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.

TJ wrote:
My dislike is for the PRL and  their gun to the head attempt at negotiation.  

Apologies for removing all the conciliatory bits - and stuff I agree with. It is this point though that is the crux of the matter - because - believe it or not - the PRL side of this debate feel that what you describe up there is what ERC have done to them. They feel justified in their gunboat diplomacy by ERCs refusal to talk to them about concerns over a period years.

For every allegation of malfeasance, arrogance and downright patheticness that can be levied at PRL (most fair) they will reflect the same charges back (again mostly fair).

Both sides have lied, used the media to make ridiculous statements and "offers" but as a group we highlight the wrongdoings of others much more readily than our own.

Much has been made of the compromise offered by ERC/Pro12 to PRL/LNR. Remember though this was a compromise that abandoned the smaller teams and countries and was a compromise that was never actually offered to PRL/LNR, rather at a meeting solely of the unions.

Neither side has been realistically ready to offer any compromise until we got to the 11th hour. They remind me of US politicians talking a load of hot air and blocking all proposals until they suddenley realise that people are not bluffing and financial armageddon is in sight. And financial armageddon is what a lot of teams would be facing.

From my perspective the Rabo unions have been complacent and incompetent, the PRL malign and arrogant.

But I guess we all see things differently depending on the seat we are sitting in?

I apportion blame 50/50 so I guess I am sitting on the fence?

Indeed we do viet, "Truth" and "fair" are both dependent on your viewpoint.

So given it looks like meaningful negotiations are starting then what will the final outcome be? Can anyone explain to me why the reduction in entrants is needed?

For me 8 rabo teams must be a bottom line. I would like 5/5/8 + 2 but I think 6/6/8 will be the outcome. timings of the games can be easily accomodated. finances are harder to sort out. However the smaller unions cannot be financially disadvantaged too much. I suggest smaller amounts for participating and larger amounts for getting out of the groups / winning will help.

TJ you keep conveniently forgetting about the French.


The French have been crafty - allowing the English to take all the criticism.

Not sure I favour the '+2" concept. Seems to reward a team which finished lower in their league's table as consequence of a better team winning the Championship. The only caveat would be if the winning team actually finished down their league table and would not qualify for the Heineken Cup (or its nouveau equivalent). I don't know and frankly don't have time to look, but I tend to doubt it actually happened.

Yep I don't understand the plus two. And I wouldn't if I was a rabbo team fan. It won't help the competitiveness of the league at all.

the plus 2 concept allows the best countriesto have more representation.  Under 5/5/8 +2 engalnd could have 5-7 teams in it, france the same, it would allow Ireland to get 3 in without keeping the other rabo countries down to one each etc etc.  Scotland would have a chance of getting two teams in as would italy ( made easier if a Rabo team won)

It helps answer the "meritocratic" point.

Edit - its not essential to me by any means - but it does help answer the "we have the best league so should have more representation" arguement. Show you have the best league by winning both comps.

beshocked wrote:TJ you keep conveniently forgetting about the French.


The French have been crafty - allowing the English to take all the criticism.

Mate, I'm not sure they care.  
Frankly, since the French clubs believe they are in the right, for them its not criticism.  Just words.

I also believe the french clubs are more willing to compromise and are more under the control of the unions. we could easily negotiate a deal with the french.

TJ wrote:the plus 2 concept allows the best countriesto have more representation.  Under 5/5/8 +2 engalnd could have 5-7 teams in it, france the same, it would allow Ireland to get 3 in without keeping the other rabo countries down to one each etc etc.  Scotland would have a chance of getting two teams in as would italy ( made easier if a Rabo team won)

It helps answer the "meritocratic" point.

I don't think so, though I don't think its a big issue.
I like seeing a team earn their way in by virtue of their league presence. Not on the coattails of others.

The French will just fall in line as they had to on the Syria conflict...

In this case the prl is the USA.

Another aspect that needs to be sorted is the seeding. The system used seems to throw up some real anomalies and we end up with very unbalanced groups.

would bigger groups but not playing home and away help?

TJ wrote:we could easily negotiate a deal with the french.

I think the wrongheadedness of that belief on the part of the ERC is a key reason we ended up in this mess.

mystiroakey wrote:The French will just fall in line as they had to on the Syria conflict...

In this case the prl is the USA.

From that interview with Derek McGrath, it seems the PRL went on a solo run with their BT deal and just dragged the French into it. He says the French wanted to remain within the ERC framework, just wanted a better deal.

Also interesting to note that the PRL did not discuss the BT deal with the RFU who they needed permission from before signing.

Indeed sin - that did not show good faith at all - but lets move this on to look for a structure we can all live with shall we. recriminations are past and no one comes out of this well bar perhpas Ritchie

Oh right Sin e if Derek Mcgrath speaks it must be true no? Just like anything that comes out of Lux's mouth.....

TJ the French willing to compromise? That's worked out well so far...

I thought you wanted the isolation of the English....

Agree with doctor grey - plus two concept is ridiculous.

It's not meritocratic to hang onto coat tails.

TJ wrote:Indeed sin - that did not show good faith at all - but lets move this on to look for a structure we can all live with shall we.  recriminations are past and no one comes out of this well bar perhpas Ritchie

I disagree with no one coming out if this well. I think the Unions are coming out if this well. They have held their head. They let the RFU quietly get on with it even though they must be furious with them for their lack of control of the PRL.

I think the IRFU have been impressive in particular by sticking by the other celtic & italian unions when they could have gone for the money because they were in a very strong bargaining position with the draw of their teams - everyone wants the Irish teams in their competition.

Another thing, I think its fairly unsavoury that the PRL are demanding Derek McGrath/ERC's head as scapegoats for the PRL's greed.

No I do not want the isolation of the English. as I have said many times a euro cup without the top English teams is diminished. I want the PRL isolated so they have to show some willingness to negotiate - and this appears to have happened

Can we try to focus this on finding a solution acceptable to all? for me the red lines for the rabo teams is a minimum of 8 teams - preferably one from each country and 4 on league position. the other is not allowing the PRL to run it.

Everything else can be dealt with I believe

beshocked wrote:Oh right Sin e if Derek Mcgrath speaks it must be true no? Just like anything that comes out of Lux's mouth.....

TJ the French willing to compromise? That's worked out well so far...

I thought you wanted the isolation of the English....

Agree with doctor grey - plus two concept is ridiculous.

It's not meritocratic to hang onto coat tails.

Have you any evidence to back up your claims that Lux is lying?

I doubt if Derek McGrath would claim that the RFU phoned him to tell him that they knew nothing about the BT deal if they haven't done so.

According to one of the Scots, most of the changes to the format of the competition had been agreed to months ago, yet the PRL claim otherwise.

beshocked wrote:TJ you keep conveniently forgetting about the French.


The French have been crafty - allowing the English to take all the criticism.

The french have been crafty? Who would of thought it?  

Guys - lets look to the future and the solutions please? what are the red lines for the english clubs?

Sin e didn't say he was lying. Just saying I am not going to take everything that a newspaper reports as gospel.

Your view point is very one eyed. You cannot see that it's not as simple as ERC=good, PRL=bad.

The PRL could have handled this far better. They have made mistakes sure but the principal of an European competition needing restructuring is correct.

TJ solution for all? That's what I have been wanting the whole time - nice to see that at last you have moved off your wanting the English isolated stance.

6,6,8 is my offer. 2 Irish, 2 Welsh, 1 Italian,1 Scottish with the last two spots for league position.

TJ wrote:Can we try to focus this on finding a solution acceptable to all?  for me the  red lines for the rabo teams is  a minimum of 8 teams - preferably one from each country and 4 on league position.  the other is not allowing the PRL to run it.

Everything else can be dealt with I believe

Look, the PRL don't care about the number of teams in it. All they want is to control the competition. That isn't going to happen.

What they would want is to get rid of the RFU & FFR completely. They would also love to get rid of the IRFU, and the SRU, but they can't, though they could reduce the influence of the SRU if they have only one team. Their major problem is the IRFU because they own 3 strong clubs.

Beshocked - I have never wanted the english isolated - just the PRL

beshocked - 8 rabo teams - one from each nation and 4 on league position?

I have never wanted the english isolated - just the PRL as they are the major obstacle to a solution

Sin e because of course you know exactly what the PRL want. You can read their minds can't you? You know exactly how negotiations are going.....

TJ wrote:Guys - lets look to the future and the solutions please?  what are the red lines for the english clubs?

The big issue is control of the ERC/Company that runs the Heineken Cup.

Who is going to hand over their shares to the PRL to keep them on board.

TJ that could work too though I think the Irish and Welsh would want two spots protected.

The PRL are hardly the only obstacle to a solution.

I hope you guys don't think this is slightly of topic but as changes to Europen Competition are up for consideration. I have a couple of idea id like feed back on based on uefas model they would only apply to European Competition and are already ruled legal by the European Commison.

minimum of eight homegrown players in 25-man squad. Homegrown defined as players as who, regardless of their nationality, have been trained by their club or by another club in the same national association for at least three years between the age of 15 and 21. Up to half of the locally-trained players must be from the club itself, with the others being either from the club itself or from other clubs in the same association.

I would also like to see a separate salary cap for the European Cup. It would apply to player only registered for European Competition. IT could be set at say 6 millon per season.

The advantages i see, is that it would allow the English to spend a little extra to make them on more of an even footing with the French, The French would have to have at least some home grown players in their squads, Toulon et al would have to think carefully about the make up of their Europena squad and couldn't just buy success.

beshocked wrote:Sin e because of course you know exactly what the PRL want. You can read their minds can't you? You know exactly how negotiations are going.....

Its pretty obvious what they want. Last time (in 2007) they (with the LNR) got a seat on the Board of ERC - given to them by their Unions.


beshocked - it seems that due to our history, Irish people are very good at reading other people and are very good negotiators.

doctor_grey wrote:Not sure I favour the '+2" concept.  Seems to reward a team which finished lower in their league's table as consequence of a better team winning the Championship.  The only caveat would be if the winning team actually finished down their league table and would not qualify for the Heineken Cup (or its nouveau equivalent).  I don't know and frankly don't have time to look, but I tend to doubt it actually happened.  

Didn't something similar come close when Saints got relegated? I thought they came close to winning the Amlin that year - which could have caused a few headaches. And of course Wasps didn't even make the play offs in 2007 when they won the main event - they finished 5th so would still have qualified, but only just.

tecphobe good idea. Would get my agreement on that.

Toulon's lack of French players is ludicrous.

Against Glasgow the first XV consisted of three French man - Mermoz, Felsina and Orioli.

Up to five if you include Michalak and Chiocci who were used off the bench.

So are we agreed on 6/6/8 then? The prl can have all the RFUs votes as far as I am concerned - just ensure they do not have enough to give them control and that no two parties can gain overall control. the rabo unions will of course retain their votes

beshocked wrote:
6,6,8 is my offer. 2 Irish, 2 Welsh, 1 Italian,1 Scottish with the last two spots for league position.

Done  .

beshocked wrote:Sin e didn't say he was lying. Just saying I am not going to take everything that a newspaper reports as gospel.

Your view point is very one eyed. You cannot see that it's not as simple as ERC=good, PRL=bad.

The PRL could have handled this far better. They have made mistakes sure but the principal of an European competition needing restructuring is correct.

TJ solution for all? That's what I have been wanting the whole time - nice to see that at last you have moved off your wanting the English isolated stance.

6,6,8 is my offer. 2 Irish, 2 Welsh, 1 Italian,1 Scottish with the last two spots for league position.

beshocked, they are direct quotes from McGrath (& Lux), not press opinion pieces - so they are lying or they are not.

My view is that the ERC (made up of the various Unions & PRL & LNR) have the best interests of rugby & the competition at heart. The PRL is just concerted with their own bottom line and have done some fairly devious things to try and gain control of the Heineken Cup to make up for their financial difficulties at the expense of other European clubs who are in vulnerable positions.

beshocked wrote:tecphobe good idea. Would get my agreement on that.

Toulon's lack of French players is ludicrous.

Against Glasgow the first XV consisted of three French man - Mermoz, Felsina and Orioli.

Up to five if you include Michalak and Chiocci who were used off the bench.

Why can't the RFU & FFR sort out their own player situation like the IRFU does and limit them anyway.

Sin é wrote:

beshocked wrote:Sin e didn't say he was lying. Just saying I am not going to take everything that a newspaper reports as gospel.

Your view point is very one eyed. You cannot see that it's not as simple as ERC=good, PRL=bad.

The PRL could have handled this far better. They have made mistakes sure but the principal of an European competition needing restructuring is correct.

TJ solution for all? That's what I have been wanting the whole time - nice to see that at last you have moved off your wanting the English isolated stance.

6,6,8 is my offer. 2 Irish, 2 Welsh, 1 Italian,1 Scottish with the last two spots for league position.

beshocked, they are direct quotes from McGrath (& Lux), not press opinion pieces - so they are lying or they are not.

My view is that the ERC (made up of the various Unions & PRL & LNR) have the best interests of rugby & the competition at heart. The PRL is just concerted with their own bottom line and have done some fairly devious things to try and gain control of the Heineken Cup to make up for their financial difficulties at the expense of other European clubs who are in vulnerable positions.

Sin e that's an one eyed view point. You love the status quo as it is. Why wouldn't you? The Irish teams are doing very well out of the current system. With auto qualification you have HC every season - it helps revenue, building your fanbase, popularity etc. There's that security that helps attract players too. Also you like the current way the finances are done because it means you get a nice fat juicy pay cheque shared between just 4 clubs which helps too.

Why shouldn't the English and French clubs get a fairer share of the revenue?

Sin é wrote:

beshocked wrote:tecphobe good idea. Would get my agreement on that.

Toulon's lack of French players is ludicrous.

Against Glasgow the first XV consisted of three French man - Mermoz, Felsina and Orioli.

Up to five if you include Michalak and Chiocci who were used off the bench.

Why can't the RFU & FFR sort out their own player situation like the IRFU does and limit them anyway.

Perhaps you could send a message to those two unions to ask?

beshocked wrote:
Sin e that's an one eyed view point. You love the status quo as it is. Why wouldn't you? The Irish teams are doing very well out of the current system. With auto qualification you have HC every season - it helps revenue, building your fanbase, popularity etc. There's that security that helps attract players too. Also you like the current way the finances are done because it means you get a nice fat juicy pay cheque shared between just 4 clubs which helps too.

Who is the "You" in that highlighted setence, beshocked?

Why shouldn't the English and French clubs get a fairer share of the revenue?

beshocked - they get exactly the same as the irish - 4% per team in the HC they just share it around more.

beshocked wrote:
Sin e that's an one eyed view point. You love the status quo as it is. Why wouldn't you? The Irish teams are doing very well out of the current system. With auto qualification you have HC every season - it helps revenue, building your fanbase, popularity etc. There's that security that helps attract players too. Also you like the current way the finances are done because it means you get a nice fat juicy pay cheque shared between just 4 clubs which helps too.

Why shouldn't the English and French clubs get a fairer share of the revenue?

I actually think its a good competition and why should the Unions/ERC be punished for developing a great competition?

Anyway:

However, with the Celtic nations and Italy set to compromise on the demands by the English and French for a three-way split of revenues and merit-based qualification from the RaboDirect Pro12, there is an increasing sense that a deal can be struck.

The biggest hurdle to be overcome appears to be that of governance.

Premiership Rugby and its French counterparts insist that their new tournament should be run by the clubs, not the unions, which would be a major departure from the current European Rugby Cup structure.

It is understood, however, that a compromise of each country having one club representative and one union representative on a new 12-man board will be put on the table.

The main area of contention remains the weight of the votes that each country would be allocated.

As for the funding distribution, the Celtic nations have also to agree how money would be split between the Pro12 teams.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/hopes-rise-for-heineken-cup-deal-as-pro12-sides-ready-to-compromise-29657427.html

TJ wrote:

Why shouldn't the English and French clubs get a fairer share of the revenue?

beshocked - they get exactly the same as the irish - 4% per team in the HC  they just share it around more.

They should get more.

Secretfly I am referring to practically every Pro12 side. There are 11 in the HC this season. Only one to miss out is Dragons.

Though mainly the Irish in this case because Connacht have never finished above the other 3 Irish regions and have never earned HC rugby through their own merits. With 6,6,8 Connacht would be able to qualify through their own merits.

So you don't want a fair share of the money then - you want the english to get more than their fair share?

For me the money split could be a smaller amount for an entrant - more if you do well - thus allowing those who perform the best to have more money than they do now. would this answer the english angst over this? make the money distribution more meritocratic?

beshocked wrote:

TJ wrote:

Why shouldn't the English and French clubs get a fairer share of the revenue?

beshocked - they get exactly the same as the irish - 4% per team in the HC  they just share it around more.

They should get more.

Secretfly I am referring to practically every Pro12 side. There are 11 in the HC this season. Only one to miss out is Dragons.

Though mainly the Irish in this case because Connacht have never finished above the other 3 Irish regions and have never earned HC rugby through their own merits. With 6,6,8 Connacht would be able to qualify through their own merits.

Perpignan didn't earn their spot this year on merit. When Sarries win the HC and Quins the Amlin, most of the PRL will be in the HCup as well.

This whole process isn't going to help european rugby by the way - Its all  based on a very badly split europe anyway.

The Rabo doesn't help anything.(but possibly the future- if we make the rabbo bigger!!)

We should be forgetting about the cup and start at the root of the problem and make it better than ever and evolve european rugby.

Start at the league..

A fully european league with 4 divisions and relegation and promotion. This will be the thing that makes the money and more than any cup..

then we can have a cup that all comers from all divisions can play in!

Off course this is all  a pipe dream and will never ever happen because the short term affect would hurt to many- even though the long term gain would substantial!

mystiroakey

If I remeber correctly when the Celtic league was originally set up the english and french were invited to join to create a european league but refused to join in.