New European Rugby cup (or whatever it is called) - Qualification agreed

First topic message reminder :

I have heard it is:

6 French
6 English
7 Pro12 (1 guaranteed from each country, 3 on league position)
1 play-off (7th English and 7th French team)

Trying to find out is correct as we speak

The unions agreed because the financial alternative of no competition was devastating. And prl/lnr were not bluffing. Not 18 months ago, and not now. If the unions and ERC had engaged 18 months ago I am sure the unions would have gotten a better deal. Prl/lnr got so peed off that the unions have only their own negotiating incompetence to blame for the current outcome. Which may get worse from the Celtic point of view by the way...bt v sky seems a huge unmentioned issue, as does the control/voting structure.

quinsforever wrote:The unions agreed because the financial alternative of no competition was devastating. And prl/lnr were not bluffing. Not 18 months ago, and not now. If the unions and ERC had engaged 18 months ago I am sure the unions would have gotten a better deal. Prl/lnr got so peed off that the unions have only their own negotiating incompetence to blame for the current outcome. Which may get worse from the Celtic point of view by the way...bt v sky seems a huge unmentioned issue, as does the control/voting structure.

Yep, I'm sure you're right  

Could have done something like this - 50% of teams from each union guaranteed a place

So 6 from Aviva, 7 from France, 2 from Ireland, 2 from Wales, 1 Scotland, 1 Italy = 19

Final place is a playoff between 7th in England and 7th in Rabo

Would make the second tier competition stronger too, with a chance of the likes of Munster, Scarlets etc being in based on last seasons tables

Biltong, I know they don't care.  I've told you in my post they don't care.  Money from sponsorship and TV rights and profits from attendance figures and prize winning - that's what the big French and English clubs want.

Of course it's all about money - from them.  

But it's you who said a system designed to protect the smaller nations from being hoovered up by two big privately run club Leagues was something that shouldn't happen.  It's you, not them, who said a nation like Italy should only have sides in the European event on merit - even though English and French sides are there by right.

I don't mind what they say.  I know all about their attitudes to Pro12 and indeed, more especially to the nuisance Irish! ...but it's a little annoying that an outside observer should so readily fall into line with the PRL propaganda that they were afflicted in Europe by sides that had no right to be there. They were afflicted by not playing as well as their opponents... that's the only thing that afflicted them.

All sides had rights to be there in HC - it's just that greedy PRL didn't like that idea of rights for all

The PRL like the idea of equal rights for all

BamBam wrote:Could have done something like this - 50% of teams from each union guaranteed a place

So 6 from Aviva, 7 from France, 2 from Ireland, 2 from Wales, 1 Scotland, 1 Italy = 19

Final place is a playoff between 7th in England and 7th in Rabo

Would make the second tier competition stronger too, with a chance of the likes of Munster, Scarlets etc being in based on last seasons tables

No matter how strong, or what teams are in the second tier, nobody is going to give a damn about the comp. Look at it now none of the french, English or even the Dragons send out full strength teams. The HC is all that matters.

Also in the new second tier competition, we need to get some of the professional Russian teams in it. They are already getting a lot of financial backing and have already expressed an interest in playing in it. The top Russian team has toured Ireland the last couple of years and has competed very well.

broadlandboy wrote:The PRL like the idea of equal rights for all

right - so they acan have equal representation with the rest then? is it 6 teams each - that would be 36 teams or is it one like Scotland so one English? Oh yes - and Same money for England as Scotland. very equal.

broadlandboy wrote:The PRL like the idea of equal rights for all

Let's put it this way broadband... I wouldn't let them near a cake... the cream would be licked out of the middle before they started cutting it into 'equal' parts

PRL have rejected these terms, Mark McCafferty;

"We have always said that there is no way we are going into any competitions that are run by ERC after the end of this season. That hasn't changed. ''

Artful_Dodger wrote:PRL have rejected these terms, Mark McCafferty;

"We have always said that there is no way we are going into any competitions that are run by ERC after the end of this season. That hasn't changed. ''

Well that's, that then because there is no way the Celtic nations can compromise anymore than that.

Is that a new statement? I really don't think anyone is wedded to the ERC but union control is a must - the IRB say so as well.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:PRL have rejected these terms, Mark McCafferty;

"We have always said that there is no way we are going into any competitions that are run by ERC after the end of this season. That hasn't changed. ''

Well that's, that then because there is no way the Celtic nations can compromise anymore than that.

The PRL have sold the rights to the RCC to BT. As soon as they did that there was no negotiation to be done. They cannot pull out of their new tournament now no matter what changes are made to the ERC. This is why Bruce Craig, Mark McCafferty, Jacki Lorenzetti and other representatives of the PRL and LNR have constantly been saying "ERC is dead" "HC is finished" etc. etc.

Either the Celts and Italians agree to joining the RCC or its a long drawn out split in European Rugby Union which could last some significant time.

Proportional would appear to be the most valid method rather than equal

From The Rugby Paper

http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/latest-breaking-news/11921/premiership-rugby-significant-issues-not-addressed-by-erc-yet/

Premiership Rugby acknowledged the “progress” made in Dublin earlier today but stressed that “there remain some significant ones which have not yet been addressed.”

In a statement released tonight, the English clubs governing body also stated that the details about the format of the new European Cup announced by the ERC were the same as the proposed Champions Cup.

The full statement read: “The formation of the new Rugby Champions Cup was announced by the English and French clubs on 22 September and the Welsh Regions have confirmed their full support this week. The new competitions are open to teams from all three leagues in Europe and the working group continues to prepare the necessary elements in good time for the 2014/15 Season.

“Premiership Rugby notes from today’s statement on behalf of independent mediators Graeme Mew and Stephen Drymer that progress has been made on some key issues although there remain some significant ones which have not yet been addressed.

“Over the last few weeks of discussions, the French and English clubs have reiterated previous commitments concerning the Rugby Champions Cup and provided a number of new solutions for issues raised by the Unions in order to clear the way for other teams to participate, including:

■The new Rugby Champions Cup is proposed to be under the overall regulatory responsibility of the Six Nations for compliance with IRB regulations, the provision of disciplinary services and the appointment of match officials.
■The three Leagues will organise and manage the new Rugby Champions Cup competitions and maximise all the commercial rights.
■In the 20-team top competition, there would be 7 places guaranteed for the RaboDirect Pro12 league.
■Within the 7 automatic places, there must be at least one team from each country.
■The French and English leagues will provide a minimum financial guarantee for the teams from the RaboDirect Pro12.
“Further details of the Rugby Champions Cup will be announced in due course.”

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:PRL have rejected these terms, Mark McCafferty;

"We have always said that there is no way we are going into any competitions that are run by ERC after the end of this season. That hasn't changed. ''

Well that's, that then because there is no way the Celtic nations can compromise anymore than that.

Unless the Unions hand over control. That's always what they have been after. The rest a smoke and mirrors. Stuff em, I say  

This is a bit of a nonsense from the PRL - they are effectively using the ERC negotiations setup by Mew to establish with the Celts and Italians what they will get in the RCC.

Ridiculous.

If there is a long drawn out split in European Rugby Union that is based on principles not compromised then so be it.  Better to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven and all that.

If PRL have a signed and sealed Deal for European Rugby that will force them now to pay compensation if that deal is scapped, then that was bad business to begin with.  

If they were certain they'd quickly intimidate the Unions and are now seeing something much more solid hitting them, then again that was naive of them.

Don't sign a deal you haven't got.  Or go ahead with the Franglo competition and wait and see what the IRBs response will be.  

Whatever the outcome, the PRL know they won't get as much from BT for a two nation Cup competition - BT wanted a HEC competition... advertising and money making potential throughout all top rugby Union nations not just two.

Artful_Dodger wrote:This is a bit of a nonsense from the PRL - they are effectively using the ERC negotiations setup by Mew to establish with the Celts and Italians what they will get in the RCC.

Ridiculous.

we'll just have to have the HC with the Celtitalian teams and Toulon.

SecretFly wrote:Biltong, I know they don't care.  I've told you in my post they don't care.  Money from sponsorship and TV rights and profits from attendance figures and prize winning - that's what the big French and English clubs want.

Of course it's all about money - from them.  

But it's you who said a system designed to protect the smaller nations from being hoovered up by two big privately run club Leagues was something that shouldn't happen.  It's you, not them, who said a nation like Italy should only have sides in the European event on merit - even though English and French sides are there by right.

I don't mind what they say.  I know all about their attitudes to Pro12 and indeed, more especially to the nuisance Irish! ...but it's a little annoying that an outside observer should so readily fall into line with the PRL propaganda that they were afflicted in Europe by sides that had no right to be there.  They were afflicted by not playing as well as their opponents... that's the only thing that afflicted them.

All sides had rights to be there in HC - it's just that greedy PRL didn't like that idea of rights for all

Fly, the reason why I said merit is simple. How long has Italy been involved in the HC and Six Nations?

How big is the Italian population?

How big is their economy?

A darn sight bigger than the Celtic nations, and yet they are under performing. By forcing them to perform to take part in the HC or whatever the new one will be called will take them to the next level, currently there is no incentive for them to change or improve.

That is my motivation behind my reasoning.

How many times have I read on here that Rabo teams send second string teams to play in certain matches, as they save their top players for HC. The mentality must change, it is to the benefit of every Rabo supporter that the Rabo becomes as high a quality tournament as it possibly could, but then every team must have something at stake, all the time.

How many times have I read on here that Rabo teams send second string teams to play in certain matches, as they save their top players for HC. The mentality must change, it is to the benefit of every Rabo supporter that the Rabo becomes as high a quality tournament as it possibly could, but then every team must have something at stake, all the time.

Its a lie put out by the PRL to justify their stance.  Rabo teams rotate their squads no more than anyone else. Indeed often less as they tend to have smaller squads.  Don't be gullible and buy into the PRL cowpat machine

the Rabo is high quality, very competative and in no way inferior to the AP

Super 15 does not have relegation does it. Does the Currie cup? Does the 4N

"How many times have I read on here that Rabo teams send second string teams to play in certain matches, as they save their top players for HC. The mentality must change, it is to the benefit of every Rabo supporter that the Rabo becomes as high a quality tournament as it possibly could, but then every team must have something at stake, all the time."

I'm actually surprised at that comment from you, Biltong. The IRFU has a player management system which does mean that some players are rested, and if not rested then involved in the national side. Other than that they play, and come the end of season they are exhausted.
If you want to point the finger then have a go at some of Englands clubs who have recently rested players, or much worse, France who send 2nd string teams for away games in the HEC.....

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:From The Rugby Paper

http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/latest-breaking-news/11921/premiership-rugby-significant-issues-not-addressed-by-erc-yet/

Premiership Rugby acknowledged the “progress” made in Dublin earlier today but stressed that “there remain some significant ones which have not yet been addressed.”

In a statement released tonight, the English clubs governing body also stated that the details about the format of the new European Cup announced by the ERC were the same as the proposed Champions Cup.

The full statement read: “The formation of the new Rugby Champions Cup was announced by the English and French clubs on 22 September and the Welsh Regions have confirmed their full support this week. The new competitions are open to teams from all three leagues in Europe and the working group continues to prepare the necessary elements in good time for the 2014/15 Season.

“Premiership Rugby notes from today’s statement on behalf of independent mediators Graeme Mew and Stephen Drymer that progress has been made on some key issues although there remain some significant ones which have not yet been addressed.

“Over the last few weeks of discussions, the French and English clubs have reiterated previous commitments concerning the Rugby Champions Cup and provided a number of new solutions for issues raised by the Unions in order to clear the way for other teams to participate, including:

■The new Rugby Champions Cup is proposed to be under the overall regulatory responsibility of the Six Nations for compliance with IRB regulations, the provision of disciplinary services and the appointment of match officials.
■The three Leagues will organise and manage the new Rugby Champions Cup competitions and maximise all the commercial rights.
■In the 20-team top competition, there would be 7 places guaranteed for the RaboDirect Pro12 league.
■Within the 7 automatic places, there must be at least one team from each country.
■The French and English leagues will provide a minimum financial guarantee for the teams from the RaboDirect Pro12.
“Further details of the Rugby Champions Cup will be announced in due course.”

Interesting first bullet point from the PRL - not sure how that works if there is no union backing. Seems to be a big stumbling block for the RCC or nothing approach.

Yep that's a nonsense biltong. The premiership teams rotate just as uh as the Rabo. The French moreso given both the size of their squads and the fact they tend to not care as much for away games

Anybody see the Saracens team that played Wasps three weeks ago (week before HC matches) in the AP?

Very, very much second string.

Biltong wrote:How many times have I read on here that Rabo teams send second string teams to play in certain matches, as they save their top players for HC. The mentality must change, it is to the benefit of every Rabo supporter that the Rabo becomes as high a quality tournament as it possibly could, but then every team must have something at stake, all the time.

Its not my fault you swallow this B******s.

Do the Pro 12 teams rotate - Yes but so do the English and the French and there is no evidence it is any greater in one league or the other.
Have to say I am disappointed you believe this guff

Biltong wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Biltong, I know they don't care.  I've told you in my post they don't care.  Money from sponsorship and TV rights and profits from attendance figures and prize winning - that's what the big French and English clubs want.

Of course it's all about money - from them.  

But it's you who said a system designed to protect the smaller nations from being hoovered up by two big privately run club Leagues was something that shouldn't happen.  It's you, not them, who said a nation like Italy should only have sides in the European event on merit - even though English and French sides are there by right.

I don't mind what they say.  I know all about their attitudes to Pro12 and indeed, more especially to the nuisance Irish! ...but it's a little annoying that an outside observer should so readily fall into line with the PRL propaganda that they were afflicted in Europe by sides that had no right to be there.  They were afflicted by not playing as well as their opponents... that's the only thing that afflicted them.

All sides had rights to be there in HC - it's just that greedy PRL didn't like that idea of rights for all

Fly, the reason why I said merit is simple. How long has Italy been involved in the HC and Six Nations?

How big is the Italian population?

How big is their economy?

A darn sight bigger than the Celtic nations, and yet they are under performing. By forcing them to perform to take part in the HC or whatever the new one will be called will take them to the next level, currently there is no incentive for them to change or improve.

That is my motivation behind my reasoning.

How many times have I read on here that Rabo teams send second string teams to play in certain matches, as they save their top players for HC. The mentality must change, it is to the benefit of every Rabo supporter that the Rabo becomes as high a quality tournament as it possibly could, but then every team must have something at stake, all the time.

Biltong - I agree, Italy could be a powerhouse in the future. And I agree with other posters who cite the Russians etc. European rugby has plenty of scope foe development.

Hey, you can tell me I am wrong, I am telling you what I have read on here for more than two years.

If I could I would quote examples of it found on this very site.

You know I am right, I could not have been the only one reading it.

Aside from the fact that you want to negate the possibility that I am right, the principle of my reasoning remains.

And as someone up top asked, the Currie Cup has Relegation matches every year.

geoff999rugby wrote:

Biltong wrote:How many times have I read on here that Rabo teams send second string teams to play in certain matches, as they save their top players for HC. The mentality must change, it is to the benefit of every Rabo supporter that the Rabo becomes as high a quality tournament as it possibly could, but then every team must have something at stake, all the time.

Its not my fault you swallow this B******s.

Do the Pro 12 teams rotate - Yes but so do the English and the French and there is no evidence it is any greater in one league or the other.
Have to say I am disappointed you believe this guff

Yep, I have to agree. Gwent Dragons rarely put out a weakened team; we ALWAYS put out a weakened team!

Biltong wrote:


How many times have I read on here that Rabo teams send second string teams to play in certain matches, as they save their top players for HC. The mentality must change, it is to the benefit of every Rabo supporter that the Rabo becomes as high a quality tournament as it possibly could, but then every team must have something at stake, all the time.

Other people have already answered you on this one.  But here's my ten cents anyway

That's the very point about Italy...how long?  Long enough to now finally be starting to get enthusiastic as a nation about rugby.  That's how long it can take.  This isn't new Zealand we're talking about.  The whole idea from the very beginning in 6N history was to help Italy along.  They're a football nation - it was always going to be tough to get rugby to become a generational thing...that sons would remember fathers bringing them to games etc.

We're approaching that and Italy as a national team are certainly becoming competitive in real terms in Europe at least.  And now some crowd of Privately owned clubs are going to say that going to be brought to an end?  At the very same time that they bluster about including nations like Russia and Spain.  Nice.  Start at the very bottom again rather than finish the job with Italy.  Good plan.

Anyway, the top sides in Pro12 play hard to get there and hard to win.  Anything else is a lie.  The Pro12 doesn't have 5 of the last 8 HC winners without it being a competitive tough league.  Anything else said is a lie.  Pro12 gets its priorities right - not wrong.  

Pro12 introduces their academy and younger players to keep a cycle going (out of necessity as they don't have the player numbers). These younger players are added to with experience from HC level players.  Those players then in turn become the HC players.

But both competitions (Pro12 and HC) are hunted down with a level of detailed planning that the other Leagues just don't have. We need to plot and plan more because again, less players force that on you.  The AP balance is wrong, not ours.[/quote]

Oh and since the Kings came into Sper XV this year, we now also have promotion relegation there, the Lions beat the Kings by a few points on home and away basis and are therefor back in the Super XV next year.

People keep saying it Biltong - doesn't mean it is true. Ever heard of "the big lie" In the early days of the european cup when english clubs won a few we were told by the english that because their league had relegation they were battle hardened so better teams- thats why they won. Now we are told we can save our best players for the HC which is why our teams do well. Its utter cowpat. Seriously its a total invention used by the PRL to justify their poisition. I am sure yo have seen it on here many times. People like to use it as an excuse. its pathetic.

Biltong wrote:Oh and since the Kings came into Sper XV this year, we now also have promotion relegation there, the Lions beat the Kings by a few points on home and away basis and are therefor back in the Super XV next year.

And it was a joke of a competition before that, just like the Rabo, right?

I have always said in this over-long 18-month debate that the PRL/LNR were playing hard ball.

And for years I've been arguing that the PRL are incapable of seeing beyond the current moment. They are and always have been unfit for purpose.

But the Franglos will get their way because they hold all the aces sadly.

The Celtalians will now have to bend over, drop their keks and smile as they are royally rogered. Ouch that must smart.

It's the rich wot gets the pleasure...

Munchkin wrote:

Biltong wrote:Oh and since the Kings came into Sper XV this year, we now also have promotion relegation there, the Lions beat the Kings by a few points on home and away basis and are therefor back in the Super XV next year.

And it was a joke of a competition before that, just like the Rabo, right?

Munchkin - I guess Biltong was just pointing out that the arguments made were incorrect...

Munchkin wrote:

Biltong wrote:Oh and since the Kings came into Sper XV this year, we now also have promotion relegation there, the Lions beat the Kings by a few points on home and away basis and are therefor back in the Super XV next year.

And it was a joke of a competition before that, just like the Rabo, right?

I don't get what your point is. The Super Rugby tournament is strucutred diffently to the European setup.

I explained it earlier already.

Our promotion and relegation of our Currie Cup has always been there, the promotion and relegation that happened in Super Rugby this year was an internally run thing as we had politics interfere with having a sixth franchise before we had expanded the Super XV.

An entirely different scenario.

TJ wrote:People keep saying it Biltong - doesn't mean it is true.  Ever heard of "the big lie"  In the early days of the european cup when english clubs won a few we were told by the english that because their league had relegation they were battle hardened so better teams- thats why they won.  Now we are told we can save our best players for the HC which is why our teams do well.  Its utter cowpat.  Seriously its a total invention used by the PRL to justify their poisition.  I am sure yo have seen it on here many times.  People like to use it as an excuse.  its pathetic.

TJ, it depends which people said it. You can disclaim the statement as false or potentially false if it originated in totality from outside Rabo supporters, but it hasn't.

If I could I would find you plenty of examples. Look you guys don't have to agree with my view.

You have to however accept that this is my opinion, even if you don't agree with it.

All I can say is for many of the same reasons there are now difficulties in negotiations, I want SA to pull out of Super Rugby and do their own thing, entirely controlled by us, and entirely participated by only us.

You aren't worried that he standard of your rugby will decrease from not testing yourselves against the best in the world? I would add the commercial value of an SA only gig would be much less than super rugby aswell and might actually exacerbate players leaving your shores

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:I have always said in this over-long 18-month debate that the PRL/LNR were playing hard ball.

And for years I've been arguing that the PRL are incapable of seeing beyond the current moment. They are and always have been unfit for purpose.

But the Franglos will get their way because they hold all the aces sadly.

The Celtalians will now have to bend over, drop their keks and smile as they are royally rogered. Ouch that must smart.

It's the rich wot gets the pleasure...

I wouldn't be so sure. The PRL have backed themselves into a corner with this "Join our new tournament or nothing approach." They could have had all their demands in the HC, but this deal with BT has made negotiation impossible. Evidenced by the fact that when the Celts agree to a reduction of 10 teams to 7 its still not enough.

The French Union have approved the above settlement, as have the IRFU on behalf of the Irish provinces. The PRL could find that they have sold BT a second Anglo-Welsh cup.

As the ERC/SKY deal was signed/announced after the PRL/BTS deal (& for less money) it was ERC who created this problem.

Biltong wrote:Hey, you can tell me I am wrong, I am telling you what I have read on here for more than two years.

If I could I would quote examples of it found on this very site.

You know I am right, I could not have been the only one reading it.

Aside from the fact that you want to negate the possibility that I am right, the principle of my reasoning remains.

And as someone up top asked, the Currie Cup has Relegation matches every year.

"I believe virtually everything I read..."

David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap.

Artful_Dodger wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:I have always said in this over-long 18-month debate that the PRL/LNR were playing hard ball.

And for years I've been arguing that the PRL are incapable of seeing beyond the current moment. They are and always have been unfit for purpose.

But the Franglos will get their way because they hold all the aces sadly.

The Celtalians will now have to bend over, drop their keks and smile as they are royally rogered. Ouch that must smart.

It's the rich wot gets the pleasure...

I wouldn't be so sure.  The PRL have backed themselves into a corner with this "Join our new tournament or nothing approach."  They could have had all their demands in the HC, but this deal with BT has made negotiation impossible.  Evidenced by the fact that when the Celts agree to a reduction of 10 teams to 7 its still not enough.  

The French Union have approved the above settlement, as have the IRFU on behalf of the Irish provinces.  The PRL could find that they have sold BT a second Anglo-Welsh cup.

Have the French Union approved something that the RFU haven't? Genuine question. (In the context of this post)

Biltong wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Biltong wrote:Oh and since the Kings came into Sper XV this year, we now also have promotion relegation there, the Lions beat the Kings by a few points on home and away basis and are therefor back in the Super XV next year.

And it was a joke of a competition before that, just like the Rabo, right?

I don't get what your point is. The Super Rugby tournament is strucutred diffently to the European setup.

I explained it earlier already.

Our promotion and relegation of our Currie Cup has always been there, the promotion and relegation that happened in Super Rugby this year was an internally run thing as we had politics interfere with having a sixth franchise before we had expanded the Super XV.

An entirely different scenario.

It was the S15 that I was referring too. Now, you were commenting on how the Rabo could be improved, and at the time I'm thinking that it isn't as if the S15 was big on promotion/relegation. Then you jump in with the comment of which I responded, and for that reason. To be honest, my thinking was that you were simply projecting the arguments between the SH big 3 unto the situation here with regards to funding, etc.
Anywho, I'm not falling out with you, or anyone else over all this. Not yet anyway...... 

stub wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:I have always said in this over-long 18-month debate that the PRL/LNR were playing hard ball.

And for years I've been arguing that the PRL are incapable of seeing beyond the current moment. They are and always have been unfit for purpose.

But the Franglos will get their way because they hold all the aces sadly.

The Celtalians will now have to bend over, drop their keks and smile as they are royally rogered. Ouch that must smart.

It's the rich wot gets the pleasure...

I wouldn't be so sure.  The PRL have backed themselves into a corner with this "Join our new tournament or nothing approach."  They could have had all their demands in the HC, but this deal with BT has made negotiation impossible.  Evidenced by the fact that when the Celts agree to a reduction of 10 teams to 7 its still not enough.  

The French Union have approved the above settlement, as have the IRFU on behalf of the Irish provinces.  The PRL could find that they have sold BT a second Anglo-Welsh cup.

Have the French Union approved something that the RFU haven't? Genuine question. (In the context of this post)

From what I can surmise the RFU have backed the above proposals as well. To be honest I'm starting to think that McCafferty has really dug himself a hole. He has sold BT the rights to a competition that may well never exist. If he can't pull off the Rugby Champions Cup now he could find himself in quite a bit of trouble.

How can the PRL say we want it run by the six nations and not the ERC.  Am i right in saying if run by the six nations the Rabo unions would control 66% percent but under ERC they would have 8 out of 18 votes so less say

Artful_Dodger wrote:

stub wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:I have always said in this over-long 18-month debate that the PRL/LNR were playing hard ball.

And for years I've been arguing that the PRL are incapable of seeing beyond the current moment. They are and always have been unfit for purpose.

But the Franglos will get their way because they hold all the aces sadly.

The Celtalians will now have to bend over, drop their keks and smile as they are royally rogered. Ouch that must smart.

It's the rich wot gets the pleasure...

I wouldn't be so sure.  The PRL have backed themselves into a corner with this "Join our new tournament or nothing approach."  They could have had all their demands in the HC, but this deal with BT has made negotiation impossible.  Evidenced by the fact that when the Celts agree to a reduction of 10 teams to 7 its still not enough.  

The French Union have approved the above settlement, as have the IRFU on behalf of the Irish provinces.  The PRL could find that they have sold BT a second Anglo-Welsh cup.

Have the French Union approved something that the RFU haven't? Genuine question. (In the context of this post)

From what I can surmise the RFU have backed the above proposals as well.  To be honest I'm starting to think that McCafferty has really dug himself a hole.  He has sold BT the rights to a competition that may well never exist.  If he can't pull off the Rugby Champions Cup now he could find himself in quite a bit of trouble.

Yeah - it seems to me the RFU have approved it too. Interesting times!

Doesn't the BT deal only become a problem however if the ERC still exists?

Artful_Dodger wrote:

stub wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:I have always said in this over-long 18-month debate that the PRL/LNR were playing hard ball.

And for years I've been arguing that the PRL are incapable of seeing beyond the current moment. They are and always have been unfit for purpose.

But the Franglos will get their way because they hold all the aces sadly.

The Celtalians will now have to bend over, drop their keks and smile as they are royally rogered. Ouch that must smart.

It's the rich wot gets the pleasure...

I wouldn't be so sure.  The PRL have backed themselves into a corner with this "Join our new tournament or nothing approach."  They could have had all their demands in the HC, but this deal with BT has made negotiation impossible.  Evidenced by the fact that when the Celts agree to a reduction of 10 teams to 7 its still not enough.  

The French Union have approved the above settlement, as have the IRFU on behalf of the Irish provinces.  The PRL could find that they have sold BT a second Anglo-Welsh cup.

Have the French Union approved something that the RFU haven't? Genuine question. (In the context of this post)

From what I can surmise the RFU have backed the above proposals as well.  To be honest I'm starting to think that McCafferty has really dug himself a hole.  He has sold BT the rights to a competition that may well never exist.  If he can't pull off the Rugby Champions Cup now he could find himself in quite a bit of trouble.

Just to clarify...

Representatives from the Rugby Football Union, French Rugby Federation, Scottish Rugby Union, Welsh Rugby Union, Irish Rugby Union and Italian Rugby Federation were all present in Dublin.

That means all Unions have agreed to the new proposals for the Heineken Cup. McCafferty is still insisting that there will be no HC, there will be the RCC instead. But without a single union backing it how will this materialize? I have no doubt that the IRB will also side with the Unions given that they are a united front.

Artful_Dodger wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:I have always said in this over-long 18-month debate that the PRL/LNR were playing hard ball.

And for years I've been arguing that the PRL are incapable of seeing beyond the current moment. They are and always have been unfit for purpose.

But the Franglos will get their way because they hold all the aces sadly.

The Celtalians will now have to bend over, drop their keks and smile as they are royally rogered. Ouch that must smart.

It's the rich wot gets the pleasure...

I wouldn't be so sure.  The PRL have backed themselves into a corner with this "Join our new tournament or nothing approach."  They could have had all their demands in the HC, but this deal with BT has made negotiation impossible.  Evidenced by the fact that when the Celts agree to a reduction of 10 teams to 7 its still not enough.  

The French Union have approved the above settlement, as have the IRFU on behalf of the Irish provinces.  The PRL could find that they have sold BT a second Anglo-Welsh cup.

Frankly, AD, I'm beyond caring as the new competition will still be flawed as a. It will still have elements that won't be meritocratic whilst leagues/unions hold guaranteed places, b. It will still be imbalanced by not having eight pools with lucky losers, c. tba - seedings and pool draws, d. The lack of h/a qtrs & semis.

It'll still be a botch.
An enjoyable botch, but still a botch. However you apply the lipstick to the pig.

Standulstermen wrote:You aren't worried that he standard of your rugby will decrease from not testing yourselves against the best in the world? I would add the commercial value of an SA only gig would be much less than super rugby aswell and might actually exacerbate players leaving your shores

To be honest, no.

Most believe that having clubs playing against other nations clubs make their players better.

That is only one side of the coin.

Familiarity breads contempt. Now let me give you an example of that. In the Super XV you find derby matches are more hotly contested, closer and tougher than any other match. The reason is because the players know each other very well.

There has been a mandate from SANZAR to increase local derbies as they attract the biggest number of spectators for that very reason.

Our Currie Cup attracts more viewers than our Super Rugby teams do.

We have an expanding market of 10 million households only beginning to venture into rugby union. Currently there are only about 3 million households following rugby.

We have six fully professional rugby teams, we have another 8 semi professional or poorly funded provincial teams and can increase our player numbers three to fourfold by embracing all the cultures in SA.

The latent potential in SA is ridiculously scary in SA.

By focusing on a Super Rugby tournament where we consistently get outvoted by our ANZAC partners and on top of that funding them television revenue that can be better utilised at home, we are stalling a process that should have been much further along by now.

I can carry on, but that's the gest of it.

It's up to the RFU and FFR and now the WRU to basically say to their clubs/regions. This is it. Come in now or else you will not have European competition. Whether or not they do that is another matter

Fair point on derbies attracting viewers but not on the quality of rugby they produce. If anything it produces cagier rugby I think. I don't know the demographics of SA biltong do I defer to you on that one. I would have thought decent sponsorship would be easier drew to a 4 nation competition/market as opposed to a single nation comp.