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

Sin é wrote:Portnoy, we were promised the full details of this new competition (structure, financing, teams etc) at the end of October. Why haven't the PRL delivered on that?

Probably the whole negotiation thingy should have started eighteen months ago.
Absolutely nothing was achieved for a whole year as the whole sorry, sordid process has been conducted by a bunch of self-seeking incompetents by both sides.

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

Sin é wrote:Portnoy, we were promised the full details of this new competition (structure, financing, teams etc) at the end of October. Why haven't the PRL delivered on that?

Because there whole schtick is just bluster. Fairly obvious bluster at this stage.

Yea. This bit is very interesting:

Notwithstanding the existing Sky contract which had been renewed by the ERC board, at which the PRL were represented, the EU permits Uefa to collectively sell Champions League rights because it maximised income that was subsequently distributed across all of European football (just as ERC does). The EU insisted on various provisions to maximise competition among broadcasters but agreed that this breach of competition law was both legitimately justified and proportionate.

Indeed, with PRL’s BT deal in mind, the various European Unions and the IRB might have a very strong case if they were to accuse the breakaway clubs of anti-competitive behaviour.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

Sin é wrote:Portnoy, we were promised the full details of this new competition (structure, financing, teams etc) at the end of October. Why haven't the PRL delivered on that?

Probably the whole negotiation thingy should have started eighteen months ago.
Absolutely nothing was achieved for a whole year as the whole sorry, sordid process has been conducted by a bunch of self-seeking incompetents by both sides.

I think it has been shown that the PRL demands were just a smoke screen for their powergrab. Someone from the Scottish RFU is on record as saying that 6 months ago similar terms were on offer (Scots were prepared to lose a spot in the HCup). Their big issue was revenue.

Revenue and voting control.

Would love to know how the PRL/LNR proposal is anti-competitive when it seems the same as the new ERC proposal?
Also why would PRL/LNR want to be involved with ERC after the way ERC has treated them?

broadlandboy wrote:Would love to know how the PRL/LNR proposal is anti-competitive when it seems the same as the new ERC proposal?
Also why would PRL/LNR want to be involved with ERC after the way ERC has treated them?

The PRL/LNR as board member of the ERC would have known the details of the ERC-SKY deal while making their own deal with BT for starters.

How have they treated them?

broadlandboy wrote:Would love to know how the PRL/LNR proposal is anti-competitive when it seems the same as the new ERC proposal?
Also why would PRL/LNR want to be involved with ERC after the way ERC has treated them?

Now turn the statement around and read it backways. Don't they treat the ERC with public disdain? Yes? They're proud of it? Yes?

So why should the ERC want to listen to PRLs ultimatums?

SecretFly wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Would love to know how the PRL/LNR proposal is anti-competitive when it seems the same as the new ERC proposal?
Also why would PRL/LNR want to be involved with ERC after the way ERC has treated them?

Now turn the statement around and read it backways.  Don't they treat the ERC with public disdain?  Yes?  They're proud of it?  Yes?  

So why should the ERC want to listen to PRLs ultimatums?

Yep, and have threatened the Celts & Italians with oblivion if they don't join in. Why in the name of god would we want to have anything to do with something that shower would organise?

there's absolutely nothing new here. goebbels thornley is paraphrasing comments made by Lapasset A WEEK AGO at a womens rugby event, and turning it into a fantasy that he hopes might be true. does anyone really think goebbels thornley has any contact or connection with lapasset or camou?

your qn re details of the tournament sin e...well it seems most of the qualification and money division issues have been agreed already. what else were you expecting?

Quins, that's an awful lot of rules and regulations, and qualification niceties, and pool time frames, and dates and money divisions that's all been....'agreed to already'.... with nobody meeting nobody and no printed documents being looked at or signed.

Sin is asking where is the itemised paperwork and the up-and-ready website, and the showtime public announcement of this new European Cup Competition that was supposed to be all finalised at this stage?

Where's the FrangloWelsh show?  We're not hearing the fireworks.  And if we're using McCafferty's strict time-keeping schedule, that he wasn't going to move for anyone (least of all for the ERC!), then it's overdue...and he's running late.

People are just curious where the details of the newest show in town can be had?

You ask how the ERC have treated PRL/LNR ? To start with ignoring their concerns & not opening negotiations while still involved, not inviting PRL to the Paris meeting,threatened to try to stop them going about their buisiness, would you want to do buisiness with people who treated you that way?
As some have stated that they dont want to be involved with PRL/LNR why not let them go & run their own competition?

broadlandboy wrote:You ask how the ERC have treated PRL/LNR ? To start with ignoring their concerns & not opening negotiations while still involved, not inviting PRL to the Paris meeting,threatened to try to stop them going about their buisiness, would you want to do buisiness with people who treated you that way?
As some have stated that they dont want to be involved with PRL/LNR why not let them go & run their own competition?

McCafferty's claim that, but the Scots are saying they were willing to compromise at least 6 months ago (probably why McCafferty wanted out because what he wanted was control of the ERC).

It is obvious now that the only concern the PRL had was taking over the running of the ERC, so its hardly surprising that the Unions were going to resist that.

Who is stopping them from running their own competition? Its just we haven't heard the details yet, so we're not sure if they are capable or not.

broadlandboy wrote:You ask how the ERC have treated PRL/LNR ? To start with ignoring their concerns & not opening negotiations while still involved, not inviting PRL to the Paris meeting,threatened to try to stop them going about their buisiness, would you want to do buisiness with people who treated you that way?
As some have stated that they dont want to be involved with PRL/LNR why not let them go & run their own competition?

They're free to do so broadband boy... as long as they have their Union's and the IRBs approval.  That's certainly not my affair - none of my concern that a Franglo Cup would start up - if approved by those bodies.  That debate is between PRL/LNR, IRB and their respective Unions.

But the point is - PRL wanted more than Franglo - BT wanted more than Franglo.  Franglo was the threat that PRL used if they didn't get their way with the ERC re-negotiations - more revenue to them - dominant voting rights to clubs (so that they could then change rules into the future whenever they chose)

They said that if they didn't get their way with all six Unions, they'd instigate a Franglo competition in its place.

They're probably realising that even with that competition, they still need the approval of other bodies to initalise it - afterall where will the officials come from if not sanctioned by IRB?

They gave notice 17 months ago because the ERC didnt want to talk,so it took a year to get to significant compromise after they left, let alone the possibility of talks before. After they felt compelled to leave why would they go back rather than try to set up something better for themselves? IMSVHO If the FFR had not taken back the LNR votes to get Lux in we wouldnt be in this mess?

We'd always be in a mess because there are many more voices at the ERC table than PRL and LNR. Those two don't like that fact - they seem to think they should be let run their own individual leagues without union interference - a European Cup competition without Union interference - and the Pro12 league and all its teams, without their Unions interference!

So much so that they pretended they'd already sold rights for Pro12 teams and nations, without asking for permission to do so....

It certainly is a mess.... and most of it was instigated by a 'private' members club trying to take over the control of the entire Rugby Union code in Europe.

The PRL made their mind up 17 months ago. There were I think monthly meetings. The PRL were not getting their own way so they threatened to destroy NH club rugby competition.

The LNR's licence to operate runs out at the end of December. They are in negotiation with the FFR to renew it (and compensation for the use of international players as well).

Interesting that the FFR have warned the LNR that they have no right to market next seasons TV rights for their own league or any European Championship.

http://www.rugbyrama.fr/rugby/la-convention-ffr-lnr-toujours-dans-les-limbes_sto3993802/story.shtml

Some days it feels like the rest of Europe is just suffering collateral damage from the impending civil war between the PRL/LNR and the RFU/FFR.

Personally dont see the impending civil war between PRL/RFU,more a case of mutual realisation that they must work together for their own interests

This has become such a mess (hidden and all as most of it is from the cameras - though not all)  

But, behind the scenes, this has been let get to such a level, that I can't see a solution evolving without heads rolling somewhere to enable a peace accord.
It's clear, even from the body language of some of the actors in this show, that some of them can't stand each other - genuinely can't be in the same room as each other because trust has completely gone.

Sin é wrote:The PRL made their mind up 17 months ago. There were I think monthly meetings. The PRL were not getting their own way so they threatened to destroy NH club rugby competition.

The LNR's licence to operate runs out at the end of December. They are in negotiation with the FFR to renew it (and compensation for the use of international players as well).

Interesting that the FFR have warned the LNR that they have no right to market next seasons TV rights for their own league or any European Championship.

http://www.rugbyrama.fr/rugby/la-convention-ffr-lnr-toujours-dans-les-limbes_sto3993802/story.shtml

little bit of misdirection there sin e. FFR made the veiled threats about renewing the authorisation for the domestic league and tv rights back in august, before this ERC/RCC really kicked off. The article you link to actually reads clearly that progress is being made on player release, limits on games but that the financial compensation and insurance remains to be worked out.

there is no chance of FFR actually pulling the plug on top14. zippo. in fact i can almost guarantee that Camou regrets that threat ever having been issued, as LNR clearly recognised it as a bluff, and immediately after Camou's statement, reiterated that the top14 teams will not play in an ERC tournament.

so FFR bluffed, bluff was called, and now they are negotiating the new domestic arrangement. who do you think drove the 7/6/6 and 33% each and 20 teams proposal from the unions? RFU were middleman, FFR were clearly negotiating for their clubs - ie if FFR deliver what their clubs want, then LNR will agree to more sensible player release, french-qualified players, etc.

Talk about Thornley getting the wrong end of the stick.

Notch wrote:Some days it feels like the rest of Europe is just suffering collateral damage from the impending civil war between the PRL/LNR and the RFU/FFR.

Au contraire. bad news for the irish and welsh is that as a result of all these HC rearrangements etc, RFU/PRL and FFR/LNR are going to have significantly better and more balanced relationships going forwards.

Some on here are playing fast and loose with the history of how this has played out.

The french started this re competition structure and votes and the PRL joined in on finances. The ERC tactic as per 2007 was to stall until the clubs run out of time to do anything other than accept the status quo. Even after notice was given nothing happened which most R12 fans agreed with. When 'negotiations' restarted, the Gloucester Chairman called the ERC behaviour 'disgusting' - pretty emotive stuff but an indication of the depth of feeling.

Most R12 fans appear to believe the demise of the ERC was the goal,  the reality is that that did become an objective after the personalities got involved.  Peace only broke out once a mediator with clout stepped in - Ritchie and the RFU.

My allegiance here is that I was disappointed the PRL got into bed with the French, when the real long term move should have been to support the lower English leagues and forget about Europe for the medium term.

International Rugby existed long before any euro competition but money in a professional tier whether centrally controlled or diversified will always win out.

SecretFly wrote:This has become such a mess (hidden and all as most of it is from the cameras - though not all)  

But, behind the scenes, this has been let get to such a level, that I can't see a solution evolving without heads rolling somewhere to enable a peace accord.
It's clear, even from the body language of some of the actors in this show, that some of them can't stand each other - genuinely can't be in the same room as each other because trust has completely gone.

I think that dislike has been around for quite some time, and pre-dates any European Cup negotiations. This has merely brought bad feeling more out in the open.

I agree some heads will roll when this is over. But whose heads and where? The talking head of the PRL? Maybe. The head of the ERC? Maybe. Who knows? Problem is we don't really have a clue. Can't convict anyone with the scanty evidence which has been released to us.

I agree that the playoff rules for year 1 and then the Franglo Home Advantage rules are nonsense. The only big gain I see from this is a) if the ERC aren't involved
b) 20 is a less stupid number for a tournament than 24, marginally (I'm assuming it's 4 groups of five not 5 groups of 4, otherwise it's equally moronic)
c) The 2nd competition will be far more meaningful and will actually improve the sides playing in it and a 3rd competition is promised

[quote="quinsforever"]

Sin é wrote:The PRL made their mind up 17 months ago. There were I think monthly meetings. The PRL were not getting their own way so they threatened to destroy NH club rugby competition.

The LNR's licence to operate runs out at the end of December. They are in negotiation with the FFR to renew it (and compensation for the use of international players as well).

Interesting that the FFR have warned the LNR that they have no right to market next seasons TV rights for their own league or any European Championship.

http://www.rugbyrama.fr/rugby/la-convention-ffr-lnr-toujours-dans-les-limbes_sto3993802/story.shtml

little bit of misdirection there sin e. FFR made the veiled threats about renewing the authorisation for the domestic league and tv rights back in august, before this ERC/RCC really kicked off. The article you link to actually reads clearly that progress is being made on player release, limits on games but that the financial compensation and insurance remains to be worked out.

Nothing veiled with their threats. Have the LNR sold their TV rights yet?

Google translate: Official signatures should take place in December. For the League, it is all the more necessary to complete this record that conditions in other, equally ebullient. Indeed, in August, the FFR did not fail to remind the NRL she had "skills to organize and manage competitions entrusted only until December." "It can not therefore at this stage market for the next seasons rights management he was not entrusted to this day," continued the Federation. Reference to European competitions but also television rights of the championship.

there is no chance of FFR actually pulling the plug on top14. zippo. in fact i can almost guarantee that Camou regrets that threat ever having been issued, as LNR clearly recognised it as a bluff, and immediately after Camou's statement, reiterated that the top14 teams will not play in an ERC tournament.

Your forgetting Serge's involvement in this. Isn't Biarritz about to go down and Serge become FFR President or something? Thornley has also said in an article that the FFR are prepared to enter the 2nd Division teams in the comp.

so FFR bluffed, bluff was called, and now they are negotiating the new domestic arrangement. who do you think drove the 7/6/6 and 33% each and 20 teams proposal from the unions? RFU were middleman, FFR were clearly negotiating for their clubs - ie if FFR deliver what their clubs want, then LNR will agree to more sensible player release, french-qualified players, etc.

Talk about Thornley getting the wrong end of the stick.

The concessions were offered over 6 months ago at least. Its just that the LNR & PRL were not happy with them then or now.

Recwatcher wrote:Some on here are playing fast and loose with the history of how this has played out.

The french started this re competition structure and votes and the PRL joined in on finances. The ERC tactic as per 2007 was to stall until the clubs run out of time to do anything other than accept the status quo. Even after notice was given nothing happened which most R12 fans agreed with. When 'negotiations' restarted, the Gloucester Chairman called the ERC behaviour 'disgusting' - pretty emotive stuff but an indication of the depth of feeling.

Most R12 fans appear to believe the demise of the ERC was the goal,  the reality is that that did become an objective after the personalities got involved.  Peace only broke out once a mediator with clout stepped in - Ritchie and the RFU.

My allegiance here is that I was disappointed the PRL got into bed with the French, when the real long term move should have been to support the lower English leagues and forget about Europe for the medium term.

International Rugby existed long before any euro competition but money in a professional tier whether centrally controlled or diversified will always win out.

From what I recall the French were stalling the negotiations the last time (using disruption of the world cup as a bargaining tool). Nothing much changes, does it. Its the PRL's turn this time to try the old RWC blackmail thing.

Most PRO 12 fans do not think the goal is the demise of the ERC - the aim is to steal one of the best and most successful rugby competitions from the control of the Unions. How do you not get that the ERC is in fact the Unions (in the same way as the PRL is the clubs in England)?

This is what Syd Miller, the President of the IRB at the time had to say about the French Clubs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, what did the Chairman of Gloucester have to say with regard to the 'disgusting' behaviour of the ERC?

He's got a lot to answer for, that Syd, hasn't he?

So, what's happened to the "ERC" folow up meeting, originally touted for 1st November. Do we think that corporate schmoozing over the AI's takes precedence over building a solution to the Euromess?

sin e, syd millar is a red-nosed bully who shot his mouth off unhelpfully, coincidentally at about the same time in 2007 that the prl/lnr had their bluff called.

prl/lnr have learnt from having their bluff called, which is why everything that has happened has happened. ie, they are not bluffing.

lapasset tried a syd-millar-esque spout early in the furore and has since backtracked faster than lance armstrong after the USADA report.

keep bringing syd millar up if you like. he's a complete red-nosed-herring.

Syd Millar is one of the true gents of Rugby unlike many who have been involved in this squalid affair.

Someone with the best interests of the game at heart as opposed to money grubbing tubes

What is interesting is the things the French wanted - 20 teams, change in qualification, change in revenue split have all been resolved. They also wanted a timetable change but that would be comparitively easy to accomodate.

The fact that what is left is Control and the desire of the PRL to impose a TV agreement, other countries/clubs were not a party to, has exposed the true English wishes.
This has some more time to run and I am far from ertain the French are in full agreement with the English.

If we have heard nothing by the end of the week then the English desire to have the PRL and the French clubs running the show will be in serious trouble

quinsforever wrote:sin e, syd millar is a red-nosed bully who shot his mouth off unhelpfully, coincidentally at about the same time in 2007 that the prl/lnr had their bluff called.

prl/lnr have learnt from having their bluff called, which is why everything that has happened has happened. ie, they are not bluffing.

lapasset tried a syd-millar-esque spout early in the furore and has since backtracked faster than lance armstrong after the USADA report.

keep bringing syd millar up if you like. he's a complete red-nosed-herring.

That was rather 'unhelpful' to the LNR/PRL alright  

Has Lapasset backtracked from this:

Lapasset told AFP the game's governing body "will ensure we have a European competition which fulfils its name, which is not confiscated by some nations but has a real international interest.

"The IRB will defend this principle: not a privatisation of a competition in the interest of some people," he said, adding that "unions maintain pre-eminence over the leagues... the unions must remain masters of the game."

He criticised them again last week and told them to go and sort themselves out before he did interfere.

The IRB’s time to play a role has not yet arrived. I wish to stand back from the negotiations in order to allow the federations and each club to express themselves.”

Syd Millar pioneered the whole idea of making the spat public and ugly. So in that sense yes it was very unhelpful. He, not the prl, was the first down that path.

Lapassets statements if u compare them in full rather than selectively are very different. The first aggressive and bullying, the second conciliatory and diplomatic. Why? Because FFR are doing a deal with LNR and ERC is the sacrificial lamb. IRB doesn't care about ERC either, hence the clear change of tone.

quinsforever wrote:Syd Millar pioneered the whole idea of making the spat public and ugly. So in that sense yes it was very unhelpful. He, not the prl, was the first down that path.

Lapassets statements if u compare them in full rather than selectively are very different. The first aggressive and bullying, the second conciliatory and diplomatic. Why? Because FFR are doing a deal with LNR and ERC is the sacrificial lamb. IRB doesn't care about ERC either, hence the clear change of tone.

So what do you think of the attention seeking McCafferty, wray et all who have been bullying and threatening the Celts & Italians for the last 6 months in the British media?


What Lapasset said last week without the interference of the PRL spin doctors (i.e., the guardian, Telegraph & wales on line). Considering he was at the launch of the Women's Rugby World Cup, he had quite a bit to say on the subject.

Lapasset warns English, French rugby clubs on breakaway
AFP
October 31, 2013, 12:49
Paris (AFP) - World rugby supremo Bernard Lapasset has warned English and French clubs wishing to form a breakaway European club competition that they do not have the right to impose their will on other leagues reluctant to join them.

The 66-year-old Frenchman -- president of the International Rugby Board since replacing Irishman Syd Millar in 2008 -- has kept his own counsel while the English and French clubs have tried to persuade their counterparts in Wales, Ireland, Italy and Scotland to leave the European Rugby Cup (ERC), who organise the European Cup and Challenge, and join the planned 20-team Champions Cup from next year.

The Welsh provinces were won over by their arguments and agreed last week to join the Champions Cup, whose inception was first announced to great fanfare by English and French clubs in September.

The English and French -- whose federation are not in favour of the breakaway -- are unhappy with the qualifying system and also the distribution of revenue from the European Cup.

Only the top six in England and France are guaranteed a place in the European Cup, whereas at least 10 Celtic League sides -- including both Scottish, both Italians and a minimum of three each from Wales and Ireland -- have a free pass into the competition.

The French and the English are also looking to each receive a third of the revenue, with the Celts and the Italians receiving the other third.

Lapasset, who in his time as president has successfully lobbied to get rugby sevens onto the Olympic Games roster in 2016 in Rio de Janeiro, said the French and English clubs had been too intransigent in their stance and aggressive in their approach.

"They have gone too far," said Lapasset, speaking in Paris on the sidelines of the draw for the 2014 Women's Rugby World Cup, which is being hosted by France.

"One league does not have the right to lay down the law in rugby. The rugby world must be governed fairly and with respect for others."

Lapasset, who oversaw a highly successful hosting of the 2007 World Cup during his time as president of the French Federation from 1991 to 2008, called on all parties to 'spend time reflecting on their respective stances' and said now was the time for 'cool heads to prevail'.

He also termed the propositions put forward by the French and English as 'a little over the top.'

Unite not divide

Lapasset said the Champions Cup organisers needed to work harder on the detail before presenting their case to the IRB.

"The British especially jumped too quickly," said Lapasset, referring to the television contract Premiership Rugby (PRL) signed with British Telecom in September last year to cover European competitions, which clashed with the extension of a current deal between ERC and Sky TV announced hours later.

"I believe that there is a need for them to work on the plans and so I am giving them the time to come up with something more constructive which will unite everyone and not be divisive.

"We need to see something much more tangible. Then I will be able to decide. The IRB's time to play a role has not yet arrived. I wish to stand back from the negotiations in order to allow the federations and each club to express themselves."

Lapasset smiled when it was put to him that the English and French clubs appeared extremely confident the IRB would give its blessing to the new competition.

"Such confidence is in the English DNA. I know that the English are extremely lucid behind this confident exterior. They are pragmatic people and know very well what the decision should be."

The PRL and their French counterparts the National Rugby League (LNR) are due to unveil firmer details about the Champions Cup -- play-offs for the two final places were mooted last week -- while the ERC have invited their stakeholders, the federations and the clubs, to return to the negotiating table with a mediator present.

The Welsh, French and English clubs, though, are likely to boycott the meeting at ERC headquarters in Dublin just as they did the one last week.

http://au.sports.yahoo.com/league/news/article/-/19620611/lapasset-warns-english-french-rugby-clubs-on-breakaway/[/b]

your bolding not mine obviously. my point was that this is a big step back from his previous aggressive, bullying statement when the poop kicked off the first time...

Of course its my bolding  

You seem to think that Lapasset has changed his mind about who should control the competition.

I don't think so.

Lapasset has told the PRL to sort out their issues with BT and then come back. He hasn't changed his mind from his previous statement of:

"The IRB will defend this principle: not a privatisation of a competition in the interest of some people," he said, adding that "unions maintain pre-eminence over the leagues... the unions must remain masters of the game."

If there is a European Cup next season, it will be organised by the Unions/ERC.

How much herring in the net now?

Not much. Cos the net, like lapassets second statement, has some deliberately large holes in it.

Like the specific omission of ERC...

quinsforever wrote:Not much. Cos the net, like lapassets second statement, has some deliberately large holes in it.

Like the specific omission of ERC...

Who do you think the ERC represents? Who owns the ERC?

To help you get your head around this ask yourself the following questions:

Who does the PRL represent? Who owns the PRL?

Exactly the ERC is just a name - the members of whom are the English and French (part clubs, part Union) and the Celts and Italians (Unions only)

and who will be the members of the new controls of any reconstituted body

SEE ABOVE

Whatever this new body is called it will, largely, have the same people sitting round a table.
The English and French may change the mix of their representation but the point stands.

If the English think that the English and French clubs between them will have a majority of the votes/seats there will be no European Cup

we shall see.

i lost count of the number of declarative statements convinced the money would never go to 1/3 each, nor qualification to 7 spots for rabo. Likewise the constant appeals to support from IRB, what Lapasset said, from the FFR, what Camou said, which were what was going to prevent those terms from happening.

and yet the unions on their own, came up with 1/3 each and 7 spots for rabo as their opening offer.

so you'll pardon me if i withold judgement on what is going to happen based on what a few shrill voices here want to interpret from someone's historical statements, who isn't even in the negotiating room.

"we shall see"

Well, that at least a development, quins.  As up until now you seemed as adamant as some PRL members that everything was going to be given to the New Lord Admirals of European Rugby Union.  You weren't hedging your bets at all.  As far as you were concerned it was all a done deal - utter capitulation of Pro12/ Individual National Unions and the ERC to each and every demand put forward by PRL/LNR.

Now at least, you begin to share my view that we should Wait.

quinsforever wrote:we shall see.

i lost count of the number of declarative statements convinced the money would never go to 1/3 each, nor qualification to 7 spots for rabo. Likewise the constant appeals to support from IRB, what Lapasset said, from the FFR, what Camou said, which were what was going to prevent those terms from happening.

and yet the unions on their own, came up with 1/3 each and 7 spots for rabo as their opening offer.

so you'll pardon me if i withold judgement on what is going to happen based on what a few shrill voices here want to interpret from someone's historical statements, who isn't even in the negotiating room.

As I recall I the discussion re qualification the English demand was 6/6/6 and Pro12 team supporters on here were saying 6/6/8 would be fair.
That looks like a compromise to me + the proposal of 2 play off matches allows for the possibility of another Pro12 team qualifying
For my part I always though the line in the sand from the Irish perspective was qualification had to ensure a good chance 3 Irish sides qualify - what is on the table accommodates that.

I do think having a control situation where either or both of the following occur will be a line in the sand.

Majority Club control
England and France able to make decision even if all of the 4 other countries oppose.

I do not believe either of those situations will be allowed.

As I said at the beginning we need a compromise - 6 French votes, 6 English votes, 2 votes each for the other 4 countries.
Any decision needs a majority of votes and at least 1 vote from at least 4 countries.
How each countries split up their vote is their internal matter.
That strikes me as a workable compromise

What we most of all need - is a short contract on anything that's agreed - so that we can all walk away from anything that develops into a mess in subsequent years.

I don't trust anything in European rugby now (or the real benefits/losses of any new structures) that would make me feel comfortble hanging in there contractually anywhere past four years.  Renew every four...if everything is good, everyone will want to march on. If things aren't as cute and cozy as some would like us to believe they'll be, then the option is to walk away.

SecretFly wrote:What we most of all need - is a short contract on anything that's agreed - so that we can all walk away from anything that develops into a mess in subsequent years.

I don't trust anything in European rugby now (or the real benefits/losses of any new structures) that would make me feel comfortble hanging in there contractually anywhere past four years.  Renew every four...if everything is good, everyone will want to march on.  If things aren't as cute and cozy as some would like us to believe they'll be, then the option is to walk away.

you realise of course, that shorter contracts will unequivocally favour those with more commercial clout outside of the european club competition? so unless the celtic unions can somehow make the rabo more financially attractive, or reduce player costs for their club sides, they are always going to be vulnerable come renegotiation time because they cannot credibly walk away? be careful what you wish for SF.

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote:What we most of all need - is a short contract on anything that's agreed - so that we can all walk away from anything that develops into a mess in subsequent years.

I don't trust anything in European rugby now (or the real benefits/losses of any new structures) that would make me feel comfortble hanging in there contractually anywhere past four years.  Renew every four...if everything is good, everyone will want to march on.  If things aren't as cute and cozy as some would like us to believe they'll be, then the option is to walk away.

you realise of course, that shorter contracts will unequivocally favour those with more commercial clout outside of the european club competition? so unless the celtic unions can somehow make the rabo more financially attractive, or reduce player costs for their club sides, they are always going to be vulnerable come renegotiation time because they cannot credibly walk away? be careful what you wish for SF.

I think deep and I always know what I mean and what I wish for, quins.  Not saying that makes me eternally right or that everyone -or anyone! - ever agrees with me. I'm humble too

But I know what I mean.... and I repeat, I trust nothing of this present mess or any of the likely outcomes.  When in doubt about the environment that might be around in the near to middling future have a contract that confirms the doubt ___ like players do

SecretFly wrote:"we shall see"

Well, that at least a development, quins.  As up until now you seemed as adamant as some PRL members that everything was going to be given to the New Lord Admirals of European Rugby Union.  You weren't hedging your bets at all.  As far as you were concerned it was all a done deal - utter capitulation of Pro12/ Individual National Unions and the ERC to each and every demand put forward by PRL/LNR.

Now at least, you begin to share my view that we should Wait.

i was adamant that the prl/lnr were in by far the stronger negotiating position, and they were therefore likely to get the better deal. which they clearly have done so far.

i havent made any statements about what the likely governance will be. but the commercial decisions will be made by clubs of that there is no doubt. irb will be offered a fig leaf, at least enough of a one to cover lapasset's small embarrassment

i have always said time will tell.

geoff999rugby wrote:

quinsforever wrote:we shall see.

i lost count of the number of declarative statements convinced the money would never go to 1/3 each, nor qualification to 7 spots for rabo. Likewise the constant appeals to support from IRB, what Lapasset said, from the FFR, what Camou said, which were what was going to prevent those terms from happening.

and yet the unions on their own, came up with 1/3 each and 7 spots for rabo as their opening offer.

so you'll pardon me if i withold judgement on what is going to happen based on what a few shrill voices here want to interpret from someone's historical statements, who isn't even in the negotiating room.

As I recall  I the discussion re qualification the English demand was 6/6/6 and Pro12 team supporters on here were saying 6/6/8 would be fair.
That looks like a compromise to me + the proposal of 2 play off matches allows for the possibility of another Pro12 team qualifying
For my part I always though the line in the sand from the Irish perspective was qualification had to ensure a good chance 3 Irish sides qualify - what is on the table accommodates that.

I do think having a control situation where either or both of the following occur will be a line in the sand.

Majority Club control
England and France able to make decision even if all of the 4 other countries oppose.

I do not believe either of those situations will be allowed.

As I said at the beginning we need a compromise - 6 French votes, 6 English votes, 2 votes each for the other 4 countries.
Any decision needs a majority of votes and at least 1 vote from at least 4 countries.
How each countries split up their vote is their internal matter.
That strikes me as a workable compromise

bolded above - that's a bit revisionist. the most violent debates on 606v2 involved rabo fans for whom even 6/6/8 was viewed as a betrayal, and in no ways could 1/3 of the money for each league be called fair. cant let u get away with that claim geoff.

regarding your voting structure, i that that's eminently sensible. it means that there will be no major changes forced through by the frenglish until the contract or participation agreement or whatever its called, nears expiry.

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote:"we shall see"

Well, that at least a development, quins.  As up until now you seemed as adamant as some PRL members that everything was going to be given to the New Lord Admirals of European Rugby Union.  You weren't hedging your bets at all.  As far as you were concerned it was all a done deal - utter capitulation of Pro12/ Individual National Unions and the ERC to each and every demand put forward by PRL/LNR.

Now at least, you begin to share my view that we should Wait.

i was adamant that the prl/lnr were in by far the stronger negotiating position, and they were therefore likely to get the better deal. which they clearly have done so far.

i havent made any statements about what the likely governance will be. but the commercial decisions will be made by clubs of that there is no doubt. irb will be offered a fig leaf, at least enough of a one to cover lapasset's small embarrassment

i have always said time will tell.

Nah, quins.... that's just diappointingly back to where you were before. Not needing time to tell anything because you have your crystal ball. Oh well, it was a nice refreshing breeze anyway, whilst it lasted

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote:"we shall see"

Well, that at least a development, quins.  As up until now you seemed as adamant as some PRL members that everything was going to be given to the New Lord Admirals of European Rugby Union.  You weren't hedging your bets at all.  As far as you were concerned it was all a done deal - utter capitulation of Pro12/ Individual National Unions and the ERC to each and every demand put forward by PRL/LNR.

Now at least, you begin to share my view that we should Wait.

i was adamant that the prl/lnr were in by far the stronger negotiating position, and they were therefore likely to get the better deal. which they clearly have done so far.

i havent made any statements about what the likely governance will be. but the commercial decisions will be made by clubs of that there is no doubt. irb will be offered a fig leaf, at least enough of a one to cover lapasset's small embarrassment

i have always said time will tell.

Nah, quins.... that's just diappointingly back to where you were before.  Not needing time to tell anything because you have your crystal ball.  Oh well, it was a nice refreshing breeze anyway, whilst it lasted

honestly SF you're barking up the wrong tree.

when i say "we shall see" what i mean by that is "i think you will likely be proven wrong but i cant be bothered to have another endless discussion about who said what and what it might mean when all we have to do is wait a bit and then...we shall see"

Sorry quins poster after poster said they found 6/6/8 an acceptable compromise - no revisionism there

I don't think third each, in cash, is fair - but that why I didn't mention it.
We lost that round
I seem to recall I suggested something like 30/30 - France and England 11/11 - Ireland/Wales 9/9 - Scotland/Italy as being equitable

Regarding my proposed voting structure please let the PRL and the English clubs know as I understand they are asking for far more
Just because the cash split is as it does not mean the control split will be the same - in fact I am certain it wont

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote:"we shall see"

Well, that at least a development, quins.  As up until now you seemed as adamant as some PRL members that everything was going to be given to the New Lord Admirals of European Rugby Union.  You weren't hedging your bets at all.  As far as you were concerned it was all a done deal - utter capitulation of Pro12/ Individual National Unions and the ERC to each and every demand put forward by PRL/LNR.

Now at least, you begin to share my view that we should Wait.

i was adamant that the prl/lnr were in by far the stronger negotiating position, and they were therefore likely to get the better deal. which they clearly have done so far.

i havent made any statements about what the likely governance will be. but the commercial decisions will be made by clubs of that there is no doubt. irb will be offered a fig leaf, at least enough of a one to cover lapasset's small embarrassment

i have always said time will tell.

With Sky coming on board as broadcaster, there is every chance that the uncommitted English club supporter would watch the Pro12 as they would the Aviva Premiership. That gives the Pro 12 a much bigger audience than the Aviva, bearing in mind that Sky has a worldwide network.

The clubs overseeing the commercial element is nothing different to what has been there before. McCafferty was Chair of the ERC Commercial Committee at one stage, and its chaired by the President of Toulouse.

Commercial Sub-Committee
René Bouscatel Chairman
Max Guazzini LNR
Andrea Rinaldo FIR
Mick Dawson IRFU (Leinster CEO)
Dominic Hayes Premiership Rugby
Dominic McKay Scottish Rugby
Craig Maxwell WRU
Jean-Pierre Lux ERC Chairman
Derek McGrath ERC Chief Executive

http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/erc/about/commercial_sub_committee.php#.UnuWxCTfb-k

from his bio on ESPN:

Under McCafferty the Guinness Premiership has gone from strength to strength, despite criticisms from certain quarters over the influx of foreign players and the immovable stance employed over international commitments.

McCafferty also serves as commercial chairman of the ERC, the body that governs the Heineken Cup and European Challenge Cup.