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

I am not an expert on chav food bud. It's all going over my head. But combination does sound very halloweeny.. it will probally be all the rage soon

Acording to Planet Rugby has been agreed of some sort of New arrangements but it seems
the Unions have agreed .
But the clubs haven`t and the sticking point seems to be who is running what,seems clear
as mud to me.

Thats the jest of it. yep..

Paul Rees of The Guardian wrote:-

The president of Ligue Nationale de Rugby, Paul Goze, has warned that there will be no agreement over European club rugby unless BT replaces Sky as the broadcaster.

The unions involved in the Heineken Cup this week moved towards the French and English clubs, who are pulling out of the tournament at the end of the season and setting up their own competition, by agreeing to 20 teams rather than 24 competing for the trophy, a meritocratic qualification system and an equal split of the proceeds between the three leagues that feed into it.

Two key obstacles remain to an agreement: how the tournament is governed, with the clubs saying they will be in charge, and the broadcasting rights with the Heineken Cup organisers, European Rugby Cup Ltd, last year agreeing a contract extension with Sky while Premiership Rugby has sold its cross-border rights to BT.

"We've known for a while now that they would meet most of our format and financial demands but the TV deals make all the difference," said Goze. "ERC is dead because of the two TV rights deals and there can't be a competition ran by it.

"It will not survive because the English clubs can't take part in an ERC-run competition and we don't want to play in a competition without the English. The only solution is a new competition."

Goze said he did not see the International Rugby Board blocking the Rugby Champions Cup being planned by the French and English clubs, a move that has given urgency to talks between the unions involved in the Heineken Cup who are planning to meet again next week to talk about governance and commercial contracts.

"The clubs are the heartbeat of this competition so we should also look after the logistics. We want a European competition and I can't see why anyone wouldn't support a tournament that will help European rugby grow. There will be the Champions Cup next year or there will be nothing."

Franno in the Sunday Independent.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/neil-francis-anchors-with-a-capital-w-29703136.html

A while back I played in a match that at that time had importance attached to it. My immediate rival assessed the situation and decided that there would be no point in trying to compete and chose a novel way to try and negate my influence.

Years before Marco Materazzi provoked Zinedine Zidane to despair in the 2006 World Cup final, this guy gave me a full 80 minutes of provocation. Not only were my sisters prostitutes but so was my granny and my entire family. Hardly original but at least he was persistent. The game was over before half-time yet he ramped up the verbal onslaught. The sporting contest was over, why continue? Maybe it got to him that I hadn't reacted.

I saw somewhere that a comedian's fantasy was to be a chat show host and that his first guest would be Neil Armstrong and he would have him on for half an hour and not mention 'the moon' once. In the final quarter, every ruck I got into (I did get into a few) there were studs and a swinging arm or a bent knee. My team-mates were perplexed as to why I did nothing – certainly a broken jaw was the least he deserved – but nonchalance and apathy were what he deserved.

At the final whistle my friend came bounding over and proffered his hand which I refused. The whole concept of knocking lumps out of each other and then shaking hands and drinking pints as friends is a fallacy and a fairytale. The handshake is to symbolise friendship and brotherhood and whatever happened on the pitch during the previous 80 minutes would be consigned to oblivion. His motives to me were clear, his handshake was a continuation of what had happened during the match, there was no remorse and conviction in his demeanour and this was demonstrated in his act of faux indignation after my refusal by following me off the pitch asking me why I wouldn't shake his hand and go for a pint with him or why couldn't we sort it out mano a mano behind the stand.

Despite his reprehensible behaviour, I was now seen as the villain for not shaking hands with him. Good rugby people believed that I was wrong not to observe the legend. If you behave badly and do so in a reckless and premeditated fashion, call me unchristian but I can't forgive.

There were Meat trombone soloist then, there were Meat trombone soloist before them and unfortunately we are knee deep in them now – on and off the pitch.

Maybe, right at this moment, it's time for a fundamental reappraisal of who we (the rugby family) are. We think we are a better class of people in the sporting world, and not in a Hyacinth Bouquet Keeping Up Appearances type of way.

It is my general perception that most rugby people are right-thinking, fair-minded rational people. We observe silences for kickers; we sing our national anthem with respect and solemnity; we walk to the bin when we get carded without petulance; we accept the referee's decisions without rancour or pettiness even though he may be wrong. There is no hooliganism before, during or after matches and supporters, even though they may be bitter rivals, embrace and engage after the match. Most often there is a pervading sense of bonhomie and brotherly/sisterly togetherness.

Now, more and more, we see a higher proliferation of, well, Meat trombone soloist in the game. On the pitch players like Danny Cipriani, Gavin Henson, Quade Cooper, James O'Connor, Kurtley Beale. Funny how all of these types of players are drawn to the people who will start a fight with them at 4.0am inside or outside the nightclub when all their team-mates are doing something else. Repeated warnings, repeated curfew breaks, repeated fines, repeated headlines, repeated forgiveness from their team-mates and what do they do? They repeat. How many have we got in the barrel now? How many will there be in 10 years?

Dylan Hartley, Courtney Lawes, Bakkies Botha, Delon Armitage are symptomatic of a generation of players. Cheap shots and dangerous play without compunction or real remorse. Reds and yellows are an occupational hazard, maybe sometimes seen as a badge of honour. There were dirty players back in the 1920s and 1930s, but this lot just don't see the wrong in it. There doesn't seem to be a line to step over anymore. It begets things like sledging and cynicism. That's the territory, these are the injuns.

Off the field? Well, the sins and ineptitude of those who let the game go open in 1995 without controls have, 18 years later, come back to bite them in the arse. And what a collection of beauties are queuing up to take control of the game in the northern hemisphere. It is of no matter whether these men have ever played the game or have even a smidgeon of rugby tradition or heritage. Theirs is for commercial aggrandisement, self-interest and return on investment.

Whatever the outcome of this week's deliberations – and my guess is that we are still months away from a workable solution – the behaviour of Mark McCafferty and Quentin Smith has been reprehensible. Inflammatory behaviour that forgets the concept that all the parties they are upsetting now and in the last year or so they will have to work with closely in the future. Never mind what the players and supporters feel about what they are trying to do. Their arrogance and Thatcher-like insistence is a salutary sign to everyone in the rugby family that the game is finished if they succeed. If they behave like this when they are not in power, how will they behave if they do get to control the game in Europe?

Imagine for one second that they inconceivably wrest control of the game – not without a huge amount of bloodshed. What happens next? Do they offer an outstretched hand and say no hard feelings and everyone swans off harmoniously and we (Pro12) have to bow to their diktats. The business and governance of the game can be cut-throat. That was accepted once the game went professional. What is unacceptable is the way they have gone about it and how they are willing to destroy one of sport's greatest competitions – one with 18 years of history and hopefully 118 years of history.

Rugby people, real rugby people, just would not do that, irrespective of their demands and needs. In our appraisal of the game we find that this type of person is not what we, the rugby family, want to control, govern and lead our game. They unfortunately are there.

When Fletcher Christian took over the bounty and he set Captain Bligh away on the lifeboat, little did he realise what problems he would encounter with his fellow mutineers. The mess that ensued on Pitcairn Island left Christian crying out for the structure, governance and authority of Bligh.

The problem with rabble is that you have to organise them. I have never met Mourad Boudjellal – he falls out with his coaches, his players, the LNR and the FFR. If I was still playing and the call came, I would need at least seven figures just to put up with it. The climate, vin rouge and the mademoiselles wouldn't be enough. Boudjellal has already fallen out with his Top 14 confreres and has said his team will be playing in the Heineken Cup. If they are squabbling at this early stage, then best of luck Mark with that one.

If they can't organise themselves on the micro front what about on the macro level for simple things like putting up a defence when Rupert Murdoch's carnivorous legal team go to work on them for breach of contract with Sky? Or the simple things like supplying referees or organising judicial panels for the host of players who are getting sent off on a regular basis?

If this unlikely collection of spivs and sugar daddies succeed, then and only then will the rugby family know the awfulness which will befall their game.

Meanwhile, during one of the most important weeks in northern hemisphere rugby, the IRB sent me an email telling me that Israel had a tough time beating the mighty Luxembourg 26-12 in a World Cup 2015 pre-qualifier. The ship is sinking and the IRB are handing out anchors.

Think he needs to do better research as most PRL owners have long histories in rugby with them willing to put very large sums to get their clubs viable. IMSHO they have put more money into rugby than all Union men put together. They are mostly successful buisiness men & if they just wanted more money I am sure that they could find better places than to invest in pro rugby

broadlandboy wrote:Think he needs to do better research as most PRL owners have long histories in rugby with them willing to put very large sums to get their clubs viable. IMSHO they have put more money into rugby than all Union men put together. They are mostly successful buisiness men & if they just wanted more money I am sure that they could find better places than to invest in pro rugby

I have to admit I don't know very much about the PRL owners, but what do you know about two of the PRL's leading lights? Does McCafferty have a long history in rugby? What about Quinton Smith?

I had a quick look, and couldn't really find anything to support a long history in rugby for either men, but that's not to say they don't. One thing I discovered though was that Quinton Smith is Director of England Rugby 2015 Limited - the company delivering the 2015 Rugby World Cup in England. Didn't know that. Funny thing is that when debating about PRL, and how they might have RFU in a bind over the 2015 RWC, this was denied by a few on here. Well if Smith is Director then surely he has huge influence over the next RWC, which in turn gives him plenty of leverage over RFU?

isnt Rugby England 2015 responsible for the staging of the event, handling all the contracts with suppliers, ticketing, etc? sounds like more of an events role than anything else.

must certainly mean that quentin smith knows all the folk at RFU well. probably goes a little way to explaining why RFU and PRL seem to be getting along so well currently, especially with Martyn Thomas gone, and Ian Ritchie installed in his place.

geoff999rugby wrote: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

Have they done away with an extra team from the two cup winners' respective nations?

Connacht will be in disarray.

seems that way so far. nothing agreed yet though. geoffs post above is what the 6 unions have offered to prl/lnr. suspect they couldnt only offer an auto place to HC winner (without Amlin) and rabo unions had strong preference for 7 spots from their league.

Deal now close RCC to be club run just the TV rights to be sorted.....

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/oct/28/accord-heineken-cup-tv-rivalry

well, odds on we get a competition then. neither sky nor bt will want to be portrayed as preventing it happening at all.

quinsforever wrote:isnt Rugby England 2015 responsible for the staging of the event, handling all the contracts with suppliers, ticketing, etc? sounds like more of an events role than anything else.

must certainly mean that quentin smith knows all the folk at RFU well. probably goes a little way to explaining why RFU and PRL seem to be getting along so well currently, especially with Martyn Thomas gone, and Ian Ritchie installed in his place.

As it's the company delivering the 2015 Rugby World Cup I would think it is responsible for delivering the 2015 Rugby World Cup. Just a hint in the sentence... delivering  

I don't know quins...all seems a bit murky, methinks. I agree with Mr Francis. Rugby Union is literally going to the dogs

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:Deal now close RCC to be club run just the TV rights to be sorted.....

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/oct/28/accord-heineken-cup-tv-rivalry

Big Trev. That article is reheated pap. Nothing new. Who is the source of this reheated pap? >>>>>>

"Within the next week or so we should pretty much have certainty about what the event is," said a club insider. "From a player, supporter and coach point of view there'll be little difference but the financial distribution will be much fairer."

And I was almost excited......

....."should" ......... " pretty much" ...... "have certainty" ..... "about what the event is"

It is definitely probably a certainty that we might know what sort of event is agreed

Munchkin wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:Deal now close RCC to be club run just the TV rights to be sorted.....

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/oct/28/accord-heineken-cup-tv-rivalry

Big Trev. That article is reheated pap. Nothing new. Who is the source of this reheated pap? >>>>>>

"Within the next week or so we should pretty much have certainty about what the event is," said a club insider. "From a player, supporter and coach point of view there'll be little difference but the financial distribution will be much fairer."

And I was almost excited......

now, now munchkin.

the reheated papsters, to be fair, have not been wrong so far. even if you think they are in bed with maccafferty.

i would completely believe the governance was solvable. clubs run it (and those unions that run clubs therefor get a say), and overall no monstrous changes without union (either explicitly or via club vote) approval.

i bet that this TV fup up is because ERC explicitly hooked the unions that were still part of the ERC (eng/fr having already given notice) into the sky extension. JP Lux and Macgrath clearly wanted everyone to go down with them rather than vote for xmas as they are obviously complete turkeys  

quinsforever wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:Deal now close RCC to be club run just the TV rights to be sorted.....

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/oct/28/accord-heineken-cup-tv-rivalry

Big Trev. That article is reheated pap. Nothing new. Who is the source of this reheated pap? >>>>>>

"Within the next week or so we should pretty much have certainty about what the event is," said a club insider. "From a player, supporter and coach point of view there'll be little difference but the financial distribution will be much fairer."

And I was almost excited......

now, now munchkin.

the reheated papsters, to be fair, have not been wrong so far. even if you think they are in bed with maccafferty.

i would completely believe the governance was solvable. clubs run it (and those unions that run clubs therefor get a say), and overall no monstrous changes without union (either explicitly or via club vote) approval.

i bet that this TV fup up is because ERC explicitly hooked the unions that were still part of the ERC (eng/fr having already given notice) into the sky extension. JP Lux and Macgrath clearly wanted everyone to go down with them rather than vote for xmas as they are obviously complete turkeys  

quins, as I bolded above, the article's source tells us nothing we didn't already know at this point in time, and that amounts to very little other than the ERC mediators have issued a statement of agreement between the 6 Unions which they have submitted to PRL/LNR for consideration. We already know about the difficulty concerning broadcasting rights. It remains a sticking point until all parties are agreed, as does the issue of governance.
So far the articles are neither wrong nor right. At best they are speculative on a positive outcome favouring the PRL/LNR stance.

Franno wrote:If they behave like this when they are not in power, how will they behave if they do get to control the game in Europe?

That's the bit that's always worried me. Rugby is going down a very bad path now.

You did note that article was written by Robert Kidston who consistently churns out the PRL line?

justified sinner wrote:You did note that article was written by Robert Kidston who consistently churns out the PRL line?

no. dont read the grauniad. but i have noticed that the PRL line from the beginning looks remarkably similar to where, in fact, we are. so hence if i read in a rag which "consistently churns out the PRL line" that governance is basically sorted, given the track record of churning out the PRL line, i would tend to believe it.

Its BT v Sky
and its
Guardian v Times

The Guardian is generally a good paper, but I'm really surprised at the way they haven't questioned the PRL owners once.

They should be embarrassed by the way they throw out lines about how the PRL clubs will be richer as well as the Irish & Welsh clubs and just don't mention what is going to happen to the Scots & the Italians.

Sin small pointer to the politics Who owns The Times & Sky?

broadlandboy wrote:Sin small pointer to the politics Who owns The Times & Sky?

Rupert Murdock

A bit of a different picture being painted on this side of the sea from the last ERC meeting (various Irish forums gossip).

(1) Heineken and Sky are committed to a 2014/2015 Heineken Cup = no matter who plays. Sky are seething at the Premier clubs’ treachery.

(2) Both Toulon and Biarritz are definitely playing in next year’s HC tournament

(3) The French clubs are becoming increasingly peed off with PLR (they basically don't like them) and support for the ‘new’ tournament among French owners is waning.

(4) The FFR will NOT allow their teams to play in the ‘new’ competition. They cannot force them to play in the Heineken.

(5) The Welsh Rugby Union will NOT allow their teams (who rely on them for funding) to play in the new tournament.

Sin é wrote:(2) Both Toulon and Biarritz are definitely playing in next year’s HC tournament

 

Oh man, that is funny. Trust Serge Blanco to figure out a way to get his team into European rugby, even though his team look about as likely to qualify on merit as Zebre!

The PRL have massively painted themselves into a corner with the BT deal- say the French hypothetically do break ranks, what do they do? What's their next move if the Welsh and French support is blocked by the Unions and they slink back into the ERC camp?

It was a d!ck move to sell their rights individually, because it so seriously curtails the flexibility of negotiations.

Keep on dreaming. That sounds exactly as you've described it - gossip and nothing more. For starters, Sky may be seething, but where's the "treachery"? The Sky deal was signed long after the English and French served notice.

Notch wrote:

Sin é wrote:(2) Both Toulon and Biarritz are definitely playing in next year’s HC tournament

 

Oh man, that is funny. Trust Serge Blanco to figure out a way to get his team into European rugby, even though his team look about as likely to qualify on merit as Zebre!

The PRL have massively painted themselves into a corner with the BT deal- say the French hypothetically do break ranks, what do they do? What's their next move if the Welsh and French support is blocked by the Unions and they slink back into the ERC camp?

It was a d!ck move to sell their rights individually, because it so seriously curtails the flexibility of negotiations.

yes, yes, we all know who fears they have most to lose from any re-jigging of the old status quo.

lets just wait and see shall we.

as an aside, i know where my money would be if i had to back either a guardian article or "irish forums". given what i see on these forums, i can only imagine what you get where there is no-one putting across a counter view.  

heineken and sky? really? were they in the room? does anyone give a rats poopie about their opinion? of course sky is upset. they've been outbid. wasnt heineken's sponsorship running out anyway? if they want back in they can sponsor the RCC - but they'll probably have to pay a lot more, thats what proper commercial negotiation means...

Don't get hostile with me. I'm not endorsing this gossip I'm asking a hypothetical question. I personally feel it's likely there will be a RCC, though this is hardly a good thing for most parties.

Poorfour wrote:Keep on dreaming. That sounds exactly as you've described it - gossip and nothing more. For starters, Sky may be seething, but where's the "treachery"? The Sky deal was signed long after the English and French served notice.

1) I'd say 'treachery' is just a throw-away word to describe how committed Sky are to get 'revenge'. I wouldn't get too wound up by its usage at this stage and that SKY are backing the ERC competition anyway.

2) The important bit of information there is that the FFR & WRU will not let their teams participate in the new tournament.

not hostile with you notch. as you can see my post largely relates to the gossipy one. in addition to which i assumed your last sentence was referring to ERC

No more of a dick move than ERC selling the rights after PRL/LNR had given notice. Can't remember who but someone high in ERC claimed that they were getting proper market value & couldn't get a better deal which was proven to be false by the PRL/BTS deal

quinsforever wrote:

Notch wrote:

Sin é wrote:(2) Both Toulon and Biarritz are definitely playing in next year’s HC tournament

 

Oh man, that is funny. Trust Serge Blanco to figure out a way to get his team into European rugby, even though his team look about as likely to qualify on merit as Zebre!

The PRL have massively painted themselves into a corner with the BT deal- say the French hypothetically do break ranks, what do they do? What's their next move if the Welsh and French support is blocked by the Unions and they slink back into the ERC camp?

It was a d!ck move to sell their rights individually, because it so seriously curtails the flexibility of negotiations.

yes, yes, we all know who fears they have most to lose from any re-jigging of the old status quo.

lets just wait and see shall we.

as an aside, i know where my money would be if i had to back either a guardian article or "irish forums". given what i see on these forums, i can only imagine what you get where there is no-one putting across a counter view.  

heineken and sky? really? were they in the room? does anyone give a rats poopie about their opinion? of course sky is upset. they've been outbid. wasnt heineken's sponsorship running out anyway? if they want back in they can sponsor the RCC - but they'll probably have to pay a lot more, thats what proper commercial negotiation means...

I think PRL/LNR may well 'give a poopie' about the opinion of SKY, as will the 6 Unions. SKY have remained silent for the most part in all this, but their bite may be much more severe than their bark once they decide to act.

Sin é wrote:

Poorfour wrote:Keep on dreaming. That sounds exactly as you've described it - gossip and nothing more. For starters, Sky may be seething, but where's the "treachery"? The Sky deal was signed long after the English and French served notice.

1) I'd say 'treachery' is just a throw-away word to describe how committed Sky are to get 'revenge'. I wouldn't get too wound up by its usage at this stage and that SKY are backing the ERC competition anyway.

2) The important bit of information there is that the FFR & WRU will not let their teams participate in the new tournament.

link/proof/quote somewhere other than an opinion/hope on a forum somewhere pls?

if that really is the case for FFR and WRU, why are they going to such efforts to convinced the outside world that they are happy to agree to everything that PRL has so far demanded? lulling them into a false sense of security before vetoing RCC? really?

i dont read tea leaves i just observe behaviour and statements. and its pretty darn clear the direction of travel. and its not back to ERC and SKY thats for sure.

Munchkin wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Notch wrote:

Sin é wrote:(2) Both Toulon and Biarritz are definitely playing in next year’s HC tournament

 

Oh man, that is funny. Trust Serge Blanco to figure out a way to get his team into European rugby, even though his team look about as likely to qualify on merit as Zebre!

The PRL have massively painted themselves into a corner with the BT deal- say the French hypothetically do break ranks, what do they do? What's their next move if the Welsh and French support is blocked by the Unions and they slink back into the ERC camp?

It was a d!ck move to sell their rights individually, because it so seriously curtails the flexibility of negotiations.

yes, yes, we all know who fears they have most to lose from any re-jigging of the old status quo.

lets just wait and see shall we.

as an aside, i know where my money would be if i had to back either a guardian article or "irish forums". given what i see on these forums, i can only imagine what you get where there is no-one putting across a counter view.  

heineken and sky? really? were they in the room? does anyone give a rats poopie about their opinion? of course sky is upset. they've been outbid. wasnt heineken's sponsorship running out anyway? if they want back in they can sponsor the RCC - but they'll probably have to pay a lot more, thats what proper commercial negotiation means...

I think PRL/LNR may well 'give a poopie' about the opinion of SKY, as will the 6 Unions. SKY have remained silent for the most part in all this, but their bite may be much more severe than their bark once they decide to act.

you think SKY would be willing to alienate its core english population viewing audience? i have to say it would be rather surprising. why do you think that have said nothing? maybe because they are the ones in a corner. if they try to get litigious and screw the remaining rabo unions into whats left of the ERC how do you think that is going to play out in England for SKY? best that SKY can hope for is some share of coverage. tops.

broadlandboy wrote:No more of a dick move than ERC selling the rights after PRL/LNR had given notice. Can't remember who but someone high in ERC claimed that they were getting proper market value & couldn't get a better deal which was proven to be false by the PRL/BTS deal

No, because BT bid for rights to one nations games. I haven't heard anything about BT contact with ERC other than simple conjecture.

In every other respect, Sky are the right choice. In three years time when the BT deal runs out... well previous pretenders to the Sky throne have generally lasted about three years.

I dislike Murdoch and his Media Empire intensely and would leap at the chance to watch all my rugby on a different platform. But they haven't gone after the European Cup. They've gone directly to one nation and by extension tried to undermine everyone else.

The info came from a poster on an Irish forum who knows someone who works for the ERC/IRFU/IRB (he/she didn't say which). Ireland/Dublin is a pretty small place, most stuff gets out.

They are flushing the PRL out - thats all.

I forgot to mention - apparently Heineken are also committed as sponsors as well.

Anyway, we'll know a lot more in a week or two.

quinsforever wrote:you think SKY would be willing to alienate its core english population viewing audience? i have to say it would be rather surprising. why do you think that have said nothing? maybe because they are the ones in a corner. if they try to get litigious and screw the remaining rabo unions into whats left of the ERC how do you think that is going to play out in England for SKY? best that SKY can hope for is some share of coverage. tops.

Most people regard Sky as a necessary evil at the moment if you want to watch sport.
Most English people who have sky have it for soccer & golf.

quinsforever wrote:

you think SKY would be willing to alienate its core english population viewing audience? i have to say it would be rather surprising. why do you think that have said nothing? maybe because they are the ones in a corner. if they try to get litigious and screw the remaining rabo unions into whats left of the ERC how do you think that is going to play out in England for SKY? best that SKY can hope for is some share of coverage. tops.

The core 'rugby' viewing audience. Can't really see those not interested in viewing rugby giving a toss. It's the wrong question anyway. The important question is will SKY just roll over in submission to BTs aggressive attempt at taking over the viewing rights for European rugby? Do you really think they will? Not a chance.
How is SKY in a corner? Now, quins, you have just ridiculed the views of those on Irish forums as being highly subjective, and without a factual basis, Yes, I know you didn't actually say those words. I'm just filling in the gaps   , and now you are demonstrating exactly what you are accusing others of doing - making it up as you go along.

SKY will do whatever they can to fight off the BT move, I believe. It's all in the timing  

they are in a corner because they do not have the support of 30 out of 38 teams, and their core subscriber market overall is england. how is that not a corner? not making anything up, it's just a description of a negotiating position, and their's is not that great. you say only rugby fans would care....given SKY's position in news media, the rest of the press will have a field day depicting SKY as the TV/media bully who prevented english rugby clubs getting a fair deal and competing in european club competition...you can see that the non-SKY owned print media is already gearing itself up for that.

if they (SKY) start throwing their weight around it can only be because the contract they have with ERC allows them to screw the rabo unions. yet another reason why ERC should be disbanded. amateur muppets entering commerical arrangements with the very eagle eyed and sharp elbowed SKY.

quinsforever wrote:they are in a corner because they do not have the support of 30 out of 38 teams, and their core subscriber market overall is england. how is that not a corner? not making anything up, it's just a description of a negotiating position, and their's is not that great. you say only rugby fans would care....given SKY's position in news media, the rest of the press will have a field day depicting SKY as the TV/media bully who prevented english rugby clubs getting a fair deal and competing in european club competition...you can see that the non-SKY owned print media is already gearing itself up for that.

if they (SKY) start throwing their weight around it can only be because the contract they have with ERC allows them to screw the rabo unions. yet another reason why ERC should be disbanded. amateur muppets entering commerical arrangements with the very eagle eyed and sharp elbowed SKY.

I would doubt 'the rest of the media' would want to upset their partners, or make enemies of their competitors. You know what they say; 'Keep your friends close......'

30 of 38 teams   quins, there is no 30 of 38 teams (although 4 of the teams you suppose are in the Rabo which now has SKY on board....). There is contracts which have been signed, and legal process to consider for possible breach of contract, and the other side of that is any BT contract signed by PRL, and a possible breach of contract should PRL fail to deliver. PRL have painted themselves into a corner. Messy business.

If the ERC disbands and no longer exists, what happens to the contract SKY signed with ERC?

doctor_grey wrote:If the ERC disbands and no longer exists, what happens to the contract SKY signed with ERC?  

I can't see the ERC being disbanded as it is owned by the Unions (not for profit organisations). It would do huge damage to the reputation of Rugby Union by basically 'welching' on a deal.

you would have to ask ERC that doctor grey. personally i am not optimistic that they negotiated a commercially rational contract - Lux/McGrath wanted to tie the rabo unions inextricably to ERC. so it wouldnt surprise me to discover that SKY's contract with ERC would have recourse to the four rabo unions in the event of ERC dissolution. pure speculation, but Rog Lewis's comment about 10 days ago that ERC has to be the vehicle was a clue for me.

Sin é wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:If the ERC disbands and no longer exists, what happens to the contract SKY signed with ERC?  

I can't see the ERC being disbanded as it is owned by the Unions (not for profit organisations). It would do huge damage to the reputation of Rugby Union by basically 'welching' on a deal.

welching? u having a go at the welsh again? thats not nice.

no such thing as "welching" in a commercial arrangement. do you think SKY would have any loyalty beyond its ability to make money? you would be crazy to believe so, therefore why should the unions have loyalty to a clearly unfit-for-purpose ERC?

doctor_grey wrote:If the ERC disbands and no longer exists, what happens to the contract SKY signed with ERC?  

Hi, doc.

I don't know, but think it unlikely that SKY's legal team would allow a loophole so obvious. Disband ERC, but continue rugby union European competition under another name, and escape legal action.

Might be wrong of course, but to me it seems unlikely. If they can't escape it, and want to continue European competition with BT, then perhaps a settlement would be agreed. Expensive?

Munchkin wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:If the ERC disbands and no longer exists, what happens to the contract SKY signed with ERC?  

Hi, doc.

I don't know, but think it unlikely that SKY's legal team would allow a loophole so obvious. Disband ERC, but continue rugby union European competition under another name, and escape legal action.

Might be wrong of course, but to me it seems unlikely. If they can't escape it, and want to continue European competition with BT, then perhaps a settlement would be agreed. Expensive?

hardly a loophole munchkin. massive oversight by ERC if there is look-through recourse. how could the ERC commit its investors? thats the whole entire point of the legal structure of limited liability companies! if ERC has managed to obviate that then the sooner we dodo ERC the better.

Well,the only thing PRL/LNR (will I be f**king glad when all this is over and I don't have to type so many acronyms every bloody post I make!)  

BUT... the only thing those two guys have as a bargaining chip for world domination is a bigger basket of money than offered by Sky.  Their prefered deal is the only conditions by which the PRL will release BT's loadsa money (they must now be bankers too)

BUT, the only way they'll release all the lovely money is if they get absolutely EVERYTHING they want - no negotiations, no alternatives ...just all their own way and then the money is there for everyone!!!

Yummy so far.

Now, Sky are in the background with much more experience of being a bad-ass, 'kiss-my-a**, backstabbing company than old BT has.  So SKY is there prowling in the long grass.  It sees the PRL gloat about the big pay day they have locked in their safe.  Sky also sees that there is no love lost between certain strands of Rugby Union in Europe.  Some clubs like other clubs, some Unions hate club bosses, some club bosses have a manic hatred of the Unions.

So Sky knows too that the PRL are quickly losing the 'moral' high ground.  The Unions have come back with a plan which isn't a thousand miles from what the clubs were 'demanding'.  But the PRL still holds the thrump card; and they want not some of what they demanded but all of it...NOW!...or else the money in the wall safe remains where it is.

Now what if SlySky just threw in 10 pound more than BT into the equation?  Or numbers to that effect.  Enough money to bypass the juicy prospect of BT money.  And they certainly could.  

What would PRL do then?  Sustain the idea that the BT deal is best even though it then wouldn't be?  Attempt to crassly try to involve BT in a bidding war by asking them to up their offer?  Or suffer the indignity of backing down and finally siding with the Unions who now have more cards than PRL have?

Hmm, can I see NO-Surrender McCafferty giving in or waving a white flag?  No, he's staked far too much on this vanity project.

So, who will the majority back then, if the structure of the contest is what the big boys wanted and if the money the Unions have is now better than the BT offer?  Who would the French clubs side with?

Someone might have to take a resignation leap to bring everyone back together and I don't mean the Dark Lord of Non-Profitness the ERC

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:If the ERC disbands and no longer exists, what happens to the contract SKY signed with ERC?  

I can't see the ERC being disbanded as it is owned by the Unions (not for profit organisations). It would do huge damage to the reputation of Rugby Union by basically 'welching' on a deal.

welching? u having a go at the welsh again? thats not nice.

no such thing as "welching" in a commercial arrangement. do you think SKY would have any loyalty beyond its ability to make money? you would be crazy to believe so, therefore why should the unions have loyalty to a clearly unfit-for-purpose ERC?

The Unions have responsibility for the ERC. Just check out who the Directors of the ERC are.

And the ERC/Sky deal had ERC Board approval.

quinsforever wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:If the ERC disbands and no longer exists, what happens to the contract SKY signed with ERC?  

Hi, doc.

I don't know, but think it unlikely that SKY's legal team would allow a loophole so obvious. Disband ERC, but continue rugby union European competition under another name, and escape legal action.

Might be wrong of course, but to me it seems unlikely. If they can't escape it, and want to continue European competition with BT, then perhaps a settlement would be agreed. Expensive?

hardly a loophole munchkin. massive oversight by ERC if there is look-through recourse. how could the ERC commit its investors? thats the whole entire point of the legal structure of limited liability companies! if ERC has managed to obviate that then the sooner we dodo ERC the better.

Ah, you've got me here, quins. What's a look-through? Do you mean Flow-through?

Munchkin wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:If the ERC disbands and no longer exists, what happens to the contract SKY signed with ERC?  

Hi, doc.

I don't know, but think it unlikely that SKY's legal team would allow a loophole so obvious. Disband ERC, but continue rugby union European competition under another name, and escape legal action.

Might be wrong of course, but to me it seems unlikely. If they can't escape it, and want to continue European competition with BT, then perhaps a settlement would be agreed. Expensive?

hardly a loophole munchkin. massive oversight by ERC if there is look-through recourse. how could the ERC commit its investors? thats the whole entire point of the legal structure of limited liability companies! if ERC has managed to obviate that then the sooner we dodo ERC the better.

Ah, you've got me here, quins. What's a look-through? Do you mean Flow-through?

yes. in a partnership, dissolving the partnership does not prevent pro-rata division of the liabilities onto the partners. in a limited company (imagine irish limited company is similar in principle) recourse stops at the assets of the limited company itself. look-through, in the sense i mean, implies that ERC is effectively fully transparent in terms of liabilities onto either its shareholders or entities that had not filed valid 2 yr notice to withdraw.