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

First topic message reminder :

But didn't the WRU and its regions capitulate and join their English Masters? Have they done a U-turn now? Looks like it.

Unless they want to hype up the Low Value Cup...

andyi wrote:

Sin é wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Does anyone think its a bit strange that heineken still sponsors the ERC comps?

Most of the time sponsorship changes hands a lot , obviously there is normally a big market for sports sponsorships.

I cant help but thinking this is just typical of the ERC and just like the sky deal this time they just take whatever is offered and dont shop about

If you read what that bloke from Saachi said at that Rugby Expo thingy, you'd have learned that there isn't much sponsorship floating around at the moment even for sport. He also said that most new sponsors would run a mile from what is happening at the moment (The Unions should sue the PRL for bringing the sport into disrepute).

He also said that big sporting sponsorship decisions tend to be made 2-3 years before they actually happen. It wouldn't be unusual that the encumbent sponsor would be given first refusal. Their bids would be worked out to the penny as to what they are worth. Its usual for sponsors to give plenty of notice if they intend not renewing their sponsorship.

edit: Heineken is a big brand who have specialised in rugby (they are World Cup sponsors) - can you think of a better sponsor who is available?

That's not strictly true.

They have a far bigger deal in place as an associate sponsor of the Champions League.
Thev'e sponsored it since 1994 (as Amstel) and as Heineken since 2007 and have just signed an extension for the 2015-18 period at an increase to the current deal which costs them $70M a year!!!

All the beer brands sponsor soccer. Heineken have specialised in rugby unlike other big brewers like Carlsberg, Anheuser-Busch, SabMiller or Diageo.

Sin é wrote:

andyi wrote:

Sin é wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Does anyone think its a bit strange that heineken still sponsors the ERC comps?

Most of the time sponsorship changes hands a lot , obviously there is normally a big market for sports sponsorships.

I cant help but thinking this is just typical of the ERC and just like the sky deal this time they just take whatever is offered and dont shop about

If you read what that bloke from Saachi said at that Rugby Expo thingy, you'd have learned that there isn't much sponsorship floating around at the moment even for sport. He also said that most new sponsors would run a mile from what is happening at the moment (The Unions should sue the PRL for bringing the sport into disrepute).

He also said that big sporting sponsorship decisions tend to be made 2-3 years before they actually happen. It wouldn't be unusual that the encumbent sponsor would be given first refusal. Their bids would be worked out to the penny as to what they are worth. Its usual for sponsors to give plenty of notice if they intend not renewing their sponsorship.

edit: Heineken is a big brand who have specialised in rugby (they are World Cup sponsors) - can you think of a better sponsor who is available?

That's not strictly true.

They have a far bigger deal in place as an associate sponsor of the Champions League.
Thev'e sponsored it since 1994 (as Amstel) and as Heineken since 2007 and have just signed an extension for the 2015-18 period at an increase to the current deal which costs them $70M a year!!!

All the beer brands sponsor soccer. Heineken have specialised in rugby unlike other big brewers like Carlsberg, Anheuser-Busch, SabMiller or Diageo.

Carlsberg(Tetley), Guiness and Courage to name a few, have all sponsored Rugby at one time or another.

Heineken are far from unique, and Rugby is not their biggest sport sponsorship cost.

It'll be interesting what happens with the French TV rights for European and Top 14 rugby on the back of Camou's play.  Will the suggested termination of the current contract from a few months back go ahead and what sort of contribution to the ERC pot will now be possible?

French clubs target new bumper TV deal

August 12, 2013

France's leading clubs are reportedly set to activate a cancellation clause in their agreement with broadcasters Canal+ in the hope of securing a more lucrative TV rights deal.

Canal+ has been the Top 14's principle partner since 1995 and has been a key factor in the league's development during the professional era during which time it has grown into arguably the strongest professional competition in the rugby world.

The latest agreement was struck in 2011 with Canal+, a pay-TV service that forms part of the French media and telecommunications giant Vivendi SA, able to negotiate a reduction on their previous deal as the only broadcaster vying for the rights.

The French clubs had to settle for a five-year deal worth €158.5m (£136.1m), or €31.7m (£27.2m) per season that reportedly left a bitter taste in the mouth of the owners who hoped to secure a boost in revenue in line with the bumper deal struck between Canal+ and France's leading football competition, Ligue 1.

However, the clubs held onto a lifeline in the form of a get-out clause that would allow them to cancel the agreement after two years in the hope that a more competitive rights market had developed. The window for such a move begins on September 1 and stretches to December 31 and would enable the Ligue Nationale de Rugby (LNR), the umbrella body for the country's leading clubs, to put the rights out to tender once again.

The last two years have seen beIN Sport, a global network of sports channels backed by Qatari Sports Investments, emerge as a key player in the world of TV sports rights and reports suggest they are interested in expanding their portfolio with Top 14 rugby.

L'Equipe reports that club presidents Alain Afflelou (Bayonne), Mourad Boudjellal (Toulon), Mohed Altrad (Montpellier), Jacky Lorenzetti (Racing Metro) and Laurent Marti (Bordeaux-Begles) are pushing for a re-negotiation. "Two years ago, Canal+ underpaid for the rights," said Marti. "The current agreement is laughable...We must terminate and re-negotiate."

Boudjellal added, "In 2011, their first offer of €20m was almost shameful, almost a way of taunting us."

beIN Sport is seen as a major rival for Canal+ in France despite boasting only a reported 1.8m subscribers to their rival's 9.8m. But any reported interest in the Top 14 may prompt a re-think by Canal+ and an offer of a new and improved deal.

Other clubs are understood to favour a re-negotiation with their long-term broadcast partners LNR president Paul Goze has refused to be drawn on the subject of a bidding war or contact with beIN Sport.

"Do not listen to everything that is said or written," he said earlier this year. "Our contract expires at the end of the 2015-2016 season with an option to terminate between September and December 2013. This is why we watch. We have decided nothing. And in the event that the LNR end the contract, it will launch a tender involving Canal."

http://www.espn.co.uk/france-top-14-2013-14/rugby/story/194191.html

andyi so you say Heineken's contribution to European football is 70million?

SecretFly wrote:andyi so you say Heineken's contribution to European football is 70million?

Yep. they currently pay 70m dollars a year, to be one of the title sponsors of the Champions League.

They will pay more from 2015-18 but it's not known how much more.

This is great news.  The ERC need to help Italy turn into a rugby giant as one of their core remits. That and promoting it more in the Amlin for the lesser clubs. at  It took France a while and this really helps to promote the game to a far, yet untapped,  bigger, local audience. When they (Italian rugby fans), taste a Heino Final, they wont look back.

http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/news/24797.php#.Uo0K4-Jlga8

I've stayed out of this one for a while, mainly because I don't have the facility to embed a video of Graham Chapman's Major telling you to stop because it's getting silly. But it has gotten far too silly, and though I doubt it will make a blind bit of difference I feel compelled to say something.

First things first: it's all a bit premature to declare victory for one side or another. Firstly, the Telegraph article only says that the FFR have made the LNR an offer they "probably can't refuse". Only the money side has been reported, but unless the LNR are getting significant concessions on governance they would be signing up - again - to the very thing that they have the biggest issue with, namely the FFR's ability to ride roughshod over any LNR decision on Europe that it doesn't like. So until we hear from the LNR that they've signed up, I wouldn't be counting too many chickens.

Secondly, the Guardian reported at the same time that Ian Ritchie is still hopeful of negotiating a solution that includes the English clubs, which would of necessity be RCC based.

Finally, I've seen repeated posts about what the PRL did and didn't do, and what we "now" know their motives were. Most of these have been factually incorrect, particularly with regards to the timing:
1) Reform of the governance of European competition has *always* been an important part of the LNR and PRL agenda, ever since the FFR recalled its votes to vote against Peter Wheeler (who the LNR wanted)
2) I don't think I have seen any official denial that the PRL and LNR repeatedly ask for change from within the ERC and the ERC and other members refused to negotiate.
3) So the PRL and ERC served notice and sat it out until this year. At which point, having withdrawn from the ERC and facing the prospect of a gap in their schedules for the following year, they started work on a replacement competition. At any point before this one, the other ERC members could have offered a meaningful compromise solution. They didn't, at least nothing that has been aired publically.

At this point I expect a lot of stuff around the PRL wanting power, money, the souls of unborn children etc to be trotted out. Well, yes. When was that ever in doubt? And when was it ever unclear that the PRL and LNR felt that that power and money was (and is) concentrated too much in the hands of the Rabo unions?

Leave aside who is right and who is wrong. The PRL and LNR can reasonably argue that power and money are unfairly distributed today because they aren't aligned to the costs of production. There might be good reasons why they shouldn't be but the point is both sides of the argument want power and money. One side already has it and up to this point in the process has shown no evidence of being willing to consider the other side's case.

4) So now, if the PRL are serious about wanting change, and the ERC is still refusing to negotiate, then their only real option short of giving up is to set up another competition. Again, whether you like it or not, put yourself in their shoes. Would you have withdrawn your notice? Or started setting up another competition?

This is the important point in timing terms. It's only when the ERC and Rabo unions tried to call the PRL and LNR's bluff (again) that they found that they weren't bluffing. It's also important that - whatever was or was not agreed about tv rights renegotiations - the PRL and LNR had by this point been pretty clear that they were no longer intending to be involved in the ERC.

5) It's only really at this point that BT enters the equation. New tournament needs new TV deal, and they were renegotiating the domestic tv deal at the same time. Did they sell something they didn't have the right to sell? It's unlikely to be completely black or white. The contract is most likely written as a commitment to sell the domestic rights in any future tournament to BT - i.e. it's saying "we won't sign up to a tournament unless we can give you the tv rights."

That's a relatively hard negotiating tactic; they have pre-committed themselves to a particular position and maybe the other parties in a European tournament would want to do something different. But for the PRL it gives them a bargaining chip. Again, set aside the details of the contract and who would get what. It's clear from what happened afterwards that it was enough to force some level of change. It's the only thing that has.

6) According to the PRL, it's only after the BT deal is announced that the ERC hurriedly ink their deal with Sky. However much you dislike the deal with BT, I think it's pretty hard to argue that signing the Sky deal at that point - before any negotiation had really happened - was a nuclear option and every bit as hard a negotiating tactic as the BT deal. Leave aside what the ERC did or didn't have the right to do - even if it did have the right to negotiate the rights promised to BT by the PRL (which isn't currently clear), by committing the teams still in the ERC to a deal before even listening to the PRL it makes any future negotiations much, much more difficult.

No one is innocent here and it would be constructive if those of you on the Celtic side could accept that. The PRL has pushed the boundaries, but it's also been pushed up against those boundaries by the ERC to the point where the options were a) back down or b) do something radical.

What about the Welsh? Are they gonna play with the English next year?

Poorfour wrote:I've stayed out of this one for a while, mainly because I don't have the facility to embed a video of Graham Chapman's Major telling you to stop because it's getting silly. But it has gotten far too silly, and though I doubt it will make a blind bit of difference I feel compelled to say something.

First things first: it's all a bit premature to declare victory for one side or another. Firstly, the Telegraph article only says that the FFR have made the LNR an offer they "probably can't refuse". Only the money side has been reported, but unless the LNR are getting significant concessions on governance they would be signing up - again - to the very thing that they have the biggest issue with, namely the FFR's ability to ride roughshod over any LNR decision on Europe that it doesn't like. So until we hear from the LNR that they've signed up, I wouldn't be counting too many chickens.

Secondly, the Guardian reported at the same time that Ian Ritchie is still hopeful of negotiating a solution that includes the English clubs, which would of necessity be RCC based.

Finally, I've seen repeated posts about what the PRL did and didn't do, and what we "now" know their motives were. Most of these have been factually incorrect, particularly with regards to the timing:
1) Reform of the governance of European competition has *always* been an important part of the LNR and PRL agenda, ever since the FFR recalled its votes to vote against Peter Wheeler (who the LNR wanted)
2) I don't think I have seen any official denial that the PRL and LNR repeatedly ask for change from within the ERC and the ERC and other members refused to negotiate.
3) So the PRL and ERC served notice and sat it out until this year. At which point, having withdrawn from the ERC and facing the prospect of a gap in their schedules for the following year, they started work on a replacement competition. At any point before this one, the other ERC members could have offered a meaningful compromise solution. They didn't, at least nothing that has been aired publically.

At this point I expect a lot of stuff around the PRL wanting power, money, the souls of unborn children etc to be trotted out. Well, yes. When was that ever in doubt? And when was it ever unclear that the PRL and LNR felt that that power and money was (and is) concentrated too much in the hands of the Rabo unions?

Leave aside who is right and who is wrong. The PRL and LNR can reasonably argue that power and money are unfairly distributed today because they aren't aligned to the costs of production. There might be good reasons why they shouldn't be but the point is both sides of the argument want power and money. One side already has it and up to this point in the process has shown no evidence of being willing to consider the other side's case.

4) So now, if the PRL are serious about wanting change, and the ERC is still refusing to negotiate, then their only real option short of giving up is to set up another competition. Again, whether you like  it or not, put yourself in their shoes. Would you have withdrawn your notice? Or started setting up another competition?

This is the important point in timing terms. It's only when the ERC and Rabo unions tried to call the PRL and LNR's bluff (again) that they found that they weren't bluffing. It's also important that - whatever was or was not agreed about tv rights renegotiations - the PRL and LNR had by this point been pretty clear that they were no longer intending to be involved in the ERC.

5) It's only really at this point that BT enters the equation. New tournament needs new TV deal, and they were renegotiating the domestic tv deal at the same time. Did they sell something they didn't have the right to sell? It's unlikely to be completely black or white. The contract is most likely written as a commitment to sell the domestic rights in any future tournament to BT - i.e. it's saying "we won't sign up to a tournament unless we can give you the tv rights."

That's a relatively hard negotiating tactic; they have pre-committed themselves to a particular position and maybe the other parties in a European tournament would want to do something different. But for the PRL it gives them a bargaining chip. Again, set aside the details of the contract and who would get what. It's clear from what happened afterwards that it was enough to force some level of change. It's the only thing that has.

6) According to the PRL, it's only after the BT deal is announced that the ERC hurriedly ink their deal with Sky. However much you dislike the deal with BT, I think it's pretty hard to argue that signing the Sky deal at that point - before any negotiation had really happened - was a nuclear option and every bit as hard a negotiating tactic as the BT deal. Leave aside what the ERC did or didn't have the right to do - even if it did have the right to negotiate the rights promised to BT by the PRL (which isn't currently clear), by committing the teams still in the ERC to a deal before even listening to the PRL it makes any future negotiations much, much more difficult.

No one is innocent here and it would be constructive if those of you on the Celtic side could accept that. The PRL has pushed the boundaries, but it's also been pushed up against those boundaries by the ERC to the point where the options were a) back down or b) do something radical.

"I like the PRL" would've sufficed.

Poorfour wrote:I've stayed out of this one for a while, mainly because I don't have the facility to embed a video of Graham Chapman's Major telling you to stop because it's getting silly. But it has gotten far too silly, and though I doubt it will make a blind bit of difference I feel compelled to say something.

First things first: it's all a bit premature to declare victory for one side or another. Firstly, the Telegraph article only says that the FFR have made the LNR an offer they "probably can't refuse". Only the money side has been reported, but unless the LNR are getting significant concessions on governance they would be signing up - again - to the very thing that they have the biggest issue with, namely the FFR's ability to ride roughshod over any LNR decision on Europe that it doesn't like. So until we hear from the LNR that they've signed up, I wouldn't be counting too many chickens.

Secondly, the Guardian reported at the same time that Ian Ritchie is still hopeful of negotiating a solution that includes the English clubs, which would of necessity be RCC based.

Finally, I've seen repeated posts about what the PRL did and didn't do, and what we "now" know their motives were. Most of these have been factually incorrect, particularly with regards to the timing:
1) Reform of the governance of European competition has *always* been an important part of the LNR and PRL agenda, ever since the FFR recalled its votes to vote against Peter Wheeler (who the LNR wanted)
2) I don't think I have seen any official denial that the PRL and LNR repeatedly ask for change from within the ERC and the ERC and other members refused to negotiate.
3) So the PRL and ERC served notice and sat it out until this year. At which point, having withdrawn from the ERC and facing the prospect of a gap in their schedules for the following year, they started work on a replacement competition. At any point before this one, the other ERC members could have offered a meaningful compromise solution. They didn't, at least nothing that has been aired publically.

At this point I expect a lot of stuff around the PRL wanting power, money, the souls of unborn children etc to be trotted out. Well, yes. When was that ever in doubt? And when was it ever unclear that the PRL and LNR felt that that power and money was (and is) concentrated too much in the hands of the Rabo unions?

Leave aside who is right and who is wrong. The PRL and LNR can reasonably argue that power and money are unfairly distributed today because they aren't aligned to the costs of production. There might be good reasons why they shouldn't be but the point is both sides of the argument want power and money. One side already has it and up to this point in the process has shown no evidence of being willing to consider the other side's case.

4) So now, if the PRL are serious about wanting change, and the ERC is still refusing to negotiate, then their only real option short of giving up is to set up another competition. Again, whether you like  it or not, put yourself in their shoes. Would you have withdrawn your notice? Or started setting up another competition?

This is the important point in timing terms. It's only when the ERC and Rabo unions tried to call the PRL and LNR's bluff (again) that they found that they weren't bluffing. It's also important that - whatever was or was not agreed about tv rights renegotiations - the PRL and LNR had by this point been pretty clear that they were no longer intending to be involved in the ERC.

5) It's only really at this point that BT enters the equation. New tournament needs new TV deal, and they were renegotiating the domestic tv deal at the same time. Did they sell something they didn't have the right to sell? It's unlikely to be completely black or white. The contract is most likely written as a commitment to sell the domestic rights in any future tournament to BT - i.e. it's saying "we won't sign up to a tournament unless we can give you the tv rights."

That's a relatively hard negotiating tactic; they have pre-committed themselves to a particular position and maybe the other parties in a European tournament would want to do something different. But for the PRL it gives them a bargaining chip. Again, set aside the details of the contract and who would get what. It's clear from what happened afterwards that it was enough to force some level of change. It's the only thing that has.

6) According to the PRL, it's only after the BT deal is announced that the ERC hurriedly ink their deal with Sky. However much you dislike the deal with BT, I think it's pretty hard to argue that signing the Sky deal at that point - before any negotiation had really happened - was a nuclear option and every bit as hard a negotiating tactic as the BT deal. Leave aside what the ERC did or didn't have the right to do - even if it did have the right to negotiate the rights promised to BT by the PRL (which isn't currently clear), by committing the teams still in the ERC to a deal before even listening to the PRL it makes any future negotiations much, much more difficult.

No one is innocent here and it would be constructive if those of you on the Celtic side could accept that. The PRL has pushed the boundaries, but it's also been pushed up against those boundaries by the ERC to the point where the options were a) back down or b) do something radical.

Poorfour, you seem a reasonable poster so please don't take this the wrong way, but all of your comment is just 'more of the same' that has been going around in circles on these forums, on this subject.
Much of what you write is just as speculative as any other from either side of this debate. Now, there has been enough in the media recently to speculate that the likely outcome of this debacle is that PRL do not succeed in their attempt at destroying the HEC, and creating their new competition, and also that they are isolated. That could be wrong, but the chances of it being wrong are very slim now. Hopefully we will have something solid to either confirm, or deny, those assumptions over the next day, or two.. The Unions meet tomorrow in Dublin, along with RRW, LNR?, but excluding RFU/PRL. That exclusion speaks volumes, methinks.

Poorfour wrote:
No one is innocent here and it would be constructive if those of you on the Celtic side could accept that. The PRL has pushed the boundaries, but it's also been pushed up against those boundaries by the ERC to the point where the options were a) back down or b) do something radical.

Nobody is innocent, everyone is to blame and therefore I assume all should go to jail?  

The world doesn't work that way.  Someone lit the flame and it was the PRL and LNR not liking what they saw in Europe that lit that flame.  
And what they didn't like, to put it bluntly, was seeing Irish sides dominating in Europe. The Daily mail was saying so way back in 2012.  
Yet neither the English or French minded the very same rules of engagement that existed when they had their purple patches through the HEC history.  
Neither did they awfully mind so much when they each saw their automatic spots in European contests go up every few years as others in Pro12 remained static or decreased.  

The truth is they didn't and don't like someone else having a purple patch.  When that happens rules of course then need changing to return things to how they were in the good old days when English and French sides fought it out between them, as we all oohed and aahed from the sidelines at the power, the beauty, the majesty of it all.

So, quick route to the present then.  You ask did we really expect the PRL to 'back down'?  Well, that's what PRL/LNR were hoping the ERC would have done by now.  So people calling people's bluff is again a relative term and both sides of the debate can use it.

The truth is that the PRL/LNR got what it wanted in structural terms (namely their attempts to strangle Irish sides and push them off the play-off stages of any future competition)....and even now, they see acceptance of those Major concessions by Pro12 as somehow showing too much public weakness now that they've backed Themselves into their brash and belligerent corner.  
They're the ones who came out shooting from the hip, they're the ones surprised to see the other gunslinger still standing.  And they are the ones who seem incapable of understanding the concept of 'compromise'.

 

SecretFly wrote:

Poorfour wrote:
No one is innocent here and it would be constructive if those of you on the Celtic side could accept that. The PRL has pushed the boundaries, but it's also been pushed up against those boundaries by the ERC to the point where the options were a) back down or b) do something radical.

Nobody is innocent, everyone is to blame and therefore I assume all should go to jail?  

The world doesn't work that way.  Someone lit the flame and it was the PRL and LNR not liking what they saw in Europe that lit that flame.  
And what they didn't like, to put it bluntly, was seeing Irish sides dominating in Europe.  The Daily mail was saying so way back in 2012.  
Yet neither the English or French minded the very same rules of engagement that existed when they had their purple patches through the HEC history.  
Neither did they awfully mind so much when they each saw their automatic spots in European contests go up every few years as others in Pro12 remained static or decreased.  

The truth is they didn't and don't like someone else having a purple patch.  When that happens rules of course then need changing to return things to how they were in the good old days when English and French sides fought it out between them, as we all oohed and aahed from the sidelines at the power, the beauty, the majesty of it all.

So, quick route to the present then.  You ask did we really expect the PRL to 'back down'?  Well, that's what PRL/LNR were hoping the ERC would have done by now.  So people calling people's bluff is again a relative term and both sides of the debate can use it.

The truth is that the PRL/LNR got what it wanted in structural terms (namely their attempts to strangle Irish sides and push them off the play-off stages of any future competition)....and even now, they see acceptance of those Major concessions by Pro12 as somehow showing too much public weakness now that they've backed Themselves into their brash and belligerent corner.  
They're the ones who came out shooting from the hip, they're the ones surprised to see the other gunslinger still standing.  And they are the ones who seem incapable of understanding the concept of 'compromise'.

It's not the prejudice, or the paranoia, or the feigned ignorance or the "big lies" that makes this post so amusing - it's the citing of the Daily Mail as some kind of credible source.

Thanks, it's made my evening.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Poorfour wrote:
No one is innocent here and it would be constructive if those of you on the Celtic side could accept that. The PRL has pushed the boundaries, but it's also been pushed up against those boundaries by the ERC to the point where the options were a) back down or b) do something radical.

Nobody is innocent, everyone is to blame and therefore I assume all should go to jail?  

The world doesn't work that way.  Someone lit the flame and it was the PRL and LNR not liking what they saw in Europe that lit that flame.  
And what they didn't like, to put it bluntly, was seeing Irish sides dominating in Europe.  The Daily mail was saying so way back in 2012.  
Yet neither the English or French minded the very same rules of engagement that existed when they had their purple patches through the HEC history.  
Neither did they awfully mind so much when they each saw their automatic spots in European contests go up every few years as others in Pro12 remained static or decreased.  

The truth is they didn't and don't like someone else having a purple patch.  When that happens rules of course then need changing to return things to how they were in the good old days when English and French sides fought it out between them, as we all oohed and aahed from the sidelines at the power, the beauty, the majesty of it all.

So, quick route to the present then.  You ask did we really expect the PRL to 'back down'?  Well, that's what PRL/LNR were hoping the ERC would have done by now.  So people calling people's bluff is again a relative term and both sides of the debate can use it.

The truth is that the PRL/LNR got what it wanted in structural terms (namely their attempts to strangle Irish sides and push them off the play-off stages of any future competition)....and even now, they see acceptance of those Major concessions by Pro12 as somehow showing too much public weakness now that they've backed Themselves into their brash and belligerent corner.  
They're the ones who came out shooting from the hip, they're the ones surprised to see the other gunslinger still standing.  And they are the ones who seem incapable of understanding the concept of 'compromise'.

It's not the prejudice, or the paranoia, or the feigned ignorance or the "big lies" that makes this post so amusing - it's the citing of the Daily Mail as some kind of credible source.

Thanks, it's made my evening.

The Daily Mail isn't bankrupt.  It's making a profit talking to people that like what it says.  You might try to rise yourself above the TV-dinner-out-of-a-tray commonality of it all but many of your countrymen don't share your rarified views

And the second point is that the direct approach to all the 'complexity' bullschit going around on these threads always catches a 'witty' spark who doesn't quite like what he's hearing so tries ridicule as a weapon to kill it off.

I'm much too non-Daily Mail to be killed off by such a tactic, Dubbleyew.

Poorfour wrote:6) According to the PRL, it's only after the BT deal is announced that the ERC hurriedly ink their deal with Sky. However much you dislike the deal with BT, I think it's pretty hard to argue that signing the Sky deal at that point - before any negotiation had really happened - was a nuclear option and every bit as hard a negotiating tactic as the BT deal. Leave aside what the ERC did or didn't have the right to do - even if it did have the right to negotiate the rights promised to BT by the PRL (which isn't currently clear), by committing the teams still in the ERC to a deal before even listening to the PRL it makes any future negotiations much, much more difficult.

Note the prefix 'according to the prl', which probably makes most of what follows moot, but just thinking in terms of the timing of the PRL BT announcement immediately before that of the ERC SKY. It might well be hurried ERC ink, but thinking back on most of the PRL/LNR announcements/press releases on RCC, hasn't the pattern for most been to coincide with or more particularly timed immediately before an ERC meeting/announcement?

Given the dinosaur that is the ERC, which has been noted many times in this and other threads. I am guessing their old school ways probably mean agendas and meeting schedules etc. are planned a good bit in advance, so is there any chance that PRL/LNR signing and announcement was the hurried one?

Sorry don't have any facts to back this up...........

Totalflanker wrote:

Poorfour wrote:6) According to the PRL, it's only after the BT deal is announced that the ERC hurriedly ink their deal with Sky. However much you dislike the deal with BT, I think it's pretty hard to argue that signing the Sky deal at that point - before any negotiation had really happened - was a nuclear option and every bit as hard a negotiating tactic as the BT deal. Leave aside what the ERC did or didn't have the right to do - even if it did have the right to negotiate the rights promised to BT by the PRL (which isn't currently clear), by committing the teams still in the ERC to a deal before even listening to the PRL it makes any future negotiations much, much more difficult.

Note the prefix 'according to the prl', which probably makes most of what follows moot, but just thinking in terms of the timing of the PRL BT announcement immediately before that of the ERC SKY. It might well be hurried ERC ink, but thinking back on most of the PRL/LNR announcements/press releases on RCC, hasn't the pattern for most been to coincide with or more particularly timed immediately before an ERC meeting/announcement?

Given the dinosaur that is the ERC, which has been noted many times in this and other threads. I am guessing their old school ways probably mean agendas and meeting schedules etc. are planned a good bit in advance, so is there any chance that PRL/LNR signing and announcement was the hurried one?

Sorry don't have any facts to back this up...........

Prejudice, paranoia and feigned ignorance.

If the French clubs are forced into an European competition they don't want to be a part of, things are not going to end well over there, especially if it additionally results in reduced revenue from upcoming TV negotiations.

Relations between the clubs and the FFR were already terrible because of Camou and if his ultimatum carries he will have set a ticking time bomb of civil war for his successor and for only a temporary stay of execution on the ERC.  What the club owners and boards want in terms of European competition structure isn't going to change because their hand was limited by the upcoming national accord discussions, and a non-negotiated conclusion will simply bottle up the issues for future higher volatility explosion.  In the meantime relations between the FFR and the clubs will be particularly frosty, and that will have knock-on effects for the national side.

niwatts wrote:If the French clubs are forced into an European competition they don't want to be a part of, things are not going to end well over there, especially if it additionally results in reduced revenue from upcoming TV negotiations.

Relations between the clubs and the FFR were already terrible because of Camou and if his ultimatum carries he will have set a ticking time bomb of civil war for his successor and for only a temporary stay of execution on the ERC.  What the club owners and boards want in terms of European competition structure isn't going to change because their hand was limited by the upcoming national accord discussions, and a non-negotiated conclusion will simply bottle up the issues for future higher volatility explosion.  In the meantime relations between the FFR and the clubs will be particularly frosty, and that will have knock-on effects for the national side.

The T14 clubs are going to get a very handsome payout between the upcoming TV deal, and an FFR handout. Not forgetting the FFR's promise of Central Contracts.
They obviously want to be in a European competition, but also wanted concessions from FFR. It looks like they have that now. Unless of course they turn their back on what's on offer. I doubt they will.
As for the future? Who knows? Personally I predict a divorce between club and Union. A new code.

SecretFly wrote:
Nobody is innocent, everyone is to blame and therefore I assume all should go to jail?  

The world doesn't work that way.  Someone lit the flame and it was the PRL and LNR not liking what they saw in Europe that lit that flame.  
And what they didn't like, to put it bluntly, was seeing Irish sides dominating in Europe.  The Daily mail was saying so way back in 2012.  
Yet neither the English or French minded the very same rules of engagement that existed when they had their purple patches through the HEC history.

That's a curious rewriting of history.

Also, which of the changes the PRL & LNR want do you think would prevent the top Irish sides from competing at the level they currently do?

SecretFly wrote:

Totalflanker wrote:

Poorfour wrote:6) According to the PRL, it's only after the BT deal is announced that the ERC hurriedly ink their deal with Sky. However much you dislike the deal with BT, I think it's pretty hard to argue that signing the Sky deal at that point - before any negotiation had really happened - was a nuclear option and every bit as hard a negotiating tactic as the BT deal. Leave aside what the ERC did or didn't have the right to do - even if it did have the right to negotiate the rights promised to BT by the PRL (which isn't currently clear), by committing the teams still in the ERC to a deal before even listening to the PRL it makes any future negotiations much, much more difficult.

Note the prefix 'according to the prl', which probably makes most of what follows moot, but just thinking in terms of the timing of the PRL BT announcement immediately before that of the ERC SKY. It might well be hurried ERC ink, but thinking back on most of the PRL/LNR announcements/press releases on RCC, hasn't the pattern for most been to coincide with or more particularly timed immediately before an ERC meeting/announcement?

Given the dinosaur that is the ERC, which has been noted many times in this and other threads. I am guessing their old school ways probably mean agendas and meeting schedules etc. are planned a good bit in advance, so is there any chance that PRL/LNR signing and announcement was the hurried one?

Sorry don't have any facts to back this up...........

Prejudice, paranoia and feigned ignorance.

A rare honour - not usually accused of feigning

Interesting article on Chris Bell and his thoughts on the Heineken Cup. Published on 'Aviva Premiership Rugby' of all places  

"20 November 2013 09:34am

Chris Bell admits he is tired of looking longingly at the Heineken Cup and is determined to lead London Wasps into European action next season.
Wasps looked a good bet for a top-six Aviva Premiership finish last year - and with it a seat at European rugby's top table - only for defeats in their final seven games to drop them down to eighth.
And although Bell took over the role of captain from Hugo Southwell, he was unable to shake off that hangover as the Adam's Park outfit opened up their campaign this time around with three straight losses.

However director of rugby Dai Young's troops seem to have turned a corner and have won three of their last four league matches - including getting one over defending champions Leicester Tigers - to climb to seventh.

And, as the Aviva Premiership bursts back into action this weekend with Wasps welcoming Bath Rugby to Adams Park, Bell is hoping for more of the same in order to achieve his European dream.

"Having sat down and watched the Heineken Cup this season, and knowing there will be some format of it next season, they're the competitions you want to be playing in," he said.

"But first and foremost you have to be top six. If you can be in or around that area and then string a run of games together you can make it into the top four.

"Every player in the league wants to play in the Heineken Cup. You want to play the likes of Munster, Leinster and Toulouse - those are the games that you're striving for so it's up to us to get in that position.

"We said at the end of last year that we want to improve and to better ourselves each week. We finished eighth last year so we want to improve on that.

"It's all about momentum, the more you can create the higher up the league you'll climb. We set ourselves individual and collective targets each week and we're constantly trying to achieve those........." - (Aviva Premiership Rugby).




His comments reflect just how much the HEC means to these guys, and the thought that they may not be able to participate next year, or their fans watch them compete, saddens me.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/10464060/Premiership-Rugby-given-assurances-Top-14-clubs-remain-committed-to-breakaway-Rugby-Champions-Cup.html

Every day another story.

SecretFly wrote:

Poorfour wrote:
No one is innocent here and it would be constructive if those of you on the Celtic side could accept that. The PRL has pushed the boundaries, but it's also been pushed up against those boundaries by the ERC to the point where the options were a) back down or b) do something radical.

Nobody is innocent, everyone is to blame and therefore I assume all should go to jail?  

The world doesn't work that way.  Someone lit the flame and it was the PRL and LNR not liking what they saw in Europe that lit that flame.  
And what they didn't like, to put it bluntly, was seeing Irish sides dominating in Europe.  The Daily mail was saying so way back in 2012.  
Yet neither the English or French minded the very same rules of engagement that existed when they had their purple patches through the HEC history.  
Neither did they awfully mind so much when they each saw their automatic spots in European contests go up every few years as others in Pro12 remained static or decreased.  

The truth is they didn't and don't like someone else having a purple patch.  When that happens rules of course then need changing to return things to how they were in the good old days when English and French sides fought it out between them, as we all oohed and aahed from the sidelines at the power, the beauty, the majesty of it all.

So, quick route to the present then.  You ask did we really expect the PRL to 'back down'?  Well, that's what PRL/LNR were hoping the ERC would have done by now.  So people calling people's bluff is again a relative term and both sides of the debate can use it.

The truth is that the PRL/LNR got what it wanted in structural terms (namely their attempts to strangle Irish sides and push them off the play-off stages of any future competition)....and even now, they see acceptance of those Major concessions by Pro12 as somehow showing too much public weakness now that they've backed Themselves into their brash and belligerent corner.  
They're the ones who came out shooting from the hip, they're the ones surprised to see the other gunslinger still standing.  And they are the ones who seem incapable of understanding the concept of 'compromise'.

This is one of the most bizarre posts I have read. The PRL/LNR did not like a number of things:

1. Unequal distribution of money
   
2. Unequal qualification rules
   
3. unfair voting rules in which 38 out of 40 clubs can be outvoted e.g in election of Lux as Chairman
   

Stopping the Irish winning was not behind it. Indeed as we are constantly told that the only thing the 'money men' of the PRL and LNR are interested in is money and power I am not sure that stopping the Irish winning would be top priority.

You say that the PRL and LNR lit the flame but now virtually everybody in rugby seems to agree that their first two demands were reasonable. If so why did they not agree to them before notice was given or during the eighteen months following that notice. I suggest that the flame was lit by the ERC rejecting any compromise. It is true that they have backed down on these two points but it is all too late.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/10464060/Premiership-Rugby-given-assurances-Top-14-clubs-remain-committed-to-breakaway-Rugby-Champions-Cup.html

Every day another story.

Do you know BigTrev', I was just thinking a couple of hours ago that it was a bit odd that PRL haven't had some article published on the eve of another Union meeting. I was actually looking for something along those lines when I discovered the Chris Bell article, and now you post exactly what I was expecting earlier. Same old tactics  

Munchkin wrote:

niwatts wrote:If the French clubs are forced into an European competition they don't want to be a part of, things are not going to end well over there, especially if it additionally results in reduced revenue from upcoming TV negotiations.

Relations between the clubs and the FFR were already terrible because of Camou and if his ultimatum carries he will have set a ticking time bomb of civil war for his successor and for only a temporary stay of execution on the ERC.  What the club owners and boards want in terms of European competition structure isn't going to change because their hand was limited by the upcoming national accord discussions, and a non-negotiated conclusion will simply bottle up the issues for future higher volatility explosion.  In the meantime relations between the FFR and the clubs will be particularly frosty, and that will have knock-on effects for the national side.

The T14 clubs are going to get a very handsome payout between the upcoming TV deal, and an FFR handout. Not forgetting the FFR's promise of Central Contracts.
They obviously want to be in a European competition, but also wanted concessions from FFR. It looks like they have that now. Unless of course they turn their back on what's on offer. I doubt they will.
As for the future? Who knows? Personally I predict a divorce between club and Union. A new code.

The handout is a one-off though, it doesn't equate to much over the course of the contract they would have to sign up to.  Regarding the 'upcoming' TV deal, as an above poster suggested that may now be off the cards, particularly if the Qatari backed group level of bid was contingent on a combined Top 14 and European set of rights.  The worth of the rights to French broadcasters and Sky for Heineken and Amlin Cups without English clubs involved is yet to be seen.  I very much doubt all combined French clubs will be financially better off over the course of a contract for such a proposed European competition compared to where they are with the current one.

The central contract suggestion was for if the French clubs didn't agree to ERC governance.

Having offered the French clubs €2 million apiece for participating in next season’s Heineken Cup, it is understood that Camou has also given the French clubs until early December to return to the ERC fold or else he will begin exploring other means of entering French teams through central contracting with the FFR.

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/unions-to-meet-in-dublin-to-draw-up-plans-for-heineken-cup-and-amlin-challenge-cup-1.1599260


The main point of my post though was not the financial aspects, but that the French clubs simply won't react well to being bullied into something by their union when it doesn't match up with key wishes.  And as the quotes from Goze posted earlier (below) allude to, a competition involving English clubs and all the European clubs having more of a say in the competition's running are just that.  The French clubs were burnt by their union over voting rights in the ERC before, they'll want to make sure that something similar can't happen again.

“The ERC is dead because of the two TV rights deal, there can’t be a competition ran by the ERC.

“It can’t 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.

“We’ve known for a while now that they would meet most our format and financial demands but the TV deals make all the difference.”

“We (the clubs) are the heartbeat of this competition so we should also look after the logistics. We want a European competition.

"There will be the Champions Cup next year or there will be nothing.”

Anything short of a more cordial negotiation between the French clubs and their union will simply be storing up serious problems for later.  They may not get all their wishes through negotiation, but the important result will be less bad will due to not feeling so coerced.

The cordial approach has been tried, the carrot, and now to press the LNR a bit due to time running out, the stick. I doubt the combination of the two will fail. As to bad feelings due to being coerced. These guys are business men, not kids, and I'm sure understand how things work in the real world, and accept it. Maybe Goze will hold a grudge.They are getting pretty much all that they have asked for anyway, and more, so can view it as a victory of sorts for them.
The 'one off payment'? I simply don't know if that's true. I haven't viewed any details to suggest it is a one off, but maybe you have evidence to support the assertion?
I don't really believe all I read when scanning the comments of Goze, McCafferty, and the rest.  I can judge all that at the conclusion of this, but I wouldn't be surprised if LNR has allowed PRL to do all their fighting for them, and then once they have an FFR offer that they're happy with comply with the FFR demands to remain within HEC.
Whatever the truth of all this, we are going to find out soon enough.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/10464060/Premiership-Rugby-given-assurances-Top-14-clubs-remain-committed-to-breakaway-Rugby-Champions-Cup.html

Every day another story.

Just read the article. There is absolutely nothing of substance in it. It begins with "It is understood...", What? Nothing stronger than 'understood'? No source? A rehashed cut and paste article with a little invention at the top? Me thinks so.

just think about it from the LNR pov.

Do they need the erc disbanded to facilitate their tv deal? No.

They get what they want on 20 team comp and money.

Do they need the FFR to make their own TV deal? Yes.

The only reason they wanted the PRL on side was to help them break the power of their union. (FFR)

That is no longer going to float, so the PRL are about as useful to the LNR as an ashtray on a motorbike.

Munchkin wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/10464060/Premiership-Rugby-given-assurances-Top-14-clubs-remain-committed-to-breakaway-Rugby-Champions-Cup.html

Every day another story.

Just read the article. There is absolutely nothing of substance in it. It begins with "It is understood...", What? Nothing stronger than 'understood'? No source? A rehashed cut and paste article with a little invention at the top? Me thinks so.

And this would make it different from the "probably can't refuse" article how, exactly?

Poorfour wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/10464060/Premiership-Rugby-given-assurances-Top-14-clubs-remain-committed-to-breakaway-Rugby-Champions-Cup.html

Every day another story.

Just read the article. There is absolutely nothing of substance in it. It begins with "It is understood...", What? Nothing stronger than 'understood'? No source? A rehashed cut and paste article with a little invention at the top? Me thinks so.

And this would make it different from the "probably can't refuse" article how, exactly?

I would need to read the article again to have an idea of what you're getting at. I don't believe all that comes from either side, but I do look for 'new', and something of substance.

'probably can't refuse', is another way of saying 'probably can'. All depends on how you want to spin it.

It's late. I'm away to me bed. Goodnight

It would be interesting to know the exact wording and nature of Camou's threat rather than the various reported accounts.

The Telegraph's take on it is

Camou has reportedly warned the French clubs that no new accord with the French Federation over player release and television rights will be possible unless they withdraw their support for the new Rugby Champions’ Cup.

Camou has also offered the French clubs €2million (£1.68million) each for participating in the ERC tournaments and reportedly set them a deadline of next month to confirm their support or he intends to explore other means of entering French teams through central contracting with the FFR.

That account would suggest the French clubs could take the position of withdrawing support for the RCC, but not play under the ERC either. This would mean they wouldn't have to sign up to a long-term European contract and can pursue a more preferable situation down the line once Camou has gone.

If the TV money the ERC is able to get from Sky and the French broadcasters for a competition without the English clubs doesn't allow them to match what they currently pay the French, along with more of the new Heineken Cup's matches involving the lower ranked sides drafted in to make up the numbers (also meaning lower gate revenue) and the Amlin even more devalued (the lowest ranked French teams just against lower tier sides from the rest of Europe), I could see the French clubs saying it isn't worth their involvement and the FFR can enter Pro D2 sides instead (Camou's central contracting proposition for sides of Top 14 level is never going to happen).

Munchkin wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/10464060/Premiership-Rugby-given-assurances-Top-14-clubs-remain-committed-to-breakaway-Rugby-Champions-Cup.html

Every day another story.

Just read the article. There is absolutely nothing of substance in it. It begins with "It is understood...", What? Nothing stronger than 'understood'? No source? A rehashed cut and paste article with a little invention at the top? Me thinks so.

sounds like an irish times piece

quinsforever wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/10464060/Premiership-Rugby-given-assurances-Top-14-clubs-remain-committed-to-breakaway-Rugby-Champions-Cup.html

Every day another story.

Just read the article. There is absolutely nothing of substance in it. It begins with "It is understood...", What? Nothing stronger than 'understood'? No source? A rehashed cut and paste article with a little invention at the top? Me thinks so.

sounds like an irish times piece

PRL press release - Gavin Mairs given a spanked bum and told to get back on message - yawn

Gavin Mairs is from Northern Ireland and is considered a journalistic joke in these parts

markb wrote:

SecretFly wrote:
Nobody is innocent, everyone is to blame and therefore I assume all should go to jail?  

The world doesn't work that way.  Someone lit the flame and it was the PRL and LNR not liking what they saw in Europe that lit that flame.  
And what they didn't like, to put it bluntly, was seeing Irish sides dominating in Europe.  The Daily mail was saying so way back in 2012.  
Yet neither the English or French minded the very same rules of engagement that existed when they had their purple patches through the HEC history.

That's a curious rewriting of history.

Also, which of the changes the PRL & LNR want do you think would prevent the top Irish sides from competing at the level they currently do?

First point on your first thought:  Tell me about the curiosity of it all.  I'm listening.

Second point on your second thought:  By knocking down the number of auto places Irish sides have.  It's simple maths.  Ireland down to two or one (depending on which new plan is adopted).  England and France yawning as they remain at six auto shots apiece (no changes)..... plus a HOME playoff game each and every year, if you don't be minding! .  
It's simple.  Why the questions directed at me to try to recomplicate it? Debate my points, don't just hope to knock me off a perch by saying 'rubbish'. 'Rubbish' won't suffice in court

quinsforever wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/10464060/Premiership-Rugby-given-assurances-Top-14-clubs-remain-committed-to-breakaway-Rugby-Champions-Cup.html

Every day another story.

Just read the article. There is absolutely nothing of substance in it. It begins with "It is understood...", What? Nothing stronger than 'understood'? No source? A rehashed cut and paste article with a little invention at the top? Me thinks so.

sounds like an irish times piece

Does it? Fair enough. Show me the Irish Times article you compare it with, and if equally lacking in substance I will agree. I'm not here to defend the Irish Times or any other paper. When it comes to sports journalism I believe they all fail at times. Just some more than others.

The above article isn't a PRL press release, quins. It's nothing more than a piece of cheap space filling journalism pandering to the wants of its readership.

Munchkin wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/10464060/Premiership-Rugby-given-assurances-Top-14-clubs-remain-committed-to-breakaway-Rugby-Champions-Cup.html

Every day another story.

Just read the article. There is absolutely nothing of substance in it. It begins with "It is understood...", What? Nothing stronger than 'understood'? No source? A rehashed cut and paste article with a little invention at the top? Me thinks so.

sounds like an irish times piece

Does it? Fair enough. Show me the Irish Times article you compare it with, and if equally lacking in substance I will agree. I'm not here to defend the Irish Times or any other paper. When it comes to sports journalism I believe they all fail at times. Just some more than others.

The above article isn't a PRL press release, quins. It's nothing more than a piece of cheap space filling journalism pandering to the wants of its readership.

He has some issue with the Times. He keeps bringing it up. At least GT makes his own mind up, rather than just cutting and pasting PRL press releases like some papers in the UK.

Secret, whoever wins the HC is irrelevant to individual clubs. It is only relevant to Unions as they have crammed their internationals into two/three teams and called them clubs. Whilst the French and English have currently 50% representation into the top tier it is rarely the same clubs year on year. That is a big difference.

The irish purple patch is coming to an end with the golden clutch of test players past their peak and the kiwi coaches perhaps moving on. It looks like the French have two or three teams that will dominate over the short term, if they participate.

If the French and English teams arnt in this cup- how can it be called a European cup, it is just a Rabbo cup(league cup)

Recwatcher wrote:Secret,  whoever wins the HC is irrelevant to individual clubs.  It is only relevant to Unions as they have crammed their internationals into two/three teams and called them clubs. Whilst the French and English have currently 50% representation into the top tier it is rarely the same clubs year on year. That is a big difference.

The irish purple patch is coming to an end with the golden clutch of test players past their peak and the kiwi coaches perhaps moving on. It looks like the French have two or three teams that will dominate over the short term, if they participate.

I agree with your second paragraph, Rec, for I never did say a purple patch lasts eternally.  

Had PRL/LNR more patience that truth would have come to them regardless of any attempts to shift the goal posts by having new rules and structures - new rules and structures firmly and openly directed at one League (Pro12) of which clearly and pointedly Irish teams operating within it happened to be also dominating in Europe.
So, despite what some of your country men say, that I'm talking shcit about the desire of PRL and LNR to clip the wings of successful Irish sides - that is the only conclusion that can be logically reached, given that Irish sides were virtually the only sides English and French sides feared.  And they were hardly worried that Treviso or Zebre were in their pools either, despite the protestations about meritocracy being their reason for pushing for changes.  We all know why Pro12 was a thorn in the side of PRL/LNR.

On your first paragraph.  This maths trick always gets used, and I don't blame you - you're English, your vested interest is English rugby and English clubs.  But it's not exactly rocket science to work out that if Ireland only and ever will have four sides to pick HC entries from, that is always going to see more repeat appearances than Nations that have 12 or 14 sides to pick from.  

We penalise smallness now in sport?  "Because you can't furnish us with 12 or 14 sides to match ours, your very numbers in a competition should be cut - in other to effect fairness"?  That concept is about as fair as the yearly Home play-off deal on offer to the AP/Top14 brigade.  Talk about wanting all apples in the one cart.

mystiroakey wrote:If the French and English teams arnt in this cup- how can it be called a European cup, it is just a Rabbo cup(league cup)

Just like it was in 98/99

"So, despite what some of your country men say, that I'm talking shcit about the desire of PRL and LNR to clip the wings of successful Irish sides - that is the only conclusion that can be logically reached, given that Irish sides were virtually the only sides English and French sides feared."

SF dude, seriously I think you need to come away from your conspiracy theorys a bit bud. There is no Logic to your statement at all. It really is more about control and MONEY!!

Recwatcher wrote:  

The irish purple patch is coming to an end with...................the kiwi coaches perhaps moving on.  

I have no idea what you are on about  

Schmidt is new to the National role
Penny is only in his 2nd year
Anscombe is only in his 2nd year
Lam is new in his Connaught role
O'Connor is an Aussie and is new in his role

Your observation makes no sense these guys have hardly got their feet under the table

I don't think 'smallness' should be penalised -sport should have variety but if you have fewer sides you are still getting a guarantee of the same sides participating. That is not the same as a greater number of sides participating but are potentially different. I think the stat up until last season was that only Leicester (sadly) had qualified for the five previous seasons. None of the club sides have teams of players who have virtually all played together against the ABs or Boks. That is a huge advantage that the English and French teams have rightly seen as a challenge but it is but a short step to conclude that that is also taking advantage of the club concept.

Any idiot can put a dozen first pick internationals in a side and expect / demand it be successful. Indeed the RFU wanted a few years back to put four selected sides onto a euro competition under the old North/Midlands/South West and London teams. They obviously failed as they didn't have the player contracts - eerily similar to the current Camou threats.

mystiroakey wrote:If the French and English teams arnt in this cup- how can it be called a European cup, it is just a Rabbo cup(league cup)

That's why PRL have wisely called their concept the RCC, isn't it - no mention of Europe at all.

Franglo became a humourous way of joining the two (PRL/LNR) over the months. But truly, the Franglo Cup was and is their prefered option into the future. And they need total control in order to effect that plan into the future. Thus the stall - even when all their structural demands have been met and indeed exceeded.

I was referring to Leinster as the successful side - I wasnt sure if the whole coaching team had moved on. Apologies if not clear.

mystiroakey wrote:"So, despite what some of your country men say, that I'm talking shcit about the desire of PRL and LNR to clip the wings of successful Irish sides - that is the only conclusion that can be logically reached, given that Irish sides were virtually the only sides English and French sides feared."

SF dude, seriously I think you need to come away from your conspiracy theorys a bit bud. There is no Logic to your statement at all. It really is more about control and MONEY!!

Seriously, dude...I'm right on the button.  

Being at the fun part of the end of the premier European rugby event is printing money for big sides.  You think sponsors want to feel that their names would slide off the radar every year after the pool stages.  
Any competition is about winning the competition.  It's not about accountants making profits - it's about winning.  Because winning gains reputation and heightens value.  Winning attracts best players and heightens value.  Winning is why sponsors are willing to pay higher rates - and adds value.

If you insist on talking economics, talk economics.  Winning matters and both French and English sides haven't been doing enough of it over the last half decade.  They want that changed.  You can only see how frustrated Clermont have been by all their star players failing and failing.  Sponsors and money implanters don't like that failure repeated and repeated.  It's bad business.

I know exactly where I'm standing.  I'm not dumb.  Annoying? - Yes  Dumb - no.

You are not dumb dude. Just marginally paracat

The ERC has the support of eight teams and the new competition thirty teams. Who knows if the French will be frogmarched into the HC? I doubt it but such a way of working is not sustainable in the long term.

If the blazers insist on control eventually they will split rugby.

Exiledinborders wrote:The ERC has the support of eight teams and the new competition thirty teams. .

So you missed the bit about 4 French teams coming out in favour of the HC and ERC and the observation that a number of others are wavering
M<ay I suggest you read more than the PRL press releases.

According to McCafferty he has a majority of the home Unions on side.
Since when did 1 of 4 become a majority