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

by Gibson Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:30 pm

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...

by SecretFly Fri Nov 22, 2013 4:52 pm

Are all England's AI games over BTW?

by quinsforever Fri Nov 22, 2013 4:55 pm

yup. we started a week earlier.

by HammerofThunor Fri Nov 22, 2013 4:55 pm

Yes. They moved them forward a week for some reason. And they only play 4 in non-Lions, non-WC years.

by SecretFly Fri Nov 22, 2013 5:01 pm

Oh right. Well, you can watch the slaughter of the lambs in peace then Wink

I'm out of here for the weekend.... my head is riddled with maths equations and financial sums.... HEC debate is draining! Catch you all later.

by **Rugby Fan** Fri Nov 22, 2013 5:19 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:Yes. They moved them forward a week for some reason. And they only play 4 in non-Lions, non-WC years.

Australia are playing five matches (Grand Slam tour plus Italy) so those fixtures need to be topped and tailed by teams who play outside the IRB three week window. That's England and Wales.

by HammerofThunor Fri Nov 22, 2013 5:55 pm

Makes sense. Glad to see the good relationship between PRL and RFU allowed Australia to attempt the grand slam (and helped England develop enough to stop it).

by andyi Fri Nov 22, 2013 5:57 pm

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.

What a load cobblers. English teams took a while to get up to speed when the ban was first lifted but a quick scan of the last 10 champions League finals would suggest your argument is nonsense Smile

by HammerofThunor Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:10 pm

Perhaps he meant English national football team. Although didn't we fail to qualify for the 70 WC? Nor were we at any finals before that. And one of our next best appearances was in 90 (first football I ever watched on tele).

by mbernz Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:16 pm

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.

Where did you get those figures from?

ERC’s contribution to the Unions and clubs last season was €44.3 million (£37 million)

...

Premiership Rugby earned €10.8 million (£9.1 million), while the French clubs who were more successful, earned €12.1 million (£10.2 million).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/10316250/Anglo-French-Heineken-Cup-breakaway-proposal-is-offensive-claims-European-Rugby-Cups-Jean-Pierre-Lux.html

Extra money to the top sides would make no difference to the squads they can put together because of the salary cap.

It would be one thing to say the Amlin sides should get less money for particpating in that competition, but if your position is they should get nothing at all from the money the ERC generate for both competitions, they simply wouldn't bother with it given half the matches are against teams like Mogliano and Bucharest.

by andyi Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:23 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:Perhaps he meant English national football team. Although didn't we fail to qualify for the 70 WC? Nor were we at any finals before that. And one of our next best appearances was in 90 (first football I ever watched on tele).

If he did, then that's also rubbish:

English teams (with lots of Scottish, Irish, Welsh and other foreign players) dominated the European cup between 1977 and 1984.
During that period the England national team weren't pulling up any trees. They haven't really since 1966 with the odd exception.

If fact England's best Tournament performances since 1966 came during the club ban in 1990 and after it in 1996.

by andyi Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:27 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:Perhaps he meant English national football team. Although didn't we fail to qualify for the 70 WC? Nor were we at any finals before that. And one of our next best appearances was in 90 (first football I ever watched on tele).

We didn't qualify in 1974 and 1978.

In 1970 we had a decent side ( Could be argued better than the 1966 team) only losing 1-0 to Brazil (who are widely regarded as the best ever team in a WC) in the group stages and we were leading West Germany 2-0 in the Qtr Final when Ramsey took Bobby Charlton off, inviting Beckenbaur to run the game which we lost 3-2 Crying or Very sad

by HammerofThunor Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:30 pm

Before my time. Started watching in 90 as an 8 year old.

by quinsforever Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:40 pm

andyi, it always amuses me that the posters who bring up football to make a point, invariably know sweet fa about it. have lost track of the number of times an irish rugby fan will look to football as what could happen if unions lose control, when they don't understand that the club football game in the UK has ALWAYS been bigger, better and financially stronger (because its always been professional) than the national game.

they are so stuck in the mindset of international competition being the only thing that matters, that they can't imagine that another country, never mind sport, could function differently.

in the 1970 football world cup, as you point out, england were hot favourites as they had only gotten stronger after the 66 win (which they were not expected to win - portugal with eusebio i believe were favoured after they destroyed brazil).

club football did suffer in european competition for a few years after the ban expired, but the money from Sky helped strengthen the club sides and in the 2000s as you say, english clubs have done better than most as defined by reaching the final, although spain and germany have both been almost as consistent.

by andyi Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:41 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:Before my time. Started watching in 90 as an 8 year old.

then your expectations would off been set unrealistically high Wink

1990 was a roller coaster ride. And had my fave WC music. Loved the BBC coverage opening with Nessun Dorma Very Happy

by Feckless Rogue Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:50 pm

Italia 90 was great for us too.

Here's a great video from an RTE show called Reeling in the years

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YnLtcWcGcE

Apparently it was seen as one of the worst quality world cups in terms of football. But all we remember are Gaza's tears and Ireland's penalty shoot out and that Pavarotti song.

by andyi Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:58 pm

Feckless Rogue wrote:Italia 90 was great for us too.

Here's a great video from an RTE show called Reeling in the years

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YnLtcWcGcE

Apparently it was seen as one of the worst quality world cups in terms of football. But all we remember are Gaza's tears and Ireland's penalty shoot out and that Pavarotti song.

O'learys pen! Cool as a cucumber Very Happy

Isn't it also the backdrop to Roddy Doyles "the Van"?

EDIT: Lets not forget Roger Milla dancing with the Corner flag. I reckon he was as old as my old man, and he was 48 at the time!!

by Feckless Rogue Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:12 pm

Yeah, Cameroon were deadly that year too. Nearly knocked out England. Ireland had a great bond between players, manager and fans. They were devoted to each other. It was a similar story with that England team actually now that I think about it.

I'll have to look around for a download of one of those documentaries ESPN did about each World Cup.

Aaaanyway.

What about that McCafferty character eh?

by HammerofThunor Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:23 pm

He's a knob (or at least that's the way he comes across).

by Poorfour Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:29 pm

butterfingers wrote:
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?

The Bosman ruling is a pretty good precedent - that was a restraint of trade case with quite a few parallels to this one. International football governing bodies (not sure what the applicable entity was, could have been UEFA, but it was definitely pan-European) were preventing players from taking their trade elsewehere at the end of their contracts, and were stopped from doing it.

The PRL won't have got this far without talking to its lawyers. I doubt it's cut and dried, but they clearly feel that they have a reasonable case to answer. They might not win, but I am not sure the IRB can afford to go to court. If it loses, what's to stop anyone from setting up a competition?

by TJ Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:43 pm

There is no possible legal case with any chance of sucess. the PRL can do what they want. They just have to do it outside of the IRB so that means no refs, grounds, players or anything else belonging to the IRB. Nor can they make other teams play with them

the IRB are perfectly able to ban anyone wo joins a breakasay from taking part in tehir competitions. Nothing anti competative about it the PRL can set up a new organisation if they want.

by HammerofThunor Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:53 pm

The IRB are not going to be taken to court over this. If the involved unions agree they'll sanction it. If they don't, they won't. The only people who 'could' be taken to court are the FFR really and that would only be if the LNR wanted to.

I imagine the case would be based on the fact the clubs are businesses and shouldn't be stopped from playing other European clubs because of the governing body (without a very good reason). Not a lawyer so no idea if that would work (or even be the method). Also not a DM reader so don't the EU courts allow any crazy Poopie through.

by TJ Fri Nov 22, 2013 10:16 pm

But if no one wants to play the english clubs then no court can force them to do so

by HammerofThunor Fri Nov 22, 2013 10:22 pm

The English won't be taking anyone to court. It would only be the LNR with the FFR (and obviously only if they wanted to).

by quinsforever Fri Nov 22, 2013 11:01 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:The English won't be taking anyone to court. It would only be the LNR with the FFR (and obviously only if they wanted to).

or, if the IRB didnt want to sanction a tournament that had approval of the relevant unions that would obviously be problematic.

only takes 1 union to split from this dodgy 5-way alliance and you have a competition that the IRB would have to sanction. just sayin

by HammerofThunor Fri Nov 22, 2013 11:03 pm

I can't see the IRB not sanctioning a competition that has union approval.

by quinsforever Fri Nov 22, 2013 11:06 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:I can't see the IRB not sanctioning a competition that has union approval.

thats what i said. but thats not what the IRB has hinted at, especially Lapasset's first statement in early september.

come on WRU, you know you want to...we'll give you tickets to a Rhianna concert heart

by Sin é Sat Nov 23, 2013 12:50 am

Very tricky for Bill Beaumont - he is IRB Vice-Chairman.

by maestegmafia Sat Nov 23, 2013 1:01 am

Sin é wrote:Very tricky for Bill Beaumont - he is IRB Vice-Chairman.

He has always seemed to be very pro ERC. Right from the start he was talking to English clubs trying to prevent them from breaking away from the ERC

by TJ Sat Nov 23, 2013 7:59 am

Thats because all the unions have the same agenda wanting the best for the wider game of rugby worldwide- and its opposed to the PRL and their attempt to grab control of european rugby. Any true rugby man will oppose the power grab as it would cause untold damage to rugby

The PRL were offered almost everything they claimed they wanted. But turned it down as it did not include control of european rugby which was their real agenda

English clubs and english fans have been illserved by this bunch of egotistical idiots.

by mystiroakey Sat Nov 23, 2013 9:35 am

Tj most unions do not want the best for the wider game. If you believe that you have been brainwashed. Unions care about there own nations first and foremost.

by mystiroakey Sat Nov 23, 2013 9:36 am

The prl weren't offered anything either. At the point of the offer they couldn't except legally.

by Sin é Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:00 am

mystiroakey wrote:Tj most unions do not want the best for the wider game. If you believe that you have been brainwashed. Unions care about there own nations first and foremost.

And McCafferty, Craig and Wray only care about profit and puffing up their own egos. Rolling Eyes

by mystiroakey Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:01 am

Look if the club game picked up with no restrictions- they would bring players from all over the world and get them playing at a top level..

Privatisation brings on globalism

by Sin é Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:04 am

l'equipe wrote:Worse, if the NRL does not wish to participate in clubs H-Cup, and in the absence of agreement signed in late December for the provision of international team to France, FFR could ask the Ministry of Sports which administers rugby in France, to dissolve the NRL and integrate internal committees of the FFR. Pierre Camou, president of the FFR does not exclude this possibility, as it would have raised Friday during a meeting with the leaders of the French pro league.

http://www.lequipe.fr/Rugby/Actualites/La-lnr-en-mauvaise-posture/419084

by mystiroakey Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:06 am

The french are crazy.

by geoff999rugby Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:33 am

mystiroakey wrote:Look if the club game picked up with no restrictions- they would bring players from all over the world and get them playing at a top level..

Privatisation brings on globalism

Which sucks all high quality players to a few rich clubs in the strongest nations and cripples the domestic game elsewhere and the International Game just about everywhere (in the sense the better clubs sides play to a same or higher standard than their national equivalents).
Look at the Champions League - since 1995 every winner bar one has been from only 4 Nations and only 2 Runners Ups in the same period (and one those was 95-96)

That is what will happen if the PRL get what they want and what many of us will fight tooth and nail to avoid.
McCafferty and his cohorts are not interested in globalization, in the sense of spreading the game, they are interested in getting free access to the best talents in the game and making their club as big and as powerful as possible.

It has nothing to do with having the wider interests of the game at heart

by mystiroakey Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:36 am

It doesn't suck though, its good

and great for fans of smaller nations that cant sustain a league yet get to see there brightest talents playing against the best week in week out

by TJ Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:44 am

mystiroakey wrote:The prl weren't offered anything either. At the point of the offer they couldn't except legally.

they claimed what they wanted was a reduction in the number of entrants ( altho in the prl case that was an afterthought to align with the french)
They claimed they wanted " meritocratic" entry
They claimed they wanted a different split of money with more for the french and English and less for the rest.
all this was granted in a form very close to the PRLs demands

However that was not enough for the PRL. The PRL have refused to compromise meaningfully in any way and thus there was no agreement. The PRL were insisting on things that was impossible for the rest to agree. Hence the situation we now find ourselves in with no english in the european cup. the RCC is dead as has been obvious for a while.

by maestegmafia Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:46 am

mystiroakey wrote:It doesn't suck though, its good

and great for fans of smaller nations that cant sustain a league yet get to see there brightest talents playing against the best week in week out

As a rugby fan I struggle to be convinced that you actually believe what you are writing...???

by HammerofThunor Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:46 am

Ok, one more time to see you will actually acknowledge it. None of those 'consessions' mattered because they wouldn't stop the Sky deal, which meant the PRL couldn't accept.

by geoff999rugby Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:48 am

mystiroakey wrote:It doesn't suck though, its good

and great for fans of smaller nations that cant sustain a league yet get to see there brightest talents playing against the best week in week out

This is where we fundamentally disagree - what you say is good I say is bad.
The scenario you paint is the last thing I want to see and I think you totally misunderstand what supporters of smaller nations want.
They want local teams, with a decent number of local players who they can supporter.
They do not want to be confined to watching those players on TV or going to local games of a poor standard.

We can maintain a league of a high standard provided the clubs don't run the game and that is why we will never agree to what the PRL want

by TJ Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:49 am

Hammer - that is simply not so. Its what the PRL want you to believe but the PRL BT deal was for something that was not the PRLs right to give, that was not agreed with anyone else. NO RCC means no BT deal.

Even if it were true it shows the PRLs unwillingness to negotiate sensibly.

by mystiroakey Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:50 am

maestegmafia wrote:
mystiroakey wrote:It doesn't suck though, its good

and great for fans of smaller nations that cant sustain a league yet get to see there brightest talents playing against the best week in week out
As a rugby fan I struggle to be convinced that you actually believe what you are writing...???

How can you argue this point. Its clear as day,

We block smaller nations from top comps all the time and its all due to top unions fighting to keep it as it is.

imagine clubs at top leagues looked for talent in spain, romania and russia etc.

There players would then get the chance to play at a high level.

by geoff999rugby Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:51 am

HammerofThunor wrote:Ok, one more time to see you will actually acknowledge it. None of those 'consessions' mattered because they wouldn't stop the Sky deal, which meant the PRL couldn't accept.

PRL shouldn't have entered a TV on a European competition without consulting the other countries who play in that completion.
They have made a rod for their own back.

The concessions matter as far as the French are concerned as they address the point they wanted
Top French TV deal and they will be happy

by mystiroakey Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:54 am

geoff999rugby wrote:
mystiroakey wrote:It doesn't suck though, its good

and great for fans of smaller nations that cant sustain a league yet get to see there brightest talents playing against the best week in week out
This is where we fundamentally disagree - what you say is good I say is bad.
The scenario you paint is the last thing I want to see and I think you totally misunderstand what supporters of smaller nations want.
They want local teams, with a decent number of local players who they can supporter.
They do not want to be confined to watching those players on TV or going to local games of a poor standard.

We can maintain a league of a high standard provided the clubs don't run the game and that is why we will never agree to what the PRL want

The system in place is not helping the small nations out.

If you could argue that we were then i might listen. All our unions do is fight for money.

NZ last year, this year we have allready had the threats from rabbo nations demanding more WC money if the RCC goes ahead!!

by maestegmafia Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:54 am

TJ wrote:Hammer - that is simply not so. Its what the PRL want you to believe but the PRL BT deal was for something that was not the PRLs right to give, that was not agreed with anyone else. NO RCC means no BT deal.

Even if it were true it shows the PRLs unwillingness to negotiate sensibly.

The BT deal is their stumbling block. We would not be in this situation if it wasn't for the PRL/BT deal. Equally the PRL want control of the club competition.

So the two go hand in hand. Thankfully it looks like we will not have to see either come to fruition.

by maestegmafia Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:56 am

mystiroakey wrote:
geoff999rugby wrote:
mystiroakey wrote:It doesn't suck though, its good

and great for fans of smaller nations that cant sustain a league yet get to see there brightest talents playing against the best week in week out
This is where we fundamentally disagree - what you say is good I say is bad.
The scenario you paint is the last thing I want to see and I think you totally misunderstand what supporters of smaller nations want.
They want local teams, with a decent number of local players who they can supporter.
They do not want to be confined to watching those players on TV or going to local games of a poor standard.

We can maintain a league of a high standard provided the clubs don't run the game and that is why we will never agree to what the PRL want

The system in place is not helping the small nations out.

If you could argue that we were then i might listen. All our unions do is fight for money.

NZ last year, this year we have allready had the threats from rabbo nations demanding more WC money if the RCC goes ahead!!

The RP12 nations asking for money if the RCC goes ahead is because the RCC will be so debilitating to the finances of the RP12 nations... That is exact proof of what Geoff explained to you.

I seriously struggle to be convinced that you believe anything you are writing on here.

by mystiroakey Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:58 am

Mast do your self a favour and stop the nonsense.

I believe everything i say. Argue my points, but not what i think.
I unlike you am not a wum.

And you seriously fail to see the larger picture

by HammerofThunor Sat Nov 23, 2013 11:01 am

TJ wrote:Hammer - that is simply not so. Its what the PRL want you to believe but the PRL BT deal was for something that was not the PRLs right to give, that was not agreed with anyone else. NO RCC means no BT deal.

Even if it were true it shows the PRLs unwillingness to negotiate sensibly.

The PRL signed a contract that (if you accept the press conference and the French club comments) that meant BT would have the rights to (at least) the English home games. It doesn't matter if that needs ratifying by the RFU or not. They are still tied to it. If that deal isn't ratified the PRL cannot play in any European competition (since all members of the PRL signed up to it none of the individual clubs can.

by maestegmafia Sat Nov 23, 2013 11:04 am

mystiroakey wrote:Mast do your self a favour and stop the nonsense.

I believe everything i say. Argue my points, but not what i think.
I unlike you am not a wum.

And you seriously fail to see the larger picture

See I don't believe that post either, as someone who has never been banned or had my account deleted and spends all my time discussing rugby rather than picking fights like you do, I am amazed you have the audacity to accuse me of anything. Maybe you should read and think about the answers people are giving you on this thread.

The larger picture is being carefully explained to you by many many posters, the large majority, even English posters are disagreeing with your points.

Globalisation and Privatisation???

How do you privatise an already private company?

Globalisation means to increase something globally, not to shrink it to just two wealthy nations.

by Sponsored content