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...

Decent article from the Times;

London Times 22/11/2013;



1 of 1
Thing of the past: Dallaglio lifts the Heineken Cup for Wasps in 2004 but English clubs may soon be watching Europe’s leading competition from the sidelines Mike Finn-Kelcey/reuters
Analysis Mark Souster Rugby Correspondent
Last updated at 12:01AM, November 22 2013

Like all the best moves, no one saw it coming, least of all the RFU and the English clubs. The announcement by Wales, Ireland, Scotland, France and Italy to reaffirm their commitment to a union-controlled Heineken Cup has left Twickenham and Premier Rugby Ltd (PRL), the clubs’ governing body, exposed and with some serious thinking to do if there is not to be a fundamental split in the game.
This is a seminal moment for the sport in the northern hemisphere and what can be interpreted as an end to the ambitions of the clubs in England, and to a lesser extent France, to control more of their own destiny. The dispute over the future of European competition was not really about how teams qualified or the revenues generated. It was about control and power. Yesterday we got the answer.
The club versus country stand-off has been a running sore from the moment rugby went professional in 1995. This, though, is on an altogether different scale. Observers may not think much has changed but that would be to misread entirely the significance of the developments in Dublin,from which England and the Premiership clubs were excluded.
The approaches by the RFU and the remaining unions to try to settle the latest confrontation were diametrically opposed. Twickenham, through Ian Ritchie, the RFU chief executive, preached conciliation and patient negotiation. Ritchie worked tirelessly to reach a solution, which as far as possible dealt with the concerns of all those involved. For a time the Celtic unions accepted the “jaw-jaw”. But the longer time went on, the longer PRL went on with its own agenda with the Rugby Champions Cup, the more the Celts became suspicious and frustrated. One by one they made their position clear, as articulated most recently by Pierre Camou, the French RFU president. His withering comments left no one in any doubt as to where he stood, and that was with the unions retaining ultimate control.
Camou and the Celts’ collective frustration was born out of what they perceived to be the failure of the RFU publicly to make a stand and show support. As the months passed, they came to the conclusion that Ritchie and the RFU were trying to broker a deal that helped PRL and kept relations cordial within England, rather than one that was for the greater good of European rugby.
Ritchie has been in a difficult position trying to appease PRL and his fellow unions. He has had to think of the bigger picture — the delivery of a successful World Cup in 2015 — and ensure a new long-term agreement with the clubs was secured that guarantees Stuart Lancaster the best chance of English success in 2015.
Unless there is a late change of heart the England head coach’s players will be denied the chance to take part in a tournament that bridges club and international rugby. How long for remains to be seen.  Celt unions are talking about a new European deal that lasts closer to ten years than five to prevent a repetition of recent events.
Ritchie was said to be incensed by what has happened, believing that with a little more time he could have delivered. Now he feels betrayed. Relations have soured.
The ball is in the court now of Mark McCafferty, the PRL chief executive. He has masterminded this course of action, but he has backed the clubs into a corner from which there is no escape without massive loss of face. However much PRL spins that a Rugby Champions Cup will take place, that notion can be effectively discounted. There will be a Heineken Cup. The sponsor and the broadcaster,BSkyB, are said to be committed, although without English participation the value of the broadcast rights will be significantly reduced. And how long can English clubs afford not to take part in Europe? The £88 million deal with BTSport over four years for Premiership rights will cushion them for only so long.
Wales will deliver its four regions, who will be forced into line or else face the prospect of ruin, with the WRU making clear it will otherwise withdraw its support. French clubs will take part, although which of them depends upon the outcome of negotiations between the French RFU and LNR,the French clubs’ governing body. Toulon and probably Biarritz have said they will. And, no doubt, pressure will be exerted on others such as Toulouse and Clermont Auvergne to fall into line.
Not for the first time, the English, in the shape of the Premiership clubs, have discovered that to rely on the French is not always a wise move.

Secret you keep implying that it was just the PRL. You seem to forget that LNR gave notice first & are/were joint partners with PRL
Munch you expect the Times to be neutral?

broadlandboy wrote:Secret you keep implying that it was just the PRL. You seem to forget that LNR gave notice first & are/were joint partners with PRL
Munch you expect the Times to be neutral?

You don't listen to the news...it seems PRL are or were always getting 'screwed' by the LNR who many people here from PRL side and ERC side said quite openly that LNR would follow their own interests in their own time - and if that meant a stab in the back to supposed 'friends' then so be it - bizzness is bizzness, as was oft quoted here. I repeat that wasn't just an opinion from me as an Irish person. Quite a number of English people felt the same and openly said so.

Thus my Mafia allusion . I stand by everything I've said....including the last post.

Actually how about this for the reformatted LV cup.

Regions, Prem clubs and Championship clubs, are all broken down to groups of 4, based entirely on location, and not in which league/division they play in,

eg
Newcastle, Leeds, Sale and Rottherdam for one group as all based in the North,
Leicester, Northampton, Nottingham and Bedford make up midland group

Each team plays each other home and away (regions use their Pro 12 games)[would need to arrange with Celtic rugby that the last of these take place by March]

7 group winners, plus best runner up (to make it up to 8) play knock out cup.

With this format Regions could be accommodated, and creates interest through derby games in group stages.

broadlandboy wrote:Secret you keep implying that it was just the PRL. You seem to forget that LNR gave notice first & are/were joint partners with PRL
Munch you expect the Times to be neutral?

Are any? Read the article, and then decide for yourself I guess...

Secret agree with what you are saying ,just that you seem to imply that its just PRL.Have always thought that LNR will determine the outcome, still haven't heard from them

The Times have more reason than most being a sister company of Sky.

broadlandboy wrote:The Times have more reason than most being a sister company of Sky.

Shock   The Guardian has been churning out very balanced objective reports have they? I read the Guardian, but its reporting on this battle between PRL, and the Unions have been dire. As I said. Read it for yourself, and decide, or choose to ignore for no other reason than it's a sister paper of the Evil Empire  

broadlandboy wrote:The Times have more reason than most being a sister company of Sky.

... the advantage of that is that they would have good contacts. They have kept their power dry.

For balance, apparently Stephen Jones is going beserk on twitter!

Sin é wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:The Times have more reason than most being a sister company of Sky.

... the advantage of that is that they would have good contacts. They have kept their power dry.

For balance, apparently Stephen Jones is going beserk on twitter!

That sounds good! I might take a look...even as a non-twitter watcher.

awww...he's a secret twitterie.

What kind of things is the great man saying?

All the talk of a redone LV cup is a waste of time.

Assuming the Welsh Regions are playing in the HC (very likely) then playing in in the HC window is non starter.
Also the championship clubs are committed to the B&I cup by the RFU, so they cant play in the HC cup window unless the RFU pulls them out in a strop.

So the LV will have to stay in it's existing window (clashing with Internationals) if the RFU still want the Welsh in it.

Also it doesn't have a seperate TV deal. Its part of the Overall RFU/SKY deal and it's worth f**k all on its on anyway. LV don't pay much to sponsor it, £230K a year.

It not known as the "Little Value Cup" for nothing!

broadlandboy wrote:Secret you keep implying that it was just the PRL. You seem to forget that LNR gave notice first & are/were joint partners with PRL
Munch you expect the Times to be neutral?

Derek McGrath, ERC: wrote:People reading this must be questioning why 15 months on we’ve still had no progress. But I read (Bath owner and Premiership rugby negotiator) Bruce Craig make a statement which is kind of revealing and unfortunate.

"He said when they started discussions, the French clubs weren’t really on the same page as the English clubs because the French clubs believed they could find a solution within the current structures. The English clubs had already decided to terminate dealing with the ERC and do their own thing effectively. So there were decisions perhaps made that they didn’t really intend to negotiate, that there was always an effort to go elsewhere.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2013/1012/sport/walking-the-tightrope-246109.html

We have heard nothing from the LNR about this new Cup. PRL have being doing all the running. Is there a written agreement between them? Who is administering the league? The PRL? (The Six Nations Company (Unions) certainly won't be doing it.

SecretFly wrote:awww...he's a secret twitterie.

What kind of things is the great man saying?

Unfortunately he has banned most Irish fans as they sometimes ask him a probing question.  

I'm sure they will turn up eventually.

Some SJ tweets:

"French federation president Camou, heir to shocking autocratic FRF traditions,trying 2 buy off French clubs in bid to save broken Euro model"

"Europe rugby dispute in gutter as sole hidden strategy of old guard = to pray autocratic French president blackmails his clubs into playing"

"With respect, anyone who seriously believes that unions today were acting for good of game is on different planet"

"Todays announcement is nothing to do with saving Heineken Cup, everything about retaining ERC."

I agree 100% with all them tweets dude

mystiroakey wrote:I agree 100% with all them tweets dude

You don't see a contradiction between 1 and 4?

This is now all going to end in Court.

Recwatcher wrote:This is now all going to end in Court.

It might do, but I doubt it. On what grounds could PRL take it to Court? Even if they do take it to Court it will be years in the making, and years before PRL see European competition.

Rugby Fan wrote:

"Todays announcement is nothing to do with saving Heineken Cup, everything about retaining ERC."

One from three ain't bad.  

Yep, he's correct there - it has absolutely, categorically Everything to do with retaining the ERC (Union control of Union code rugby).  Some people think that if you construct a sentence like that one above, that the subject at the end (ERC) instantly becomes a obvious 'bad' thing.  

No.... it's a good thing.  Giving HEC to a privately owned club cartel would be a bad thing.  Or maybe I have to word it like SJ to give my opinion more power:
"The RCC has nothing to do with growing rugby in Europe, everything about giving PRL carte blance in Europe"

Where has the idea come from that the PRL wanted total control? They don't have total control over their own league so why assume they wanted total control over a shared competition? Did I miss something?

HammerofThunor wrote:Where has the idea come from that the PRL wanted total control? They don't have total control over their own league so why assume they wanted total control over a shared competition? Did I miss something?

You missed ten thousand miles of print, supposition, rubber stamping, lines drawn in sand, immovable dates that moved and a generous amount of quotes Hammer.

So made up then?

Ironically if the payments where not divided out equally to all the PRL and LNR members then actually the teams qualifying would get much better payments.

England receive 20 million which would be just over 3 million each for every participating team. That would help the topsides in England no end in holding on to their players and create winning European squads. Sadly however this is spread between 12 teams which will see each one receiving 1.6 million of its funding from the ERC. I appreciate this is done to keep the Aviva Premiership more competitive but in my opinion its still a restriction of trade for the top sides in England. Its not like the top 6 are not miles ahead of the chasing pack anyway. If the PRL does not make back this funding however I cant see how sides like Newcastle, London Irish, London Wasps, etc are going to remain competitive.

The LFR apparently have to spread their 20 million between 2 divisions so that's around 700K per club so naturally sides like Toulon and Clermont are feeling short changed.

However how they distribute their money is not really the ERC's fault either. I'm assuming the FFR will pay the clubs direct if they breach the LFR governance so the reported money on offer will be substantially more than they will get even if the PRL can secure them twice the value of the current 20 million they receive. At this stage I wouldn't rule out French club defection. Toulon's boss has already indicated he's happy to stay with the ERC.

I think all the parties are guilty here without doubt, but I fear that the PRL has painted themselves into a corner without any ways out of it.

HammerofThunor wrote:So made up then?

Life is happening Hammer. It's not a dream. That breath you're taking is real. And so is the big fight up on Rugby Union hill that you've been hearing about - the declarations and the put-downs.... all real.

But all I've seen is that the PRL have said they think the competition should be run by the leagues not the unions. This seems to have been reads as "we want total control". Why would the PRL expect more control over the cup than their league? What exactly are people afraid of happening.

HammerofThunor wrote:So made up then?

No. The Unions gave them everything they wanted with regard to qualification and division of monies. The only thing the Unions are not prepared to negotiate is governance.

Does this mean that the ERC will be deprived of Brian Moore's commentary next season? How will I go on.....

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:So made up then?

No. The Unions gave them everything they wanted with regard to qualification and division of monies. The only thing the Unions are not prepared to negotiate is governance.

when did they give them all this??

HammerofThunor wrote:But all I've seen is that the PRL have said they think the competition should be run by the leagues not the unions. This seems to have been reads as "we want total control". Why would the PRL expect more control over the cup than their league? What exactly are people afraid of happening.

Decisions being made by McCafferty - that sums it up really. In fairness I would be afraid of that too...

mystiroakey wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:So made up then?

No. The Unions gave them everything they wanted with regard to qualification and division of monies. The only thing the Unions are not prepared to negotiate is governance.

when did they give them all this??

It was agreed after the last erc meeting in Dublin.

The curious part is why, if the intention is to maintain the primacy of the unions, why the RFU were not invited to the meeting.

It's possible that the other unions are distinctly unimpressed that the RFU has not given any unequivocal backing to the ERC. They might also have decided that the RFU would not have joined their statement, and so saw no point in inviting them.

From a strategic point of view, however, it surely would have been better to invite them and put them on the spot. If they refused to join with the other unions, then they would have been setting themselves apart. This way round, it's the other unions excluding the RFU, which looks petty, and doesn't look like acting in good faith.

I'm both appalled and fascinated by the way this is playing out.

mystiroakey wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:So made up then?

No. The Unions gave them everything they wanted with regard to qualification and division of monies. The only thing the Unions are not prepared to negotiate is governance.

when did they give them all this??

Too late obviously

mystiroakey wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:So made up then?

No. The Unions gave them everything they wanted with regard to qualification and division of monies. The only thing the Unions are not prepared to negotiate is governance.

when did they give them all this??

When did PRL sign the BT deal which made any ERC concessions moot? All the spin about ERC not negotiating since that time has been nothing more than deflection from their real aim - control of European competition.

mystiroakey wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:So made up then?

No. The Unions gave them everything they wanted with regard to qualification and division of monies. The only thing the Unions are not prepared to negotiate is governance.

when did they give them all this??

Couple of weeks back when it was all to late for reconciliation. All a bit to late in the end. I'm just wondering if the Franglo cup will be sanctioned at this stage. Because I can't see the IRB supporting 2 European competitions. Even the restriction of trade won't work as a legal angle for the PRL because the Unions are openly inviting them to theirs so loss of earnings can't be levelled at them. I do suspect this is what the Unions are planning to do, knowing eventually the PRL will be forced back to the table in the long term.

Prim and proper and everything ship shape is what McCafferty demands.

"What Ho! - you shouldn't have kept me waiting. If I wait, I become mad. If I become mad, I don't budge. Besides, that was only a smokescreen set of demands about Pro12 numbers and money distribution and stuff................. I don't want that now, especially after you lot giving it to me. I prefer a fight - and total earthly power is now my demand"

mystiroakey wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:So made up then?

No. The Unions gave them everything they wanted with regard to qualification and division of monies. The only thing the Unions are not prepared to negotiate is governance.

when did they give them all this??

About a month ago when the ERC actually nailed them by bringing in an independent mediator. Why do you think the ERC did that?

Reminds me of a Peace in Our Time moment in history actually. Have a lot of resonances

Rugby Fan wrote:The curious part is why, if the intention is to maintain the primacy of the unions, why the RFU were not invited to the meeting.

It's possible that the other unions are distinctly unimpressed that the RFU has not given any unequivocal backing to the ERC. They might also have decided that the RFU would not have joined their statement, and so saw no point in inviting them.

From a strategic point of view, however, it surely would have been better to invite them and put them on the spot. If they refused to join with the other unions, then they would have been setting themselves apart. This way round, it's the other unions excluding the RFU, which looks petty, and doesn't look like acting in good faith.

I'm both appalled and fascinated by the way this is playing out.

I understand why the RFU have had to play it this way. They have a World Cup to plan for. The clubs will play a big part of that tournament. Without their backing the WC could turn into a farce and given they have to secure in the region of 100 million from the tournament to pay the IRB with, they can ill afford a disaster that would see them paying this fee out of their own coffers.

SecretFly wrote:Prim and proper and everything ship shape is what McCafferty demands.  

"What Ho! - you shouldn't have kept me waiting.  If I wait, I become mad.  If I become mad, I don't budge.  Besides, that was only a smokescreen set of demands about Pro12 numbers and money distribution and stuff.................  I don't want that now, especially after you lot giving it to me.  I prefer a fight - and total earthly power is now my demand"

LOL

Sin é wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:So made up then?

No. The Unions gave them everything they wanted with regard to qualification and division of monies. The only thing the Unions are not prepared to negotiate is governance.

when did they give them all this??

About a month ago when the ERC actually nailed them by bringing in an independent mediator. Why do you think the ERC did that?

you mean at a point wheer the deal couldnt be offered within the constraints of the ERC due to the signed tv contracts

Rugby Fan wrote:Some SJ tweets:

"French federation president Camou, heir to shocking autocratic FRF traditions,trying 2 buy off French clubs in bid to save broken Euro model"

"Europe rugby dispute in gutter as sole hidden strategy of old guard = to pray autocratic French president blackmails his clubs into playing"

"With respect, anyone who seriously believes that unions today were acting for good of game is on different planet"

"Todays announcement is nothing to do with saving Heineken Cup, everything about retaining ERC."

SJ can be a bit of a tool, but these are all true statements.

HammerofThunor wrote:So made up then?

yup. stuff of nightmares and paranoia puked straight onto a forum with no filtering.

Munchkin wrote:When did PRL sign the BT deal which made any ERC concessions moot? All the spin about ERC not negotiating since that time has been nothing more than deflection from their real aim - control of European competition.

 
After handing in their notice to withdraw because after 4/5 years pushing for change from within they'd made absolutely no progress?
 
Welshmushroom - I don't think for a minute that the RFU need the clubs support to host the world cup, though they probably don't want them making player access more difficult if they want to perform well.  In their infinite wisdom the RFU seemed to think it would be a good idea to use as few club rugby stadiums as possible, so as it stands it's the football sides they can't afford to fall out with!

Welshmushroom wrote:Ironically if the payments where not divided out equally to all the PRL and LNR members then actually the teams qualifying would get much better payments.  

England receive 20 million which would be just over 3 million each for every participating team.  That would help the topsides in England no end in holding on to their players and create winning European squads.  Sadly however this is spread between 12 teams which will see each one receiving 1.6 million of its funding from the ERC.  I appreciate this is done to keep the Aviva Premiership more competitive but in my opinion its still a restriction of trade for the top sides in England.  Its not like the top 6 are not miles ahead of the chasing pack anyway.  If the PRL does not make back this funding however I cant see how sides like Newcastle, London Irish, London Wasps, etc are going to remain competitive.  

The LFR apparently have to spread their 20 million between 2 divisions so that's around 700K per club so naturally sides like Toulon and Clermont are feeling short changed.

However how they distribute their money is not really the ERC's fault either.  I'm assuming the FFR will pay the clubs direct if they breach the LFR governance so the reported money on offer will be substantially more than they will get even if the PRL can secure them twice the value of the current 20 million they receive.  At this stage I wouldn't rule out French club defection.  Toulon's boss has already indicated he's happy to stay with the ERC.

I think all the parties are guilty here without doubt, but I fear that the PRL has painted themselves into a corner without any ways out of it.  

still cracks me up whenever i head Toulon referred to as the white knight riding to the rescue of the FFR and the unions.... 

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:So made up then?

No. The Unions gave them everything they wanted with regard to qualification and division of monies. The only thing the Unions are not prepared to negotiate is governance.

no. the only thing they are not prepared to negotiate is the ERC/SKY contract that has already been signed by ERC.

Rugby Fan wrote:The curious part is why, if the intention is to maintain the primacy of the unions, why the RFU were not invited to the meeting.

It's possible that the other unions are distinctly unimpressed that the RFU has not given any unequivocal backing to the ERC. They might also have decided that the RFU would not have joined their statement, and so saw no point in inviting them.

From a strategic point of view, however, it surely would have been better to invite them and put them on the spot. If they refused to join with the other unions, then they would have been setting themselves apart. This way round, it's the other unions excluding the RFU, which looks petty, and doesn't look like acting in good faith.

I'm both appalled and fascinated by the way this is playing out.

this is the bright spot in all this mess for me.

the only certain outcome now is that the AP clubs and RFU are going to get along better and better. nothing like being isolated to drive them into each other's arms.

amateurish move by camou to isolate RFU. his best chance of getting this back together was to hope the RFU would invalidate the PRL/BT contract, thereby allowing reconciliation. aint gonna happen now.

[/quote]When did PRL sign the BT deal which made any ERC concessions moot? All the spin about ERC not negotiating since that time has been nothing more than deflection from their real aim - control of European competition.[/quote]Before ERC signed the deal with Sky which made it nigh on impossible for PRL to return to ERC

Big wrote:

Munchkin wrote:When did PRL sign the BT deal which made any ERC concessions moot? All the spin about ERC not negotiating since that time has been nothing more than deflection from their real aim - control of European competition.

 
After handing in their notice to withdraw because after 4/5 years pushing for change from within they'd made absolutely no progress?
 
Welshmushroom - I don't think for a minute that the RFU need the clubs support to host the world cup, though they probably don't want them making player access more difficult if they want to perform well.  In their infinite wisdom the RFU seemed to think it would be a good idea to use as few club rugby stadiums as possible, so as it stands it's the football sides they can't afford to fall out with!

But then progress has been made during their time within HEC, with PRL threatening to withdraw their clubs as end of contract drew near. Bullying tactics. That has been their modus operandi since joining the HEC, hasn't it?
Do you honestly believe that PRL have not gained advantage since joining the HEC? How far could they have pushed? Are the ERC simply expected to cave into PRL demands everytime they threaten to abandon the HEC? No lines that cannot be crossed?
We don't know yet how those PRL demands were presented, do we? As a package which included the demand for more control? Hopefully it all comes out in the wash. There is two sides to this story.

Saracens chairman Nigel Wray has said last night's statement from the Unions was "irrelevant" and was the "last bastion of the landlord versus serf relationship".

The Welsh, Irish, Scottish, French and Italian unions issued a collective statement on Thursday saying they would support the Heineken Cup but Wray is adamant the breakaway Rugby Champions Cup will go ahead next season saying they are "terribly close to an agreement".

"Our position is exactly the same, we will not play in the ERC tournament, full stop," Wray told ESPN. "Their statement was irrelevant. Firstly, absolutely everything has been agreed [about the Champions Cup]. The only thing which hasn't been agreed is under whose governance is the tournament. The original proposal was that it'd be under the Six Nations.

"It's the Champions Cup, but it'll be the same. I imagine Heineken may try to sponsor it - so it would still be the Heineken Cup. To the outside observer, there's no bloody change."

According to Wray, the French "won't play if we don't play" and "the Welsh regions are fully signed up to play in the Champions Cup." In his view, Thursday's statement from the five unions was "the last bastion of the landlord versus serf relationship".

"It's ludicrous that some bloke in France who hasn't invested a penny in the game can tell small businesses how they can operate and what they can and can't do. It's ludicrous. It wouldn't happen in any other industry. All the clubs are, are small businesses trying to make their way in the world and they can't have some outside body telling you what you to do, who you can play, who you can take an order from.

"Imagine being in the engineering business and the engineering federation says 'oh no, you can't take an order from France'. We are so close to an agreement that hopefully, hopefully it'll get there.

"ERC is a limited company, it is not a governing body, with all the costs and overheads and expenses of a limited company. We don't want them running our game. They don't have any money invested, they aren't shareholders, we don't want them running the game. We're very happy to have the Six Nations committee involved."

And Wray is hopeful an agreement will be signed imminently securing the Champions Cup for next term.