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...

Talking about history repeating itself  

--------

History of International Rugby Board
The minutes of the first formal meeting of the IRFB, from a meeting attended by Lyle and McAlistair of Ireland, Carrick and Gardner of Scotland, Mullock and Lyne of Wales

Until 1885 the laws of rugby football were made by England as the founder nation. However, following a disputed try in an international between Scotland and England in 1884, letters were exchanged in which England claimed that they made the laws, and the try should stand.   Scotland refused to play England in the 1885 Home Nations Championship.

Following the dispute, the home unions of Scotland, Ireland and Wales decided to form an international union whose membership would agree on the standard rules of rugby football. The three nations met in Dublin in 1886, though no formal regulations were agreed upon. On 5 December 1887, committee members of the Irish Rugby Union, Scottish Rugby Union and Welsh Rugby Union met in Manchester and wrote up the first four principles of the International Rugby Football Board. England refused to take part in the founding of the IRFB, stating that they should have greater representation, as they had more clubs.[8] The England Union also refused to accept the IRFB as the recognised law maker of the game.[8] This led to the IRFB taking the stance of member countries not playing England until they joined, and no games were played against England in 1888 and 1889.[9] In 1890 England joined the IRFB, gaining six seats while the other unions had two each.[9] The same year, the IRFB wrote the first international laws of rugby union.[10]

In 1893, the IRFB was faced with the divide between amateurism and professionalism, which was nicknamed the "Great Schism". Following the introduction of working class men to the game in Northern England, clubs began paying "broken time" payments to players, due to the loss of earnings from playing on a Saturday.[11] Cumberland County Union also complained of another club using monetary incentives to lure players, leading to the IRFB conducting an enquiry. The IRFB was warned by all the chief clubs in Lancashire and Yorkshire that any punishment would lead to the clubs seceding from the union.[11] The debate of broken time payments ultimately led to the 22 leading clubs in Yorkshire and Lancashire to form the Northern Rugby Football Union, a sport today known as rugby league football.[11]

England's seats on the IRFB were reduced from six to four in 1911. The Australian Rugby Union, New Zealand Rugby Football Union and South African Rugby Board joined the board with one seat each in 1948, with England's seats being reduced to two, the same as the other home nations. The three Southern Hemisphere unions were given a second seat each in 1958.[12] The French Rugby Federation was admitted in 1978 and the Argentine Rugby Union, Canadian Rugby Union, Italian Rugby Federation and Japan Rugby Football Union were admitted in 1991.[9]

It is thought that in the late 1950s the IRFB was presented with the ideas of a world championship.[13] In 1983 the New Zealand Rugby Football Union and Australian Rugby Union each proposed hosting such a tournament. The following year the board committed to conduct a feasibility study. A year later there was another meeting in Paris, and the Union subsequently voted on the idea. It was the South African Rugby Board's vote that proved to be crucial in setting up a tied vote, as they voted in favour, even though they knew they would be excluded. English and Welsh votes were then changed, and the vote was won 10 to 6.[13]

Welshmushroom wrote:Also I still find it laughable legal threats are even issued by the PRL and its members.  Didn't they just recently lose a case against the administration of London Welsh.  I wouldn't put to much faith in them delivering the right outcome if they have to go to court.

They are broke anyway (someone looked up their accounts and posted them in one of the newspaper comment).

The finances of most their clubs are not too healthy either.

mystiroakey wrote:well the IRB sanctioned the rabbo and the ERC didnt it     !!

You always throw them exclamation marks in as though exacerbated with people's comments, Mystir....usually with very little reason though.

I'm agreeing with you, Mystir.  So be it, I'm saying.  The PRL have what they want.  They should keep up the RCC idea.  

Court to stop them?  No.  Why?  Why stop teams from playing in a competition they want to be in...or...force them to play in one they don't want to be in?

No, I say.  To hell with court.  IRB should let the RCC at it.  

But I repeat - THEN - evolution will happen and the lure of the two Independent competitions Will be to get together again at some level - for bizz is bizz and money is money and there is still a BEST in EUROPE title there with no owners and no competition that can unearth them.

So, I'm saying to you - separatism will just magnify how much the idea of being together is always the better option.... it will shine like a beacon to ambitious Money men down the line.  And then - we'll be back to square one.

Incidently (!) - some AP sides might want to play in HEC too?  Given they are self-suficient entities (privately owned -answerable to nobody) would they be let?  Surely the PRL aren't the IRFU and therefore have no ownership rights over the wishes of any individual AP teams that wanted to play their European section of their season in HEC?

quinsforever wrote:twas ever part of the grand scheme. RFU will make up any revenue shortfall of the clubs from no HC. other items on the RFU nice to have list:

- lots of player release for squad training in 2014-15 season ahead of RWC2015
- sneaky plan to invite the welsh regions into an expanded AP, financial win-win, also breaks the celtic union hegemony
- a proper english (and welsh) knockout tournamet a la Pilkington, with new sponsors
- underwriting loans taken out by clubs purely for stadium expansions given capacity contstraints at most

lots of good stuff to be done if pulling in the same direction.

and no HC for the foreseeable.

Haven't the RFU just borrowed 50m to keep them going?  

I seem to recall you thinking the IRFU were broke as they intend borrowing 24m to cover not selling all their 10 year tickets  

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:twas ever part of the grand scheme. RFU will make up any revenue shortfall of the clubs from no HC. other items on the RFU nice to have list:

- lots of player release for squad training in 2014-15 season ahead of RWC2015
- sneaky plan to invite the welsh regions into an expanded AP, financial win-win, also breaks the celtic union hegemony
- a proper english (and welsh) knockout tournamet a la Pilkington, with new sponsors
- underwriting loans taken out by clubs purely for stadium expansions given capacity contstraints at most

lots of good stuff to be done if pulling in the same direction.

and no HC for the foreseeable.

Haven't the RFU just borrowed 50m to keep them going?  

I seem to recall you thinking the IRFU were broke as they intend borrowing 24m to cover not selling all their 10 year tickets  

rfu just published their annual reports

http://www.rfu.com/news/2013/november/news-articles/151113_rfu_annual_report

the RFU's upbeat statments about finances are in stark contrast to the cautious message from irfu treasurer brown. and importantly, and this is the key point, irfu (and wru, sru) are much more reliant on european tournament revenues as a % of their overall budget.

the rfu generated £43m extra this year vs last (thats close to total irfu expenditure) from the AIs and increases in hospitality and sponsorship (no AIs in 2011 cycle due to RWC).

debt is irrelevant sin e. it's whether more cash is generated than spent. if more cash is being generated then debt gets paid down. if less cash is being generated then debt goes up.

Can we please not get into the bloody accountant nonsense stuff that permeated thhe last thread. Let's just wait and see who is playing where before we decide what (if any) competitions are viable

i know its not fair, but twickenham's location in london, being an 80,000+ all-seater stadium, with world class conference and hotel facilities attached, all owned by the RFU, give the RFU an unparalleled financial advantage in the world of rugby.

i am not going to apologise for it, nor should anyone english. it's just a fact.

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:twas ever part of the grand scheme. RFU will make up any revenue shortfall of the clubs from no HC. other items on the RFU nice to have list:

- lots of player release for squad training in 2014-15 season ahead of RWC2015
- sneaky plan to invite the welsh regions into an expanded AP, financial win-win, also breaks the celtic union hegemony
- a proper english (and welsh) knockout tournamet a la Pilkington, with new sponsors
- underwriting loans taken out by clubs purely for stadium expansions given capacity contstraints at most

lots of good stuff to be done if pulling in the same direction.

and no HC for the foreseeable.

Haven't the RFU just borrowed 50m to keep them going?  

I seem to recall you thinking the IRFU were broke as they intend borrowing 24m to cover not selling all their 10 year tickets  

rfu just published their annual reports

http://www.rfu.com/news/2013/november/news-articles/151113_rfu_annual_report

the RFU's upbeat statments about finances are in stark contrast to the cautious message from irfu treasurer brown. and importantly, and this is the key point, irfu (and wru, sru) are much more reliant on european tournament revenues as a % of their overall budget.

the rfu generated £43m extra this year vs last (thats close to total irfu expenditure) from the AIs and increases in hospitality and sponsorship (no AIs in 2011 cycle due to RWC).

debt is irrelevant sin e. it's whether more cash is generated than spent. if more cash is being generated then debt gets paid down. if less cash is being generated then debt goes up.

Of course the IRFU and others rely more on European money.  Nobody ever bloodywell argues the idea that 12 is a stronger monetary unit of money generation potential than four or two.  That's just physics and maths at work so don't keep repeating the "We're big, you're small".  Geography lessons and GoogleEarth lets us all know that bit, quins.

What GoogleEarth doesn't show though is the determination of the small ones not to be consumed by the big neighbour - or to start wearing his shirt and cheering for him in European competition.  Geography and economics doesn't handle that one.

quinsforever wrote:i know its not fair, but twickenham's location in london, being an 80,000+ all-seater stadium, with world class conference and hotel facilities attached, all owned by the RFU, give the RFU an unparalleled financial advantage in the world of rugby.

i am not going to apologise for it, nor should anyone english. it's just a fact.

You have almost 60 million people to work with!!!  Jesus quins  

Ireland has four million and an 80,000 seater funded by an Amateur sport - played by farmers and solicitors.  Everything is relative...........................

With the barrack room lawyers on this thread talking about legal action, where exactly is this legal case of PRL against ERC supposed to take place - London, Dublin (where ERC is domiciled , Edinburgh (different legal system from rest of UK), Paris or Milan?

And to those who are talking about going to European Courts, these work at a glacial pace and it would be years before any case would wind its way through domestic legal systems to Europe.

Aye Secret,
we have 3 x 50000+ seater (wendyball) stadiums within a square mile in Glasgow but The Warriors have to scrap and fight to put 5000-6000 on the seats at Scotstoun every other week. It is all relative mate !

Munchkin wrote:
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.

Agree fully with that.

However, I don't think threatening to withdraw is bullying. There can be no default situation whereby they are obliged to carry on unless they've signed a contract to do so. If they feel the benefits of staying in are outweighed by the disadvantages then they are well within their rights to pull out. Ridiculous comments about the unions needing to come on board or have their regions face financial oblivion are however both petulant and bullying (although they may well have been correct had/if LNR stayed on board). At times I wish they'd come out with comments more to the effect of 'Thanks for the last few years, but this doesn't work for us now and we are organising our own replacement tournament. You're welcome to join us or carry on without.' That would have been perfectly reasonable and far more dignified...

I think we know where this is going now, and as I've said already I think it's best for English clubs not to go back into European competition - though I'd rethink if the whole season was rationalised and it could be made to fit. There is however still time for a sting in the tail with this saga. We understand that some French teams are on board with FFR. However, how many are still resisting and what are the potential consequences if they dig in their heels?

brennomac wrote:With the barrack room lawyers on this thread talking about legal action, where exactly is this legal case of PRL against ERC supposed to take place - London, Dublin (where ERC is domiciled , Edinburgh (different legal system from rest of UK), Paris or Milan?

And to those who are talking about going to European Courts, these work at a glacial pace and it would be years before any case would wind its way through domestic legal systems to Europe.

Has anyone explained what the basis of the legal action would be?

'We can't believe these idiots didn't embrace our vision of the going forward blue sky future - so we're suing someone over it."

The PRL top brass will all be removed with votes of no-confidence by Xmas. This won't go anywhere.

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:twas ever part of the grand scheme. RFU will make up any revenue shortfall of the clubs from no HC. other items on the RFU nice to have list:

- lots of player release for squad training in 2014-15 season ahead of RWC2015
- sneaky plan to invite the welsh regions into an expanded AP, financial win-win, also breaks the celtic union hegemony
- a proper english (and welsh) knockout tournamet a la Pilkington, with new sponsors
- underwriting loans taken out by clubs purely for stadium expansions given capacity contstraints at most

lots of good stuff to be done if pulling in the same direction.

and no HC for the foreseeable.

Haven't the RFU just borrowed 50m to keep them going?  

I seem to recall you thinking the IRFU were broke as they intend borrowing 24m to cover not selling all their 10 year tickets  

rfu just published their annual reports

http://www.rfu.com/news/2013/november/news-articles/151113_rfu_annual_report

the RFU's upbeat statments about finances are in stark contrast to the cautious message from irfu treasurer brown. and importantly, and this is the key point, irfu (and wru, sru) are much more reliant on european tournament revenues as a % of their overall budget.

the rfu generated £43m extra this year vs last (thats close to total irfu expenditure) from the AIs and increases in hospitality and sponsorship (no AIs in 2011 cycle due to RWC).

debt is irrelevant sin e. it's whether more cash is generated than spent. if more cash is being generated then debt gets paid down. if less cash is being generated then debt goes up.

Your borrowing 50m  

After the £56million loan for the south stand development was paid off last December, the RFU took out a new “revolving credit” unsecured facility of £50million with RBS and has borrowed £40million this year.

PS, the Hon. Treasurer of the IRFU is Tom Grace.
Philip Browne is the CEO.

Most of the IRFU's money is generated from the international game (and guess what, the other IRB Unions are not going to pull the plug on playing us as we know how to behave)  

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/10442472/RFU-rubs-hands-at-prospect-of-bumper-pay-day-as-mighty-All-Blacks-head-to-Twickenham-for-England-clash.html

Casartelli wrote:

brennomac wrote:With the barrack room lawyers on this thread talking about legal action, where exactly is this legal case of PRL against ERC supposed to take place - London, Dublin (where ERC is domiciled , Edinburgh (different legal system from rest of UK), Paris or Milan?

And to those who are talking about going to European Courts, these work at a glacial pace and it would be years before any case would wind its way through domestic legal systems to Europe.

Has anyone explained what the basis of the legal action would be?

'We can't believe these idiots didn't embrace our vision of the going forward blue sky future - so we're suing someone over it."

The PRL top brass will all be removed with votes of no-confidence by Xmas.  This won't go anywhere.

no-one as far as i am aware is talking about any legal action against ERC.

only 2 legal threats got bandied by the bigmouths in PRL/LNR

1) if FFR blocks their clubs from playing in the RCC
2) if the IRB tries to block a competition that is sanctioned by its unions (the IRB already backtracked from saying they wouldnt sanction it, to saying the relevant unions of clubs participating would have to approve first)

thats it.

not going to talk about finances any more sin e. if you want to chat about it PM me.  

quinsforever wrote:not going to talk about finances any more sin e. if you want to chat about it PM me.  

 

I luvs it when you talk finances on here.

As a matter of interest, when the English Soccer clubs were banned from competing in European competition (84-92), was there anything they could do about it?

Sin é wrote:As a matter of interest, when the English Soccer clubs were banned from competing in European competition (84-92), was there anything they could do about it?

Its mafia stuff in football mate.

It drives me mad

Casartelli,
Restraint of Trade if not allowed to go ahead with RCC. Acting as a Cartel if only allowed to play in ERC comp
There are two for starters

quinsforever wrote:not going to talk about finances any more sin e. if you want to chat about it PM me.  

I'm happy that we've got the facts right here  

Sin é wrote:As a matter of interest, when the English Soccer clubs were banned from competing in European competition (84-92), was there anything they could do about it?

that was for killing 39 italians.

and it was completely accepted by the FA as a just and correct punishment.

that is a naughty red herring.

broadlandboy wrote:Casartelli,
Restraint of Trade if not allowed to go ahead with RCC. Acting as a Cartel if only allowed to play in ERC comp
There are two for starters

Who is restraining trade though?

And are they really going to go to court spouting the ERC is a cartel? Is there a legal precident?

mystiroakey wrote:

Sin é wrote:As a matter of interest, when the English Soccer clubs were banned from competing in European competition (84-92), was there anything they could do about it?

Its mafia stuff in football mate.

It drives me mad

Well, UEFA banned them and expelled the FA as well!
That was some fair restraint of trade that you would think they could have approached the EU about, particularly since Thatcher supported the ban, and she hated Europe.

I think we just supported the ban tbh though. And it probally worked out for the best in the long run

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:As a matter of interest, when the English Soccer clubs were banned from competing in European competition (84-92), was there anything they could do about it?

that was for killing 39 italians.

and it was completely accepted by the FA as a just and correct punishment.

that is a naughty red herring.

I don't think Manchester United or Arsenal had anything to do with the death of those unfortunate people.
Why were they punished?

The FA had no option because Thatcher hung them out to dry.

You wouldn't get this class of conversation on a football thread.

Finance
Legal Practice
Cartel dynamics
Trading practices
Employment laws
European Competition Standards

It's all here. Rugby really does have a better class of people....................... except............ Bloefeld, who I really do still suggest watches much more football than he does rugby

sin e give it a rest. this is not an appropriate topic for you to make light of on a rugby forum. i watched that match live as a 14 year old and i will never forget the images.

mystiroakey wrote:I think we just supported the ban tbh though. And it probally worked out for the best in the long run

Being out of Europe was the start of the decline of English football. They never caught up again.

Sin é wrote:As a matter of interest, when the English Soccer clubs were banned from competing in European competition (84-92), was there anything they could do about it?

Were the Europe courts as active then? It seems like a more recent thing. Also was that for hooliganism? Don't really follow but if it is then it's completely different.

But the PRL would only go to court if

a) the RFU blocked a competition without a 'good' reason (note it was the RFU that blocked London Welsh coming into the premiership and they were over-ruled) [unlikely as it stands]
b) the IRB block the competition when the unions (involved) have agreed it [unlikely as it stands]

The LNR going to court? No idea.

Most likely outcome (IMO) is HEC with the PRO12 teams and the French clubs will be forced into taking part for their TV deal. English clubs not involved (have some other cup set up for the fixtures).

Second most likely (IMO), the LNR keep their current TV deal until 2016, meaning they lose the potential for an increase, refuse to play in the HEC. FFR don't sanction the RCC and neither English or French clubs are involved in cross-boarder competitions (other than LV). If things go really bad with the FFR the LNR spend the next 3 years planning their withdrawl from union in 2016, when the current TV deal runs out.

Least likely (of the three) (IMO), the FFR switch with a deal struck with the LNR similar to the EPS agreement, which has them agreeing to the RCC.

Sin é wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:I think we just supported the ban tbh though. And it probally worked out for the best in the long run

Being out of Europe was the start of the decline of English football. They never caught up again.

Well being good nationally at football comes second to fixing out racist , xenaphobic, ignorant and hooligan fans

it was when english fans killed 39 italians at the european cup final at heysel stadium. think it was liverpool vs juve in the final.

not an appropriate topic for this thread i would venture. let's just leave it alone.

Which you did admirably, mystir.  Let's talk rugby...

quinsforever wrote:sin e give it a rest. this is not an appropriate topic for you to make light of on a rugby forum. i watched that match live as a 14 year old and i will never forget the images.

I am not making light of it. It was a dreadful tragedy.
The point is that the whole of English Football were punished for a long time even those who had nothing to do with what happened. And Uefa could and did ban them, despite the restraint in trade.

Well this seems a bit tame in comparison doesn't it.

The football ban does put this nonsense in to perspective

Sin .... the point is dead people needed massive decisions.

The PRL/ERC war is messy but still only sport.

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:sin e give it a rest. this is not an appropriate topic for you to make light of on a rugby forum. i watched that match live as a 14 year old and i will never forget the images.

I am not making light of it. It was a dreadful tragedy.
The point is that the whole of English Football were punished for a long time even those who had nothing to do with what happened. And Uefa could and did ban them, despite the restraint in trade.

Did they actually try and challenge it and were turned down? Otherwise I don't see the relevance.

quinsforever wrote:it was when Liverpool fans killed 39 italians at the european cup final at heysel stadium. think it was liverpool vs juve in the final.

not an appropriate topic for this thread i would venture. let's just leave it alone.

More than English people were/are Liverpool fans.
And it was Uefa who was responsible for choosing a wreck of a stadium to hold the final.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:sin e give it a rest. this is not an appropriate topic for you to make light of on a rugby forum. i watched that match live as a 14 year old and i will never forget the images.

I am not making light of it. It was a dreadful tragedy.
The point is that the whole of English Football were punished for a long time even those who had nothing to do with what happened. And Uefa could and did ban them, despite the restraint in trade.

Did they actually try and challenge it and were turned down? Otherwise I don't see the relevance.

All we know is that they were banned for 5/6 years. Since English football would have had major resources, it would be surprising if they didn't look into challenging it.

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:sin e give it a rest. this is not an appropriate topic for you to make light of on a rugby forum. i watched that match live as a 14 year old and i will never forget the images.

I am not making light of it. It was a dreadful tragedy.
The point is that the whole of English Football were punished for a long time even those who had nothing to do with what happened. And Uefa could and did ban them, despite the restraint in trade.

Did they actually try and challenge it and were turned down? Otherwise I don't see the relevance.

All we know is that they were banned for 5/6 years. Since English football would have had major resources, it would be surprising if they didn't look into challenging it.

i doubt we would have, we would have probably accepted the punishment, and even if we did uefa and fifa are huge organisations that seemly cannot be challenged. They operate outside of the normal fair world

If they felt that there was a systematic problem with English football at the time that needed sorting I would hope they wouldn't try and get out of it on legal issues. They needed to front up and try and sort out the problem.

SecretFly wrote:Sin .... the point is dead people needed massive decisions.

The PRL/ERC war is messy but still only sport.

Ban Liverpool alright, but it doesn't seem fair that all English clubs were banned for 5 years (and Liverpool got 6) by Eufa.

Look mate i understand you are trying to use it as an example of a failed atempt at beating a sporting body in the courts.

But this one isnt really relevant

mystiroakey wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:sin e give it a rest. this is not an appropriate topic for you to make light of on a rugby forum. i watched that match live as a 14 year old and i will never forget the images.

I am not making light of it. It was a dreadful tragedy.
The point is that the whole of English Football were punished for a long time even those who had nothing to do with what happened. And Uefa could and did ban them, despite the restraint in trade.

Did they actually try and challenge it and were turned down? Otherwise I don't see the relevance.

All we know is that they were banned for 5/6 years. Since English football would have had major resources, it would be surprising if they didn't look into challenging it.

i doubt we would have, we would have probably accepted the punishment, and even if we did uefa and fifa are huge organisations that seemly cannot be challenged. They operate outside of the normal fair world

You see thats the thing about Governing Bodies like the IRB/Unions they operate and are treated differently by Governments and EU.

So is there any likelihood of any information today. I'm sure I've read FFR/LNR are meeting today and didn't the ERC statement say something about making contact with RFU/PRL this morning? Is there anything new?

I'm guessing not from the discussions about the Heysel tragedy.

Thunor, welcome back from your sabbatical - have you been busy with the City of Culture bid?

nothing new on either of those fronts stub.

I understand the LNR have a meeting schedule on the 2nd December.

I would not be surprised if that is the key date

Thanks for the updates.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Thunor, welcome back from your sabbatical - have you been busy with the City of Culture bid?

Of course. Actually I'm a physicist and, according to my wife, dead inside [she was joking, I think] so not really into much arty stuff.

EDIT: I just wanted to step back from commenting on the mis-guided, self-generated () hysteria on this subject as I found I was taking it too seriously. Still read but wouldn't comment. Quite refreshing.