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

by niwatts Sat 23 Nov 2013, 4:46 pm

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.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri 29 Nov 2013, 2:42 pm

beshocked wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
quinsforever wrote:and i have to say that the RFU not being invited to the meeting hosted by Camou is going to make it more likely that the RFU supports the english clubs whatever they choose to do. For that at least, i am grateful to Camou. If nothing else
Camout is not unlike McCafferty, or indeed any other chief exec, all with their own interests dear to their heart - some are just better at the PR side of the equation than others
You talk about the PR side. Who would you say has done particularly well in that department?

It's a huge shambles that everyone is part of. It's just most of the blame has been pinned upon a scapegoat, the PRL.

Blinded so much by irrational hatred of McCafferty and the PRL has meant you cannot see that the bigger threat has always been the French. They have had a foot in both camps and have been in complete control. The French must be laughing their heads off at the foolish English,Celts and Italians.

beshocked, as others have already noted, Ian Ritchie seems to have come out well, likewise Dodson and McLachlan on the Scottish side, the Welsh pair appear polarising (but that was true before all this started), the Irish pair seem to have handled themselves reasonably, and I haven't heard much about the Italian duo

by mystiroakey Fri 29 Nov 2013, 2:44 pm

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:The deal between the FFR and the LNR was "was discussed and agreed with the rfu" - this may come as a surprise to messrs Camou, Bouscatel, et al - I hope that they have been informed
i think yous are all referring to different deals. strokey means the deal that hammered out the new financial and qualification criteria, which appear to still be on the table. I dont think he means the 5-union statement that the RFU weren't invited to
i actually thought he meant yet another deal altogether, the one between the FFR and LNR! Perhaps he was a little unclear ... but probably my fault
Was the last ERC meeting constitutional (I wonder)?

Has anyone actually left it?

Exactly

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri 29 Nov 2013, 2:44 pm

quinsforever wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:No, tend not to have enough time for much TV, scrumpy, what happened?
Its just that I got the impression that after all these years the Celts still see getting one up against the English as the most important thing, whether it is in their best interest or not!
On a separate, but related topic, i actually agree that Scotland should be able to plough their own furrow. It is almost certain to lead to less animosity towards the english oppressors, and you never know, gaining independence might re-invigorate and re-energise the country and be a great thing for both England and Scotland.

Delighted that you see things like that, quins, altho I take issue with the 'animosity' which in my own view is much overblown - it could certainly be good for everyone

by beshocked Fri 29 Nov 2013, 2:45 pm

quinsforever wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:No, tend not to have enough time for much TV, scrumpy, what happened?
Its just that I got the impression that after all these years the Celts still see getting one up against the English as the most important thing, whether it is in their best interest or not!
On a separate, but related topic, i actually agree that Scotland should be able to plough their own furrow. It is almost certain to lead to less animosity towards the english oppressors, and you never know, gaining independence might re-invigorate and re-energise the country and be a great thing for both England and Scotland.

Would also mean no more Scottish prime ministers plus would lead to a significant drop in Labour's chances of winning an election. thumbsup

by Sin é Fri 29 Nov 2013, 2:46 pm

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:The deal between the FFR and the LNR was "was discussed and agreed with the rfu" - this may come as a surprise to messrs Camou, Bouscatel, et al - I hope that they have been informed
i think yous are all referring to different deals. strokey means the deal that hammered out the new financial and qualification criteria, which appear to still be on the table. I dont think he means the 5-union statement that the RFU weren't invited to
i actually thought he meant yet another deal altogether, the one between the FFR and LNR! Perhaps he was a little unclear ... but probably my fault
Was the last ERC meeting constitutional (I wonder)?

Has anyone actually left it?

They would have had a quorum, so I'd imagine yes it was constitutional.

I'd imagine the RFU will have to resign from the ERC and return their shares if they are not involved in the competition.

Edit: Since the RFU have a shareholding, they could, if they wanted to enter some English teams from the Championship I suppose.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri 29 Nov 2013, 2:46 pm

beshocked wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:No, tend not to have enough time for much TV, scrumpy, what happened?
Its just that I got the impression that after all these years the Celts still see getting one up against the English as the most important thing, whether it is in their best interest or not!
On a separate, but related topic, i actually agree that Scotland should be able to plough their own furrow. It is almost certain to lead to less animosity towards the english oppressors, and you never know, gaining independence might re-invigorate and re-energise the country and be a great thing for both England and Scotland.
Would also mean no more Scottish prime ministers plus would lead to a significant drop in Labour's chances of winning an election.

It likely would, beshocked - which given that Westminster and Holyrood seem inclined to pursue different agendas seems the best way for all

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri 29 Nov 2013, 2:49 pm

Sin é wrote:
Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:The deal between the FFR and the LNR was "was discussed and agreed with the rfu" - this may come as a surprise to messrs Camou, Bouscatel, et al - I hope that they have been informed
i think yous are all referring to different deals. strokey means the deal that hammered out the new financial and qualification criteria, which appear to still be on the table. I dont think he means the 5-union statement that the RFU weren't invited to
i actually thought he meant yet another deal altogether, the one between the FFR and LNR! Perhaps he was a little unclear ... but probably my fault
Was the last ERC meeting constitutional (I wonder)?

Has anyone actually left it?
They would have had a quorum, so I'd imagine yes it was constitutional.

I'd imagine the RFU will have to resign from the ERC and return their shares if they are not involved in the competition.

Additionally, once you have resigned from a company, and announced your intention to head off to another (even out on your own), it's not normal for that individual to be included in meetings to discuss the future at their old place, is it?

by mystiroakey Fri 29 Nov 2013, 2:49 pm

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:No, tend not to have enough time for much TV, scrumpy, what happened?
Its just that I got the impression that after all these years the Celts still see getting one up against the English as the most important thing, whether it is in their best interest or not!
On a separate, but related topic, i actually agree that Scotland should be able to plough their own furrow. It is almost certain to lead to less animosity towards the english oppressors, and you never know, gaining independence might re-invigorate and re-energise the country and be a great thing for both England and Scotland.
Delighted that you see things like that, quins, altho I take issue with the 'animosity' which in my own view is much overblown - it could certainly be good for everyone

It is the most ludicrous insane idea ever come up in a bad economic climate. We discuss it in detail on the anything goes golf thread. You would get pummled on there as we have a large Scottish presence yet none in favour. We have all raised valid points that are actually relevant. I don't wish to discuss it here. But feel free to go over to that thread .

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri 29 Nov 2013, 2:51 pm

mystiroakey wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:No, tend not to have enough time for much TV, scrumpy, what happened?
Its just that I got the impression that after all these years the Celts still see getting one up against the English as the most important thing, whether it is in their best interest or not!
On a separate, but related topic, i actually agree that Scotland should be able to plough their own furrow. It is almost certain to lead to less animosity towards the english oppressors, and you never know, gaining independence might re-invigorate and re-energise the country and be a great thing for both England and Scotland.
Delighted that you see things like that, quins, altho I take issue with the 'animosity' which in my own view is much overblown - it could certainly be good for everyone
It is the most ludicrous insane idea ever come up in a bad economic climate. We discuss it in detail on the anything goes golf thread. You would get pummled on there as we have a large Scottish presence yet none in favour. We have all raised valid points that are actually relevant. I don't wish to discuss it here. But feel free to go over to that thread .

Delighted that I find you on opposing sides, strokey, gives me a great deal more comfort that we're probably on the right track

As for heading over to the golf thread, I think I'll pass - not really my bag

by beshocked Fri 29 Nov 2013, 2:51 pm

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
beshocked wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
quinsforever wrote:and i have to say that the RFU not being invited to the meeting hosted by Camou is going to make it more likely that the RFU supports the english clubs whatever they choose to do. For that at least, i am grateful to Camou. If nothing else
Camout is not unlike McCafferty, or indeed any other chief exec, all with their own interests dear to their heart - some are just better at the PR side of the equation than others
You talk about the PR side. Who would you say has done particularly well in that department?

It's a huge shambles that everyone is part of. It's just most of the blame has been pinned upon a scapegoat, the PRL.

Blinded so much by irrational hatred of McCafferty and the PRL has meant you cannot see that the bigger threat has always been the French. They have had a foot in both camps and have been in complete control. The French must be laughing their heads off at the foolish English,Celts and Italians.
beshocked, as others have already noted, Ian Ritchie seems to have come out well, likewise Dodson and McLachlan on the Scottish side, the Welsh pair appear polarising (but that was true before all this started), the Irish pair seem to have handled themselves reasonably, and I haven't heard much about the Italian duo

Really? You think no resolution in this amount of time is good for anyone's reputation? It's all a shambles. Still too many parties at loggerheads.

I don't think ganging up on the English means that the Celts and Italians are being dignified. Neither do I think the RFU's inability to help find a resolution is either.

We want results, not posturing for months.

by quinsforever Fri 29 Nov 2013, 2:51 pm

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:No, tend not to have enough time for much TV, scrumpy, what happened?
Its just that I got the impression that after all these years the Celts still see getting one up against the English as the most important thing, whether it is in their best interest or not!
On a separate, but related topic, i actually agree that Scotland should be able to plough their own furrow. It is almost certain to lead to less animosity towards the english oppressors, and you never know, gaining independence might re-invigorate and re-energise the country and be a great thing for both England and Scotland.
Delighted that you see things like that, quins, altho I take issue with the 'animosity' which in my own view is much overblown - it could certainly be good for everyone

fair enough. whatever the word, i suspect there would be less of it when the scots are able to focus positively and proudly on their own success.

what p1sses me off is the english politicians whose egos are preventing this from being likely. The PM and deputy-PM dont want to go down in history as the leaders who presided over the disintegration of the Union. The Opposition party dont want to risk losing their scots MPs as they would find it very hard to form a government again.

also i do think Salmond is a bit disingenuous with certain key information. But i think it should happen. it's too easy to blame Westminster for bad stuff. i would rather see people take responsibility and get on positively, hence my views. Hug

(that's not a "better together" hug Smile

)

by mystiroakey Fri 29 Nov 2013, 2:52 pm

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:The deal between the FFR and the LNR was "was discussed and agreed with the rfu" - this may come as a surprise to messrs Camou, Bouscatel, et al - I hope that they have been informed
i think yous are all referring to different deals. strokey means the deal that hammered out the new financial and qualification criteria, which appear to still be on the table. I dont think he means the 5-union statement that the RFU weren't invited to
i actually thought he meant yet another deal altogether, the one between the FFR and LNR! Perhaps he was a little unclear ... but probably my fault
Was the last ERC meeting constitutional (I wonder)?

Has anyone actually left it?
They would have had a quorum, so I'd imagine yes it was constitutional.

I'd imagine the RFU will have to resign from the ERC and return their shares if they are not involved in the competition.

Additionally, once you have resigned from a company, and announced your intention to head off to another (even out on your own), it's not normal for that individual to be included in meetings to discuss the future at their old place, is it?

I understand business and law isn't your strong point but they haven't resigned..

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri 29 Nov 2013, 2:53 pm

beshocked wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
beshocked wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
quinsforever wrote:and i have to say that the RFU not being invited to the meeting hosted by Camou is going to make it more likely that the RFU supports the english clubs whatever they choose to do. For that at least, i am grateful to Camou. If nothing else
Camout is not unlike McCafferty, or indeed any other chief exec, all with their own interests dear to their heart - some are just better at the PR side of the equation than others
You talk about the PR side. Who would you say has done particularly well in that department?

It's a huge shambles that everyone is part of. It's just most of the blame has been pinned upon a scapegoat, the PRL.

Blinded so much by irrational hatred of McCafferty and the PRL has meant you cannot see that the bigger threat has always been the French. They have had a foot in both camps and have been in complete control. The French must be laughing their heads off at the foolish English,Celts and Italians.
beshocked, as others have already noted, Ian Ritchie seems to have come out well, likewise Dodson and McLachlan on the Scottish side, the Welsh pair appear polarising (but that was true before all this started), the Irish pair seem to have handled themselves reasonably, and I haven't heard much about the Italian duo
Really? You think no resolution in this amount of time is good for anyone's reputation? It's all a shambles. Still too many parties at loggerheads.

I don't think ganging up on the English means that the Celts and Italians are being dignified. Neither do I think the RFU's inability to help find a resolution is either.

We want results, not posturing for months.

beshocked, if this had all gone on behind closed doors, we would be none the wiser and would almost certainly not be subjected to this 'posturing' nonsense as you describe - of course we want results, and there's some folk I would trust to get one, and there's some I simply wouldn't

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri 29 Nov 2013, 2:53 pm

quinsforever wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:No, tend not to have enough time for much TV, scrumpy, what happened?
Its just that I got the impression that after all these years the Celts still see getting one up against the English as the most important thing, whether it is in their best interest or not!
On a separate, but related topic, i actually agree that Scotland should be able to plough their own furrow. It is almost certain to lead to less animosity towards the english oppressors, and you never know, gaining independence might re-invigorate and re-energise the country and be a great thing for both England and Scotland.
Delighted that you see things like that, quins, altho I take issue with the 'animosity' which in my own view is much overblown - it could certainly be good for everyone
fair enough. whatever the word, i suspect there would be less of it when the scots are able to focus positively and proudly on their own success.

what p1sses me off is the english politicians whose egos are preventing this from being likely. The PM and deputy-PM dont want to go down in history as the leaders who presided over the disintegration of the Union. The Opposition party dont want to risk losing their scots MPs as they would find it very hard to form a government again.

also i do think Salmond is a bit disingenuous with certain key information. But i think it should happen. it's too easy to blame Westminster for bad stuff. i would rather see people take responsibility and get on positively, hence my views. (that's not a "better together" hug )

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri 29 Nov 2013, 2:55 pm

mystiroakey wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:The deal between the FFR and the LNR was "was discussed and agreed with the rfu" - this may come as a surprise to messrs Camou, Bouscatel, et al - I hope that they have been informed
i think yous are all referring to different deals. strokey means the deal that hammered out the new financial and qualification criteria, which appear to still be on the table. I dont think he means the 5-union statement that the RFU weren't invited to
i actually thought he meant yet another deal altogether, the one between the FFR and LNR! Perhaps he was a little unclear ... but probably my fault
Was the last ERC meeting constitutional (I wonder)?

Has anyone actually left it?
They would have had a quorum, so I'd imagine yes it was constitutional.

I'd imagine the RFU will have to resign from the ERC and return their shares if they are not involved in the competition.

Additionally, once you have resigned from a company, and announced your intention to head off to another (even out on your own), it's not normal for that individual to be included in meetings to discuss the future at their old place, is it?
I understand business and law isn't your strong point but they haven't resigned..

Hilarious, strokes, you know very little about me or my 'strong points' but bless you for considering them! The PRL have resigned and have made it defiantly clear that they have no interest in any ERC-led competition from the end of this season - you really can't dispute that, altho I'm sure you'll do your best

by TJ Fri 29 Nov 2013, 2:57 pm

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
mystiroakey wrote:That isn't what I said. The original deal struck by the rfu will come into play if the prl come back in.
That is what you implied, strokester, apologies if I misunderstood. Why do you think that the RFU-brokered deal, which was vetoed only a fortnight ago by the other 5 unions, will now come back into play?

It wasnt vetoed by the unions - it was agreed. thats the basis for the euro cup from now on. It was the PRL who refused to play ball on this one

by beshocked Fri 29 Nov 2013, 2:57 pm

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
beshocked wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:No, tend not to have enough time for much TV, scrumpy, what happened?
Its just that I got the impression that after all these years the Celts still see getting one up against the English as the most important thing, whether it is in their best interest or not!
On a separate, but related topic, i actually agree that Scotland should be able to plough their own furrow. It is almost certain to lead to less animosity towards the english oppressors, and you never know, gaining independence might re-invigorate and re-energise the country and be a great thing for both England and Scotland.
Would also mean no more Scottish prime ministers plus would lead to a significant drop in Labour's chances of winning an election.
It likely would, beshocked - which given that Westminster and Holyrood seem inclined to pursue different agendas seems the best way for all

Exactly. Hopefully no more wars based upon "weapons of mass destruction", no more reckless spending, no more floodgates being left open -unfortunately we'll feel the consequences for some time to come.....

by mystiroakey Fri 29 Nov 2013, 2:58 pm

Asbo all you are doing now is proving you don't understand the difference between the prl and rfu

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri 29 Nov 2013, 3:00 pm

beshocked wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
beshocked wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:No, tend not to have enough time for much TV, scrumpy, what happened?
Its just that I got the impression that after all these years the Celts still see getting one up against the English as the most important thing, whether it is in their best interest or not!
On a separate, but related topic, i actually agree that Scotland should be able to plough their own furrow. It is almost certain to lead to less animosity towards the english oppressors, and you never know, gaining independence might re-invigorate and re-energise the country and be a great thing for both England and Scotland.
Would also mean no more Scottish prime ministers plus would lead to a significant drop in Labour's chances of winning an election.
It likely would, beshocked - which given that Westminster and Holyrood seem inclined to pursue different agendas seems the best way for all
Exactly. Hopefully no more wars based upon "weapons of mass destruction", no more reckless spending, no more floodgates being left open -unfortunately we'll feel the consequences for some time to come.....

My politics are perhaps a little more nuanced than you might imagine, beshcoked, but I'm surprised that you think any of the main political parties with a 'realistic' chance of gaining power would have behaved any differently - cons or neo-cons, take your pick!

by quinsforever Fri 29 Nov 2013, 3:00 pm

PRL had Peter Wheeler on the ERC board strokey. And he hasnt attended any meetings since the cantankerous one in August although he is still a director.

he will remain on the board until this mess is sorted out, as firing him from the board, or him resigning, would mean all hope of compromise has gone. none of the participants are there yet.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri 29 Nov 2013, 3:02 pm

mystiroakey wrote:Asbo all you are doing now is proving you don't understand the difference between the prl and rfu

Not really, strokey - if the PRL have made clear that they won't be continuing, that really is the English clubs out of things, don't you think? Or do you honestly imagine the championship clubs would have been put forward by the RFU in extremis? Can't see it myself

by beshocked Fri 29 Nov 2013, 3:02 pm

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
beshocked wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
beshocked wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
quinsforever wrote:and i have to say that the RFU not being invited to the meeting hosted by Camou is going to make it more likely that the RFU supports the english clubs whatever they choose to do. For that at least, i am grateful to Camou. If nothing else
Camout is not unlike McCafferty, or indeed any other chief exec, all with their own interests dear to their heart - some are just better at the PR side of the equation than others
You talk about the PR side. Who would you say has done particularly well in that department?

It's a huge shambles that everyone is part of. It's just most of the blame has been pinned upon a scapegoat, the PRL.

Blinded so much by irrational hatred of McCafferty and the PRL has meant you cannot see that the bigger threat has always been the French. They have had a foot in both camps and have been in complete control. The French must be laughing their heads off at the foolish English,Celts and Italians.
beshocked, as others have already noted, Ian Ritchie seems to have come out well, likewise Dodson and McLachlan on the Scottish side, the Welsh pair appear polarising (but that was true before all this started), the Irish pair seem to have handled themselves reasonably, and I haven't heard much about the Italian duo
Really? You think no resolution in this amount of time is good for anyone's reputation? It's all a shambles. Still too many parties at loggerheads.

I don't think ganging up on the English means that the Celts and Italians are being dignified. Neither do I think the RFU's inability to help find a resolution is either.

We want results, not posturing for months.
beshocked, if this had all gone on behind closed doors, we would be none the wiser and would almost certainly not be subjected to this 'posturing' nonsense as you describe - of course we want results, and there's some folk I would trust to get one, and there's some I simply wouldn't

The ERC had plenty of time to listen to and answer the grievances of the PRL and LNR but kept it's head in the sand. I think it's great that you have trust in some of them because I don't till they prove otherwise. I think they are all have their self interests at heart which is stopping a resolution. Egos of all involved must be left at home.

I don't buy this idea that there are any involved in this that can be seen in a positive light. They all have their own agendas and are happy to isolate someone for their own self interest.

We should all be aiming to work together.

by mystiroakey Fri 29 Nov 2013, 3:03 pm

Is there anyone from the rfu on board or is it only the prl rep. I thought we had one of each

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri 29 Nov 2013, 3:04 pm

mystiroakey wrote:Is there anyone from the rfu on board or is it only the prl rep. I thought we had one of each

Pls read quins' comment above

by quinsforever Fri 29 Nov 2013, 3:05 pm

mystiroakey wrote:Is there anyone from the rfu on board or is it only the prl rep. I thought we had one of each

1 of each you are correct

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

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri 29 Nov 2013, 3:07 pm

beshocked wrote:
The ERC had plenty of time to listen to and answer the grievances of the PRL and LNR but kept it's head in the sand. I think it's great that you have trust in some of them because I don't till they prove otherwise. I think they are all have their self interests at heart which is stopping a resolution. Egos of all involved must be left at home.

I don't buy this idea that there are any involved in this that can be seen in a positive light. They all have their own agendas and are happy to isolate someone for their own self interest.

We should all be aiming to work together.

Who knows, beshocked, what might have transpired if the ERC had acted sooner, or perhaps if PRL hadn't made up their minds from the get-go, once they entered into negotiations with BT for AP games and discovered that they, at least, might do handily from extending those to cover European games. Of course they all have their own agendas, that is why they are put in those positions, but I suppose I simply trust some to want to work towards a compromise that works for all, and some less inclined to do so

by mystiroakey Fri 29 Nov 2013, 3:07 pm

I thought there was one union rep and one league rep. If I am wrong apologies

by beshocked Fri 29 Nov 2013, 3:08 pm

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
beshocked wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
beshocked wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:No, tend not to have enough time for much TV, scrumpy, what happened?
Its just that I got the impression that after all these years the Celts still see getting one up against the English as the most important thing, whether it is in their best interest or not!
On a separate, but related topic, i actually agree that Scotland should be able to plough their own furrow. It is almost certain to lead to less animosity towards the english oppressors, and you never know, gaining independence might re-invigorate and re-energise the country and be a great thing for both England and Scotland.
Would also mean no more Scottish prime ministers plus would lead to a significant drop in Labour's chances of winning an election.
It likely would, beshocked - which given that Westminster and Holyrood seem inclined to pursue different agendas seems the best way for all
Exactly. Hopefully no more wars based upon "weapons of mass destruction", no more reckless spending, no more floodgates being left open -unfortunately we'll feel the consequences for some time to come.....
My politics are perhaps a little more nuanced than you might imagine, beshcoked, but I'm surprised that you think any of the main political parties with a 'realistic' chance of gaining power would have behaved any differently - cons or neo-cons, take your pick!

Perhaps the weapons of mass destruction war would have happened but I don't think the floodgates would have been left open and I don't think the spending would have been as excessive but that's my opinion. Better to go with a party that you know where they stand - warts and all than a party that calls themselves Labour but doesn't represent the working class anymore.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Fri 29 Nov 2013, 3:09 pm

beshocked wrote:
Perhaps the weapons of mass destruction war would have happened but I don't think the floodgates would have been left open and I don't think the spending would have been as excessive but that's my opinion. Better to go with a party that you know where they stand - warts and all than a party that calls themselves Labour but doesn't represent the working class anymore.

I'd agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence

by mystiroakey Fri 29 Nov 2013, 3:10 pm

quinsforever wrote:
mystiroakey wrote:Is there anyone from the rfu on board or is it only the prl rep. I thought we had one of each
1 of each you are correct

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

right ok then.

Its obviously me but I have no idea why people think the RFU have resigned then

by mystiroakey Fri 29 Nov 2013, 3:16 pm

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
mystiroakey wrote:Asbo all you are doing now is proving you don't understand the difference between the prl and rfu
Not really, strokey - if the PRL have made clear that they won't be continuing, that really is the English clubs out of things, don't you think? Or do you honestly imagine the championship clubs would have been put forward by the RFU in extremis? Can't see it myself

the rfu should be able to do whatever it wants for the time being- The reality of the situation(you are right) has no bearing on the legal side of things that the RFU have not resigned and it is a very grey area that things can or cant be agreed without them.(simply put we dont KNOW either way!!)

However my original point that led to this is

If the PRL do sort themselves out and come back I am very certain the original deal hashed out between the RFU and the other 5 unions will stand. And that IMO was due to the RFU's input

by quinsforever Fri 29 Nov 2013, 3:17 pm

mystiroakey wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
mystiroakey wrote:Is there anyone from the rfu on board or is it only the prl rep. I thought we had one of each
1 of each you are correct

http://www.ercrugby.com/erc/about/board.php
right ok then.

Its obviously me but I have no idea why people think the RFU have resigned then

rob andrew still attends meetings. wheeler does not.

although after not being invited to the latest 5-onion(sic)-get-together meeting, maybe rob andrew will stop attending too.

by beshocked Fri 29 Nov 2013, 3:18 pm

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
beshocked wrote:
The ERC had plenty of time to listen to and answer the grievances of the PRL and LNR but kept it's head in the sand. I think it's great that you have trust in some of them because I don't till they prove otherwise. I think they are all have their self interests at heart which is stopping a resolution. Egos of all involved must be left at home.

I don't buy this idea that there are any involved in this that can be seen in a positive light. They all have their own agendas and are happy to isolate someone for their own self interest.

We should all be aiming to work together.
Who knows, beshocked, what might have transpired if the ERC had acted sooner, or perhaps if PRL hadn't made up their minds from the get-go, once they entered into negotiations with BT for AP games and discovered that they, at least, might do handily from extending those to cover European games. Of course they all have their own agendas, that is why they are put in those positions, but I suppose I simply trust some to want to work towards a compromise that works for all, and some less inclined to do so

I think it's great you have that trust. I don't have faith in any of them. I don't feel like the PRL or RFU represent English rugby fans well enough. I feel like many clubs and unions could do so much better than they are too. The exception are perhaps the Irish but even they treat Connacht quite poorly as the ugly sister left out in the cold in my opinion. Plus they also are very insular like all the unions/clubs in my opinion.

E.g. the Irish fans seem to care so much about getting the 2023 world cup, not thinking about growing the game in places like Italy and USA. Need to be less inward looking in that sense.

There seems to be no thoughts about the likes of Spain,Germany,Portugal,Georgia,Russia. We have to help these countries more but are they involved in the European discussion? Nope - not seen as significant enough.

by quinsforever Fri 29 Nov 2013, 3:21 pm

i view statements like

"we are fighting to protect the soul of rugby"
"we are looking to grow the game and develop it internationally"
"the unions are charged with lookig after the greater good"

as nothing more than attempts to occupy the moral high ground in the PR battle.

all fluff and nonsense. it's about making money and winning matches (for clubs and countries equally), and winning matches and making money, etc, etc.

by mystiroakey Fri 29 Nov 2013, 3:24 pm

Your right quinn no one cares about any of that- and that is why we do need a centralised union that looks into all European nations in equal measures(that includes, romaina, spain etc)

by mystiroakey Fri 29 Nov 2013, 3:27 pm

Maybe If england dont get involved in the ERC we could go for a long term moral high ground situation and start a tourny with the lesser european unions..

The quality wont be there but we would become europeans saviour Wink

by beshocked Fri 29 Nov 2013, 3:28 pm

Exactly quinsforever. Most unions are very insular. They don't care about growing the game really. That's just PR.

Ireland will say they want to see the game grow and develop but will fight tooth and nail for the 2023 world cup. Same with South Africa.

It's about protecting their slice of the cakes and pies.

Let's make as much money out of internationals as we can by bleeding rugby fans dry.....

Let's sell RWC final tickets for £700 so we can milk the cow as much as we can.....

We will give the 2011 RWC to NZ because they are part of the exclusive club. We won't give it to a country we hope might help develop rugby.

WRU are playing Australia outside the IW to milk more money out of the international cash cow.

Money, money,money!

Unions are no different to clubs in that sense.

by Portnoy's Complaint Fri 29 Nov 2013, 3:29 pm

Sin é wrote:
Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:The deal between the FFR and the LNR was "was discussed and agreed with the rfu" - this may come as a surprise to messrs Camou, Bouscatel, et al - I hope that they have been informed
i think yous are all referring to different deals. strokey means the deal that hammered out the new financial and qualification criteria, which appear to still be on the table. I dont think he means the 5-union statement that the RFU weren't invited to
i actually thought he meant yet another deal altogether, the one between the FFR and LNR! Perhaps he was a little unclear ... but probably my fault
Was the last ERC meeting constitutional (I wonder)?

Has anyone actually left it?
They would have had a quorum, so I'd imagine yes it was constitutional.

I'd imagine the RFU will have to resign from the ERC and return their shares if they are not involved in the competition.

Edit: Since the RFU have a shareholding, they could, if they wanted to enter some English teams from the Championship I suppose.

Would it be regular for factions of a meeting such as this to be called to a meeting and others not, do you think?

A quorum is a number of attendees (as I understand) constitutionally to make a meeting constitutional.

Whether (just as others have pointed out on this board regarding PRL/BT contract activities in the ERC debate), not inviting members to a board meeting is legal/constitutional, I don't know.

by quinsforever Fri 29 Nov 2013, 4:17 pm

from a french article today:

-The LNR have agreed participation if the PRL is present
-The return is based on a guarantee for objectives ..24 to 20 teams, change of qualification, and 1/3 for each shareout by league. To be implemented next season.
-Objective for 2015/2016 is an UEFA type organisation where the competition is run under the auspicies of the Unions but the Clubs will run the business (Marketing, Sponsoring, Media rights)
-BT/SKY contention remains a block and the LNR participation depends on it in terms of PRL participation.

All described here in this mornings (29/11/2013) newspaper and it seems that even the interim 1 yr competition may not be settled. Goze direct comments

If true the Rabo teams are going to be compromised by qualification etc ?

Image

https://2img.net/r/ihimg/photo/my-images/703/gzka.jpg/

by TJ Fri 29 Nov 2013, 4:24 pm

quinsforever wrote:from a french article today:

-The LNR have agreed participation if the PRL is present

Not going to happen I very much doubt. Not wht the FFR said about the participation of the french clubs

-The return is based on a guarantee for objectives ..24 to 20 teams, change of qualification, and 1/3 for each shareout by league. To be implemented next season.

already agreed in large part but the agreement as brokered by the RFU will stand - so not quite that
-

Objective for 2015/2016 is an UEFA type organisation where the competition is run under the auspicies of the Unions but the Clubs will run the business (Marketing, Sponsoring, Media rights)

Not going to happen, directly against the position of the 5 unions - attempt at face saving bluster. the 5 unions quite clearly ( and the IRB) have as a red line the unions will run the competition. No chance at all

-BT/SKY contention remains a block and the LNR participation depends on it in terms of PRL participation.

All described here in this mornings (29/11/2013) newspaper and it seems that even the interim 1 yr competition may not be settled. Goze direct comments

If true the Rabo teams are going to be compromised by qualification etc ?

It will be the blueprint already agreed by all 6 unions as brokered by the RFU

Don't believe a word Goze says

by quinsforever Fri 29 Nov 2013, 4:31 pm

http://au.eurosport.com/rugby/european-cup/2012-2013/english-left-red-faced-as-french-renege-european-rugby-cup_sto4025300/story.shtml

"The principle of a transition period of one year, which will allow as of next season the implementation of the new formats of competitions regrouping the best teams of the six countries, has been validated," the French league (LNR) said in a statement.

by mystiroakey Fri 29 Nov 2013, 4:39 pm

It is a funny one, because the ERC crowd are saying the unions have already agreed what will happen. And to be honest they are right- If they hold firm what can anyone else do! Its either strike or play(from the french pov)

Others are trying to point out that the LNR is only saying all this to save face and whatever they say is hot air and they will just participate with or without the PRL.

Why would the LNR keep this up if they didn't think changes were a possibility?

Do they have any hold over the FFR?

by Guest Fri 29 Nov 2013, 4:45 pm

quinsforever wrote:http://au.eurosport.com/rugby/european-cup/2012-2013/english-left-red-faced-as-french-renege-european-rugby-cup_sto4025300/story.shtml

"The principle of a transition period of one year, which will allow as of next season the implementation of the new formats of competitions regrouping the best teams of the six countries, has been validated," the French league (LNR) said in a statement.

So a year of transition has been agreed in principal. It would be a shock if it wasn't. This transitional year is to allow for implementation of agreed new formats, and also the door remains open for PRL to re-enter HEC. As it should be.

by quinsforever Fri 29 Nov 2013, 4:47 pm

once the LNR sign their equivalent of their Participation Agreement with the FFR for another however many years, the FFR's hold over the LNR will also be significantly reduced. And i believe that signing has to happen in December?

so they can clearly be compelled to take part in 2014-15 "transition year", by threat of non-signing of licence extension by FFR, but not beyond that IMO.

by mystiroakey Fri 29 Nov 2013, 4:49 pm

Munchkin it reads to me that the transitional year could be to to allow all 6 nations present, not a 5 nation comp to then reintroduce the PRL next year.

It is still not clear what the feick they mean

by quinsforever Fri 29 Nov 2013, 4:50 pm

it's as clear as a pint of Guinness Smile

by quinsforever Fri 29 Nov 2013, 4:50 pm

and significantly less clear than a pint of Heineken Smile

by mystiroakey Fri 29 Nov 2013, 4:52 pm

by Guest Fri 29 Nov 2013, 5:03 pm

mystiroakey wrote:Munchkin it reads to me that the transitional year could be to to allow all 6 nations present, not a 5 nation comp to then reintroduce the PRL next year.

It is still not clear what the feick they mean

No, I would doubt that very much. It reads to me that it will be structured on a temporary basis with the 5 Unions, but allowing that AP teams may enter the following year. That's if AP teams are not able, or chose not to, enter next year.
Goze isn't a prophet, and he himself admits to not knowing if PRL can be released from their BT contract, and in the event that no AP enter the following year then LNR will have a meeting to discuss any further HEC participation on their part. That's Goze talking though, and assuming they themselves will not be bound contractually to remain in HEC.
I don't think we will have clarity on that until after the 3rd of December.

by R!skysports Fri 29 Nov 2013, 5:27 pm

beshocked wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
beshocked wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:No, tend not to have enough time for much TV, scrumpy, what happened?
Its just that I got the impression that after all these years the Celts still see getting one up against the English as the most important thing, whether it is in their best interest or not!
On a separate, but related topic, i actually agree that Scotland should be able to plough their own furrow. It is almost certain to lead to less animosity towards the english oppressors, and you never know, gaining independence might re-invigorate and re-energise the country and be a great thing for both England and Scotland.
Would also mean no more Scottish prime ministers plus would lead to a significant drop in Labour's chances of winning an election.
It likely would, beshocked - which given that Westminster and Holyrood seem inclined to pursue different agendas seems the best way for all
Exactly. Hopefully no more wars based upon "weapons of mass destruction", no more reckless spending, no more floodgates being left open -unfortunately we'll feel the consequences for some time to come.....

That will not change (Edinburgh Tram anyone)

by Sponsored content