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...

geoff999rugby wrote:

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

100% true. They didn't have to and I think they deliberately did it as a line in the sand. They said they accept that no-one would may cross it and I hope they meant it. But it doesn't make the ERC concessions any more meaningful to the PRL.

Regarding the French, that's a good point but I'm not convinced any of the concessions mean anything to them. It was always more about control for the French anyway (the most recent Lux vote, etc). The only reason the majority would come on board is because they will be effectively forced by the FFR (not really going to help their opinion of 'forcing'). The only side we 'know' who is on board willing (still not confirmed is it?) is Toulon. The reason they would be on board was because the LNR want to force limitations on spending, foreign player numbers, etc and Toulon don't like it. Is that ironic? Never sure. Certainly more so that it raining when you're already wet.

HammerofThunor wrote:

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.

That was a very silly move on behalf of the clubs the PRL represent. Surely there will be repercussions as it is now likely that English clubs will have no European rugby next year, because of this agreement...?

Could someone please explain to Maest who is picking the fight?

Because it isnt me

HammerofThunor wrote:

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.

I simply do not believe that is so - as it can only have been a provisional agreement / outline agreement as no competition was in place. This appears to have been the BT position - its only a draft agreement

Even if it were true why should the rest be bound by a bad contact entered into by one party?

mystiroakey wrote:Could someone please explain to Maest who is picking the fight?

Because it isnt me

I am not picking a fight. I pointed out that your posts on here are very hard to believe. You counter that with accusations.

maestegmafia wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Could someone please explain to Maest who is picking the fight?

Because it isnt me

I am not picking a fight. I pointed out that your posts on here are very hard to believe. You counter that with accusations.

So where am i picking a fight.

I have explained that i believe what i say, and I do.

Please stop this nonsense. You are the only one picking a fight and making this personal. DON'T ACCUSE ME OF DOING IT!

(Edit: to TJ) You can not believe it all you want but that's what has been said. We have no way of knowing what is true as none of us have seen the contract. But the press release was BT have the rights to the English games in any future European competition that involves them.

As for why other people should be bound to it, they don't need to. I don't think I've ever said the ERC or Unions or whoever 'should' do anything. I'm just commenting on what is actually happening. I'm not surprised that the current situation occurs. When that vote happened a while back I went for a European competition of sorts without the English. The only question was whether the French came to an amicable agreement (then they would be in either the HEC or RCC) or not (in which case they would abstain from Europe). I didn't think the FFR would actually try to force the to take part in a competition  they didn't want to. I hope that does't result in the doomsday scenario of the French clubs leaving union (think 80s and 90s for Welsh players 'going north' but for everyone).

the french unions have a very strong hold on their clubs - much more so than any other nation as the union acts as abranch of the governemnt and the rules have the force of law.

What I think will happen is the half dozen or so french clubs who want to play in a real european cup will come on board fully with the ERC. the remaining french clubs will put second teams into the European cup or refuse altogether in which case the french union will create teams to enter. the french union have the legal ability to block french clubs entering any breakaway competition unlike other unions where they can only put sanctions on clubs who enter breakaway competitions

Hammer - this does not read to me as if they have a binding agreement.
http://www.espn.co.uk/heineken-cup-2013-14/rugby/story/200791.html
"We are not involved in the conversations. We have deliberately wanted to step back. We have said what we would like, we have set out the investment we are prepared to make and we hope we will be able to be involved. I really hope they grab this opportunity.

"The English-French tournament we will support, if it goes ahead, and we very much hope that if it does, then others [from Wales, Ireland, Scotland and Italy] will then join.

"We have a long-term interest in rugby and that interest is not going to go away. If we get the opportunity to broadcast European rugby we will grasp it with both hands."

HammerofThunor wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

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

100% true. They didn't have to and I think they deliberately did it as a line in the sand. They said they accept that no-one would may cross it and I hope they meant it. But it doesn't make the ERC concessions any more meaningful to the PRL.

Regarding the French, that's a good point but I'm not convinced any of the concessions mean anything to them. It was always more about control for the French anyway (the most recent Lux vote, etc). The only reason the majority would come on board is because they will be effectively forced by the FFR (not really going to help their opinion of 'forcing'). The only side we 'know' who is on board willing (still not confirmed is it?) is Toulon. The reason they would be on board was because the LNR want to force limitations on spending, foreign player numbers, etc and Toulon don't like it. Is that ironic? Never sure. Certainly more so that it raining when you're already wet.

Hammer, it may well be that PRL cannot now enter the HEC due to their signing of the BT deal, and it may well be that any ERC concessions are meaningless to them, however, none of ERC are privy to the details of that BT deal, and so none actually know for certain if PRL can exit that deal, and participate in an ERC HEC with SKY. If PRL signed a deal with BT without a clear exit strategy should their RCC attempt fail, an exit strategy which would enable them to participate in HEC, then they have painted themselves into a corner foolishly, and damaged European rugby for all.
The ERC have invited PRL to accept their offer of HEC participation. It might be nothing more than show, but it could equally be true that ERC are hoping that PRL can work something out with BT which will enable them to accept that offer.

TJ,

The PRL have said they are in a binding agreement. That piece from BT doesn't counter that statement at all!

The Rabo unions want it both ways, they want a union comp but some non-eligible players so that they can stand a chance of winning it. They also see it as a stepping stone to International level rather than a goal in its self.
The Rabo Unions don't want players from smaller Unions unable to run a professional league as this will increase their ability to compete on an international level against them increasing the chance of them losing their place in the IRB rankings

broadlandboy wrote:The Rabo unions want it both ways, they want a union comp but some non-eligible players so that they can stand a chance of winning it. They also see it as a stepping stone to International level rather than a goal in its self.
The Rabo Unions don't want players from Unions unable to run a professional league as this will increase their ability to compete on an international level against them increasing the chance of them losing their place in the IRB rankings

 

broadlandboy wrote:The Rabo unions want it both ways, they want a union comp but some non-eligible players so that they can stand a chance of winning it. They also see it as a stepping stone to International level rather than a goal in its self.
The Rabo Unions don't want players from Unions unable to run a professional league as this will increase their ability to compete on an international level against them increasing the chance of them losing their place in the IRB rankings

 

mystiroakey wrote:TJ,

The PRL have said they are in a binding agreement. That piece from BT doesn't counter that statement at all!

Its full of "if" tho and reads to me like they have an outline agreement and a wish list agreed in principle. How on earth can the PRL sign a binding agreement to something that may not happen and that needs the agreement of many others for it to happen? If they really did sign a binding agreeent that precludes them playing under any other auspices they are even more stupid than I thought.

the PRL cannot be trusted on anything they say IMO

Munchkin wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

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

100% true. They didn't have to and I think they deliberately did it as a line in the sand. They said they accept that no-one would may cross it and I hope they meant it. But it doesn't make the ERC concessions any more meaningful to the PRL.

Regarding the French, that's a good point but I'm not convinced any of the concessions mean anything to them. It was always more about control for the French anyway (the most recent Lux vote, etc). The only reason the majority would come on board is because they will be effectively forced by the FFR (not really going to help their opinion of 'forcing'). The only side we 'know' who is on board willing (still not confirmed is it?) is Toulon. The reason they would be on board was because the LNR want to force limitations on spending, foreign player numbers, etc and Toulon don't like it. Is that ironic? Never sure. Certainly more so that it raining when you're already wet.

Hammer, it may well be that PRL cannot now enter the HEC due to their signing of the BT deal, and it may well be that any ERC concessions are meaningless to them, however, none of ERC are privy to the details of that BT deal, and so none actually know for certain if PRL can exit that deal, and  participate in an ERC HEC with SKY. If PRL signed a deal with BT without a clear exit strategy should their RCC attempt fail, an exit strategy which would enable them to participate in HEC, then they have painted themselves into a corner foolishly, and damaged European rugby for all.
The ERC have invited PRL to accept their offer of HEC participation. It might be nothing more than show, but it could equally be true that ERC are hoping that PRL can work something out with BT which will enable them to accept that offer.

Excellent point I hadn't considered.

TJ-  if the PRL had as stated tried to sort out the 'fairness' of the ERC for years before and were just shunted maybe they just thought sod it. We would rather not play in it anymore.

broadlandboy wrote:The Rabo unions want it both ways, they want a union comp but some non-eligible players so that they can stand a chance of winning it. They also see it as a stepping stone to International level rather than a goal in its self.
The Rabo Unions don't want players from Unions unable to run a professional league as this will increase their ability to compete on an international level against them increasing the chance of them losing their place in the IRB rankings

I generally try and avoid telling other people what they want. It makes me look like a knob. Edit:  

mystiroakey wrote:TJ-  if the PRL had as stated tried to sort out the 'fairness' of the ERC for years before and were just shunted maybe they just thought sod it. We would rather not play in it anymore.

But as explained "fairness" depends on your viewpoint.  reducing the rests share of the money and participation while attempting to handicap them can never be seen as fair unless you are very one eyed

HammerofThunor wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:The Rabo unions want it both ways, they want a union comp but some non-eligible players so that they can stand a chance of winning it. They also see it as a stepping stone to International level rather than a goal in its self.
The Rabo Unions don't want players from Unions unable to run a professional league as this will increase their ability to compete on an international level against them increasing the chance of them losing their place in the IRB rankings

I generally try and avoid telling other people what they want. It makes me look like a knob. Edit:  

Well said Hammer - we disagree generally but you remain logical and coherent unlike some others

It is both TV deals that prevent PRL from playing in a ERC comp. As the PRL/BT deal was signed first it became a part of any negotiation for them to return. However as soon as ERC signed the Sky deal it became nigh on impossible for PRL to return. It was ERC selling the exclusive rights to Sky that created the situation. How is PRL selling their rights any different to France & Italy selling theirs? If the PRL wanted to keep all the money from selling their rights(as each union does in the RABO) for them selves I could see why the other Unions would be upset but PRL were happy to put it in the pot to be shared out equally between competing teams.

Only shared out under very unfair terms and on their gift - and that would include the tv money from games not involving PRL teams ie the PRL wanted to dictate how all the tvmoney woulod be shared out.

TJ wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:TJ-  if the PRL had as stated tried to sort out the 'fairness' of the ERC for years before and were just shunted maybe they just thought sod it. We would rather not play in it anymore.

But as explained "fairness" depends on your pinpoint.  reducing the rests share of the money and participation while attempting to handicap them can never be seen as fair unless you are very one eyed

Real true fairness wasn't the point of the statement.

thats why I quoted the word..

It doesnt matter if its fair for everyone or not, it matters what they think as fair..

If they have been trying to change things within the structure and kept getting shunted they may have just said- nothing or a new comp,

and everything after was pointless.

You see the PRL have actually been 100% on this point from the start. They have categorically stated they will not play in the ERC, we have all possibly looked upon it as them trying to threaten the ERC into getting what they want. BUt the fact is they may have just allways been 100% honest

Ok, forget 'fairness', it's meaningless in this context anyway. If the English clubs decided they would rather not play in Europe at all than continue with the HEC then that's what they're doing. If they decided a big reason they don't like the HEC is the fact they have almost no say on it, then signing up to BT in advance was sensible thing to do (Note: 'A say' does not mean domination or total control or ownership or other things bandied about on here)

Now it might come to pass that the other parties don't want them to have any say whatsoever, in which case groovy, these two groups are incompatible. They can go their separate ways and that should be that. If any group changes it's mind about what it wants they can feel free to enter negotiations with the other/s.

Honest? Not in a million years. they kept claiming it was about "fairness" and "meritocracy" but when given concessions on 99% of this they still refuse to compromise or negotiate at all. In some ways a good move from the rabo unions compromising so much - as it shows the true PRL motives - a naked power grab

Hammer - but the english clubs have a huge say in the ERC - and the french and english between them can outvote the rest. PRL have 13% of the vote. RFU 13%, french 26%

TJ wrote:Honest?  Not in a million years.  they kept claiming it was about "fairness" and "meritocracy" but when given concessions on 99% of this they still refuse to compromise or negotiate at all.  In some ways a good move from the rabo unions compromising so much - as it shows the true PRL motives - a naked power grab

As I stated above!

Honest in the fact that they are not playing in the ERC again.

You keep bringing these words up as a slant to have a pop at the PRL, i am trying to just stick to the facts..

Waqnt to take bets on how long it is before some of the english clubs break ranks with Wray and McCaffery? are some of them not run by trusts / supporter owned?

broadlandboy wrote:It is both TV deals that prevent PRL from playing in a ERC comp. As the PRL/BT deal was signed first it became a part of any negotiation for them to return. However as soon as ERC signed the Sky deal it became nigh on impossible for PRL to return. It was ERC selling the exclusive rights to Sky that created the situation. How is PRL selling their rights any different to France & Italy selling theirs? If the PRL wanted to keep all the money from selling their rights(as each union does in the RABO) for them selves I could see why the other Unions would be upset but PRL were happy to put it in the pot to be shared out equally between competing teams.

Technically each union in the Pro12 doesn't keep the moment from selling their rights. What happens is they keep the money for selling the Pro12 rights in their jurisdiction (so BBCW to WRU, etc). The SRU own the rights for all the games held in Scotland (i.e. all the Glasgow and Edinburgh home games). But they don't get any more for BBCW, BBCNI and RTE buying these games. They just get what BBCS (or is it BBCAlba?) pay for all the games. The SRU really got shafted in that deal. But they'll be much better off with the Sky deal even if the BBC deals are much less (have they been sorted yet?)

mystiroakey wrote:

TJ wrote:Honest?  Not in a million years.  they kept claiming it was about "fairness" and "meritocracy" but when given concessions on 99% of this they still refuse to compromise or negotiate at all.  In some ways a good move from the rabo unions compromising so much - as it shows the true PRL motives - a naked power grab

As I stated above!

Honest in the fact that they are not playing in the ERC again.

You keep bringing these words up as a slant to have a pop at the PRL, i am trying to just stick to the facts..

I misread your use of "fairness" in quotes. Your explanation came too late for my subsequent posts.

TJ, part of the PRL/BT deal for the AVIVA include an agreement that IF PRL teams took part in an European comp BT would have
PRL rights, as the deal for AVIVA was worth more than PRL were getting for AVIVA & Europe at the moment they signed. ERC then signed a deal with SKY that they got all rights even thou there was no accord for the comp to continue

Hammer,My point was that the money is not being shared equally between teams unlike the PRL proposal

TJ wrote:Hammer - but the english clubs have a huge say in the ERC - and the french and english between them can outvote the rest.  PRL have 13% of the vote. RFU 13%, french 26%  

The clubs that make up significant proportion of the ERC competitions (about 24 out 36, ignoring invited teams) have 13% of the vote. Since the RFU and PRL get on let's say this is 26%. The French clubs have no real say at all. So the block that control 12 (out of about 36?) teams have 48%. Basically the FFR are the controlling group here (assuming the clubs and Pro12 are always on opposite side of whatever argument is currently going on).

We're not taking Franglos v the world. We're talking about the teams that make up the competition having a say.

broadlandboy wrote:Hammer,My point was that the money is not being shared equally between teams unlike the PRL proposal

I know. But it's even worst than it should be. Realistically the SRU should get a sixth of the money because they have a sixth of the game rights. But they get even less than that because they only get what they stump up for in Scotland.

If only we did that with the 6 nations, now that would destroy European rugby (but it's one rule for the them and one rule for us). As I said the SRU will be getting a 1/5th of the Sky deal (because the Italians get nothing from it).

TJ it is a case of clubs against unions except for the RFU who have realised that it is better to work with the clubs rather than to try to force them.

TJ wrote:Waqnt to take bets on how long it is before some of the english clubs break ranks with Wray and McCaffery?  are some of them not run by trusts / supporter owned?

By that do you meant the PRL? Because Wray is somewhat outside the PRL because they don't let him spend what he wants. Also McCafferty could step down from the PRL. If you mean, how long before the clubs break ranks with the PRL then sure, we can take bets.

Is there a possibility of the RFU sending non PRL teams in to the HC?

Hammer, yes it seems that the Celts want us to do as they say rather than what they do

mystiroakey wrote:Is there a possibility of the RFU sending non PRL teams in to the HC?

Certainly a possibility. Well the clubs wanted the Pro12 teams more involved in the CC. Maybe that's what will happen

broadlandboy wrote:Hammer, yes it seems that the Celts want us to do as they say rather than what they do

Ask an Exeter Chiefs fan if they believe they're being treated as equals within PRL.

Maybe the RFU could propose getting a few teams in to the Rabbo?

broadlandboy wrote:TJ, part of the PRL/BT deal for the AVIVA include an agreement that IF PRL teams took part in an European comp BT would have
PRL rights, as the deal for AVIVA was worth more than PRL were getting for AVIVA & Europe at the moment they signed. ERC then signed a deal with SKY that they got all rights even thou there was no accord for the comp to continue

But there was an accord to continue the competition. England & France withdrew. There will be a Heineken Cup organised by the Unions next season. Its nothing to do with the English clubs as they won't be participating in it. Sky will pay the ERC for the rights to broadcast the Heineken Cup in the UK (including England).

Sin é wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:TJ, part of the PRL/BT deal for the AVIVA include an agreement that IF PRL teams took part in an European comp BT would have
PRL rights, as the deal for AVIVA was worth more than PRL were getting for AVIVA & Europe at the moment they signed. ERC then signed a deal with SKY that they got all rights even thou there was no accord for the comp to continue

But there was an accord to continue the competition. England & France withdrew. There will be a Heineken Cup organised by the Unions next season. Its nothing to do with the English clubs as they won't be participating in it. Sky will pay the ERC for the rights to broadcast the Heineken Cup in the UK (including England).

Sin e the discussions are all in relation to the ERC's proposals to the RFU/PRL (6/6/6+2 and 33.3% finacial)

Munchkin wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Hammer, yes it seems that the Celts want us to do as they say rather than what they do

Ask an Exeter Chiefs fan if the believe they're being treated as equals within PRL.

Sorry, but are you suggesting that it's ok for the SRU to be shafted because the PRL do it? That's a pretty low standard to hold yourself to isn't it?

The top English tier took the stance that they wanted to protect the sides from "financial oblivion" if they got relegated. The RFU demand promotion/relegation. A halfway house was created which allows for teams to make it to the top (Exeter are an example) but also makes it possible for teams to survive relegation for a period. Ideal? No. What would be better? Have a system that completed closed off the premiership so Exeter were never in it? Have a system where relegation of the Quins meant they went bust? Of course what should have happened (IMO) is that the money used for the parachute payments should have come from everyones pockets so the newly promoted side gets full whack. In that case the entry requirements would have to be very strict to stop sides buying players to get vi in the premiership, getting a big payout and then drop back down again for another payout.

Hopefully the new agreement from 2016 will be better for the Championship clubs who WILL be involved in the negotiations.

Sin e that is the point ERC sold exclusive rights after the PRL/BT deal making it nigh on impossible for PRL to return. If ERC hadn't sold exclusive rights it would have been easier for PRL to return.

Sin e also the accord has changed due to the new proposals that ERC agreed to last month

HammerofThunor wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Hammer, yes it seems that the Celts want us to do as they say rather than what they do

Ask an Exeter Chiefs fan if the believe they're being treated as equals within PRL.

Sorry, but are you suggesting that it's ok for the SRU to be shafted because the PRL do it? That's a pretty low standard to hold yourself to isn't it?

The top English tier took the stance that they wanted to protect the sides from "financial oblivion" if they got relegated. The RFU demand promotion/relegation. A halfway house was created which allows for teams to make it to the top (Exeter are an example) but also makes it possible for teams to survive relegation for a period. Ideal? No. What would be better? Have a system that completed closed off the premiership so Exeter were never in it? Have a system where relegation of the Quins meant they went bust? Of course what should have happened (IMO) is that the money used for the parachute payments should have come from everyones pockets so the newly promoted side gets full whack. In that case the entry requirements would have to be very strict to stop sides buying players to get vi in the premiership, getting a big payout and then drop back down again for another payout.

Hopefully the new agreement from 2016 will be better for the Championship clubs who WILL be involved in the negotiations.

No, I'm pointing to a certain level of hypocrisy when it comes to pointing out the faults of other leagues. 'Financial oblivion' is very PRL  

When it comes to Exeter being denied full equal share of the funds? How long are they in the PRL now, and how long do they have to wait to until they can enjoy that privilege?

I do fully support Parachute payments- but to deny a team in the top league a share of the pot is ridicules.

Everyone needs a slice

Where's the hypocrisy? Has anybody said that the current set-up in the English league is great? Pretty sure most people say it needs improving.

I think they need to be in 5 years but I don't think can be right because they must be nearly there now. As would know.

Oh and I think in the next round of negations the RFU will be pushing for a proper two tier Professional structure. Possibly with something like the LNR that governs all professional teams. Can't see the 2 tiers of 10 idea coming to fruition but we may see some significant changes.