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

First topic message reminder :

TJ wrote:What the PRL said.  They were saying how much the RCC was worth and how much each union would get from it.  That implies they had "sold" all the games.

They haven't specifically said how much it will be worth, just that there will be more money than the ERC have negotiated because of what they've managed to negotiate and what the French are expecting to get.  They won't know for certain what it is worth until the French have sold their rights.  The LNR ccertainly wouldn't be on board with the PLR if they had sold rights to their games, and there wouldn't be the money they are alluding to if they had.

johnpartle wrote:Maybe I'm wrong, but is it not the case that all the broadcasters buy a specific set of matches (the ones from their territory) and then sell/buy/exchange the rights amongst each other to show them all?

How is the showing of matches orchestrated outside the 6N otherwise, does the ERC have to sort a contract for every broadcaster worldwide that wants to show a match?

Looking at the fixture list on the ERC website each match has a specific broadcaster next to it, but they're not only going to be shown in that relevant country.

http://www.ercrugby.com/matchcentre/fixtures_heineken_cup.php?includeref=21924&season=2013-2014&round=4

?

HammerofThunor wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:That's not a certainty. It's certainly what the PRL believed. The RFU have come out and said they believe the rights revert to them. The PRL haven't disagreed with this since they said it.

This is just a press release but this certainly reads like the PRL would control them.

"As part of the Agreement, PRL shall be solely responsible for negotiating the sale of their own TV, media & Sponsorship rights and giving directions to ERC in respect of England's position on the sale of the TV, media and sponsorship rights related to the European Rugby Cup and European Challenge Cup."

http://www.rfu.com/news/2007/november/news%20articles/rfuandprlsignneweightyearagreement

There seems to be a lot of "believing" going on.  Either way clearly BT have a signed contract at this stage.  So unless the RFU can actually prove the PRL don't have the rights to sell without their approval, I'm assuming McCafferty has done his homework.  Because legally speaking he would be in big trouble if he has signed a deal that he is not authorized to sign.  BT could sue and McCafftery could be have jeopardized his organisation by doing so.

It wouldn't matter if the RFU approved it. If they didn't the PRL just wouldn't able to play in Europe.

My point was the RFU cant challenge the deal though because the deal will clearly prevent the PRL from participating in any ERC run tournament. If the RFU challenge this contract with BT on the basis that the PRL only have advisory representation rights for European rugby then the PRL have signed a contract that clearly is outside of their remit. BT could sue the PRL for this, which is why the RFU (even if they can challenge this deal), wont.

Sorry I didn't add why the RFU wont just allow BT to sue the PRL.

Because the PRL are merely representatives of the 12 clubs - the clubs would be liable to BT. in essence BT could therefore sue all 12 clubs which could potentially destroy the English game altogether.

Why would BT sue the PRL when they want to build club rugby?
As already been stated PRL are no longer under the ERC accord

Oh I agree they won't. I said back in the beginning that the RFU wouldn't block the move even if they were required to approve it. There were some claiming the RFU would block it to save rugby but it would cripple relations with the clubs (if they weren't destroyed).

BT sueing the PRL?

Surely all this means that they just won't get as much money when they fail to deliver their promised tournament. Why sue and endanger the product they already have.

I'm sure BT are savvy enough not to be paying for a tournament that won't happen.

this place has gone insane.

It is starting to remind me of a peep show episoide where everyone wants to section each other

Although what would happen if the RFU blocked it there simply wouldn't be a European competition for the PRL. It doesn't exist so they could only buy the potential rights (much like movie rights for books) with set figures depending on what the competition was. If he RFU don't approve the deal then the PRL simply won't have Euro games. That way BT still have he rights but they event itself doesn't exist.

But the RFU would still probably approve it (if needed).

The sueing was just a hypothetical. If the PRL went forward with a European competition without BT holding their rights they could sue. That won't happen.

anything new? or is it just hammer playing with everyone's tongs

RRW are meeting this week. Can't see anything other than them going in the HEC. There's no way they're joining the Jeff and anything else would be suicide.

Just reading an interview with John Feehan, CEO of the Six Nations Company (& B&I Lions & Pro 12), where he says that the RBS Six Nations is broadcast in 162 countries!

“The turnover of the Six Nations, if you add it up over a four year period, is about three and a half times greater than a World Cup. It is the underpinning key property that keeps the show going, because it generates such funds, it is just such an important competition, on so many different levels”.

I'd say the RFU must be bricking it that they might be thrown out of the tournament.

edit: he says his biggest achievement was the drawing up and signing of a Constitution in 2004 - that was when all the tension of who got what stopped!

I doubt it.

HammerofThunor wrote:I doubt it.

Well, they were kicked out before for selling the English rights to Sky.

You think that the 6N would get the same amount without England

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:I doubt it.

Well, they were kicked out before for selling the English rights to Sky.

And?

broadlandboy wrote:You think that  the 6N would get the same amount without England

Well no. They'd lose the '6' and become the 5N again.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:I doubt it.

Well, they were kicked out before for selling the English rights to Sky.

And?

They came back with their tails between their legs and agreed to collective selling of tv rights.

This is a reoccuring theme in the relationship of the RFU with the other unions from Day One of the IRB.

broadlandboy wrote:You think that  the 6N would get the same amount without England

Probably would now that they are selling tv rights into 162 countries and they will still be selling the 6Nations into the UK market. The amount will be divided by 5 not 6 nations now.

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:I doubt it.

Well, they were kicked out before for selling the English rights to Sky.

And?

They came back with their tails between their legs and agreed to collective selling of tv rights.

This is a reoccuring theme in the relationship of the RFU with the other unions from Day One of the IRB.

I see a history of bullying and intimidation from the other unions to keep their cash cow (England) paying out.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:I doubt it.

Well, they were kicked out before for selling the English rights to Sky.

And?

They came back with their tails between their legs and agreed to collective selling of tv rights.

This is a reoccuring theme in the relationship of the RFU with the other unions from Day One of the IRB.

I see a history of bullying and intimidation from the other unions to keep their cash cow (England) paying out.

You can only play against what's there that you need to play against to keep you in tune as an International side...in Europe.  It isn't viable that you can claim to get enough games in against SH outfits or that games against lesser ranked sides like USA or Canada will suffice to unearth the players and systems to help ready yourself for top competition (namely WCs)

So this idea that a 'cash cow' England is being forced to 'play-ball' with their European partners is just not true.  That they continually want to isolate themselves in a funding vacuum (private deals with SKY - 6N; and now BT - European Club rugby) means that they undervalue the importance of their European 'buddies' in helping them mature and sustain International readiness.

If English rugby regards itself as being a more valuable entity in its own right than any of its neighbours, including France, then that understanding is simply misplaced as you can't play in isolation against yourself and expect to ready to meet external teams in tough Competition.  England plays against another sides whenever it plays International.  The English fans might be there only to cheer on England (their stated 'cash cow' bums-on-seats argument) - but the other team has equal value in any contest.

The IRB set the regulations. They give the home union the rights. Don't like it? Get the IRB to change it so some goes to the away side. But to threaten, bully and intimidate? That's just nasty.

Oh and the BT money was going into a central pot so I don't get the reference.

HammerofThunor wrote:The IRB set the regulations. They give the home union the rights. Don't like it? Get the IRB to change it so some goes to the away side. But to threaten, bully and intimidate? That's just nasty.

I'm not talking about away side v home side.  I'm simply talking about this consistent idea going the rounds in English rugby circles that Europe can't do without them but they can very well do without Europe... well, yes, if you don't want to play against sides (International or club) that will give you the tools to find out your best players and best tactics for best rugby (both International and club)

England and English rugby Does need Europe (their five partners).  Saying bluntly that they don't just doesn't have any mileage in reality.

Well 6 nations isn't 'Europe'. That's a rather insular view point.

Who says they don't need them? But what's wrong with the RFU selling the rights that the IRB gave them?

PS good luck with New Zealand. I hope your guys play out of their skin and beat them. That would be fething awesome.

HammerofThunor wrote:Well 6 nations isn't 'Europe'. That's a rather insular view point.

Who says they don't need them? But what's wrong with the RFU selling the rights that the IRB gave them?

PS good luck with New Zealand. I hope your guys play out of their skin and beat them. That would be fething awesome.

We tried! It wasn't enough - but at least we can recalibrate our International machine and say the ability is there - now we have to work out why it is always so inconsistent. Schmidt gets some solutions to our inconsistency and we'll be in a better place.

Unlucky fly- Feel gutted for ya..

mystiroakey wrote:Unlucky fly- Feel gutted for ya..

Thanks mystir.  THAT - I can honestly say was the worst emotional rollercoaster of a game I've ever watched - because of the history talking for both sides (us with a real chance of a first win against them and them in with a chance of record wins themselves) and the intensity of it as a game ; always, always so conscious that ABs would grind their way back into the game and only hoping the clock ran out before they got a chance to.

But after a lifetime of watching rugby - that was absolute TV screen smashing stuff at times as I tried to coach the guys all over my living room!

It was a great game of rugby.

If that was England instead of ireland- something would have broke!

But it was even more vital for you.

Oh well at least you played top rugby

I spent the last 5 minutes of that game half out of my seat. My thighs were killing me. Taking aside ball-busting, gut-wrenching, heart-ache, at least it was an improvement from the previous game. I got a feeling the painful years for us against Ireland are going to start again.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:I doubt it.

Well, they were kicked out before for selling the English rights to Sky.

And?

They came back with their tails between their legs and agreed to collective selling of tv rights.

This is a reoccuring theme in the relationship of the RFU with the other unions from Day One of the IRB.

I see a history of bullying and intimidation from the other unions to keep their cash cow (England) paying out.

That is a ridiculous statement HT.

For a year we have had the PRL promising to dismantle European rugby unless we do everything their way. They have had the cards stacked in their favour for years and still wanted more.

Thankfully sense seems to be prevailing.

By the way SKY and BT are BRITISH companies not and English ones. England is not the reason a TV deal is struck, Europe is.

What odds Toulouse/Clermont/Racing/Stade/Montpellier/Castres/ Perpignan leaning on Toulon, Biarritz, Bayonne and others to abide by majority LNR vote?

Would Camou just retire six months early?

I would be interested to know if these were long odds or slightly more odds on.

There is still a way to go on this.

Recwatcher wrote:What odds Toulouse/Clermont/Racing/Stade/Montpellier/Castres/ Perpignan leaning on Toulon, Biarritz, Bayonne and others to abide by majority LNR vote?

Well majority voting (ERC) had no effect on RFU/PRL decisions, Rec.  And I know there are many here who say that legally speaking no such pressure should ever be put on them (me included).  So - it's likely that the same folks, who would champion PRL's right to choose, would also champion the right of individual privately owned clubs to decide their own future in European competition that is not run by or administered by LNR?

HammerofThunor wrote:The IRB set the regulations. They give the home union the rights. Don't like it? Get the IRB to change it so some goes to the away side. But to threaten, bully and intimidate? That's just nasty.

Oh and the BT money was going into a central pot so I don't get the reference.

I suggest you look at the organisation structure of the IRB. Basically, it is the Association of Country Unions. England, like most of the Top 8 Countries, have 2 representatives, Ireland has 2, France has 2, Wales has 2, Italy has 1. NZ, Aus & SA have 2 votes. Countries like Canada, USA, Japan, etc. have one vote, so the England RFU would need to go cap in hand to a lot of people to get change anything.

Basically, the ERC mirrors the IRB's stucture and England didn't get anywhere with them.

The IRB sets the regulations ok. And it looks like the PRL/RFU have broken a few of them. One in particular is:

IRB Broadcasting Regulations:
13.2 No Rugby Body, Club or Person or any combination thereof may
negotiate or enter into or benefit from any contract for the grant of any
Broadcasting Rights in respect of any Match or Matches except with the
express written consent of the Union within whose territorial jurisdiction
such Match is or Matches are to be played, such consent to be in the
absolute discretion of the Union.

The PRL did not have the permission of the French, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, English prior to selling the TV rights to BT.

And get a grip about bullying and intimidation! The PRL have attempted a hostile takeover of the Heineken Cup - what do they expect? A round of applause?

Excellent summary here from a poster on the Telegraph site:

gjpowell • 3 days ago −
I go away for a day and come back to over 500 comments - incredible. Notmanichean and Ruck must be suicidal. I think this still has some way to run, and the prospect of the reformed Heineken Cup and Amlin Cup (meritocracy and revenue distribution, not governance) have improved considerably. Over to you Ian Ritchie......

(1) The Celtalian unions and FFR have clearly played this better, outwitting PRL. Machiavellian sporting administrators were always likely to outwit benefactor businessmen. They didn't panic when the storm broke in early September. They kicked this into the long grass, getting their legal positions sorted over 6 weeks and considering how to best force RRW and the LNR into the HeC/AC and out of the RCC. All the while giving the English supporters a taster of HeC/AC action.

(2) RRW are in an awful position. They haven't served their 2 years notice from the HeC/AC, are totally dependent upon the WRU for funding, and have no offer of AP membership (with or without RFU/WRU backing). They will be playing in the HC next season, whatever happens.

(3) LNR are not in the greatest of positions either. They urgently need a new domestic participation agreement with the FFR and the approval of Pierre Camou to trigger their primary commercial objective - a T14 bidding war between Canal+/beIN. Europe is a sideshow for them. Pierre Camou has made HeC participation a condition (not a desire) of the new participation agreement. Along with international player release, player welfare and quotas. The clock is ticking on Paul Goze (31 December). If the LNR back down as 14 teams over Europe, the pressure will then be on our clubs to ditch BT and play in the HeC/AC as reformed in October. If some LNR clubs split and others don't, or our clubs don't/can't extricate from our BT deal, how will Pierre Camou select his entrants in a reduced competition? If they resist, Pierre Camou will not sanction any cross-border rugby other than the HeC. Neither will the IRB.

(4) PRL are now in a difficult position. The RCC can clearly go ahead, if the BT contract still pays for it, as a domestic competition. Only the RFU have to sanction that. A formality, even if that has not already been pre-sanctioned through the 2007 participation agreement between PRL and the RFU. I think PRL are likely to prefer this to an expanded AP. RRW are gone, and some of the LNR, but what if some of the LNR want to join the RCC? Potentially conflicting fixtures and no sanctioning by the FFR/IRB. The RFU will probably only sanction as a domestic competition, to play safe with the IRB and other unions.

(5) The RFU being excluded from yesterday's meeting probably came as a shock. They still own 16.67% of ERC. They don't want isolation from the other unions, or punishment by the IRB, particularly in the run-up to RWC 2015. Neither do they want to fall out with PRL (it would be altogether different if this happened in 2016?). With meritocracy and revenue distribution concessions obtained within ERC, and governance/broadcaster non-negotiable to the other unions, a concerted effort from Ian Ritchie to get BT to release PRL from any cross-border legal obligations whilst they concentrate on and develop their AP product?

(6) SKY seem to have played hardball, and have the exclusive ERC broadcasting contract for any HeC until 2018.

(7) BT - what does the PRL/BT contract actually say about cross-border rugby? Would a domestic RCC qualify for funding under the BT contract negotiated, or would PRL have to negotiate from scratch having lost the cross-border tranche of the existing deal? Is there an absolute prohibition on PRL taking part in a ERC competition televised by SKY? If so, can PRL or RFU argue that the cross-border tranche of the PRL/BT deal breaches IRB Reg 13.2 and is void? Will BT release the AP clubs, so that they earn BT money domestically and SKY money cross-border? BT then better placed with the other 5 unions to bid for the HeC/AC in 2018, when the current SKY deal ends?

So many question and this still has a long way to run. Bizarrely, I believe there is now more chance of a deal and one competition than 24 hours ago. PRL/LNR will then have won on meritocracy and revenue distribution, the unions (5 openly, 1 secretly?) will have won on governance.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/10466774/RFU-fury-as-French-Celtic-and-Italian-unions-agree-new-look-20-team-European-tournament.html

The PRL don't want anything to do with the HC anymore. It is either a RCC or ( my preference) focus on domestic leagues. There are half a dozen clubs on the verge of being professional and with some extra support could achieve this with the other half of the Championship needing further support.

If France can achieve it, then so should the RFU/PRL. The unhealthy focus on European competition has left the base of the game in England unsupported for too long.

Recwatcher wrote:The PRL don't want anything to do with the HC anymore.  It is either a RCC or ( my preference) focus on domestic leagues. There are half a dozen clubs on the verge of being professional and with some extra support could achieve this with the other half of the Championship needing further support.

If France can achieve it, then so should the RFU/PRL. The unhealthy focus on European competition has left the base of the game in England unsupported for too long.

The PRL don't want anything to do with a HC that they are not running.  The RCC is just another HC - it's European Competition - only it's designed to be run for PRL maximum benefit - and if that means others were sacrificed, then so be it... not PRLs concern.  
So, they did want European Comeptition, they certainly did want European Competition - but on their stringent and self-aggrandising terms.

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:The IRB set the regulations. They give the home union the rights. Don't like it? Get the IRB to change it so some goes to the away side. But to threaten, bully and intimidate? That's just nasty.

Oh and the BT money was going into a central pot so I don't get the reference.

I suggest you look at the organisation structure of the IRB. Basically, it is the Association of Country Unions. England, like most of the Top 8 Countries, have 2 representatives, Ireland has 2, France has 2, Wales has 2, Italy has 1. NZ, Aus & SA have 2 votes. Countries like Canada, USA, Japan, etc. have one vote, so the England RFU would need to go cap in hand to a lot of people to get change anything.

Basically, the ERC mirrors the IRB's stucture and England didn't get anywhere with them.

The IRB sets the regulations ok. And it looks like the PRL/RFU have broken a few of them. One in particular is:

IRB Broadcasting Regulations:
13.2 No Rugby Body, Club or Person or any combination thereof may
negotiate or enter into or benefit from any contract for the grant of any
Broadcasting Rights in respect of any Match or Matches except with the
express written consent of the Union within whose territorial jurisdiction
such Match is or Matches are to be played, such consent to be in the
absolute discretion of the Union.

The PRL did not have the permission of the French, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, English prior to selling the TV rights to BT.

And get a grip about bullying and intimidation! The PRL have attempted a hostile takeover of the Heineken Cup - what do they expect? A round of applause?

If the games are played in England why would they need written consent from French, Irish, Scottish and Welsh? The had a form of written consent for their games, not including the ERC games (which these are not). It depends on the wording of the English Participation Agreement. The RFU press releases suggest the PRL would have the rights but that's not the contract.

What difference does the fact the ERC is a collections of unions (like the IRB) have to do with anything? The IRB doesn't give rights to ad-hoc bodies like that, they give them to the union. The unions gave the rights to the ERC as part of the participation agreement, which becomes void in 2014 due to English and French withdrawl. The RFU may well sign up to a new one that states the ERC has the control over all cross-border games any English teams are involved in. But it hasn't yet.

And the PRL have withdrawn from the HEC, not tried to take it over. They are proposing a new competition and inviting others to get involved. These others don't want to and so aren't going to. What's wrong with that?

Sin é wrote:And get a grip about bullying and intimidation! The PRL have attempted a hostile takeover of the Heineken Cup - what do they expect? A round of applause?

Apparantly, it was bullying and intimidation to give 2 years notice that you wish to leave a competition that you're not satisfied, following all the correct protocols.

It thought this subject was all about using ridiculously over the top emotive terms. Perhaps I was wrong, wouldn't be the first or last time.

HammerofThunor wrote:

And the PRL have withdrawn from the HEC, not tried to take it over. They are proposing a new competition and inviting others to get involved. These others don't want to and so aren't going to. What's wrong with that?

Not one blessed thing, Hammer.

[quote="HammerofThunor"]

If the games are played in England why would they need written consent from French, Irish, Scottish and Welsh? The had a form of written consent for their games, not including the ERC games (which these are not). It depends on the wording of the English Participation Agreement. The RFU press releases suggest the PRL would have the rights but that's not the contract.

If the games are played in England and don't involve non-English teams, the PRL/RCC only need the permission of the RFU. If they involve French or Welsh teams, they need the permission of the FFR and WRU.

What difference does the fact the ERC is a collections of unions (like the IRB) have to do with anything? The IRB doesn't give rights to ad-hoc bodies like that, they give them to the union. The unions gave the rights to the ERC as part of the participation agreement, which becomes void in 2014 due to English and French withdrawl. The RFU may well sign up to a new one that states the ERC has the control over all cross-border games any English teams are involved in. But it hasn't yet.

The IRB do actually give rights (license, delegate authority to) to 'ad-hoc' bodies to organise competitions, but they nominate the Board Members. The Six Nations company is one for example. The IRB would have set up the ERC to run the Heineken Cup (Vernon Pugh was IRB Chairman at the time).

The RFU is a shareholder in ERC Limited and still has legal responsibilities to that company. The RFU (along with all the other Unions representatives) agreed that the broadcasting rights to the Heineken Cup be sold to Sky.

They didn't actually need the permission of the PRL, LNR - all they needed was the Unions (according to IRB's Broadcasting Regulations).

And the PRL have withdrawn from the HEC, not tried to take it over. They are proposing a new competition and inviting others to get involved. These others don't want to and so aren't going to. What's wrong with that?

No problem with them setting up a new competition. It just won't be Rugby Union. The PRL have tried to destroy the ERC (and Union control) which I hope they don't do.

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

If the games are played in England why would they need written consent from French, Irish, Scottish and Welsh? The had a form of written consent for their games, not including the ERC games (which these are not). It depends on the wording of the English Participation Agreement. The RFU press releases suggest the PRL would have the rights but that's not the contract.

If the games are played in England and don't involve non-English teams, the PRL/RCC only need the permission of the RFU. If they involve French or Welsh teams, they need the permission of the FFR and WRU.

No, they don't. For example the the RFU don't discuss with the SH sides with regards to who they sell the AI rights to. And the RFU didn't need to discuss with the other 6 nations union who bought their 6 nations games, it took the unions threatening to remove England from it not IRB action.

What difference does the fact the ERC is a collections of unions (like the IRB) have to do with anything? The IRB doesn't give rights to ad-hoc bodies like that, they give them to the union. The unions gave the rights to the ERC as part of the participation agreement, which becomes void in 2014 due to English and French withdrawl. The RFU may well sign up to a new one that states the ERC has the control over all cross-border games any English teams are involved in. But it hasn't yet.

The IRB do actually give rights (license, delegate authority to) to 'ad-hoc' bodies to organise competitions, but they nominate the Board Members. The Six Nations company is one for example. The IRB would have set up the ERC to run the Heineken Cup (Vernon Pugh was IRB Chairman at the time).

The RFU is a shareholder in ERC Limited and still has legal responsibilities to that company. The RFU (along with all the other Unions representatives) agreed that the broadcasting rights to the Heineken Cup be sold to Sky.

They didn't actually need the permission of the PRL, LNR - all they needed was the Unions (according to IRB's Broadcasting Regulations).

Are you sure the IRB give the rights to the 6 Nations? Is that documented anywhere? Fair enough if true but you'll have to back it up.

The broadcast rights were given to Sky for a competition that only existed in potential. Since another Participation Agreement hasn't been written (or at least signed) the HEC doesn't exist from 2014. Once the a new agreement is signed then a TV will be sorted. The Sky specifically referred to the European Cup so I can only assume that it cover the instance that the competition was renewed. It's not going to be. It's already been stated that Sky are still on board but the competition will be worth less than before.

The bit about only needing the Union's approval is true regarding the TV rights. And if the RFU said only the ERC will negotiate ALL cross-border competitions then they can do that. They haven't. Also they can't force the PRL to take part in competitions they don't want to (note that the FFR are having to force the LNR to do so using the TV rights).

And the PRL have withdrawn from the HEC, not tried to take it over. They are proposing a new competition and inviting others to get involved. These others don't want to and so aren't going to. What's wrong with that?

No problem with them setting up a new competition. It just won't be Rugby Union. The PRL have tried to destroy the ERC (and Union control) which I hope they don't do.

It will be Rugby Union if the unions that govern the regions involved approve it. If it's just the English clubs they'll only need the RFU approval. If it involves any other regions it would need their approval. It doesn't, however, need the Approval of unions not involved in the competition (note the IRB have already said they approve the competition if it had the unions' approval).

Need to make fewer points next time. That was fiddly. And I imagine will go wrong when published.

"Hammer" - No, they don't. For example the the RFU don't discuss with the SH sides with regards to who they sell the AI rights to. And the RFU didn't need to discuss with the other 6 nations union who bought their 6 nations games, it took the unions threatening to remove England from it not IRB action."

Are you talking about selling broadcasting rights? Other than that, the RFU would need to discuss the AI's with whatever Unions they are arranging Test's against. If PRL plan to play against LNR, or RRW, teams, then those games would need be to sanctioned by their respective Unions.
I would have thought that any Unions threatening action against another would require IRB sanction for those threats to be legitimate?

Obvious to organise the games the other party needs to be involved. But the RFU don't need to speak to NZRU about the broadcast rights for the AI game. But yes, for club games it would need the sanction of the unions involved, but only them.

The unions were threatening to start up a new competition without involving the RFU (was it to remain as 5 Nations but introduce Italy? Can't remember). All that requires is the IRB to sign off on the competition, which they tend to do if the unions involved agree. Whether they would have for this case we don't know as it didn't get that far. But, for example, in 2008 the WRU took the Regions to court for extra time with the players. The WRU had gone to the IRB but they had said it was a private contractual thing between them as it fell outside Regulation 9. In the end the judge ruled that the then Participation Agreement meant that the WRU had access to the players (I assume it was vague and no-specific otherwise it shouldn't have gone that far).

Recwatcher wrote:What odds Toulouse/Clermont/Racing/Stade/Montpellier/Castres/ Perpignan leaning on Toulon, Biarritz, Bayonne and others to abide by majority LNR vote?

I don't know, I don't know the position of these clubs. I know the position of the LNR as a whole but nothing about the individual chairmens preferences. Which way will they fall?

If we could get the ones in bold confirmed for the battered but unbroken Heineken Cup I'd be a lot happier.

Well the Toulon owner was quite vocal about staying out of the HEC and joining the RCC s...hold on a minute.

Boudjellal has been vocal about supporting the HEC but for reasons which don't make me inclined to trust them... my theory is that his ego is so monumental it can't be confined to French rugby alone!

Notch wrote:Boudjellal has been vocal about supporting the HEC but for reasons which don't make me inclined to trust them... my theory is that his ego is so monumental it can't be confined to French rugby alone!

You mean his prefered option would be The HEC (which he wouldn't take part in). The RCC (which he wouldn't take part in) and The Boudjellal Cup (which he'd consider if the card were all in his favour)

I think there are too many ambitious Private men grazing in rugby Union now, trying to become Bernie Ecclestone.

SecretFly wrote:.........I think there are too many ambitious Private men grazing in rugby Union now, trying to become Bernie Ecclestone.

Don't know if that's a quote or your own words - but it's a superb summation of the current situation.

HammerofThunor wrote:
No, they don't. For example the the RFU don't discuss with the SH sides with regards to who they sell the AI rights to. And the RFU didn't need to discuss with the other 6 nations union who bought their 6 nations games, it took the unions threatening to remove England from it not IRB action.

Are you sure about that:

IRB Regulation 7.6:
7.6 All relevant information regarding sponsorship or other financial
assistance should be exchanged between the Unions concerned in an
International Match not later than 12 weeks prior to the date of the said
International Match so as to avoid conflict between sponsorship
agreements entered into by the respective Unions. In the event that Unions
have not resolved such conflict by mutual agreement 21 days prior to the
International Match taking place, the matter shall be referred by either
Union to the CEO, or his designee, who shall, as soon as reasonably
practicable, adjudicate on the matter. The decision of the CEO, or his
designee, shall be final and binding on the Unions concerned.

Until you understand the organisation structure of the IRB, its pointless bothering to explain again and again that the Unions are the collective of the IRB.

What difference does the fact the ERC is a collections of unions (like the IRB) have to do with anything? The IRB doesn't give rights to ad-hoc bodies like that, they give them to the union. The unions gave the rights to the ERC as part of the participation agreement, which becomes void in 2014 due to English and French withdrawl. The RFU may well sign up to a new one that states the ERC has the control over all cross-border games any English teams are involved in. But it hasn't yet.

The IRB don't give the rights to a (as in singular) Union when more than one Union is involved. The RFU can look after English Rugby. The RFU cannot make decision off his own bat that affects other unions without consulting with the other unions involved.

The RFU will need to withdraw from the ERC (or possibly be voted out) as it will have no purpose now in the running of the Heineken Cup.

In the meantime the ERC has the right to sell the Broadcasting Rights of the Heineken Cup to Sky.

Are you sure the IRB give the rights to the 6 Nations? Is that documented anywhere? Fair enough if true but you'll have to back it up.

The Six Nations Company is a subsidary of the IRB. One of its directors is Bernard Lapasset who is also Chairman of the IRB.

The broadcast rights were given to Sky for a competition that only existed in potential. Since another Participation Agreement hasn't been written (or at least signed) the HEC doesn't exist from 2014. Once the a new agreement is signed then a TV will be sorted. The Sky specifically referred to the European Cup so I can only assume that it cover the instance that the competition was renewed. It's not going to be. It's already been stated that Sky are still on board but the competition will be worth less than before.

In short, Sky have bought the broadcasting rights for the UK & Ireland of a European Cup competition from a company called European Rugby Cup Limited  

This company has 13 directors (2 of which I can see without paying a fee. They are Peter Boyle (IRFU) and Michel Palmie FFR.

The bit about only needing the Union's approval is true regarding the TV rights. And if the RFU said only the ERC will negotiate ALL cross-border competitions then they can do that. They haven't. Also they can't force the PRL to take part in competitions they don't want to (note that the FFR are having to force the LNR to do so using the TV rights).

The RFU is on pretty thin ice with the rest of the Unions and basically irrelevant at the moment.
I don't think anyone would want anyone who doesn't want to be in the competition as they would just disrupt it.
Yes, the FFR are forcing the LNR to play in the competition. That is their business.

It will be Rugby Union if the unions that govern the regions involved approve it. If it's just the English clubs they'll only need the RFU approval. If it involves any other regions it would need their approval. It doesn't, however, need the Approval of unions not involved in the competition (note the IRB have already said they approve the competition if it had the unions' approval).

Highly unlikely - the CEO of the IRB last month:

International Rugby Board Chief Executive Brett Gosper Wednesday joined the fray when he said he wanted the European Cup to remain a tournament for the continent's leading clubs amid the growing fears of an Anglo-French breakaway.