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.

Think both PRL, and LNR, are now engaged in a face saving PR drive. Maybe an attempt at not losing their positions within their respective organisations. McCafferty more so than Goze.
Hopefully an ERC statement, or even FFR alone, will be issued soon too enlighten the unenlightened....or maybe just a bar of soap  

Scrumpy wrote:
Lets face the HC only gets interesting once you get into the knockout stages but I just don't see it as the pinnacle of NH rugby, great drama yes but great rugby? Hmmm.

Looks like a victory for Skys marketing people that some fans believe the hype.

I dunno. The Bath v Leinster games in 05/06 were pretty good. Both teams won away. The one in the Rec was a cracker.

In fairness Bath fans may not have too much to rave about in recent years ok. Point taken.

I can see why your OPINION, which you like to regard as FACT, may differ.

I know Beverley, wouldn't live there though. It's got a Minster but it's nothing special.

Give me the AP over the HC anyday.  

Scrumpy wrote:Give me the AP over the HC anyday.  

Marvellous, thanks for clarifying your opinion - came as a bit of a shock to me personally  

HammerofThunor wrote:I know Beverley, wouldn't live there though. It's got a Minster but it's nothing special.

Fair enough. Never been anywhere on that side of t'England so I can't comment really. It was mentioned to me as being a nice place near Hull by someone who did not sound very fond of Hull.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:Give me the AP over the HC anyday.  

Marvellous, thanks for clarifying your opinion - came as a bit of a shock to me personally  

who doesn't prefer there domestic league to an EC.

What is shocking about that?

Scrumpy wrote:Give me the AP over the HC anyday.  

Sure there's no accounting for taste. Some people prefer Ale to Champagne. Some people prefer boys to girls. Takes all sorts.

Munchkin wrote:Think both PRL, and LNR, are now engaged in a face saving PR drive. Maybe an attempt at not losing their positions within their respective organisations. McCafferty more so than Goze.
Hopefully an ERC statement, or even FFR alone, will be issued soon too enlighten the unenlightened....or maybe just a bar of soap  

I dont really understand this line of thought. The irony is that its just Rabbo fan face saving exercises.

The offer on the table from the ERC is so different and fairer than it used to be .Its almost spot on equally split- rather than rabbo loaded.

The changes have been offered - there is only one side to have back down. And if McCafferty didn't do what he did, there would have been no fair split of teams and revenues offered.

Even if the RCC doesn't happen and everyone eventually goes back to the ERC(which is very much the likelihood) in the short term. The PRL and LNR pretty much have almost everything they wanted anyway. And dont expect that to be the end. The PRL and the LNR will still be demanding changes every year until they get everything they want.

By the way do not confuse me for liking or supporting the end off that statement- But at the end of the day its the way the world goes round.

mystiroakey wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:Give me the AP over the HC anyday.  

Marvellous, thanks for clarifying your opinion - came as a bit of a shock to me personally  

who doesn't prefer there domestic league to an EC.

What is shocking about that?

What's seldom is wonderful. Playing the same teams all the time is never as good as testing yourself against the best in Europe.

Ask a Leicester fan of 11 years ago.

mystiroakey wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Think both PRL, and LNR, are now engaged in a face saving PR drive. Maybe an attempt at not losing their positions within their respective organisations. McCafferty more so than Goze.
Hopefully an ERC statement, or even FFR alone, will be issued soon too enlighten the unenlightened....or maybe just a bar of soap  

I dont really understand this line of thought. The irony is that its just Rabbo fan face saving exercises.

The offer on the table from the ERC is so different and fairer than it used to be .Its almost spot on equally split- rather than rabbo loaded.

The changes have been offered - there is only one side to have back down. And if McCafferty didn't do what he did, there would have been no fair split of teams and revenues offered.

Even if the RCC doesn't happen and everyone eventually goes back to the ERC(which is very much the likelihood) in the short term. The PRL and LNR pretty much have almost everything they wanted anyway. And dont expect that to be the end. The PRL and the LNR will still be demanding changes every year until they get everything they want.

By the way do not confuse me for liking or supporting the end off that statement- But at the end of the day its the way the world goes round.

The LNR have most of what they wanted. the PRL have not got the control they wanted and will not get it

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:Give me the AP over the HC anyday.  

Marvellous, thanks for clarifying your opinion - came as a bit of a shock to me personally  

who doesn't prefer there domestic league to an EC.

What is shocking about that?

What's seldom is wonderful. Playing the same teams all the time is never as good as testing yourself against the best in Europe.

I take it you are a rabbo fan then?



Do not confuse me for not liking European CUP formats as I do. BUt 'leagues' are the greatest test and the bread and butter, and the thing that needs to be supported first

TJ wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Think both PRL, and LNR, are now engaged in a face saving PR drive. Maybe an attempt at not losing their positions within their respective organisations. McCafferty more so than Goze.
Hopefully an ERC statement, or even FFR alone, will be issued soon too enlighten the unenlightened....or maybe just a bar of soap  

I dont really understand this line of thought. The irony is that its just Rabbo fan face saving exercises.

The offer on the table from the ERC is so different and fairer than it used to be .Its almost spot on equally split- rather than rabbo loaded.

The changes have been offered - there is only one side to have back down. And if McCafferty didn't do what he did, there would have been no fair split of teams and revenues offered.

Even if the RCC doesn't happen and everyone eventually goes back to the ERC(which is very much the likelihood) in the short term. The PRL and LNR pretty much have almost everything they wanted anyway. And dont expect that to be the end. The PRL and the LNR will still be demanding changes every year until they get everything they want.

By the way do not confuse me for liking or supporting the end off that statement- But at the end of the day its the way the world goes round.

The LNR have most of what they wanted.  the PRL have not got the control they wanted and will not get it

the prl made the deal happen. If you think any different then i am not sure what to say to you. The french wont even get involved in this without the english by the looks of things.

mystiroakey wrote:BUt 'leagues' are the greatest test and the bread and butter, and the thing that needs to be supported first

Of course. And I always have. But much as I love Bread and Butter (Especially in a pudding) It's nice to get a bit of steak as well.

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:BUt 'leagues' are the greatest test and the bread and butter, and the thing that needs to be supported first

Of course. And I always have. But much as I love Bread and Butter (Especially in a pudding) It's nice to get a bit of steak as well.

I get it you are a rabbo fan, its the same as the EC but without the two best and biggest european rugby nations. off course you are going to prefer the ERC.

The rabbo is just a devalued format over the ERC

mystiroakey wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:BUt 'leagues' are the greatest test and the bread and butter, and the thing that needs to be supported first

Of course. And I always have. But much as I love Bread and Butter (Especially in a pudding) It's nice to get a bit of steak as well.

I get it you are a rabbo fan, its the same as the EC but without the two best and biggest european rugby nations. off course you are going to prefer the ERC.

The rabbo is just a devalued format over the ERC

I'm sorry. You are not going to goad me into having a pop at your league. Let's just say that the best league in the world is the one that your team plays in.

And the S15 is the 2nd best.  

mystiroakey wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Think both PRL, and LNR, are now engaged in a face saving PR drive. Maybe an attempt at not losing their positions within their respective organisations. McCafferty more so than Goze.
Hopefully an ERC statement, or even FFR alone, will be issued soon too enlighten the unenlightened....or maybe just a bar of soap  

I dont really understand this line of thought. The irony is that its just Rabbo fan face saving exercises.

The offer on the table from the ERC is so different and fairer than it used to be .Its almost spot on equally split- rather than rabbo loaded.

The changes have been offered - there is only one side to have back down. And if McCafferty didn't do what he did, there would have been no fair split of teams and revenues offered.

Even if the RCC doesn't happen and everyone eventually goes back to the ERC(which is very much the likelihood) in the short term. The PRL and LNR pretty much have almost everything they wanted anyway. And dont expect that to be the end. The PRL and the LNR will still be demanding changes every year until they get everything they want.

By the way do not confuse me for liking or supporting the end off that statement- But at the end of the day its the way the world goes round.

There's a shock.....

The LNR have played the PRL beautifully in this. That comes from the head of LNR by the way, Goze  

McCafferty may pack his toothbrush.

You seem to forget it's the rabbo nations with less money and less teams pro rata not the prl when they come back

I have to say I wasn't too bothered if the HC went ahead next year or not.

The though of not watching Zebre or Glasgow (plus many others) was appealing.

strokey, you are a master at defending the indefensible - I salute you, sir. If you are willing, I'd like to engage in a joint enterprise with you where we sell oil to the Emirates - I wholeheartedly believe you could make it work  

Scrumpy wrote:I have to say I wasn't too bothered if the HC went ahead next year or not.

The though of not watching Zebre or Glasgow (plus many others) was appealing.

Do you remember what the Heino is all about, Scrumpy? Been a while, eh?  

Mccafferty is the fall guy, but the irony is that he is the one that has brought on the changes so far.

Ok asbo. I will pm you my pay pal details . I will need a couple of k to free myself up for your enterprise.as you should realise there is never enough oil, everyone wants more.

mystiroakey wrote:The LNR have most of what they wanted.  the PRL have not got the control they wanted and will not get it the prl made the deal happen. If you think any different then i am not sure what to say to you. The french wont even get involved in this without the english by the looks of things.

considering the PRL have no deal and the LNR do I think its you wh odoes not understand the position.  there always was two different negotiations - the french being willing to compromise and the PRL not.  this was obvious from the first.  The PRL made it harder to reach settlement with the french not easier.

mystiroakey wrote:You seem to forget it's the rabbo nations with less money and less teams not the prl when they come back

Personally the issue of money was never an issue for me, and neither were the agreed changes to qualification. In fact, it appears that these were side issues to what McCafferty, and PRL, really wanted. Remember they turned their back on the 5 Unions offer whilst claiming that ERC was dead, and this RCC was the only solution. The issue was always about who runs the competition. McCafferty has stated categorically that PRL will not, under any circumstances, take part in a competition with ERC. Now, he's backtracking...
As I said; LNR have played McCafferty, and PRL, beautifully. Not that I have much time for Goze and Co. but I have to admire their superior negotiating skills over those of PRL

TJ

The only difference between the lnr and the prl, is that the Ffr can dictate to the lnr

mystiroakey wrote:You seem to forget it's the rabbo nations with less money and less teams pro rata not the prl when they come back

The rabbo nations will not be get less money next year and even under the offer from McCafferty they were guaranteed the same as before.
Given that a TV deal for the Pro 12 is close as is an improved sponsorship deal the Pro 12 sides will be getting more money than ever next year; even without the PRL in the HC.

As to qualification that was only ever a minor issue inspite of what Mccafferty might say.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:I have to say I wasn't too bothered if the HC went ahead next year or not.

The though of not watching Zebre or Glasgow (plus many others) was appealing.

Do you remember what the Heino is all about, Scrumpy?  Been a while, eh?  

The HC should have been the best clubs in Europe fighting it out, but for me once teams get into it by default it lost its appeal.

How can it be the Pinnacle of NH rugby when you have teams in it that haven't earned the right to be there?

That is why Bath are not there, they didn't earn it over the course of the season and I'm fine with that, I don't understand fans that brag about being in the HC when they have done nothing to get there in the first place.

geoff998rugby wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:You seem to forget it's the rabbo nations with less money and less teams pro rata not the prl when they come back

The rabbo nations will not be get less money next year and even under the offer from McCafferty they were guaranteed the same as before.
Given that a TV deal for the Pro 12 is close as is an improved sponsorship deal the Pro 12 sides will be getting more money than ever next year; even without the PRL in the HC.

As to qualification that was only ever a minor issue inspite of what Mccafferty might say.

I keep getting told I don't read comments. The irony off course it's you lot that don't read mine. I clearly said pro rata.. In this sense it means the rabbo will get less of the potential pot

And if you think qualification is a minor issue then more fool you dude..

It is one of the most important aspects of any cup if not the most major one.

Scrumpy wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:I have to say I wasn't too bothered if the HC went ahead next year or not.

The though of not watching Zebre or Glasgow (plus many others) was appealing.

Do you remember what the Heino is all about, Scrumpy?  Been a while, eh?  

The HC should have been the best clubs in Europe fighting it out, but for me once teams get into it by default it lost its appeal.

How can it be the Pinnacle of NH rugby when you have teams in it that haven't earned the right to be there?  

How will the proposed PRL format, for example, ensure that the "best clubs in Europe" alone are "fighting it out"? Can you guarantee me that the winner of the LV= nonsense cup is better than the 7th placed T14 team, say, in a year with no French Heino or Amlin winner? Hmm... So in reality, it's your view of what's 'best' against what someone else might consider to represent 'best'?

mystiroakey wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:You seem to forget it's the rabbo nations with less money and less teams pro rata not the prl when they come back

The rabbo nations will not be get less money next year and even under the offer from McCafferty they were guaranteed the same as before.
Given that a TV deal for the Pro 12 is close as is an improved sponsorship deal the Pro 12 sides will be getting more money than ever next year; even without the PRL in the HC.

As to qualification that was only ever a minor issue inspite of what Mccafferty might say.

I keep getting told I don't read comments. The irony off course it's you lot that don't read mine. I clearly said pro rata.. In this sense it means the rabbo will get less of the potential pot

Far be for me to give your a grammar lesson but you said ' less money and less teams pro rata  
If you mean less teams pro rata, as well, you should have written both less money and less teams pro rata

Be clear in what you mean and you will not be misread

Asbo I am not sure scrumpy was sticking up for any other format.

Just because he doesn't like the ERC as it stands does not mean he has to offer unadulterated support for the prl' proposal .

Why do you argue as if everyone has to be in two defined camps. The world is grey.

mystiroakey wrote:TJ

The only difference between the lnr and the prl, is that the Ffr can dictate to the lnr

Nonsense - there were clear differences in aims and most importatly in willingness to compromise. this was obvious from the outset.

mystiroakey wrote:And if you think qualification is a minor issue then more fool you dude..

It is one of the most important aspects of any cup if not the most major one.

Qualification is something you and PRL have got excited about the Pro 12 teams have been fairly relaxed about it.
Even before all this blew up supporters I have spoken to have not had a big issue about it provide each nation was guaranteed a place and the better teams all had a good chance of qualifying.

The 7+6+6+1 proposals meets that.

As before whats with 'dude' this and 'dude' that - comes across as a big childish to be honest

Less money and fewer teams?
gr.

geoff998rugby wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:You seem to forget it's the rabbo nations with less money and less teams pro rata not the prl when they come back

The rabbo nations will not be get less money next year and even under the offer from McCafferty they were guaranteed the same as before.
Given that a TV deal for the Pro 12 is close as is an improved sponsorship deal the Pro 12 sides will be getting more money than ever next year; even without the PRL in the HC.

As to qualification that was only ever a minor issue inspite of what Mccafferty might say.

I keep getting told I don't read comments. The irony off course it's you lot that don't read mine. I clearly said pro rata.. In this sense it means the rabbo will get less of the potential pot

Far be for me to give your a grammar lesson but you said ' less money and less teams pro rata  
If you mean less teams pro rata, as well, you should have written both less money and less teams pro rata

Be clear in what you mean and you will not be misread

If my grammar was bad I apologise. However even still it wouldn't have taken much IQ power to work out what I meant as we all know that the rabbo are going to get less money pro rata. We have all been part of those discussions. Stick to the point not a straw man.

TJ wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:TJ

The only difference between the lnr and the prl, is that the Ffr can dictate to the lnr

Nonsense - there were clear differences in aims and most importatly in willingness to compromise.  this was obvious from the outset.  

The Ffr and the RFU compromised(INFACT IT WAS THE RFU THAT BROKERED THE DEAL ON THE TABLE). The lnr has now been forced in to compromising by the Ffr. The RFu can't do that to the prl.

Now that the lnr is going to compromise the prl off course is pressurised into also compromising.

It's been a pretty straightforward chain of events.

mystiroakey wrote:And if you think qualification is a minor issue then more fool you dude..

It is one of the most important aspects of any cup if not the most major one.

geoff998rugby wrote:Qualification is something you and PRL have got excited about the Pro 12 teams have been fairly relaxed about it.

Well that's just a bear faced lie isn't it. I haven't got exited over it- but we have had pages upon pages of Rabbo fans banging on about how unfair proposed allocations are

geoff998rugby wrote:Even before all this blew up supporters I have spoken to have not had a big issue about it provide each nation was guaranteed a place and the better teams all had a good chance of qualifying.

It was the biggest issue on these forums for a long time

geoff998rugby wrote:As before whats with 'dude' this and 'dude' that - comes across as a big childish to be honest

Staw man nonsense.

I am trying to be nice when I say dude, which is far from childish. The only one acting childish is your comments in regards to my use of language.

quinsforever wrote:glad i was away from 606 this afternoon. seems like there's been an awful lot of huffing and puffing, news articles, counter-leaks, off-the-record interviews, and not a huge amount of progress.

prl might be "in" something that is "not ERC" and "compatible with their BT deal".
lnr are in, for the next year at least, something that will become "not ERC" and something that needs to have the English clubs in.

and the financials stay 1/3 each per league if there are three leagues involves.

and governance is moving to a more league-oriented structure from 2015.

is that a reasonable summary of the information as generally presented by several media outlets (including SKY)?

ERC is dead (from 2015, probably )

Quite a good summary. Things won't come to a head until the fixture lists for next season have to be released. The number of teams is agreed, the split of money looks like it could be agreed.  Now the control issue comes to fore, which is what we knew this would always be about.

Control issues is sorted. Unions will run it. PRL can take it or leave it. No further negotiations to be done on anything substantive. PRL have nothing left to bargain with

Have you even heard the LNR statements recently TJ?

They do not sound like they want to say in the ERC as its run for the long term.

If the FFR eventually back them up(we haven't had a statement from them after the LNR's) then there is plenty of negotiations left.

If the FFR just shut them down - which they may well do- there is still going to be issues, well for france at the very least

TJ wrote:Control issues is sorted.  Unions will run it.  PRL can take it or leave it.  No further negotiations to be done on anything substantive.  PRL have nothing left to bargain with

I smell the stench of tar-laden acrid smoke of litigation.

I feel that whilst the PRL have once again, mismanaged the issue, they'd probably have a reasonable case.

Should be quite a quickie in EU terms. 'Bout three years?

mystiroakey wrote:Have you even heard the LNR statements recently TJ?

They do not sound like they want to say in the ERC as its run for the long term.

If the FFR eventually back them up(we haven't had a statement from them after the LNR's) then there is plenty of negotiations left.

If the FFR just shut them down - which they may well do- there is still going to be issues, well for france at the very least

Oh yes - I have heard them but its completely clear that the unions will run it now and in future. this was the whole point of the latest round of argument. the 5 unions gave in on everything else pretty much but refused to budge on governance. The French clubs were pushed in to agreeing by the union. the PRL have a take it or leave it option. All the talk about negotiating governance for next year is face saving bluster from Goze and McCaffreey.

Have you bothered to read the unions statements? Its absolutly clear and solid. Unions will continue to run the european cup.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

TJ wrote:Control issues is sorted.  Unions will run it.  PRL can take it or leave it.  No further negotiations to be done on anything substantive.  PRL have nothing left to bargain with

I smell the stench of tar-laden acrid smoke of litigation.

I feel that whilst the PRL have once again, mismanaged the issue, they'd probably have a reasonable case.

Should be quite a quickie in EU terms. 'Bout three years?

What possible basis for a case - there is none. No restaint of trade - the PRL are welcome to join the club on the same terms as everyone else. So go on what basis for litigation?

TJ wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Have you even heard the LNR statements recently TJ?

They do not sound like they want to say in the ERC as its run for the long term.

If the FFR eventually back them up(we haven't had a statement from them after the LNR's) then there is plenty of negotiations left.

If the FFR just shut them down - which they may well do- there is still going to be issues, well for france at the very least

Oh yes - I have heard them but its completely clear that the unions will run it now and in future.  this was the whole point of the latest round of argument.  the 5 unions gave in on everything else pretty much but refused to budge on governance.  The French clubs were pushed in to agreeing by the union.  the PRL have a take it or leave it option.  All the talk about negotiating governance for next year is face saving bluster from Goze and McCaffreey.

Have you bothered to read the unions statements?  Its absolutly clear and solid.  Unions will continue to run the european cup.

Maybe you dont understand the French then.

Maybe that's your problem.

The FFR's first concern is actually the LNR.

yes that might be a shock to you. But its the reality.

Yes they can dictate, butr have you not seen the countless times when French players or teams when dictated to go on strike or dont perform to scupper there chances.

You need to perhaps think a bit harder about the realitys of the situation.

When you put law down on the french it never EVER ends well

Contract law, TJ.

It will all be about contract law. Those TV deals will be at the centre of the case and who actually said what and to whom and how and where and when.

Probably.

That's the n-word in the woodpile.

TJ wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

TJ wrote:Control issues is sorted.  Unions will run it.  PRL can take it or leave it.  No further negotiations to be done on anything substantive.  PRL have nothing left to bargain with

I smell the stench of tar-laden acrid smoke of litigation.

I feel that whilst the PRL have once again, mismanaged the issue, they'd probably have a reasonable case.

Should be quite a quickie in EU terms. 'Bout three years?

What possible basis for a case - there is none.  No restaint of trade - the PRL are welcome to join the club on the same terms as everyone else.  So go on  what basis for litigation?

You are correct only if they continued with a cross border competition(with willing participants from abroad) and then blocked would it become a restraint of trade. There is nothing to litigate without that.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Contract law, TJ.

It will all be about contract law. Those TV deals will be at the centre of the case and who actually said what and to whom and how and where and when.

Probably.

That's the n-word in the woodpile.

in regards to who suing who?

The situation is no clearer now than it was a couple of days ago.

The LNR have agreed to compete in the ERC-run cup next year on a transitional basis but want the English involved and a new non-ERC-run cup to replace it. It's not even clear from the press release whether they want the English involved next year, as opposed to in the successor tournament.

Until we have some more details from the French, it's really not clear how it will play out.

The governance issue remains the same as it has always been: can the FFR over-rule the LNR (and to a lesser extent, can WRU over-rule RRW)? Nothing else really matters, since Irish, Scottish and Italian votes will invariably go with their unions, and English ones will go with the PRL unless they and the RFU have a major falling out.

We don't know what the LNR have asked for, what the FFR and ERC have offered and what's still up for negotiation, and we don't know if it's enough for the PRL to rejoin the party.

The second thing we don't know is how the tv rights issue will be handled. I suspect the PRL could negotiate with BT to play a final year of the HEC under Sky as long as BT got the home games to a successor tournament. It doesn't look as if the ERC-Sky deal allows for that, or whether there's any option (or will) to renegotiate.

An important point, though, is that neither the French nor the English teams will get materially more money from the HEC under the Sky deal (given the commitment to give the Rabo teams at least as much as they get today). That makes any deal based on the Sky-ERC setup much less attractive to them. The French may not care; they have got the right to negotiate their domestic tv deal out of the FFR and that might be enough for them (but don't expect them to prioritise the HEC more than they do today). The English might put up with it for a year or so if it's a stepping stone to something else, but I can't see the current setup as something they've accept long-term.

The point is, this could still play out in a number of ways.