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

Toohey...I'm saying that in the course of the declarations of intent in the beginning of all this schmaltz, the PRL certainly gave the impression that they had sold rights to ALL English club games that would take place in any future European Cup.  All English games, not English based ones.

I also saw Phillip Browne's statements when he said it was no negotiation to come to a table with assumed rights already 'bought'.

You weren't around then.  You only got interested, and angry and righteous in the last few weeks when the war got juicy?

Riskysports wrote:

stub wrote:So is there anything new today?

I just had a chocolate sundae, which was new - yum

Very good - glad you enjoyed!

Notch wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Don't the Irish get an unreciprocated vote when they live in Blighty?

All EU citizens get the vote in Britain and Ireland- only presidential elections in Ireland are limited to Irish citizens. But prior to the EU arrangement, Irish could vote in Britain and Brits could vote in Ireland due to a treaty that gives reciprocal voting rights across the two countries.

Again, the only exception was/is for Brits voting in Presidential elections. As Ireland is a Republic and Britain a monarchy there is no British equivalent to Presidential elections. Brits have the right to vote in all Irish elections barring Presidential elections (and referenda thanks ME-109) and Irish the right to vote in all British elections.

The short answer is no, thats not accurate- the two countries share reciprocal voting rights independently of the EU (but would do so as EU members anyway).

Britain doesn't have a constitution either (written at least...you lot make it up as you go along)

Anyway - why are we still arguing its being agreed!

its ALIVE just not with the ERC!

ME-109 wrote:

Notch wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Don't the Irish get an unreciprocated vote when they live in Blighty?

All EU citizens get the vote in Britain and Ireland- only presidential elections in Ireland are limited to Irish citizens. But prior to the EU arrangement, Irish could vote in Britain and Brits could vote in Ireland due to a treaty that gives reciprocal voting rights across the two countries.

Again, the only exception was/is for Brits voting in Presidential elections. As Ireland is a Republic and Britain a monarchy there is no British equivalent to Presidential elections. Brits have the right to vote in all Irish elections barring Presidential elections (and referenda thanks ME-109) and Irish the right to vote in all British elections.

The short answer is no, thats not accurate- the two countries share reciprocal voting rights independently of the EU (but would do so as EU members anyway).

Britain doesn't have a constitution either (written at least...you lot make it up as you go along)

We muddle through... 

mystiroakey wrote:Anyway - why are we still arguing its being agreed!

its ALIVE just not with the ERC!

Have there been more meetings today or is there a break in proceeding now?

well everything says in various different sources  from different countries that finances are agreed(33/33/33) and qualification is agreed!(7/6/6 and a play off)

I suppose the only problem is broadcasting - which the lawyers will clearly have to deal with!!

mystiroakey wrote:the only entity I can see doing that(selling something that isn't theirs) is the ERC getting a deal with sky for another EURO cup including english games when england have already contractually bound with bt for there games

Couple of points on that.

1. The ERC did a deal involving all the participant unions on selling the rights to a new European Cup, whilst - to quote your words "England have already contractually bound with BT for their games". The PRL acting on behalf of their clubs did a deal with BT for broadcasting rights to games involving PRL teams - in the AP and European games. Up to now, it has never been unequivocally clarified whether this included both home and away (outside England) European games. McCafferty in a statement yesterday (24/10) said: "We've been very clear on both of those issues. We've stated that any European games involving English clubs will be screened by BT Sport and that these new competitions must be run largely by the leagues."

Thus, McCafferty (assuming he's been quoted accurately) is saying that if Toulouse are playing Leicester in Toulouse, then that game will be screened by BT sport (one assumes he means in the UK, and not in France). Equally, he's saying that if Leinster are playing Northampton in Dublin, then the game will be screened by BT Sport (again one assumes this will apply to UK, or possibly England only).

2. The PRL were well aware that a new TV rights deal with Sky was being considered by ERC - they were present at the meetings where it was discussed prior to any announcement about BT being made. They may have opposed it in those meetings, but they were not unaware of it. (One might ask if PRL notified their ERC colleagues of their pending deal with BT Sport, one assumes not.) Following the PRL announcement of the BT deal for the AP and European games involving PRL teams, the ERC met and agreed for the ERC to "conclude negotiations" on the new Sky deal. The ERC were perfectly within their rights to do so. The RFU acted on behalf of English union rugby within its designated role in the ERC. Who they choose to put forward or propose for a new European cup is up to them.

The lack of clarity about which territories are covered under the BT Sport means it's difficult to understand fully what has been sold "legitimately", or may not have been. I would find it difficult to believe that PRL could enforce the Irish broadcast rights of a game held in Dublin involving a PRL team to be only provided by BT Sport, since they would have no jurisdiction on that territory, and would require the consent of the other union/club involved. But maybe they checked it out, and thought that they could.

Sounding positive then Mysti. The boards will probably go quiet now...  

SecretFly wrote:Toohey...I'm saying that in the course of the declarations of intent in the beginning of all this schmaltz, the PRL certainly gave the impression that they had sold rights to ALL English club games that would take place in any future European Cup.  All English games, not English based ones.

I also saw Phillip Browne's statements when he said it was no negotiation to come to a table with assumed rights already 'bought'.

You weren't around then.  You only got interested, and angry and righteous in the last few weeks when the war got juicy?

So someone said someone said something that made you think that maybe the PRL were evil and then someone else might have implied it was true. Nice basis for a discussion. Earlier you stated, 'PRL were assuming the full rights to negotiate a TV deal on behalf of all potential unions'. You didn't say, 'I believe', or 'I heard' or even, 'In my opinion'. You stated it as fact with nothing to back it up. I'm not angry, I just find that some of the weakest possible type of debate and think that someone needs to call you on it. 90% of what people are angry about on here is fact less, baseless crap and it would be a better place without it.

Thanks for that update, ME.

Toohey wrote:Show me one piece of evidence that the PRL and BT deal includes rights other than for English home games? You can't because it doesn't exist. For you to believe it does would also mean that you assume that a company with a market cap of £28 billion and probably over 100 lawyers being stupid enough to think that signing a deal with the PRL meant they had rights for 5 other countries home games. Would also mean the PRL thinking they could sell them. Do you really think that is possible?

I think that international sports usually have a single broadcasting facility by which the pictures are pumped into the states' agreed networks. Usually television studios are arranged for the host broadcaster and other televisors.

Toohey wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Toohey...I'm saying that in the course of the declarations of intent in the beginning of all this schmaltz, the PRL certainly gave the impression that they had sold rights to ALL English club games that would take place in any future European Cup.  All English games, not English based ones.

I also saw Phillip Browne's statements when he said it was no negotiation to come to a table with assumed rights already 'bought'.

You weren't around then.  You only got interested, and angry and righteous in the last few weeks when the war got juicy?

So someone said someone said something that made you think that maybe the PRL were evil and then someone else might have implied it was true.  Nice basis for a discussion.  Earlier you stated, 'PRL were assuming the full rights to negotiate a TV deal on behalf of all potential unions'.  You didn't say, 'I believe', or 'I heard' or even, 'In my opinion'.  You stated it as fact with nothing to back it up.  I'm not angry, I just find that some of the weakest possible type of debate and think that someone needs to call you on it.  90% of what people are angry about on here is fact less, baseless crap and it would be a better place without it.

McCafferty in a statement yesterday (24/10) said: "We've been very clear on both of those issues. We've stated that any European games involving English clubs will be screened by BT Sport and that these new competitions must be run largely by the leagues."

Pot Hale wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:the only entity I can see doing that(selling something that isn't theirs) is the ERC getting a deal with sky for another EURO cup including english games when england have already contractually bound with bt for there games

Couple of points on that.

1. The ERC did a deal involving all the participant unions on selling the rights to a new European Cup, whilst -  to quote your words "England have already contractually bound with BT for their games".  The PRL acting on behalf of their clubs did a deal with BT for broadcasting rights to games involving PRL teams - in the AP and European games.   Up to now, it has never been unequivocally clarified whether this included both home and away (outside England) European games.   McCafferty in a statement yesterday (24/10) said: "We've been very clear on both of those issues.  We've stated that any European games involving English clubs will be screened by BT Sport and that these new competitions must be run largely by the leagues."

Thus, McCafferty (assuming he's been quoted accurately) is saying that if Toulouse are playing Leicester in Toulouse, then that game will be screened by BT sport (one assumes he means in the UK, and not in France).  Equally, he's saying that if Leinster are playing Northampton in Dublin, then the game will be screened by BT Sport (again one assumes this will apply to UK, or possibly England only).  

2. The PRL were well aware that a new TV rights deal with Sky was being considered by ERC - they were present at the meetings where it was discussed prior to any announcement about BT being made.  They may have opposed it in those meetings, but they were not unaware of it.  (One might ask if PRL notified their ERC colleagues of their pending deal with BT Sport, one assumes not.)   Following the PRL announcement of the BT deal for the AP and European games involving PRL teams, the ERC met and agreed for the ERC to "conclude negotiations" on the new Sky deal.   The ERC were perfectly within their rights to do so.  The RFU acted on behalf of English union rugby within its designated role in the ERC.   Who they choose to put forward or propose for a new European cup is up to them.

The lack of clarity about which territories are covered under the BT Sport means it's difficult to understand fully what has been sold "legitimately", or may not have been.  I would find it difficult to believe that PRL could enforce the Irish broadcast rights of a game held in Dublin involving a PRL team to be only provided by BT Sport, since they would have no jurisdiction on that territory, and would require the consent of the other union/club involved.  But maybe they checked it out, and thought that they could.

If this  slightly 'paranoid' view is reality(england selling other nations home games). Surely that would not only mean the PRL have got some very bad information about what they can and can't do , but more importantly that a company like BT that offered the DEAL based on these stipulations have the worst two bit lawyers on the planet! It just doesn't and cannot seem plausible. Bt is a huge firm., they are not going to waste their time on something that cannot be contractually viable.

TJ wrote:

The English and French clubs would have home advantage in the play-offs against the Pro12 clubs.

In year one, the 20th place would be allocated through a play-off match between the 7th placed PRL and LNR clubs

Both these are unnacceptable

I think the logic is that if the Rabo has seven teams and the other two leagues six then the French and English should have the advantage as even if they win the play-offs they only get equality with the Rabo.

mystiroakey wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:the only entity I can see doing that(selling something that isn't theirs) is the ERC getting a deal with sky for another EURO cup including english games when england have already contractually bound with bt for there games

Couple of points on that.

1. The ERC did a deal involving all the participant unions on selling the rights to a new European Cup, whilst -  to quote your words "England have already contractually bound with BT for their games".  The PRL acting on behalf of their clubs did a deal with BT for broadcasting rights to games involving PRL teams - in the AP and European games.   Up to now, it has never been unequivocally clarified whether this included both home and away (outside England) European games.   McCafferty in a statement yesterday (24/10) said: "We've been very clear on both of those issues.  We've stated that any European games involving English clubs will be screened by BT Sport and that these new competitions must be run largely by the leagues."

Thus, McCafferty (assuming he's been quoted accurately) is saying that if Toulouse are playing Leicester in Toulouse, then that game will be screened by BT sport (one assumes he means in the UK, and not in France).  Equally, he's saying that if Leinster are playing Northampton in Dublin, then the game will be screened by BT Sport (again one assumes this will apply to UK, or possibly England only).  

2. The PRL were well aware that a new TV rights deal with Sky was being considered by ERC - they were present at the meetings where it was discussed prior to any announcement about BT being made.  They may have opposed it in those meetings, but they were not unaware of it.  (One might ask if PRL notified their ERC colleagues of their pending deal with BT Sport, one assumes not.)   Following the PRL announcement of the BT deal for the AP and European games involving PRL teams, the ERC met and agreed for the ERC to "conclude negotiations" on the new Sky deal.   The ERC were perfectly within their rights to do so.  The RFU acted on behalf of English union rugby within its designated role in the ERC.   Who they choose to put forward or propose for a new European cup is up to them.

The lack of clarity about which territories are covered under the BT Sport means it's difficult to understand fully what has been sold "legitimately", or may not have been.  I would find it difficult to believe that PRL could enforce the Irish broadcast rights of a game held in Dublin involving a PRL team to be only provided by BT Sport, since they would have no jurisdiction on that territory, and would require the consent of the other union/club involved.  But maybe they checked it out, and thought that they could.

If this  slightly 'paranoid' view is reality(england selling other nations home games). Surely that would not only mean the PRL have got some very bad information about what they can and can't do , but more importantly that a company like BT that offered the DEAL based on these stipulations have the worst two bit lawyers on the planet! It just doesn't and cannot seem plausible. Bt is a huge firm., they are not going to waste their time on something that cannot be contractually viable.

England hasn't sold other nations home games. The PRL, a legitimate representative body, sold the rights to European games involving PRL teams. They did so without recourse to the RFU which is a problem they need to solve internally. If the broadcasting rights they've sold only cover England (or possibly UK), then the issue is narrowed. McCafferty did not say "home games only", so they must have done some deal whereby they have sold broadcasting rights within their own territory.

Whilst some may view the issue as irrelevant, McCafferty clearly does not. It is highly important to their negotiating position. In effect; "Sorry, we're already contracted to BT Sport, so we can't sign up to another TV deal with someone else for European games involving PRL teams." It's a clever defense mechanism.

Toohey..I refer you to Pot Hale's post.

All my posts still stand.  And I suggest if a body such as PRL decides it doesn't want people to be confused about what it is saying (Did they? Didn't they?!)  Then perhaps it's best not making public statements announcing to the world what they want and what they claim to have.

Those statements get read...  Do they then come back to the peoples of the world and say "But that was only a statement.  We didn't say we would and we didn't say we wouldn't we just said......................em, that we might if we could if we were let, even if we weren't let because it's our right to."  Sounds like an old Jewish comedian I used to watch.

Phillip Browne DID see proposals from PRL.  He must have or it wasn't much of a business proposal.  So Browne saw or heard about rights sold or rights pretended to be sold ( - or maybe not - or maybe they didn't sell rights to BT - and maybe they did!!!) !!!  

But whatever non-committal "we didn't say this but maybe we said that" documents they placed before him and other Union heads, he certainly came away with the opinion that English PRL 'sold' or pretended to sell rights they didn't have.  

I'm declaring that they didn't sell certain rights as they don't own certain rights.  But they've certainly claimed they had the rights at some point to Union heads.

Then again...... maybe they didn't claim anything and I'm just dreaming up the ERC crisis.  Quins thinks I am

there is no ERC crisis. PRL/LNR have no contention with ERC. any ERC crisis you might be referring to involves only those still in it, ie the unions, and what they might have agreed between themselves and SKY....

"But they've certainly claimed they had the rights at some point to Union heads"


how could they have- If someone came up to me and said i have sold your dog. I would laugh at them.. You dont have to get scared of the situation, you just laugh it off ,because it's impossible!


Sorry i dont understand what this argument is turning into tbh.. 

Don't know what you mean, quins!  You could be saying this and, then again, you might be saying something completely different.

I'll decide later what I think you said, based on whether I want to agree with you or disagree with you.

Hope that's clear.  If not, I refer you to Toohey.  He's doing my dictation today so that he can prove I didn't say later what he thought I said tomorrow.

Technically aren't the ERC still in existence with all the original parties still in place?

Just that some don't want to pitch up to all meetings.

Must make catering managers' lives tricky.

mystiroakey wrote:"But they've certainly claimed they had the rights at some point to Union heads"


how could they have- If someone came up to me and said i have sold your dog. I would laugh at them.. You dont have to get scared of the situation, you just laugh it off ,because it's impossible!


Sorry i dont understand what this argument is turning into tbh.. 

Now you know how the other Unions felt... "What did he just say? - He sold my Merc to the head of LNR and he wants you to pay him? - I don't know what he said...but let's not laugh in front of him, it wouldn't be polite."

quinsforever wrote: there is no ERC crisis. PRL/LNR have no contention with ERC. any ERC crisis you might be referring to involves only those still in it, ie the unions, and what they might have agreed between themselves and SKY....

Strange. I'm sure the PRL claimed just yesterday that they will never take part in an ERC competition. That's a contention. You don't have to be a part of something to contend against it. Just like I'm contending against your imaginative, but daft, comments right now  

I can't believe how unconcerned people are that BT haven't made it clear whether they will or will not be the exclusive broadcaster of any new competition.

SecretFly wrote:Don't know what you mean, quins!  You could be saying this and, then again, you might be saying something completely different.

I'll decide later what I think you said, based on whether I want to agree with you or disagree with you.

Hope that's clear.  If not, I refer you to Toohey.  He's doing my dictation today so that he can prove I didn't say later what he thought I said tomorrow.

Are you sitting in front of a mirror having an argument with yourself? Do you put on a different hat and assume a mockney accent when playing the part of the evil PRL?

SecretFly wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:"But they've certainly claimed they had the rights at some point to Union heads"


how could they have- If someone came up to me and said i have sold your dog. I would laugh at them.. You dont have to get scared of the situation, you just laugh it off ,because it's impossible!


Sorry i dont understand what this argument is turning into tbh.. 

Now you know how the other Unions felt... "What did he just say? - He sold my Merc to the head of LNR and he wants you to pay him? - I don't know what he said...but let's not laugh in front of him, it wouldn't be polite."

Well either way- the 6 unions have now proposed an almost exact replica of the PRL's proposal..

If they are insane . its worked hasn't it.

Watch everyone fall back into line pretty soon. Not sure if the ERC can stay(that sky contract is clearly not going to work and is clearly way to cheap!!) - but you just rename it dont you and you get to keep the old admin hotties and just get rid of that french dude at the top!

Notch wrote:I can't believe how unconcerned people are that BT haven't made it clear whether they will or will not be the exclusive broadcaster of any new competition.

I have sky. I have BT.

I want BT to take on the monopoly.

I have no major issue either way. But more competition in that market place will give our clubs and unions more money!

Toohey wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Don't know what you mean, quins!  You could be saying this and, then again, you might be saying something completely different.

I'll decide later what I think you said, based on whether I want to agree with you or disagree with you.

Hope that's clear.  If not, I refer you to Toohey.  He's doing my dictation today so that he can prove I didn't say later what he thought I said tomorrow.

Are you sitting in front of a mirror having an argument with yourself?  Do you put on a different hat and assume a mockney accent when playing the part of the evil PRL?

Haven't a clue what your point is, Toohey.  You'll have to give it to me in a signed contract and I'll get back to you.

mystiroakey wrote:


just rename it dont you and you get to keep the old admin hotties and just get rid of that french dude at the top!

You won't get rid of him, oakey. You like the French Best buddies.

I love the french.. But not the dude at the head of the ERC

Damn...all it would have taken it to sack the head of the ERC and all would have been at peace in the HC.

Oh well, that info came out too late. But it's good to know for next time round.

Erm no I think you need to backtrack... what was needed was to have a fair split and a fair allocation. That has been dealt with. Now we move on to kill the ERC, as i said we can off course keep the staff but just get rid of the nonsense at the top that has brought us into this mess in the first place

So McCafferty goes?  Fine by me.

Yeah, home advantage in play-off games is fair enough; as is the 50% English involvement and 25% Irish one.  We were all into percentages a while ago, weren't we?  That kinda chat has died off pretty rapidly.

Yeah, it's all fair  - in a parallel Universe ..............

irish involvement will be between 25% and 100% SF. surprised you are so sure of irish club failure in the new setup.

SecretFly wrote:So McCafferty goes?  Fine by me.

Yeah, home advantage in play-off games is fair enough; as is the 50% English involvement and 25% Irish one.  We were all into percentages a while ago, weren't we?  That kinda chat has died off pretty rapidly.

Yeah, it's all fair  - in a parallel Universe ..............

i dont agree with the home advantage.

i dont actually agree with much, just lowering myself down a notch so we can get on a level dude

SecretFly wrote:So McCafferty goes?  Fine by me.

Yeah, home advantage in play-off games is fair enough; as is the 50% English involvement and 25% Irish one.  We were all into percentages a while ago, weren't we?  That kinda chat has died off pretty rapidly.

Yeah, it's all fair  - in a parallel Universe ..............

Rabo will have seven teams in competition and PRL and LNR will have six so home advantage for the remaining place seems fine as the best that the PRL and LNR could achieve is equality with the Pro 12. It would seem fairer if the PRL and LNR just had a playoff for the final place and not involve Pro12. This would mean each season it would be 7,7,6 with no risk of 8,6,6.

SecretFly wrote:So McCafferty goes?  Fine by me.

Yeah, home advantage in play-off games is fair enough; as is the 50% English involvement and 25% Irish one.  We were all into percentages a while ago, weren't we?  That kinda chat has died off pretty rapidly.

Yeah, it's all fair  - in a parallel Universe ..............

I think it's about clubs now, SF. You have to speak club-ese or should that be clubbish?

So there are 6 clubs from England, 6 from France, and 1 each from Ireland, Wales, Italy, Scotland guaranteed a place in the brave new world of European competition. England is guaranteed 33% of the money, so is France. Ireland, Wales, Italy and Scotland will get at least the same as last year, but presumably on a third, a third and 2 two-sixths basis in the new club-world view.

Great negotiation - I can see why McCafferty has stayed out of it, he doesn't need to say a word.

Interestingly, the statement from the ERC mediators doesn't specifically state qualification occurring through top 6 from any of the leagues, but instead says: "The clubs would come through meritocratic qualification from their respective leagues. ” Wonder if the PRL wants to keep the AW Cup spot running and France continue to be the only league that actually uses top 6 (its play-off teams) to be handed a spot?

Equally, will there be further grumblings if a PRO12 season finishes with Glasgow, Treviso, Zebre and Edinburgh at the bottom of the rung? Truly meritocratic.

Lastly, a further comment from McCafferty yesterday when asked about the TV coverage of the European comp: " "We have always been clear about our position on this. It will be covered by BT Sport."

Any thoughts on the welshies lads

They are siding with the Engaces!

This still has a way to go. Hope to god they dont end up splitting matches between sky and bt - fans will always be considered last here...

Bath/Glaws is about to start and they're talking about how many changes each team has made... Interesting (Biltong take note).

mystiroakey wrote:Any thoughts on the welshies lads

They are siding with the Engaces!

The Welshies have welched.  Enough said.

Welch - vb (also Welsh)

1. fail to honor (a debt or obligation incurred through a promise or agreement).

Pot Hale wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Any thoughts on the welshies lads

They are siding with the Engaces!

The Welshies have welched.  Enough said.

the welshies are going to look after their own interests, just like everyone else.

 

The Saint wrote:Bath/Glaws is about to start and they're talking about how many changes each team has made... Interesting (Biltong take note).

This whole farce has become so complicated (rather like Irish geopolitics) that nobody is now capable of explaining it concisely - and any outcome will leave all parties dissatisfied.

All because a couple of English 'business guys' saw an opportunity to 'build their personal brand'.

Triff. Thanks boys.

Casartelli wrote:This whole farce has become so complicated (rather like Irish geopolitics) that nobody is now capable of explaining it concisely -
All because a couple of English 'business guys' saw an opportunity to 'build their personal brand'.

Is that your concise explanation?

Pot Hale wrote:

Casartelli wrote:This whole farce has become so complicated (rather like Irish geopolitics) that nobody is now capable of explaining it concisely -
All because a couple of English 'business guys' saw an opportunity to 'build their personal brand'.

Is that your concise explanation?

It's the best I've seen thus far.

I found myself watching................ of all things!!!.... a documentary on the Iceland company last night(cold finger food guys???)

Anyway...................  the crap I was hearing from all the top guys as they fretted and frowned over the look of a piece of (well, what looked like cat shyte, to be brutally honest) on a plate.
Market value buzz words, knowing frowns, awkward silences as the underlings waited for approval for products, bringing the producers price down so much that the producers were almost owing Iceland money as they sold stuff to them.

I was laughing at the garish goulishness of it all.... and yep, I was thinking of rugby and what a brand identity obession could develop into.

RCC or bust

Concise and accurate.

Prawn chipped vegetable soup balls or vodka jelly coated ginger fingers.

You know it's the only choice worth worrying about.

Concise has to be the point. That sounds like you have been warped by propaganda against the english and business within sport.

This all happened because things couldn't get sorted out before hand due to the majority who are uniformed by a survivalist need to have one domestic league.They didn't understand that there are actually two other unions of which are very reasonable and will entertain as long as its democratic, but if you dont let them have their say they will eventually have to take matters into their own hands and take you out in the fullest British bulldog spirit way- Its 6 WC finals to 0, and that is the difference in class- the fact that france cannot go all the way is also noted but luckily the english with 1 wc victory to 0 will stay rigid till the end!

Basically the concise explanation is below

It was much needed anarchy due to flawed management.. And it will work out for the best.

no...don't like the sound of all that, mystir...

frog gizzard pumpkin pretzels is a much better taste.