct 2013, 10:54 pm

Actually yo are wrong again. the 2007 agreement was specifically on equal shares for the representation in the HC. the scots anomoly is because they had 3 teams at the time its 4% per team roughly. Is it just a coincidence the number of teams you have in the tourney times 4% is the money you get from it?

English clubs have 24%of the teams ie 6 teams and get 24% of the money etc etc

yes its embarrassing to see you and others fail to understand this fundamental point.

I

by niwatts Sun 13 Oct 2013, 10:59 pm

malky1963 wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
TJ wrote:
broadlandboy wrote:The difference is that they get the same amount not some getting up to 3* as much as others
As repeatedly explained. ALL UNIONS GET THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY PER CLUB IN THE HC that is how its worked out. pretending otherwise is stupid and wrong ( apart from the scots anomaly which is unfair.) The reason some clubs get mote than others is due to their unions decisions about haow to di8stribute the money. for example some of th scots share goes to grass roots game.
you have explained nothing TJ. you just state the same bare-faced rubbish without 1 single piece of data, source or anything to back it up.

in bold above, what you say is total cac. complete and utter rubbish. that is how you work out something to fit your devotion to a financially imbalanced status quo. how "its" worked out is when in 2007 all the unions and clubs came together to hammer out the terms of HC and Amlin and the money distributed to all participants for the duration of the next 7 year participation agreement of the ERC. end of story. how the prl/lnr work it out is that its not a really crappy deal for them and they want a new one. so how "its" worked out all depends who is doing the working out.

please at least stop making these sweeping statements as though they are unalterable unchallengable truths. even if you hadnt said them they would still get severely challenged
You don't really understand arithmetic do you - I think adult classes are still available.
The value of the HEC (source ERC) is £62M
The value of the Franglo is : travelling expenses

Therefore the VALUE ADDED from involving the Pro 12 is probably around £40-50m
For the already mentioned swivel headed loons - this does not mean that Pro12 rugby is worth £40-50m.
It means that a proper 6N tournament remains huge.

God, not this fag packet misinformation again! The only thing remotely accurate in those numbers you give is the 62 million McGrath said he believes he can get, but that's Euros, not sterling.

by quinsforever Sun 13 Oct 2013, 11:01 pm

TJ wrote:Actually yo are wrong again. the 2007 agreement was specifically on equal shares for the representation in the HC. the scots anomoly is because they had 3 teams at the time its 4% per team roughly. Is it just a coincidence the number of teams you have in the tourney times 4% is the money you get from it?

English clubs have 24%of the teams ie 6 teams and get 24% of the money etc etc

yes its embarrassing to see you and others fail to understand this fundamental point.

I

and the french? 4% x 7 = 32%

by TJ Sun 13 Oct 2013, 11:06 pm

4x7=28
did they not only have 6 teams at the time? - they got an extra one when one scot team dropped out? so they should get 4% from the scots - that an anomaly.

However it is true that the 2007 agreement was on the basis of equal shares per team

by quinsforever Sun 13 Oct 2013, 11:14 pm

TJ wrote:4x7=28
did they not only have 6 teams at the time? - they got an extra one when one scot team dropped out? so they should get 4% from the scots - that an anomaly.

However it is true that the 2007 agreement was on the basis of equal shares per team

good catch. i meant 28, thought 28, then typed 32.

it's late. i'm off to bed.

was just re-reading what 2007 dispute was all about. was nothing whatsoever to do with finances of ERC, was all about a spat between the PRL and RFU over votes/shareholding within ERC and player release etc and the french clubs also has similar issues. but no-one had given notice of intention to leave so it would have been a boycott and prl/lnr vulnerable, so rfu and ffr and erc had a strong hand. but i can see a mention of economics/distribution of revenues in the 2007 dispute.

by quinsforever Sun 13 Oct 2013, 11:16 pm

bbc article from 18th may 2007:

International Rugby Board chief Syd Millar says he is positive about the future of the Heineken Cup.
The competition is under threat after French and English clubs announced a boycott of next year's competition.

But Millar said: "We are very pleased with the progress that has been made in recent weeks.

"Genuine dialogue between the Rugby Football Union and Premier Rugby is under way, and I believe the future of the Heineken Cup will be secured."

The dispute between the RFU and Premier Rugby, the body representing Premiership clubs, concerns ownership of what is Europe's premier club competition.

The clubs want a 50% shareholding in the Heineken Cup and claim the RFU has gone back on a deal struck last October.

But the RFU denies an agreement over the release of international players involved commercial rights in Europe and pulled out.

That led to England's top-flight clubs joining their French counterparts in opting out of next season's European competitions. The RFU, in turn, has written to the clubs to warn them of the legal implications of a boycott.

by Sin é Sun 13 Oct 2013, 11:21 pm

Some might find this interesting.

Walking the tightrope
THE KIERAN SHANNON INTERVIEW,
with Derek McGrath CEO ERO
Saturday, October 12, 2013

The opening weekend of the Heineken Cup has been overshadowed by the off-field threat to the competition’s existence. Despite the threats, accusations and stand-offs, ERC chief executive Derek McGrath still holds out hope that the competition can be saved.

We’ve been here before. Whenever Derek McGrath’s unflappable nature temporarily and privately wavers and he gets frustrated like any other rugby person about the current uncertainty over the future of the sport’s biggest club competition, he quietly reminds himself of that.

We’ve been here before, we’ve overcome this before.

There was the English withdrawal from the 1998-1999 tournament before they promptly rejoined again. That was a couple of years before McGrath assumed his role as ERC chief executive but he has the files and correspondence from that time. Occasionally over the past few months he’s found himself sifting through them. The same arguments the clubs are making now, they were making back then to the European Commission; only the names and dates have changed.

The same in 2007 when it took up until the weekend of the Heineken Cup final itself for the following season’s tournament to be saved. History informs the future, he reminds himself, and the future can take solace and lessons from history. Brinkmanship has eventually segued into statesmanship, a lose-lose scenario turning into a win-win one, you just don’t win absolutely everything you want.

He’s been in situations like this before more than once himself, to some degree. Not just in 2007, but, in a way, before his personal breakthrough year of 1987. He was on some backfield of some farm at two in the morning. McGrath was working as a vet, treating a milk-fevered cow, all the while still expected to play later the same day for Leinster. It was just the way the world and his world was back then; the sport was still amateur, his veterinary work was professional but he was working in a small practice in Dunboyne and, he smiles, no one tells an animal when to be sick.

He smiles too when you mention the parallel between then and now; here he is still, both wrestling with and pacifying an animal of sorts, only this time hoping the remedy is dispensed the other side of midnight.

Back then it wasn’t sustainable. He wanted to give top-class rugby a proper shot so he moved to Cork to take a job with the Department of Agriculture which allowed him more flexibility. He joined Cork Constitution, took to them immediately and they took to him.

Everywhere there were big personalities. Obviously, there was Noel Murphy. When you ask McGrath why he thinks he landed the ERC chief executive role, he jokes that Murphy always jokes that McGrath was only the Cork Con man to apply for the job.

On the field there were internationals everywhere. Donal Lenihan, Michael Bradley, Moss Finn. But it didn’t matter if you played for your country or your province at the weekend; on the Monday you were expected to report to the club field and on the end line, ready for a gruelling, physical session. There, you were brought back down to earth — or lifted up off it if needs be. Leaders like the late Trevor Barry saw to that.

"I remember my first scrum session there," McGrath recalls from the more refined confines of the ERC’s office on Stephen’s Green. "Trevor set the tone. He was loose-head prop and I was propping the side of the scrum and the first ball to go down there, I got a big smack across the head. It was Trevor, as if to say, welcome to Cork Con, welcome to Munster rugby. It was a tough brand of rugby. Leinster rugby was what it’s like now — a more expansive game, more about the backs. The game in Munster was much more physical. I was only a recent convert from being a back into a wing forward so I learned an awful lot from that year in Con about how to be more effective on the ball, especially in the breakdown area."

He learned and thrived in his year there. They won the Munster Senior League, he played for Munster, and then he got a late call-up from Ireland. Nigel Carr had been travelling down from Ulster for squad training with David Irwin and Philip Rainey when a nearby car exploded. The IRA bomb instantly killed Lord Justice Maurice Gibson and his wife.

Carr and his colleagues were fortunate to escape alive but the injuries ended Carr’s career.

The only good draft that awful ill wind blew was that it created a vacancy in the Irish World Cup squad. McGrath was deemed the most impressive of seven wing forwards called up for a trial, and as it would transpire, he’d be one of Ireland’s most impressive performers in that inaugural World Cup. A few months later his career would finish prematurely at 27 due to a back injury, but he retired in the comfort and knowledge that he’d always have New Zealand.

"I can still smell the paint there. The newness of it all. It has echoes of what we’re going through right now with the game. This was an event only sanctioned months before it happened and everything about it just felt and even smelt so new. The paint was still drying on the side of the door. You could smell the whitewash from the dressing room tunnel.

"For me it was the first taste of what it must be like to be a professional rugby player, being away for three weeks, playing in magnificent conditions. It wasn’t the most successful tournament from an Irish perspective but it was an amazing experience."

He would adapt well to change once more after the end of his playing career. He moved over to London and into pet veterinary, then moved into the pharmaceutical side of things, then more into marketing and then management of the business back in Ireland. Then in 2000 the ERC was established, to run the Heineken Cup and the Challenge Cup independently of the International Rugby Board and maximise its earnings. It needed a chief executive, McGrath felt he was the man for it and so did its board.

The role has always had its challenges. He uses a model and analogy from the game itself which he learned from a New Zealand backs coach long ago — like Brian O’Driscoll carving out a try, you’ve first got to create space, then preserve space and then exploit space.

Creating the space for McGrath was largely regulatory, starting out. A bit like now, there was massive distrust, only back then it extended to basic things like registration and disciplinary measures. A fledgling new body had to establish some credibility and muscle, which meant quite a few trips up the steps of the high courts, but they stood their ground and laid down some markers. Tough for you that you didn’t get your southern hemisphere player registered three weeks out from the start of the competition; tough for you if the disciplinary verdict didn’t go in your favour; at least it was transparent and fair. From that foundation, more business partners came on board.

A huge one was Sky in 2003. What struck McGrath about them was that they moved quick and they thought big.

"I was sitting here at 4pm when I got a phone call from them wondering if I could get to London to meet Vic Wakeling. I was there in a couple of hours and we did the deal that night.

"The biggest thing Sky brought was that they added personality to the competition. Previous to that, we were working with the BBC. Ulster might be playing a game, or a Welsh side might be playing a game, and the game would only be shown in that region. You’d get a five-minute build-up, then show the game. There was little room to establish context. Whereas with Sky, they have plenty of time to describe who Ulster are, who their opponents, say Toulouse, are, what is at stake, what the competition is all about."

That allowed the ERC to preserve their space. The TV market was in flux at the time with the crash of ITV Digital but the Sky deal established security. There was dissent when Sky’s rights became exclusive in these parts after the 2006 tournament, with RTÉ having to settle for just a highlights package, but McGrath made no apologies. "We were very mindful of the free-to-air argument and sensitive to the Irish market but we always had to remind ourselves that we’re here to do a job which is to build value. We had very hungry stakeholders and we had to generate value."

Since then revenue has doubled, to the tune of €55 million each year. Amlin came on board to sponsor the Challenge Cup. Three teams from the Heineken Cup would be parachuted into the Amlin to sex and bulk up the Challenge Cup, all the time mindful it could never be the Heineken. Bonus points, different kickoff times and matchday presentations to domestic games; all have added to the appeal and experience of the competitions and their brands. Every game, something is at stake; every game is an experience. But just when it seemed like the ERC had exploited that space, now it could all explode. The European club game could implode.

McGrath accepts there is a "very fractured relationship" between the various parties with not "a whole lot of trust".

But the fact everyone realises that and recognises that polarisation, he believes will put pressure for those parties to engage with the others.

Because ultimately they’re all proposing something similar. There are differences but for him the bottom line is similar.

"You look at what they [the French and Premiership clubs] are proposing. It’s exactly the same. They want to change some of the numbers and the way you qualify but the competitions are exactly the same. We’ve been in all the participating countries in recent weeks for the launch of the competitions and every coach and captain and player we’ve heard and spoken to, it’s clear what it means to them and that they don’t see any need to have a break in this journey that these competitions are on and what they deliver, even though they’re not involved in the negotiations. So what’s at stake here isn’t whether the competitions should continue. It’s how they’re run, how decisions are made and where the benefits go. But everybody is actually talking about the same thing.

"I heard Paul Goze (France’s National Rugby League president) the other night talk on the radio about the fact there will be a European competition next year. And it’s the same when I listen to the English clubs. The clubs, fans and players all want European competition next year. So it comes back to how do we achieve that and how have we done that for the past 18 years.

"The most important thing right now is that there are discussions ongoing. Can I predict that things are going to be resolved very quickly? I think that would be unrealistic. I think we’re entering into a phase where people recognise that it’s extremely serious and it is precarious for the games. The motivation now is to find solutions."

McGrath shows no signs of exasperation; the measured mood and tone of voice barely fluctuates in the course of a 75-minute interview. But of course his heartbeat raised and alarm bells went off when it emerged that Premiership Rugby had come up with a unilateral deal with BT. Premiership Rugby had been on the ERC board that had agreed the last TV rights deal with Sky.

"We began to get whispers 48 hours before a board meeting that something might be happening (between Premiership Rugby and BT) and I made contact with the (English) RFU immediately because obviously they would need to be approving any contract in order for it to be official. They had no knowledge or approval of those developments. Then when it was announced, they rang me immediately to say again, they did not know and did not approve.

"Like everyone, I’ve put an enormous amount of time into this and am hugely passionate about coming up with a solution and outcome. People reading this must be questioning why 15 months on we’ve still had no progress. But I read (Bath owner and Premiership rugby negotiator) Bruce Craig make a statement which is kind of revealing and unfortunate.

"He said when they started discussions, the French clubs weren’t really on the same page as the English clubs because the French clubs believed they could find a solution within the current structures. The English clubs had already decided to terminate dealing with the ERC and do their own thing effectively. So there were decisions perhaps made that they didn’t really intend to negotiate, that there was always an effort to go elsewhere.

"So for us that’s disappointing but it explains why there hasn’t been a full engagement and why there hasn’t been full trust. We really need the clubs to recognise that we are talking about the same thing, a European competition. But you can’t just announce something overnight and think just because you announced it, it’s going to happen. Cross-border competition requires union approval to ensure that you can provide something safely for the development and benefit of the game."

Again though, he finds reassurance in history — in the standoff of ’98 and the settlement of ’99, ditto that of 2007; the record of the Heineken Cup and the ERC itself. The competition has a history now. And the ERC have a record and template of generating money. That shouldn’t be ignored or dismissed by the likes of Craig, he says.

"When I look at what we’ve achieved together, it’s a travesty to consider any of us would be prepared to say ‘No, we no longer believe that’s something we can work with.’ I know (the ERC) have done a very good job. We are a very solvent company providing a tremendous amount of profit — for the clubs. We can deliver that and we can build on that because we know where it’s come from.

"The alternative is to start up a new competition based on the BT contract. It’s been said that this completion could generate £60 to £70 million. But the only bit known about that package is the BT element which would only make up £20 million, odd. No one has seen that contract so no one knows what it represents. And where’s the other £50 million coming from? Any French TV deal by law would have to have approval of the FFR (French Federation Rugby) and they say they won’t be. So it’s hardly achievable, from a business point of view, and yet this is supposed to be a better business model.

"If this was to go to the European courts like it did before, the courts would be entitled to ask ‘Well, you’re kind of coming with the same points as you made years back. What have you been doing for the last 15 years? Actually you’ve been doing something pretty successful working with these people that you appear to have a problem with.’ Clearly, there has always been an underlying problem all along. Clearly the game of rugby has developed massively since then and clearly the personalities have changed around the table, people with real passion for their teams.. But it’s still about providing a competitive mix which is going to achieve the aims of developing the game while also offering values for all our stakeholders, including the clubs."

He accepts the clubs are entitled to have concerns. "They have very valid concerns. In terms of the game we have right now, can we improve our decision-making so we can respond to their concerns in a better way? But at the same time there needs to be a recognition that the unions not only have to make sure these clubs are successful in European competition but there’s the integration they have with the game and its development as a whole.

"The things that are being talked about are all negotiable. The share of the spoils, the format, it’s all negotiable. All the unions have made it clear they are willing to negotiate. But it has to be a negotiation, not a ‘here’s our offering and take it or leave it.’ It has to be a negotiation, because what everyone first has to agree on is that there will be change.

"Second, we’re not going to get everything that we want, and thirdly come to the table prepared to compromise. And until we have those three elements, we’re not going to find a solution. But it’s not hard to get to that position, because again, everyone is talking about the same thing."

His biggest source of confidence and comfort is that while the talking — and arguing — will continue, the rugby itself is about to start. The buildup, the crowds, the collisions, the shocks, the scores, the drama.

A Harlequins side losing in Connacht. Scarlets beating Toulouse down there. A last-minute try to secure a quarter-final slot. Paul O’Connell and Munster digging out another try, win, miracle. The game is the answer.

"Once the competition starts, it tends to speak very loudly for itself, and people will appreciate this is too good to lose."

Just like there’ll hardly be a team that will win every game in the Heino, no one will win everything in the negotiations about its future either.

Maybe the vet had it easier with that milk-fevered cow over quarter of a century ago now, but he’ll still work all around the clock in that conscientious, sober way of his to save and serve this beast.

This story appeared in the printed version of the Irish Examiner Saturday, October 12, 2013

by Sin é Sun 13 Oct 2013, 11:25 pm

quinsforever - from the Examiner, 08 May 2007.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Serge Blanco, former mesmerising French full-back, now head honcho in Biarritz, one of the wealthiest and most ambitious clubs in France, took the brunt of Syd’s blast.

"The decision by the French and English clubs to withdraw from the European Rugby Cup has been described as regrettable, unfortunate and shameful. It is more than that. It is absolutely disgraceful and selfish to destroy a tournament which has developed into a hugely successful and special annual rugby event.’’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by TJ Sun 13 Oct 2013, 11:30 pm

Bruce Craig make a statement which is kind of revealing and unfortunate.

"He said when they started discussions, the French clubs weren’t really on the same page as the English clubs because the French clubs believed they could find a solution within the current structures. The English clubs had already decided to terminate dealing with the ERC and do their own thing effectively. So there were decisions perhaps made that they didn’t really intend to negotiate, that there was always an effort to go elsewhere.

"So for us that’s disappointing but it explains why there hasn’t been a full engagement and why there hasn’t been full trust. We really need the clubs to recognise that we are talking about the same thing, a European competition. But you can’t just announce something overnight and think just because you announced it, it’s going to happen. Cross-border competition requires union approval to ensure that you can provide something safely for the development and benefit of the game."

by quinsforever Sun 13 Oct 2013, 11:35 pm

sin e - syd millar's outburst, really? so do you think Lapasset should do the same? given that prl/lnr didnt make the same mistake this time (boycott) and filed their 100% legitimate intention to withdraw from ERC june 2012?

by TJ Sun 13 Oct 2013, 11:37 pm

This is one of the things I don't understand. To me its so obvious that the PRL had no intention of negotiating right from the word go. the BT deal without even the knowledge of the RFU, the stance taken which has been totally inflexible and clearly unacceptable to everyone else.

Its only now they have found that they are isolated they are beginning to look for a compromise. I bet the RFU have basically told tehm - find a compromie or we come out against you as well

by quinsforever Sun 13 Oct 2013, 11:40 pm

TJ wrote:
Bruce Craig make a statement which is kind of revealing and unfortunate.

"He said when they started discussions, the French clubs weren’t really on the same page as the English clubs because the French clubs believed they could find a solution within the current structures. The English clubs had already decided to terminate dealing with the ERC and do their own thing effectively. So there were decisions perhaps made that they didn’t really intend to negotiate, that there was always an effort to go elsewhere.

"So for us that’s disappointing but it explains why there hasn’t been a full engagement and why there hasn’t been full trust. We really need the clubs to recognise that we are talking about the same thing, a European competition. But you can’t just announce something overnight and think just because you announced it, it’s going to happen. Cross-border competition requires union approval to ensure that you can provide something safely for the development and benefit of the game."

very interesting interview overall, but i am sure you'll pardon me for being a bit sceptical about what mcgrath says craig said to him in private? bit like what ritchie and beaumont allegedly said to JP Lux? people shouldnt report second hand private conversations as they do not represent an official position. but an interesting article overall. i do get the sense that he feels this is a much more serious threat than anything previously.

by TJ Sun 13 Oct 2013, 11:41 pm

To go back to the original point. I do think the end is in sight as I believe the PRL now realise their bluff is called, realise they have no RCC to play in and realise how badly they have overplayed their hand. thus hopefully they will start with some meaningful negotiations which entail compromise.

It really appears this is so - the united stance of the other unions has been strong enough to force the PRL to the table.

by TJ Sun 13 Oct 2013, 11:42 pm

quinsforever wrote:
TJ wrote:
Bruce Craig make a statement which is kind of revealing and unfortunate.

"He said when they started discussions, the French clubs weren’t really on the same page as the English clubs because the French clubs believed they could find a solution within the current structures. The English clubs had already decided to terminate dealing with the ERC and do their own thing effectively. So there were decisions perhaps made that they didn’t really intend to negotiate, that there was always an effort to go elsewhere.

"So for us that’s disappointing but it explains why there hasn’t been a full engagement and why there hasn’t been full trust. We really need the clubs to recognise that we are talking about the same thing, a European competition. But you can’t just announce something overnight and think just because you announced it, it’s going to happen. Cross-border competition requires union approval to ensure that you can provide something safely for the development and benefit of the game."
very interesting interview overall, but i am sure you'll pardon me for being a bit sceptical about what mcgrath says craig said to him in private? bit like what ritchie and beaumont allegedly said to JP Lux? people shouldnt report second hand private conversations as they do not represent an official position. but an interesting article overall. i do get the sense that he feels this is a much more serious threat than anything previously.

Quins = I believe it as its completely consistent and is consistent with all Craigs utterances and actions

by Sin é Sun 13 Oct 2013, 11:48 pm

He didn't say it in private to McGrath! He said

But I [McGrath] read (Bath owner and Premiership rugby negotiator) Bruce Craig make a statement which is kind of revealing and unfortunate.

"He said when they started discussions, the French clubs weren’t really on the same page as the English clubs because the French clubs believed they could find a solution within the current structures. The English clubs had already decided to terminate dealing with the ERC and do their own thing effectively. So there were decisions perhaps made that they didn’t really intend to negotiate, that there was always an effort to go elsewhere.

by quinsforever Mon 14 Oct 2013, 12:19 am

Sin é wrote:He didn't say it in private to McGrath! He said

But I [McGrath] read (Bath owner and Premiership rugby negotiator) Bruce Craig make a statement which is kind of revealing and unfortunate.

"He said when they started discussions, the French clubs weren’t really on the same page as the English clubs because the French clubs believed they could find a solution within the current structures. The English clubs had already decided to terminate dealing with the ERC and do their own thing effectively. So there were decisions perhaps made that they didn’t really intend to negotiate, that there was always an effort to go elsewhere.

well i read it (incorrectly) as mcgrath saying craig said this. but on re-reading he means that he mcgrath inferred the above from craig's statement.

clear as mud.

by johnpartle Mon 14 Oct 2013, 12:26 am

Well, I can see this topic hasn't moved on one little bit. The same old keyboard warriors without a clue about what is really going on or any sort of grasp of how these organisations and businesses work, endlessly going round in meaningless circles, peddling their same old 'FACTS' and drawing nonsensical conclusions.

Once the real people in charge finally hammer a deal out it'll be interesting how all the posters from both extremes of the divide, in a pathetic attempt to maintain they're online ego, try to claim victory and that they were right about everything all along despite the amount of 6ullsh1t they've been serving up.

laughing

by quinsforever Mon 14 Oct 2013, 1:16 am

johnpartle wrote:Well, I can see this topic hasn't moved on one little bit. The same old keyboard warriors without a clue about what is really going on or any sort of grasp of how these organisations and businesses work, endlessly going round in meaningless circles, peddling their same old 'FACTS' and drawing nonsensical conclusions.

Once the real people in charge finally hammer a deal out it'll be interesting how all the posters from both extremes of the divide, in a pathetic attempt to maintain they're online ego, try to claim victory and that they were right about everything all along despite the amount of 6ullsh1t they've been serving up.

indeed. the final outcome is about everyone trying to get the best deal they can, and that's about upside versus downside, and credibility of both. simples. nothing to do with what the current arrangements are, or the history of the celtic league or current prl/lnr finances. simples. its a negotiation.

imho, those that cant do without will end up acquiescing to those who can, as in business, as in life, the outcome is more usually determined by the downside than the upside.

by maestegmafia Mon 14 Oct 2013, 4:08 am

TJ wrote:To go back to the original point. I do think the end is in sight as I believe the PRL now realise their bluff is called, realise they have no RCC to play in and realise how badly they have overplayed their hand. thus hopefully they will start with some meaningful negotiations which entail compromise.

It really appears this is so - the united stance of the other unions has been strong enough to force the PRL to the table.

Do you think the PRL will now attend the meeting on the 23rd? The RFU will be there for sure...!

by mystiroakey Mon 14 Oct 2013, 6:55 am

The meeting is this week not on the 23rd.

The ERC are out. Every union and league will attend. If reports are to be beloved.

by TJ Mon 14 Oct 2013, 7:04 am

quinsforever wrote: indeed. the final outcome is about everyone trying to get the best deal they can, and that's about upside versus downside, and credibility of both. simples. nothing to do with what the current arrangements are, or the history of the celtic league or current prl/lnr finances. simples. its a negotiation.

imho, those that cant do without will end up acquiescing to those who can, as in business, as in life, the outcome is more usually determined by the downside than the upside.

and now we see the start of the negotiation that the PRL have refused to have so far. the united stance of the unions has pushed the PRL into a position where they have to negotiate meaningfully or they will be left with nothing. So far the PRL have done nothiung but say " this is what we want. this is what we are doing, take it or leave it" Now they have realised the rest are prepared to leave it on those terms and that indeed the PRL have no european cup to sell to BT thus the PRL have had to come to the table. this puts them in a weak position and unless they compromise significantly the only European cup will be a union run one without them.

by mystiroakey Mon 14 Oct 2013, 7:11 am

Believed not beloved. Darn auto spell.

by TJ Mon 14 Oct 2013, 7:17 am

I sort of guessed that :-)

by mystiroakey Mon 14 Oct 2013, 7:18 am

There is not much love about here is there tj?

by TJ Mon 14 Oct 2013, 7:30 am

Oh I don't know - most of us have kept this reasonable

as discussed on another euro thread there are always issues with text based debates. Nuance is lost, many of us cannot believe the other has understood the position we have taken but does not agree ( a point at which in real life you would move on) I find it absolutely astonishing that the obvious ( to me) motivations of the PRL are not seen by others and the lies they are putting out are accepted by others.

My dislike is for the PRL and their gun to the head attempt at negotiation. I want a european cup with the big english clubs in it. Its devalued without them same as any european cup with only token representation from outside france and England is devalued LOkk at the exeter / Blues game or the Munster / Edinburgh game for the truth of this ( remember under the PRL proposals edinburgh would not be in it)_

In the end - we all want the same thing - a high quality european cup. a fair distribution of funds, a decent chance to get the kudos and to win and not to be locked out of the top table for ever.

by mystiroakey Mon 14 Oct 2013, 7:35 am

I think you need to stop blaming this wholey on the prl..then your points may carry a bit more weight..

by TJ Mon 14 Oct 2013, 7:45 am

by Sponsored content