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.

I'm not going to quote because it's a hassle but this is in response to Sin é.

First off Regulation 7 has nothing to do with TV rights (which is what we were talking about). That's about sponsorship and payments to the away side.

Regulation 13 covers broadcast rights.

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.

Note the last bit "absolute discretion of the union". In fact, other than defining what broadcasting rights are and saying that no-one can take part in a competition that breaches 13.2 there's nothing else there. Basically, the broadcast rights belong to the union that the game is played in. That's it, nothing else. If that union hands those rights off to someone then that's up to them.

I don't see how the 6 Nations committee is a subsidiary of the IRB has any baring on the TV rights. As I said, Reg 13 gives the rights to the union. Nothing says anything about the 6 Nations. If the RFU has given the TV rights to the 6N committee then that's up to them and they can not do that in the future (although they'd probably be kicked out again).

All the Press releases for the deal says Sky has bought the Rights to the HEC and ACC, named specifically. They don't exist beyond the 2014 season. If Sky didn't define the participants then more fool them (and the PRL teams aren't held). If they did the deal is null.

The IRB CE also said that if the unions approved he can't see the IRB not agreeing. All the stuff afterwards is based on breakaway competitions. I can't see the IRB stopping a union sanctioned competition.

Good job that 5 out of 6 unions (at least) are firmly behind the new Heino then, Thunor?

As I voted months ago when the poll was done on here. It was obvious from the beginning. I hope the PRL were prepared for it as they said they were.

HammerofThunor wrote:As I voted months ago when the poll was done on here. It was obvious from the beginning. I hope the PRL were prepared for it as they said they were.

no question PRL were prepaired for the worst case scenario,but were the genuine english supporters ready?

Considering half of the premierships wouldn't be in the HEC, trapped in the ignored CC and that we're quite content with the league I would they they're disappointed but not heart broken. Of course I don't know any English rugby supporters some might well be Love sacks.

considering none of the premiership would be in the HC it was a genuine question?
"we're quite content with the league"
"of course i don't know any english rugby supporters" bit of a contradiction there thunor?

Tigers CEO in the local rag

"We have given notice to exit the ERC-run competition and our BT Sport contract means we cannot go back into an ERC-run competition," he said.

So no way back to HEC then.

http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Inside-rugby-Martin-Crowson-looks-suspicious/story-20110228-detail/story.html

It certainly is. I was speaking of myself and the general feeling on here. But I don't know any other English supporters so wanted to caveat my comment.

justified sinner wrote:Tigers CEO in the local rag

"We have given notice to exit the ERC-run competition and our BT Sport contract means we cannot go back into an ERC-run competition," he said.

So no way back to HEC then.

http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Inside-rugby-Martin-Crowson-looks-suspicious/story-20110228-detail/story.html

Minor note that this is from before the recent statement from the 5 unions.

justified sinner wrote:Tigers CEO in the local rag

"We have given notice to exit the ERC-run competition and our BT Sport contract means we cannot go back into an ERC-run competition," he said.

So no way back to HEC then.

http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Inside-rugby-Martin-Crowson-looks-suspicious/story-20110228-detail/story.html

Stupid contract to sign then.

The Tiger CEO seems to be saying something like:  Okay, we might have been a tad brash in how we presented our ideals for a new Europe but we've signed the contracts anyway and that means you guys (the ERC Unions) have to give way to help us out here... If we return to ERC then BT sue us.

Yes...but............... that was your choice to sign contracts before 'negotiations'.  Don't blame the ERC for the rashness of PRL's chief exec to get his signature on a contract before he ever needed to.  He knew there would be a battle of wills but he bet everything on him winning it.  I'm not sure a gambler addicted to such high stakes gameplay is the guy PRL maybe needs at their head.

I am fairly sure McCafffery Wray and the rest completely misjudged this  they thought everyone else would have the same motivation as them thus would find the deal irresistible.  They were taken very much by surprise to find this is not so.  

I really think this is a large part of it - this simple inability to understand others do not view "cash as king" and "my club is the only thing that counts"

You seem to have missed this quote fron Cohen
"Even if we could, we would have little interest in putting ourselves back in a position which caused so much resentment."

Read more: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Inside-rugby-Martin-Crowson-looks-suspicious/story-20110228-detail/story.html#ixzz2lhKUzSbS

Yep, just says we're walking away, but as noone else is that means a RCC with England.

broadlandboy wrote:You seem to have missed this quote fron Cohen
"Even if we could, we would have little interest in putting ourselves back in a position which caused so much resentment."

Read more: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Inside-rugby-Martin-Crowson-looks-suspicious/story-20110228-detail/story.html#ixzz2lhKUzSbS

I'm very surprised at that given Leicester's history in the comp. I doubt their fans are too happy about leaving the HC.

More a case of ERC's total disregard for PRL's concerns, leaving them to feel that they had no option than to give notice & then taking over a year ,not until RCC was announced, to come up with compromises.

broadlandboy wrote:You seem to have missed this quote fron Cohen
"Even if we could, we would have little interest in putting ourselves back in a position which caused so much resentment."

Read more: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Inside-rugby-Martin-Crowson-looks-suspicious/story-20110228-detail/story.html#ixzz2lhKUzSbS

That's almost like an apology for all the BS that the PRL have caused over Europe.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:You seem to have missed this quote fron Cohen
"Even if we could, we would have little interest in putting ourselves back in a position which caused so much resentment."

Read more: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Inside-rugby-Martin-Crowson-looks-suspicious/story-20110228-detail/story.html#ixzz2lhKUzSbS

I'm very surprised at that given Leicester's history in the comp. I doubt their fans are too happy about leaving the HC.

Or the players...!!!


All we have heard in these situations, whether clubs vs country or whether it is the PRL trying to start their own competition, the players just want to get on and play the game. All players interviewed this year stated again and again how highly they value European inter club rugby. While authorities were tearing the future of the game apart the players and the fans just want a great competition.

Thankfully for the majority it looks like it will continue, but you have to feel sorry for the players of English clubs if they now miss out.

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

This article from 2010 in FT appears to indicate no IRB involvement, apart from commonality of stakeholders, similar (but not identical) to ERC.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bf54ca66-2c44-11df-9187-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2ljtZxeeM

I'd be interested to see any other relevant links.

Sin é wrote:
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.

ERC Board:

http://www.ercrugby.com/erc/about/board.php

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

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

This article from 2010 in FT appears to indicate no IRB involvement, apart from commonality of stakeholders, similar (but not identical) to ERC.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bf54ca66-2c44-11df-9187-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2ljtZxeeM

I'd be interested to see any other relevant links.

You need to check out the origins of the IRB:

Until 1885 the laws of rugby football were made by England as the founder nation. However, following a disputed try in an international between Scotland and England in 1884, letters were exchanged in which England claimed that they made the laws, and the try should stand.[3] Scotland refused to play England in the 1885 Home Nations Championship. Following the dispute, the home unions of Scotland, Ireland and Wales decided to form an international union whose membership would agree on the standard rules of rugby football. The three nations met in Dublin in 1886, though no formal regulations were agreed upon. On 5 December 1887, committee members of the Irish Rugby Union, Scottish Rugby Union and Welsh Rugby Union met in Manchester and wrote up the first four principles of the International Rugby Football Board. England refused to take part in the founding of the IRFB, stating that they should have greater representation, as they had more clubs.[8] The England Union also refused to accept the IRFB as the recognised law maker of the game.[8] This led to the IRFB taking the stance of member countries not playing England until they joined, and no games were played against England in 1888 and 1889.[9] In 1890 England joined the IRFB, gaining six seats while the other unions had two each.[9] The same year, the IRFB wrote the first international laws of rugby union.[10]

Basically, the IRB was founded to organise competition between Ireland, England, Wales & Scotland. Up to a few years ago (and mentioned in that FT article), the Six Nations was run by an IRB Sub-Committee. They set up this Six Nations Company Ltd about 10/11 years ago. It has one shareholder, unlike European Rugby which has 7 shareholders (presumably the competing nations 6 plus IRB). I hazard a guess that that the Six Nations Co. Ltd shareholder is the IRB. It has 8 Directors (6 Nations + IRB, + Legal Person).

http://www.solocheck.ie/Irish-Company/Six-Nations-Rugby-Limited-358420

European Rugby Limited has 7 Shareholders (probably 6 Nations + IRB)!

Aren't the PRL shareholders in the ERC?

HammerofThunor wrote:Aren't the PRL shareholders in the ERC?

Don't think so. The ERC is owned by the Unions. Is it any surprise that the shareholders are reacting badly to the PRL trying to put them out of business.

It would be interesting to see who the shareholders are of McCafferty's Cup!

http://www.rfu.com/news/2007/april/news%20articles/rfustatementontheheinekencup

This suggests the PRL weren't given a share (just 100% of the English money, half the votes and half the board! although this is from before the EPS agreement). Also that each union has 16.65% so that's 99.9%. So it is probably the IRB that has the last o.1%.

I've just got the information from UK site.

The FFR/LNR have split their shareholding between them (FFR 8.6% and LNR 8%) in ERC Ltd.

Other interesting thing is that Ian Stuart Gallacher along with Peter Wheeler are is a company directors of ERC Ltd.

Wheeler & Gallacher are on dodgy ground with regard to their legal responsibiities as company directors of ERC Ltd.


The 100% shareholder in the Six Nations Company is Bill Beaumont! He is also a company director of IRB, so I would imagine that it is in this capacity he has that 100% shareholding.

Why are Wheeler and Gallacher on dodgy ground?

Good o'Bill.

Directors’ common law duties can be summarised into three principles:

Directors must exercise their powers in good faith and in the interests of the company as a whole.*

Directors are not allowed to make an undisclosed profit from their position as directors and must account for any profit which they secretly derive from their position as a director.

Directors are obliged to carry out their functions with due care, skill and diligence.

*Doing everything in your power to discredit and close down a company you are a director would be seen as not in the best interests of the company, especially when another company you are involved in is going to benefit financially.

According to French papers, the LNR are caving in and will remain in the Heineken cup.

4 clubs interested in the fight against FFR: Toulouse, Clermont, Montpellier & Racing.
The other 10 are taking the money!

We might have an Amlin yet.

I don't know how accurate this is but an established poster on the Ospreys forum has said that the RRW are going to tough it out, over the PA agreement

Sin é wrote:Directors’ common law duties can be summarised into three principles:

Directors must exercise their powers in good faith and in the interests of the company as a whole.*

Directors are not allowed to make an undisclosed profit from their position as directors and must account for any profit which they secretly derive from their position as a director.
 
Directors are obliged to carry out their functions with due care, skill and diligence.

*Doing everything in your power to discredit and close down a company you are a director would be seen as not in the best interests of the company, especially when another company you are involved in is going to benefit financially.

How have they discredited the company? It was set-up to organise the competitions set out by the current Participation Agreement. The competition post 2014 has nothing to do with the current ERC. Some parts of it may well sign up to a new participation agreement but that doesn't meant the current organisation has anything to do with it.

What exactly has Wheeler done with regards to the ERC that is iffy?

Sin é wrote:According to French papers, the LNR are caving in and will remain in the Heineken cup.

4 clubs interested in the fight against FFR: Toulouse, Clermont, Montpellier & Racing.
The other 10 are taking the money!

We might have an Amlin yet.

According to L'equipe they're meeting on Thursday.

Couldn't find much else on L'equipe or Le Figaro...

Here you go

http://www.sudouest.fr/2013/11/27/rugby-les-clubs-francais-prets-a-abandonner-les-anglais-pour-se-sauver-1242108-773.php

Simon Thomas : Welsh journalist on twitter :

@simonrug: So it sounds like the blazers have won then and the English clubs have been scuppered.

It's getting closer and closer to being sorted. Hopefully done and dusted by Christmas

Translation of the new/key bits at the bottom

So far, Paul Goze , the President of the NRL endorsed the coup by combining French clubs, the Champions Cup Rugby project led by the British. He had not measured the degree of determination of the Federation on this issue.
Which is difficult for him, is to backtrack after loudly proclaimed his support for English project.

But meeting this Thursday to offer an emergency exit . Because in fact , only a handful of Top 14 clubs seem willing to engage in a conflict with the FFR (Toulouse , Clermont, Racing Metro -92 , Montpellier).

For others, the Rugby Champions Cup and the defense of British interests , certainly not a priority . " You have to be pragmatic ," noted Philippe Ruggieri Wednesday morning , the CEO of Bayonne . "You can not play without the delegation of our federation. And we got what we wanted on the sporting and financial terms. "

"What we need to stand now , it is the interests of French clubs, not those of English clubs ," stated Marcel Martin , President of the Union of professional clubs ( UCPR ) . "I 'm not sure they would be on the frontlines with the same virulence to defend ours. "

Thanks Geoff - interesting read. As you said earlier in the thread Thursday could well be the key day then. Having said that we've had plenty of false dawns haven't we. It needs sorting now though. Time to move on I think so everyone knows where they are and can plan accordingly.

Toulouse, Clermont, Montpellier and Racing will fall into line. Why wouldn't they for an extra double what they get currently for their TV deal? Something like an extra €5M per year each, supposedly

Yep Hammer, too tempting for them I would think... And if they're really the last 4 well not enough strength in numbers really for any other choice.

geoff999rugby wrote:Here you go

http://www.sudouest.fr/2013/11/27/rugby-les-clubs-francais-prets-a-abandonner-les-anglais-pour-se-sauver-1242108-773.php

Simon Thomas : Welsh journalist on twitter :

@simonrug: So it sounds like the blazers have won then and the English clubs have been scuppered.

the article headline has a question mark at the end..ie

"Rugby : les clubs français prêts à abandonner les Anglais pour se sauver ?"

it also says that the important meeting happens tomorrow at Orly airport.

I'd be amazed if the French don't get on board. But I hope the contract is for more than one year. If they have any sense (FFR) they'll tie this agreement to the same length as TV contract so they can do the same next time.

i have been assuming it's a weakened ERc tournament with PRL out since last week's developments. dont see anything to change that here, even if the composition of french or welsh sides is a clear as mud.

just noticed that the clubs covered in the "sudouest" publication are bordeaux, biarritz and bayonne, three of the bottom 4 in the top14. (bottom 2 get relegated)

the article makes a bit more sense given the correct geographical perspective.

quinsforever wrote:i have been assuming it's a weakened ERc tournament with PRL out since last week's developments. dont see anything to change that here, even if the composition of french or welsh sides is a clear as mud.

If all the T14 sides sign up then it will stronger than expected. Not at full strength if the PRL are not going to participate, but we've been here before.
I think RRW had their meeting today, but understand that they will not issue a press release this evening. Maybe they are going to wait until after LNR have their meeting, and follow their lead?

True but it looks like we are down to 4 French clubs resisting - previously reported as 10.
Be very surprised if that doesn't collapse completely.

The big question is will this tear Welsh rugby apart.
With the French in the ERC and Roger Lewis threatening to throw them out of the Pro12 I would expect them to cave as well - they have nowhere to go

I just can't fathom a scenario where the RRW don't sign up. Personally I think they're bent over by the WRU but they simply can't exist without them (nor should they).

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:Directors’ common law duties can be summarised into three principles:

Directors must exercise their powers in good faith and in the interests of the company as a whole.*

Directors are not allowed to make an undisclosed profit from their position as directors and must account for any profit which they secretly derive from their position as a director.
 
Directors are obliged to carry out their functions with due care, skill and diligence.

*Doing everything in your power to discredit and close down a company you are a director would be seen as not in the best interests of the company, especially when another company you are involved in is going to benefit financially.

How have they discredited the company? It was set-up to organise the competitions set out by the current Participation Agreement. The competition post 2014 has nothing to do with the current ERC. Some parts of it may well sign up to a new participation agreement but that doesn't meant the current organisation has anything to do with it.

What exactly has Wheeler done with regards to the ERC that is iffy?

No, it wasn't. According to its financial information, its business is: 'The promotion of rugby union football.' No mention of organising any competitions.

ERC ltd is a limited company and it doesn't dissolve just because a few wealthy Englishmen throw their toys out of the pram.

They did their best to descredit ERC Ltd by insisting that it should be abolished/closed. You think they are a badly run organisation and they should be closed down. How did you come to that conclusion? The only people badmouthing the ERC have been the PRL.

Wheeler has a conflict of interests (and why it was a good idea he wasn't made chairman).

He was sitting on the boards of two companies who were competing to organise the same kind of competition. He had insider knowledge on the broadcasting & commerical activities of the ERC as he sat on the Commercial Committee.

If you don't see anything wrong with that, I give up!

Much as I said all along - compromise with the french was possible - with the PRL it was not possible. This was fairly obvious from the start. Many PRL supporters gave me a hard time for this view but it was always obvious that the french clubs were prepared to compromise, the PPRL were not. so a euro cup without the english was always a likely option once the PRL had backed themselves into a corner.

I take no delight inthis - it does diminish the euro cup. However the english clubs will come back in a year or two

It definitely does diminish the competition if indeed the reports are true. No games at welford road or franklins gardens will be sad. I suppose at least there is a tournament though. we will see tomorrow anyway

TJ wrote:Much as I said all along - compromise with the french was possible - with the PRL it was not possible.  This was fairly obvious from the start.  Many PRL supporters gave me a hard time for this view but it was always obvious that the french clubs were prepared to compromise, the PPRL were not.  so a euro cup without the english was always a likely option once the PRL had backed themselves into a corner.

I take no delight inthis - it does diminish the euro cup.  However the english clubs will come back in a year or two

I'm not sure where you're getting this willingness of the French clubs to change their position, the only reason some of them are coming back to the ERC is because the FFR are forcing them to. If it wasn't for Camou's threats the RCC would have been a certainty by now.

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:Directors’ common law duties can be summarised into three principles:

Directors must exercise their powers in good faith and in the interests of the company as a whole.*

Directors are not allowed to make an undisclosed profit from their position as directors and must account for any profit which they secretly derive from their position as a director.
 
Directors are obliged to carry out their functions with due care, skill and diligence.

*Doing everything in your power to discredit and close down a company you are a director would be seen as not in the best interests of the company, especially when another company you are involved in is going to benefit financially.

How have they discredited the company? It was set-up to organise the competitions set out by the current Participation Agreement. The competition post 2014 has nothing to do with the current ERC. Some parts of it may well sign up to a new participation agreement but that doesn't meant the current organisation has anything to do with it.

What exactly has Wheeler done with regards to the ERC that is iffy?

No, it wasn't. According to its financial information, its business is:  'The promotion of rugby union football.' No mention of organising any competitions.

ERC ltd is a limited company and it doesn't dissolve just because a few wealthy Englishmen throw their toys out of the pram.

They did their best to descredit ERC Ltd by insisting that it should be abolished/closed. You think they are a badly run organisation and they should be closed down. How did you come to that conclusion? The only people badmouthing the ERC have been the PRL.

Wheeler has a conflict of interests (and why it was a good idea he wasn't made chairman).

He was sitting on the boards of two companies who were competing to organise the same kind of competition. He had insider knowledge on the broadcasting & commerical activities of the ERC as he sat on the Commercial Committee.

If you don't see anything wrong with that, I give up!

Please do. Come back if any formal action is taken. Oh and don't tell me what I think. I truly do not care what the ERC do. But I respect the PRL's ability and choice to leave the ERC as they're not happy with it.

markb wrote:

TJ wrote:Much as I said all along - compromise with the french was possible - with the PRL it was not possible.  This was fairly obvious from the start.  Many PRL supporters gave me a hard time for this view but it was always obvious that the french clubs were prepared to compromise, the PPRL were not.  so a euro cup without the english was always a likely option once the PRL had backed themselves into a corner.

I take no delight inthis - it does diminish the euro cup.  However the english clubs will come back in a year or two

I'm not sure where you're getting this willingness of the French clubs to change their position, the only reason some of them are coming back to the ERC is because the FFR are forcing them to.  If it wasn't for Camou's threats the RCC would have been a certainty by now.

Its been obvious from the first. Its not just Camous threats. Plenty of grumblings from France about the dictatorial attitude of the PRL and the willingness to compromise. Its been there if you wanted to see it. the french had issues yes - and these issues could be hand have been addressed

The RCC was dead in the water from the point the compromise giving almost everything the PRL claimed they wanted was offered by the Rabo unions - and the PRL still rejected it showing that actually the issues they had claimed were not the real ones - the real issue has always been the desire of the PRL to run european rugby. Not something the french teams wanted that strongly.