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.

" 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."

So they got the issues they wanted sorted. compromise done

Marcel Martin, President of the Union of Professional clubs (

"What we need to stand now , it is the interests of French clubs, not those of English clubs, I'm not sure they would be on the frontlines with the same virulence to defend ours."

TJ, you have a very creative interpretation of matters if you think French clubs are coming back to the ERC not under gunpoint.

These were Goze's comments on the matter just a few weeks back, after the RFU lead meetings that brought out the compromises, but before Camou's threats:

"We've known for a while now that they would meet most of our format and financial demands"

"The clubs are the heartbeat of this competition so we should also look after the logistics. We want a European competition and I can't see why anyone wouldn't support a tournament that will help European rugby grow. There will be the Champions Cup next year or there will be nothing."

Mark - not at all- its been obvious right from the beginning this was the case. I have said it all along. You need to read the comments made by others from french teams - not just the rantings of Goze

You've said a lot of stuff all along based on what you wanted to be true rather than anything substantial.

If you truly believe that any French clubs would currently be looking at coming back to the ERC if Camou hadn't threatened them, you are dreaming and there really isn't much point in continuing this discussion.

markb wrote:You've said a lot of stuff all along based on what you wanted to be true rather than anything substantial.

If you truly believe that any French clubs would currently be looking at coming back to the ERC if Camou hadn't threatened them, you are dreaming and there really isn't much point in continuing this discussion.

Well I predicted this right from the start as it was obvious to anyone with half a brain that the french would compromise.  read the quotes from the french above.  
The french were furious with the PRL for the BT deal done without their knowledge, had at no point signed up to anything with the PRL to create the RCC, were furious with the attempt to blackmail the rabo unions and has often showed a willingness to compromise.  You mistake the rantings of Goze for french opinion.

this was the outcome I predicted from the start.  It was the obvious outcome. It was not based on what I wanted to be true - it was based on what I knew about the parties involveda dn on their public statements and I have been proven right.

I goiive yo anothe prediction. McCaffrey will be ousted from any power in the PRL and the english clubs will be back after a year

markb wrote:You've said a lot of stuff all along based on what you wanted to be true rather than anything substantial.

If you truly believe that any French clubs would currently be looking at coming back to the ERC if Camou hadn't threatened them, you are dreaming and there really isn't much point in continuing this discussion.

Mcgrath wrote:...... But I read (Bath owner and Premiership rugby negotiator) Bruce Craig make a statement which is kind of revealing and unfortunate.

“He said when they started discussions, the French clubs weren’t really on the same page as the English clubs because the French clubs believed they could find a solution within the current structures. The English clubs had already decided to terminate dealing with the ERC and do their own thing effectively. So there were decisions perhaps made that they didn’t really intend to negotiate, that there was always an effort to go elsewhere.

“So for us that’s disappointing but it explains why there hasn’t been a full engagement and why there hasn’t been full trust. We really need the clubs to recognise that we are talking about the same thing, a European competition. But you can’t just announce something overnight and think just because you announced it, it’s going to happen. Cross-border competition requires union approval to ensure that you can provide something safely for the development and benefit of the game.”

The PRL was trying to bribe everyone with promises of loads of money. The only different between them and Camou is that Camou had the finances to back up his 'bribe'.

You seriously think the Welsh will join McCaff's Cup without making loads of dosh?

With the French getting an estimated extra €5m to spend how much will go on wages to Rabo union international players as all have seemed to given up on only picking players who stay at "home". The Top14 could get stronger at the expense of the Rabo teams.

I remain very unconfident about any French commitment to the ERC, unfortunately I think it will last about as long as Camou's presidency.

Camou has saved it for now, but he also kicked the whole thing off when he grabbed the voting rights back from his clubs a few years back to keep his friend Lux in.  As such it'll be interesting if in the new ERC setup he's willing to give his clubs voting rights that can't be retracted (doubtful).  Also critical will be Lux's replacement.

As I've said before this very much feels like a stay of execution rather than a firm-footed resolution.  I fear the not too distant reaping of very destructive seeds sown in the French side of this, with unpleasant knock-on consequences for us all.

markb wrote:You've said a lot of stuff all along based on what you wanted to be true rather than anything substantial.

If you truly believe that any French clubs would currently be looking at coming back to the ERC if Camou hadn't threatened them, you are dreaming and there really isn't much point in continuing this discussion.

I beg to suggest that you are not privy to the thinking of the various clubs in the T14

It appear 4 are keen on the RCC and a similar number have been opposed.
That leaves the others in middle who appear to be ok with the compromises made.
What point caused them to accept are unknown to all of us here.

No need to get on your high horse and take a huff  

gelodge wrote:I remain very unconfident about any French commitment to the ERC, unfortunately I think it will last about as long as Camou's presidency.

Camou has saved it for now, but he also kicked the whole thing off when he grabbed the voting rights back from his clubs a few years back to keep his friend Lux in.  As such it'll be interesting if in the new ERC setup he's willing to give his clubs voting rights that can't be retracted (doubtful).  Also critical will be Lux's replacement.

As I've said before this very much feels like a stay of execution rather than a firm-footed resolution.  I fear the not too distant reaping of very destructive seeds sown rin the French side of this, with unpleasant knock-on consequences for us all.

If, (and everything is an if at this stage) the rumours are true there is no way Camou is stupid enough to have this agreement for only one yea. The french clubs will probably be tied in for a good while. Either way I just hope we have a competition and if there is anyway to keep the English clubs in I hope that happens too

The french clubs wanted a few things sorted - their main issues were a reorganisation of date for the HC matches - easily agreed to by the Rabo unions, a reduction in the number of entrants ( I have never understood why but thats what they wanted) - again agreement was possible and more input ( but not control) for the clubs - an arguement for the FFR to have with the LNR - again solvable by the french internally with perhaps a bind agreement over voting rights similar to the PRL / RFU one?

Thus it was obvious that the french demands could be met.

Now it looks like a 20 team euro cup without the english - so probably something like 10 rabo teams, 8 french and 2 others - maybe a Georgian league 15 and a Romanian league 15?  ( only playing for the HC - revert to their clubs for their domestic leagues?) Or make a Georgian and Romanian superclub in the mould of Glasgow or Treviso?   Maybe a spanish side?

If so where is the way back for the english?  Other unions have in the past accepted a reduction in their places to give room for the English clubs.  Would they be so willing to do so again?  There is a lot of anger from the rest about the way the PRL have done this - including from the french.  ( and even some from within english clubs) If the english clubs will be readmitted you can bet they will not be able to dictate terms.

How long till McCaffrey is ousted from any position of power?

TJ wrote: a reduction in the number of entrants ( I have never understood why but thats what they wanted)

I believe they wanted a reduction in the number of Pro12 teams but not an increase in the number of French teams - hence the overall reduction

Indeed Geoff - they wanted a 20 team cup - but it does not appear to me to give less games to be played by the french teams although that seemed to be the arguement. I never understood the logic behind this.

Remember folks the original PRL proposal was for 8/8/8 ie no reduction in teams entered - they only wnt to a 20 team cup to try to align with the french. Another reason not to trust the PRL for the french or the Rabo unions as this was a clear opportunist device and shows the PRL and the french have never been truely aligned

i still haven't seen anything indicating the new ERC commitment from the 5 unions extends beyond one additional year. has anything come out about what happens post june 2015? or, once Camou's terms as FFR president expires (and presumably Blanco takes over) and Lux is out of the ERC, are we going to have this debate all over again with different talking heads?

I suspect it will be 1 year to allow the possibility of England rejoining.
Also the pending French TV deal may well shed some light

I think I read somewhere that the unions were keen to go for a 10-yr deal to avoid the recurrence of this sort of nonsense.

Camou isn't going to pay out on his bribe for a one year agreement with the French clubs. We are assuming they all fall in line. There has been so much misinformation on this bloody thing I will wait and see

I think everyone want the english back so we will see sufficient flexibility to allow this.  I would expect more than a one year deal tho and the english clubs will have to take what is offered as they will have little to bargain with and have little goodwill to rely on.  If teams from outside the 6N are included then it would be very unfair to drop them again after one year so I could see a future setup being 5 english, 5 french, 2 others, 8 Rabo ( or 6 with 2 wildcard / qualification places) , with a strong second tier comp.

From the Guardian

A bit lengthy but a good and accurate read


FOLLY OF OSTRACISING THE RFU

The Celtic unions may come to regret snubbing Twickenham when, along with France and Italy, they met to piece together an alternative to the Heineken Cup.

Despite a lofty-souding statement, they cooked nothing more than a RaboDirect Pro 12 Cup with some French dressing. Not quite what Sky had in mind when it renewed its television contract with European Rugby Cup Ltd last year.

The Rugby Football Union was excluded from the meeting because the rest see it as being too closely allied to the Premiership clubs who, along with their Top 14 brethren, last year served notice to leave ERC at the end of the season.

Yet the chief figure at the meeting in Dublin was Pierre Camou, the president of the French Rugby Federation, a body which served notice, along with its clubs, to leave ERC and which only last May was looking to replace ERC with a holding body based in Lausanne.

In contrast, Ian Ritchie, the chief executive of the RFU has spent the last couple of months trying to broker a deal that would be suitable to unions and clubs. He was well placed to act as peacemaker as Twickenham does not receive any money from the Heineken Cup.

He thought a couple of weeks ago that he was close to a solution. The two obstacles to an agreement have been the insistence of the clubs that ERC ceases to be from the end of May and that they run European club tournaments on a day-to-day basis, leaving the unions in the form of the Six Nations committee to oversee details such as referees and discipline.

Ritchie's compromise was effectively to separate the administrative and commercial sides, leaving the unions in charge of the former and the clubs looking after the latter.

The clubs want a commercially driven chief executive and there has been talk about Mark Evans, formerly of Harlequins, being tempted back from Australia, where he is with Melbourne Storm. Ritchie thought he was close to an agreement, but then Camou intervened and the meeting in Dublin was organised.

Ritchie is understood to be frustrated at the move back to the trenches by his fellow unions and angry that the RFU was not invited. While the Heineken Cup went ahead without the English clubs in 1997-98, the tournament is not financially viable without them. Equally, their income will drop without the Heineken Cup, if not next season. Everyone will lose, in other words, which is why Ritchie tried desperately to keep everyone talking, even travelling to France.

Back in the early days of professionalism, it was not only the English clubs who were militant. England were briefly thrown out of the Five Nations after the RFU signed an agreement with Sky that covered matches in the championship held at Twickenham. They were reminded that deals were collective and were readmitted once that part of the Sky contract had been removed.

There is no indication that the RFU is minded to reconsider the wisdom of having collective agreements in the Six Nations, but should last week's snub fester and prompt a rethink, the Celts could be in trouble. They would be the losers should the RFU decide to do its own deals when the current contract ends. As it is, the combined turnovers of the Welsh, Scottish and Irish unions is not much more than the RFU's.

Ostracising the RFU last week was folly, even accepting the understandable concern of the other unions that a club-run European tournament could have implications for them over the years. It would be a step into the unknown for them, but the English clubs are not looking to take control of the game, as some owners were 18 years ago when they took the International Rugby Board to the European Court claiming that its regulations amounted to a restraint of trade.

They backed out at the last moment, so the regulations still have to be tested legally. The action by the unions last week makes that prospect more likely, but as they reflect what they announced, a tournament with limited commercial appeal, they know it was less a statement of intent than a negotiating tactic.

They will have to give a little on the issue of governance to save a lot. The RFU, and the FFR, appreciated that a while ago. The Saracens chief executive Nigel Wray was being hyperbolic last week when he talked about a landlord-serf relationship but it exposed a divide that has to be closed if the next European accord is to endure rather than be a focus of discontent. No one, with the exception of the RFU, can afford the Heineken Cup falling.

Who wrote - Rees?

Looks like just another PRL slanted piece from the Guardian.
Stopped buying that paper in protest

Yep, its a PRL-sponsored fillibluster from Rees - nothing new to read

Sounds pretty on the money though

A 'good and accurate' rugby union article in the Guardian? I don't know who penned the above, but Kitson and Rees are an embarrassment to sports journalism.

Having read the article, it comes as across as nothing more than bitter speculation designed to stir up interest. The comments which follow these articles are far more 'good and accurate' than the trash being commented on.

What is incorrect above munchkin.

It is only stating the realities of the situation. And its not blaming anyone

mystiroakey wrote:What is incorrect above munchkin.

It is only stating the realities of the situation. And its not blaming anyone

Have another read of my comment  

It is so slanted that it clearly implies the PRL are working towards the good of the game but those nasty Unions are stopping them.

Without changing any facts you could write a piece implying the complete reverse.

It adds nothing to the debate and is , as per usual with the Guardian (and others) without merit

What is bitter about the piece

The major bitterness sadly is on here lads.

mystiroakey wrote:What is bitter about the piece

If you can't see sour grapes in that article, or the many that went before, I doubt I could convince you, mystir. Kitson, and Rees, are obviously fighting the PRL corner. A source told me that.

No i cant see any bitterness-

As I have asked before, highlight the inaccuracies and bitterness and then we can discuss it.

mystiroakey wrote:Sounds pretty on the money though

Is it really? If the RFU were invited, could they have provided English teams for ERC competitions next season?

Its quite a one-eyed article, speculating that the RFU will strike back by attempting to negotiate its own TV deal for the Six Nations. Thats rather premature and speculative. The RFUs lack of presence is due to its failure to support Unions being the majority shareholders in European Rugby.

It's delegated most of the responsibility for negotiating on the future of European to the English clubs. Without being able to offer any teams to the Heineken Cup next year it has nothing to bring to the table. That was the entire purpose of the meeting after all. If the PRL teams are not available for ERC competitions- and they've been making that clear for quite a long time- then the RFU can't provide any teams and whether they were there or not is something of a moot point.

mystiroakey wrote:The major bitterness sadly is on here lads.

But we still love you anyway, mystir  

Notch wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Sounds pretty on the money though

Is it really? If the RFU were invited, could they have provided English teams for ERC competitions next season?

That was the entire purpose of the meeting after all. If the PRL teams are not available for ERC competitions- and they've been making that clear for quite a long time- then the RFU can't provide any teams and whether they are there or not is something of a moot point.

the article isn't really about the RFU not being invited. Its more about the realities of a lesser ERC

Notch
The RFU could have provided English teams just not PRL teams (as had been proposed for FFR)
Word on Twitter LNR folded & backing FFR

more importantly

Arnaud David ‏@ArnaudDavidSO 3m

#réuniondOrly Les clubs français se rangent à l'unanimité derrière la fédé RIPRCC

translates as

The French clubs fall unanimously behind the Federal RIPRCC

He is a freelance producer and film maker

broadlandboy wrote:Notch
The RFU could have provided English teams just not PRL teams (as had been proposed for FFR)
Word on Twitter LNR folded & backing FFR

Also that they're trying to leave the door open for English clubs. I seriously hope the BT deal doesn't scupper this

broadlandboy wrote:Notch
The RFU could have provided English teams just not PRL teams (as had been proposed for FFR)
Word on Twitter LNR folded & backing FFR

But if there is no Amlin next year then, there's no real need or want for non-elite English sides. The situation isn't ideal without the English and I'm sure everybody hopes they will rejoin the competition soon. If you look at the last 15 years of the Heineken Cup, it's been hugely successful.

If it's a simple case of in or out, then sooner or later everybody will realise its better the English teams are in than out. We'll even have an overhaul of the qualifying and split of money when they come back, as has been offered.

Standulstermen wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Notch
The RFU could have provided English teams just not PRL teams (as had been proposed for FFR)
Word on Twitter LNR folded & backing FFR

Also that they're trying to leave the door open for English clubs. I seriously hope the BT deal doesn't scupper this

If they were doing that they would have invited the RFU and PRL

Club = commercial autonomy and Union = admin autonomy of any European event?

How very lovely and neat.  Shame a club body was allowed dictate admin conditions and structures to a new contest then, wasn't it; ...and claim to provide the commerical part of the 'written in stone' 'agreement' too.  How very neat and proper in the clear demarcation between the powers of club and union.

What part of 'commerical' and what part of 'admin' does Ritchie not understand?

"Oh okay...so the clubs demand this'n'that structurally and admin-wise, and well, we can't stop 'em.  But from now on, after all those admin/structural changes forced by clubs, we Unions 'ill take back our rightful powers and do the adminin' of 'club' directed and dictated policy.  And we'll only give them the control over the day to day money making gravy train.  How's that?"

Great deal making there Ian!!!!...reminds me of the deal done by the wise-guy dwarf in Bad Santa!

Another point - if, as the Guardian painstakingly point out, the RFU are the only party to the issue that don't make any money out of the HEC, why then should they even be part of any of the discussions about it?  If they have no vested interest - then the solution at admin level shouldn't require their input either. Maybe they should keep as quiet as they had been doing up until the point that they finally opened their mouth?

Another point, the person who tells me RFU don't benefit from having their Internationals play heavy duty pan-European club rugby for a period every year (thus financial benefits also accruing at International level itself) is the person I'll say is very naive indeed.
Of course RFU make money from HEC.

mystiroakey wrote:No i cant see any bitterness-

As I have asked before, highlight the inaccuracies and bitterness and then we can discuss it.

Didn't think you would, mystir.

Despite a lofty-souding statement, they cooked nothing more than a RaboDirect Pro 12 Cup with some French dressing.

Lofty sounding? Cooked? A RaboDirect Pro 12 Cup with French dressing? So 5 Unions = a dressed up Rabo. The addition of one more Union makes it a proper European competition? Nothing bitter about all of that, mystir, and that's without taking into account the implied threats based on nothing more than speculation.

mystiroakey wrote:

Notch wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Sounds pretty on the money though

Is it really? If the RFU were invited, could they have provided English teams for ERC competitions next season?

That was the entire purpose of the meeting after all. If the PRL teams are not available for ERC competitions- and they've been making that clear for quite a long time- then the RFU can't provide any teams and whether they are there or not is something of a moot point.

the article isn't really about the RFU not being invited. Its more about the realities of a lesser ERC

It's all about the exclusion of the RFU. The whole article takes its lead from it!!  

Munchkin wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Notch wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Sounds pretty on the money though

Is it really? If the RFU were invited, could they have provided English teams for ERC competitions next season?

That was the entire purpose of the meeting after all. If the PRL teams are not available for ERC competitions- and they've been making that clear for quite a long time- then the RFU can't provide any teams and whether they are there or not is something of a moot point.

the article isn't really about the RFU not being invited. Its more about the realities of a lesser ERC

It's all about the exclusion of the RFU. The whole article takes its lead from it!!  

read the article /headsgone

if you cant actually see past the obvious then maybe that is why you think its so bitter.,

Every key point is valid but only without the english in the ERC- nothing to do with being invited to the talks or not.

mystiroakey wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Notch
The RFU could have provided English teams just not PRL teams (as had been proposed for FFR)
Word on Twitter LNR folded & backing FFR

Also that they're trying to leave the door open for English clubs. I seriously hope the BT deal doesn't scupper this

If they were doing that they would have invited the RFU and PRL

Wy would they have invited the PRL if they would just refuse to attend? If this is accurate and the RCC is dead then things have clearly changed for the PRL. Whether they want or are able to join up to an erc led, sky broadcast competition is another matter

Standulstermen wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Notch
The RFU could have provided English teams just not PRL teams (as had been proposed for FFR)
Word on Twitter LNR folded & backing FFR

Also that they're trying to leave the door open for English clubs. I seriously hope the BT deal doesn't scupper this

If they were doing that they would have invited the RFU and PRL

Wy would they have invited the PRL if they would just refuse to attend? If this is accurate and the RCC is dead then things have clearly changed for the PRL. Whether they want or are able to join up to an erc led, sky broadcast competition is another matter

if the others refuse the ERC get the moral victory

mystiroakey wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Notch
The RFU could have provided English teams just not PRL teams (as had been proposed for FFR)
Word on Twitter LNR folded & backing FFR

Also that they're trying to leave the door open for English clubs. I seriously hope the BT deal doesn't scupper this

If they were doing that they would have invited the RFU and PRL

Wy would they have invited the PRL if they would just refuse to attend? If this is accurate and the RCC is dead then things have clearly changed for the PRL. Whether they want or are able to join up to an erc led, sky broadcast competition is another matter

if the others refuse the ERC get the moral victory

The PRL did refuse. Repeatedly.

not this time they didnt.

and the rfu wernt even invited who wouldn't have refused to go.

mystiroakey wrote:
if the others refuse the ERC get the moral victory

The others didn't refuse. One of the others (PRL) stopped even recognising the headed paper coming from any written invites by a 'dead' ERC. They didn't even recognise the ERC, nevermind anything about 'refusal'.

The other (RFU) knew very well a meeting was on, didn't need an invite and still didn't turn up because they didn't get an invite. Was/is RFU a member of ERC or not? Or had it too stopped recognising the legitmacy of the ERC and was waiting for an invite from a newly named body?

They could easily have showed up, invoked their right to be in attendance and sat down at the table.

Rather than go back and forth how many dots on the end of the pin head lets not lose sight of the big news today.

It looks like the French clubs will support their Union

The PRL refused to attend any erc meeting deeming it 'an irrelevance' after the meeting itself. To say otherwise is just plain wrong.

The rfu would have gone I agree but then you would need to ask the top brass in the other unions why they weren't invited. We can speculate 

A( they couldn't deliver the PRL teams anyway
B( they felt the rfu weren't in their corner
C( Camou had a better chance of getting the LNR on board without the rfu and PRL knowing his plan.
D( sheer bloody-minded ness

I honestly don't know. It still doesn't change the fact the PRL would never have been in attendance

SecretFly wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:
if the others refuse the ERC get the moral victory

The others didn't refuse. One of the others (PRL) stopped even recognising the headed paper coming from any written invites by a 'dead' ERC.  They didn't even recognise the ERC, nevermind anything about 'refusal'.

The other (RFU) knew very well a meeting was on, didn't need an invite and still didn't turn up because they didn't get an invite.  Was/is RFU a member of ERC or not?  Or had it too stopped recognising the legitmacy of the ERC and was waiting for an invite from a newly named body?

They could easily have showed up, invoked their right to be in attendance and sat down at the table.

that's a bit silly mate.

No point barging in on somewhere you are not wanted .