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

First topic message reminder :

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

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

I tend to agree with Munchkin

One year agreed now - with a combination of teams based on the rfu brokered agreement. PRL invited.
PRL teams also will be invited next year when a long term agreement will be agreed.

LNR want the PRL to be a part of things

beshocked wrote: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.

It's like I keep saying there is only so much the unions, the IRB etc. can do to grow the game. At the end of the day they need the backing of the government. For instance the Spanish government has withdrawn a lot of funding from rugby and now their 7s team are whipping boys and will more than likely be relegated this year.

quinsforever wrote: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.

As far as I'm aware the thing that needs doing by December is the withdrawal from the current TV deal that runs to 2016. Before they do this they need confidence that the FFR will approve the new TV deal. I think this new deal is for four years.

actually the thing that needs doing by December (rolled over from june or july) is extending the licence of LNR to administer the professional leagues. this includes everything to do with sponsorship, tv rights, the league itself, etc. they don't need FFR approval for the tv deal, they need FFR approval to continue to run the 2 french pro leagues as administrator.

negotiating TV rights is one of the things LNR does on behalf of the top14 and prod2 clubs.

quinsforever wrote:actually the thing that needs doing by December (rolled over from june or july) is extending the licence of LNR to administer the professional leagues. this includes everything to do with sponsorship, tv rights, the league itself, etc. they don't need FFR approval for the tv deal, they need FFR approval to continue to run the 2 french pro leagues as administrator.

negotiating TV rights is one of the things LNR does on behalf of the top14 and prod2 clubs.

That doesn't make sense as why would FFR say they would go to the Minister of Sport to remove the LNR license if they had to renew it anyway?

Any links?

http://admin.lnr.fr/IMG/pdf/3-_Statuts_et_Reglements_LNR_2013_2014_-_Convention_FFR-LNR.pdf

"Article 5 : RENOUVELLEMENT
Par le présent avenant, la convention conclue entre la FFR et la LNR le 16 septembre 2009 et expirant
le 30 juin 2013 est expressément renouvelée à compter du 1er
juillet 2013 et jusqu’à la date des
assemblées générales financières de la FFR et de la LNR qui seront organisées durant le mois de
décembre 2013.

Jusqu’à la date de ces assemblées générales :

 La convention conclue le 16 septembre 2009 continue donc à s’appliquer sous réserve des
dispositions de l’article 1 ci-dessus ; et
 Les Parties poursuivront leurs discussions sur l’élaboration de la nouvelle convention en vue
de présenter celle-ci pour adoption lors des assemblées générales du mois de décembre 2013. "

quinsforever wrote:http://admin.lnr.fr/IMG/pdf/3-_Statuts_et_Reglements_LNR_2013_2014_-_Convention_FFR-LNR.pdf

"Article 5 : RENOUVELLEMENT
Par le présent avenant, la convention conclue entre la FFR et la LNR le 16 septembre 2009 et expirant
le 30 juin 2013 est expressément renouvelée à compter du 1er
juillet 2013 et jusqu’à la date des
assemblées générales financières de la FFR et de la LNR qui seront organisées durant le mois de
décembre 2013.

Jusqu’à la date de ces assemblées générales :

 La convention conclue le 16 septembre 2009 continue donc à s’appliquer sous réserve des
dispositions de l’article 1 ci-dessus ; et
 Les Parties poursuivront leurs discussions sur l’élaboration de la nouvelle convention en vue
de présenter celle-ci pour adoption lors des assemblées générales du mois de décembre 2013. "

Cheers  

Preamble:

"La Fédération Française de Rugby, (F.F.R.) association déclarée reconnue d’utilité publique, est une
fédération sportive agréée et délégataire du ministre chargé des sports conformément à l’article
L.131-14 du Code du Sport. A ce titre la FFR dispose des pouvoirs les plus étendus, dans la limite des
lois et règlements en vigueur, pour organiser, gérer, promouvoir, et réglementer en France la pratique
du rugby sous toutes ses formes sous l’égide de l’IRB et le représenter à l’international.

Par décision de son Assemblée Générale Extraordinaire du 13 juin 1998 à CHAMBERY, la F.F.R. a
décidé de créer une ligue professionnelle dotée de la personnalité morale. Cette ligue professionnelle,
dénommée Ligue Nationale de Rugby (L.N.R.) a été créée le 24 juillet 1998.
Depuis son passage au professionnalisme, le rugby français a connu un développement important. Les
parties conviennent que ce développement doit se poursuivre dans le respect de plusieurs objectifs
prioritaires :
 Développer la pratique et l’intérêt du public pour le rugby dans l’ensemble du territoire, en
préservant et promouvant ses valeurs et son éthique ;
 Permettre la compétitivité de l’Equipe de France au plus haut niveau mondial ;
 Assurer un développement équilibré et maîtrisé du rugby professionnel ainsi que la compétitivité
des clubs français dans les compétitions internationales ;
 Préserver la santé des joueurs, développer leur double formation et favoriser leur promotion
sociale et professionnelle.

Le respect de ces objectifs constitue un élément fondamental de la délégation de la FFR à la LNR
organisée par la présente convention.
Dans ce cadre, celle-ci a pour objet de définir le contenu et les conditions dans lesquelles la FFR
délègue à la LNR la réglementation et la gestion des compétitions professionnelles nationales de
Rugby à XV masculin prévues à l’article 1er
ainsi que les modalités de collaboration entre les deux
parties pour atteindre ces objectifs prioritaires.

Si durant l’exécution de la présente convention, la FFR souhaite que des compétitions professionnelles
nationales de Rugby à 7 soient organisées en France, elle s’engage à se rapprocher de la LNR pour
envisager les conditions et modalités selon lesquelles cette dernière proposerait d’assurer par
délégation de la FFR, l’organisation de ces compétitions.

Whoa Ted. There's loadsa letters on the page in no particular order.

It's a secret code. Only the initiated can understand. I've cracked some of it. I think "preamble" is code for the Holy Grail.

preambule is french for foreplay

quinsforever wrote:Preamble:

"La Fédération Française de Rugby, (F.F.R.) association déclarée reconnue d’utilité publique, est une
fédération sportive agréée et délégataire du ministre chargé des sports conformément à l’article
L.131-14 du Code du Sport. A ce titre la FFR dispose des pouvoirs les plus étendus, dans la limite des
lois et règlements en vigueur, pour organiser, gérer, promouvoir, et réglementer en France la pratique
du rugby sous toutes ses formes sous l’égide de l’IRB et le représenter à l’international.

Par décision de son Assemblée Générale Extraordinaire du 13 juin 1998 à CHAMBERY, la F.F.R. a
décidé de créer une ligue professionnelle dotée de la personnalité morale. Cette ligue professionnelle,
dénommée Ligue Nationale de Rugby (L.N.R.) a été créée le 24 juillet 1998.
Depuis son passage au professionnalisme, le rugby français a connu un développement important. Les
parties conviennent que ce développement doit se poursuivre dans le respect de plusieurs objectifs
prioritaires :
 Développer la pratique et l’intérêt du public pour le rugby dans l’ensemble du territoire, en
préservant et promouvant ses valeurs et son éthique ;
 Permettre la compétitivité de l’Equipe de France au plus haut niveau mondial ;
 Assurer un développement équilibré et maîtrisé du rugby professionnel ainsi que la compétitivité
des clubs français dans les compétitions internationales ;
 Préserver la santé des joueurs, développer leur double formation et favoriser leur promotion
sociale et professionnelle.

Le respect de ces objectifs constitue un élément fondamental de la délégation de la FFR à la LNR
organisée par la présente convention.
Dans ce cadre, celle-ci a pour objet de définir le contenu et les conditions dans lesquelles la FFR
délègue à la LNR la réglementation et la gestion des compétitions professionnelles nationales de
Rugby à XV masculin prévues à l’article 1er
ainsi que les modalités de collaboration entre les deux
parties pour atteindre ces objectifs prioritaires.

Si durant l’exécution de la présente convention, la FFR souhaite que des compétitions professionnelles
nationales de Rugby à 7 soient organisées en France, elle s’engage à se rapprocher de la LNR pour
envisager les conditions et modalités selon lesquelles cette dernière proposerait d’assurer par
délégation de la FFR, l’organisation de ces compétitions.

French or a bad case of dyslexia? you decide.

To be fair. That makes as much sense as the translations to English from the LNR

Nigel Wray appears to be suggesting that AP clubs can join with the HEC next year, and against the direction of PRL. Is that right?

Torygraph 29/11/2013:

England's Aviva Premiership clubs must boycott the Heineken Cup says Saracens chairman Nigel Wray

Nigel Wray, the Saracens chairman, insisted on Friday night that there could be no genuine European competition without the English clubs and urged his fellow Premiership chairmen to back the boycott of next year’s Heineken Cup.
The decision of the French clubs on Thursday to side with their federation was a jolt to English ambitions of an Anglo-French alliance but also opened up the possibility that the Premiership contingent might be persuaded back into the mainstream European fold.
Wray poured cold water on that notion.
“I hope the English clubs stay out,” Wray, one of the longest serving figures in the professional game, said.
“We have had enough of short-term expediency. It is time to stick to our guns.
"Frankly, there can be no genuine European competition without the English clubs.
"And I don’t say that in the belief that we are b-----y marvellous but quite simply because there are more of us.
"In the chase for TV and broadband subscriptions, the fact that there are 60 million in England will be the factor that helps determine all this.
“Sky Sports may say that they are happy to back the status quo without us at the moment but the reality is that they will not be in the long run.
"As for possibly going back in for one season, I can’t see the point in us limping back in where there is still no true democracy with the English clubs constantly being outvoted because of the nature of the set-up.”
Wray admitted that the decision of the Top 14 clubs, the Ligue Nationale de Rugby, undermined the English clubs.
“Yes, absolutely so, but we are not going to cave in now and go back to them all cap in hand.
“The French decision was very disappointing, but not entirely unexpected given the legal nature of their relationship with their federation.
"I don’t quite understand how they can be called to heel by their union in such fashion as I would have thought European law entitles you to conduct your business wherever you like.”
The Welsh regions had professed interest in supporting the English clubs but their union last week sided with European Rugby Cup.
There has been a mooted link with South African sides, but even though Saracens have strong South African connections, Wray does not see an English-South African competition in the short term.
“In the long term, it is inevitable that South African teams will head up here to play,” he said.
“Same time zone, same broadcasting market, greater revenues – it all points to that.
"But playing them in the short term doesn’t make sense. There are existing tournaments there.
"I would like to see the Welsh regions in an expanded Aviva Premiership.
“We were so close to getting it all sorted: one vote per league, money split three ways and a Six Nations-type governance.
"But we cannot sacrifice our principles now.”

Maybe it would be put to a vote, and Wray fears a vote in favour of re-entering HEC?

Are there already signs of a split?

"...sacrifice our principals..."  

Hey Munchkin - he might have different principles to you? Just saying!

English clubs in a European competition against........................... other English clubs.

Isn't that called the Aviva premiership ? whoops.

 

stub wrote:Hey Munchkin - he might have different principles to you? Just saying!

Different I am certain, and different I am thankful for  

The reason I find it hilarious is that PRL have had their demands all but met, bar that of governance. He would also dearly love to have RRW join with AP. His principals obviously don't stretch as far as caring about what happens to those minnows within the Rabo, should the Welsh join AP?
I've read a few comments from English AP club supporters today saying that they are ashamed of the behaviour of PRL now. This latest article won't help with that much....

Anyway, this whole 'must boycott' thing is probably just to cover for the fact that they burnt any possible bridge back to HEC with signing their BT contract  

Munchkin wrote:

stub wrote:Hey Munchkin - he might have different principles to you? Just saying!

Different I am certain, and different I am thankful for  

The reason I find it hilarious is that PRL have had their demands all but met, bar that of governance. He would also dearly love to have RRW join with AP. His principals obviously don't stretch as far as caring about what happens to those minnows within the Rabo, should the Welsh join AP?
I've read a few comments from English AP club supporters today saying that they are ashamed of the behaviour of PRL now. This latest article won't help with that much....

And the TV deal of course

HammerofThunor wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

stub wrote:Hey Munchkin - he might have different principles to you? Just saying!

Different I am certain, and different I am thankful for  

The reason I find it hilarious is that PRL have had their demands all but met, bar that of governance. He would also dearly love to have RRW join with AP. His principals obviously don't stretch as far as caring about what happens to those minnows within the Rabo, should the Welsh join AP?
I've read a few comments from English AP club supporters today saying that they are ashamed of the behaviour of PRL now. This latest article won't help with that much....

And the TV deal of course

..and the TV deal. Well, the TV deal is their burnt bridge, perhaps, and if it's true that they have no legal means to extricate themselves from that contract then they have effectively cut themselves off from being able to consider viable alternatives. Not the other Unions, and not SKY.

Munchkin wrote:Maybe it would be put to a vote, and Wray fears a vote in favour of re-entering HEC?

Are there already signs of a split?

Of course there is a range of views

It would appear that the TV deal is PRL's biggest stumbling block in all this.  Given that they have not disclosed all of the details of the deal, it's difficult to assess accurately.

There were reports that the European aspect of the deal required the involvement of at least four unions/countries.  If BT Sport wanted to "own" the sport, this seems a reasonable requirement to ensure that no alternative can exist effectively.  The PRL put most pressure on the Welsh and Scottish clubs in their months of public statements, whilst proclaiming doom and gloom for all the PRO 12 clubs if they didn't join the RCC.  In the end, PRL and LNR got the RRW on board.  30 premier clubs on the face of it.  But they failed to win over any of the six unions to their cause, particularly their own unions.  

Ian Ritchie's portrayal as the quiet peacemaker and negotiator in chief seems to be somewhat wide of the mark, according to some reports.  He was likened by one insider to Neville Chamberlain waving bits of paper around without actually achieving anything.  Hence the lack of an invitation to someone who attempted to draw two sides together, but seemed to have gone native early on with the PRL, thus alienating himself from the other unions.

The five unions decided to seize the initiative and agree a new format for next season without too much difficulty.  The ease with which it was agreed in the end, seemed to suggest that the reduction in teams, and new qualifications and split in finances, were never really an issue in themselves.  Rather it was what was being seen as the real changes sought to the governance of the competition and specifically to have the ERC moved out of Dublin into either London or Paris under a new guise.  

I suspect that the other unions divined this fairly early on, and that's why negotiations never really got going for over a year.   In turn, the PRL constantly declared that they were being outvoted by the PRO12 unions as it suited their purpose to demonise the four smaller unions who were collectively getting more than England or France and taking advantage. The reality was that the English and French had a majority over the PRO12, but could never to seem to persuade their own unions to fall in line with them.  

The TV deal with BT Sport served two purposes - it supposedly put more money on the table to draw in the four PRO12 unions,  but also served as a permanent block to the PRL re-entering an ERC-run competition.  In a sense PRL fashioned a set of handcuffs for themselves, jumped into bed with BT Sport, locked themselves to the bed rails and threw the key out the window.  Then they asked everybody else to jump in with them, lie back, and just enjoy the ride.  France did, and then, eventually, the Welsh regions.

But now the French have found themselves another mistress in the shape of Pierre Camou waving his wallet in one hand, and a big legal stick in the other, and they've decided to wander off again.  

Whilst Paul Goze would appear to be offering some succour to their erstwhile English bedfellows, they're in no hurry to find another set of keys for the PRL's handcuffs. It's up to the PRL to saw themselves out of those.

TJ wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Maybe it would be put to a vote, and Wray fears a vote in favour of re-entering HEC?

Are there already signs of a split?

Of course there is a range of views

I would imagine that many of the clubs would want to play for financial reasons. The players certainly do. Even ex players working for BT Sport have been out spoken against the PRLs attempts to dismantle European rugby.

Pot Hale wrote:It would appear that the TV deal is PRL's biggest stumbling block in all this.  Given that they have not disclosed all of the details of the deal, it's difficult to assess accurately.

There were reports that the European aspect of the deal required the involvement of at least four unions/countries.  If BT Sport wanted to "own" the sport, this seems a reasonable requirement to ensure that no alternative can exist effectively.  The PRL put most pressure on the Welsh and Scottish clubs in their months of public statements, whilst proclaiming doom and gloom for all the PRO 12 clubs if they didn't join the RCC.  In the end, PRL and LNR got the RRW on board.  30 premier clubs on the face of it.  But they failed to win over any of the six unions to their cause, particularly their own unions.  

Ian Ritchie's portrayal as the quiet peacemaker and negotiator in chief seems to be somewhat wide of the mark, according to some reports.  He was likened by one insider to Neville Chamberlain waving bits of paper around without actually achieving anything.  Hence the lack of an invitation to someone who attempted to draw two sides together, but seemed to have gone native early on with the PRL, thus alienating himself from the other unions.

The five unions decided to seize the initiative and agree a new format for next season without too much difficulty.  The ease with which it was agreed in the end, seemed to suggest that the reduction in teams, and new qualifications and split in finances, were never really an issue in themselves.  Rather it was what was being seen as the real changes sought to the governance of the competition and specifically to have the ERC moved out of Dublin into either London or Paris under a new guise.  

I suspect that the other unions divined this fairly early on, and that's why negotiations never really got going for over a year.   In turn, the PRL constantly declared that they were being outvoted by the PRO12 unions as it suited their purpose to demonise the four smaller unions who were collectively getting more than England or France and taking advantage. The reality was that the English and French had a majority over the PRO12, but could never to seem to persuade their own unions to fall in line with them.  

The TV deal with BT Sport served two purposes - it supposedly put more money on the table to draw in the four PRO12 unions,  but also served as a permanent block to the PRL re-entering an ERC-run competition.  In a sense PRL fashioned a set of handcuffs for themselves, jumped into bed with BT Sport, locked themselves to the bed rails and threw the key out the window.  Then they asked everybody else to jump in with them, lie back, and just enjoy the ride.  France did, and then, eventually, the Welsh regions.

But now the French have found themselves another mistress in the shape of Pierre Camou waving his wallet in one hand, and a big legal stick in the other, and they've decided to wander off again.  

Whilst Paul Goze would appear to be offering some succour to their erstwhile English bedfellows, they're in no hurry to find another set of keys for the PRL's handcuffs.  It's up to the PRL to saw themselves out of those.

There is a lot of fallacy's above mate.

Not sure where you get your information from..

moving the ERC isnt the problem- it doesnt matter where it is. and it would have moved to another tax haven for sports administration not LONDON or PARIS.

The deal was agreed with 6 unions first, then when prl still didn't play ball- there was nothing to agree but say- ok us 5 will play out - based on the original deal instigated and worked out by the RFU. its really not hard to go from 33% to 50%- it take a split second.
You know absolutely nothing about the BT deal- Nothing , so I am not sure what this handcuffing nonsense is all about, the BT deal was to serve one MAJOR purpose only. MAKE MORE MONEY, yes they may have said its the RCC or nothing because we cannot work with the ERC anymore as the organisation will not listen to our concerns.

Sometimes people just quit there jobs because they cannot work in that environment any more. Sometimes they look for other employment before they do that(sensibly)- sometimes though sadly that new employment opportunity falls through.

But sometimes you are left no option but to act.

According to some at PRL the PRL have handcuffed themselves to a deal that they cannot free themselves from.
McCafferty, and Wray, have claimed that they will never work again with ERC, yet McCafferty seems willing to consider the LNR proposal which means PRL working under the authority of ERC, even if by another name, and even though PRL are supposed to be unable to enter HEC due to having signed the BT contract.
McCafferty cited his reasons for never working under ERC again, but surely these reasons are moot if, as he claims, they are legally bound to the BT contract which they cannot extricate themselves from? Unless they, McCafferty and Wray, were telling porkies....

I dont think it was a case of them wanting to handcuff themselves, and tbh i dont think there are. There is clearly a way out of the BT deal even if it costs money to get out of.

There is a big difference from purposefully hand cuffing them selves(in this case to appeal upon other unions better nature-" look we cant play an EC unless we break down the ERC"), Than being handcuffed by default

It may be as simple as the PRL promising BT that they would pull the new deal off and never go back to the ERC.

They may just not want to grovel to BT.

They may off course eventually do that if playing in the ERC is still the most viable option now that the Unions have laid down the law in wales and france

Two points:
1) The European element of the BT deal was a necessary risk for the PRL. Nothing else would have changed without it.

How do we know this? Because the ERC and other unions only offered any kind of compromise after the PRL and LNR served notice and the PRL signed the BT deal. It wasn't enough to serve notice - nothing happened when they did or for some time afterwards. The BT deal gave the PRL a credible bargaining chip because they could then propose a (to them - and to me) more equitable distribution of money without anyone having to take a cut. The price of securing that was probably committing their home games to BT, but without it they would have had nothing to bring to the table.

2) The ERC-Sky deal was signed after the BT deal. If the PRL set fire to one end of the bridge by signing a deal that meant they couldn't rejoin the ERC under the old commercial structure (see 1 for why they had to do that), the ERC set fire to the other end by signing a deal that perpetuated that structure.

The PRL have, as several people have said, actually got most of what they want. But I suspect that they will hold out for the governance and commercial changes as well, because without it there's no security in the changes.

That would explain McCafferty's reaction to the LNR "transitional year" statement - if a further year of HEC is a stepping stone to a reformed competition, they can probably negotiate a year's delay with BT.

If the idea is for the HEC to continue in perpetuity as is, going back would undo what they've achieved so far. Sitting out for a year and then trying again is potentially the better long term option, especially if next year the FFR won't have the leverage over the LNR that it has today.

By the way, I notice that there's no-one on the ERC side of this debate deploring the FFR's use of strong-arm tactics on the LNR, or the casual dropping of the Amlin and with it access to Europe for the weaker Rabo and LNR teams and the non-Rabo Italian teams, or the lack of any provision for developing rugby elsewhere in Europe. Clearly you genuinely feel that they have done all these things with the best interests of rugby at heart, and not at all because they're defending their own turf like cornered tigers.

+1

+1

Anyone else see that interview with Paul Goze admitting that he used the RCC to get what he wanted with the ERC.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:Anyone else see that interview with Paul Goze admitting that he used the RCC to get what he wanted with the ERC.

The biggest shock I've had since the Sun rose this morning.

Poorfour wrote:
By the way, I notice that there's no-one on the ERC side of this debate deploring the FFR's use of strong-arm tactics on the LNR, or the casual dropping of the Amlin and with it access to Europe for the weaker Rabo and LNR teams and the non-Rabo Italian teams, or the lack of any provision for developing rugby elsewhere in Europe. Clearly you genuinely feel that they have done all these things with the best interests of rugby at heart, and not at all because they're defending their own turf like cornered tigers.

On the contrary I view the conduct of the French clubs with a lot of disquiet but when push comes to shove I happen to believe the Unions retaining at least majority control of a European competition is a bigger issues.

As to the Amlin the reality is without the English there are not enough senior Professional teams to make a second competition viable.
If the English rejoin the Amlin would be revived.

I don't think McCafferty and his cohorts can critise anybody else when it comes to protecting ones own self interest - if they do they are hypocrites

Poorfour wrote:

The PRL have, as several people have said, actually got most of what they want. But I suspect that they will hold out for the governance and commercial changes as well, because without it there's no security in the changes.

That would explain McCafferty's reaction to the LNR "transitional year" statement - if a further year of HEC is a stepping stone to a reformed competition, they can probably negotiate a year's delay with BT.

If the idea is for the HEC to continue in perpetuity as is, going back would undo what they've achieved so far. Sitting out for a year and then trying again is potentially the better long term option, especially if next year the FFR won't have the leverage over the LNR that it has today.

By the way, I notice that there's no-one on the ERC side of this debate deploring the FFR's use of strong-arm tactics on the LNR, or the casual dropping of the Amlin and with it access to Europe for the weaker Rabo and LNR teams and the non-Rabo Italian teams, or the lack of any provision for developing rugby elsewhere in Europe. Clearly you genuinely feel that they have done all these things with the best interests of rugby at heart, and not at all because they're defending their own turf like cornered tigers.

Hell will freeze over before a change in governance will take place whereby the Unions will give any control of cross border rugby competition to any clubs. The Uefa model would be good, where the Union of Clubs are a sort of sub-committee that can raise concerns with the main body of Uefa. They don't get any seats on the Council/Board though. If that will happen, it will be interesting to see how Irish/Scot CEOs get on!

I don't deplore what the FFR did. They fought fire with fire. The victor writes history anyway. What I don't understand is how stupid McCafferty & Wray were. They must have known about the legal stranglehold that the FFR had over their clubs and what was being negotiated there. How could they think that the French Club were going to overcome all of that?

I think they are doing the right thing to drop the second competition if a) you are losing out on so many teams and b) its financially not viable and the ERC doesn't have a sugar daddy to supply the cash, and it would be unlikely that the competition would attract a sponsor considering the damage that the warring clubs have done to rugby recently.

Expansion of the Amlin for next season was never realistic. Why would some unions give even a fraction of their advantage to possible opponents in RWC pools? Romania, currently in Europe2 qualifying position (pool opponents France, Italy and Ireland), will be hindered by the cancellation of Amlinv2.
Could this be why Unions are so keen to assume control of all cross-border competitions?

By the way, there has already been one global club competition run by PRL this year, sanctioned by IRB and competitor's Unions.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:Expansion of the Amlin for next season was never realistic. Why would some unions give even a fraction of their advantage to possible opponents in RWC pools? Romania, currently in Europe2 qualifying position (pool opponents France, Italy and Ireland), will be hindered by the cancellation of Amlinv2.
Could this be why Unions are so keen to assume control of all cross-border competitions?

By the way, there has already been one global club competition run by PRL this year, sanctioned by IRB and competitor's Unions.

Ireland had Italy in their pool in the last world cup. They didn't prevent Italian teams playing in the Rabo, and they would have been a bigger threat than Romania.

Do you seriously think that any of those teams are worried about how much Romania would improve by playing a couple of games in the Amlin?

Edit: the Unions already have control of all cross-border competition.

How would you rate this cross-border competition that the PRL run?

Interview with Goze in L'Equipe

SUR LA FIN DE L'ERC

«Nous avons été entendus sur la partie financière et la partie sportive, reste maintenant la gouvernance. Dans la structure provisoire puis définitive, la structure qui gérera la compétition devra être complètement réformée. Là aussi, il n’y a pas de raison pour qu’on ne se mette pas d’accord. C’est aujourd’hui une structure commerciale et nous voulons passer sur une structure différente, du type association de fédérations, à l’image de ce qui se passe au foot. Il nous faut un an et demi pour le mettre en place, avec tous les problèmes que ça va générer. Dès la saison prochaine, ça ne s’appellera plus l’ERC, d’ailleurs.

SUR LE POIDS DES LIGUES
Dans cette nouvelle gouvernance, la partie commerciale marketing et télévision sera gérée par les Celtes, les clubs anglais et nous, les clubs français. Et si les fédérations ne cèdent pas sur cette condition-là, et bien il n’y aura pas de compétitions européennes en septembre 2014 ! Si nous n’arrivons pas à nos objectifs concernant la gouvernance, les mêmes causes produiraient les mêmes effets qu’aujourd’hui.

SUR LA RUGBY CHAMPIONS CUP

La RCC, ce n’était pas un but en soi : c’était une manière d’obtenir des avancées sur le format, la répartition financière et la gouvernance. Nous avons obtenu deux points sur trois. Nous avons reculé, peut-être, mais parce que nous sommes intelligents. Pourquoi aller vers quelque chose qui pourrait créer des divergences importantes dans le rugby européen, alors qu’on obtient la même chose d’une autre manière ? Nous avons été pragmatiques.

SUR LES ANGLAIS

Si les Anglais, pour une raison ou une autre, décident de ne pas participer à cette compétition européenne avec nous et bien nous nous réunirons pour savoir si nous y participerons ou pas. Et je pense que nous n'y participerons pas ! Mais je ne veux pas anticiper sur ce qui passera dans trois mois. L’idée, c’est de faire en sorte que les Anglais participent à la Coupe d’Europe. C’est vrai qu’il n’y a rien concernant cela dans le communiqué que nous avons rédigé jeudi après-midi. Mais c’est pour des raisons stratégiques que je ne tiens pas évoquer.
SUR LA CONVENTION

Je l’avoue, s’il n’y avait pas eu la convention FFR-LNR à signer, nous aurions discuté un peu plus longtemps sur la Coupe d’Europe. Aujourd’hui, cette convention est assez avancée. Le point concernant la Coupe d’Europe est clarifié, tout comme les aspects financiers et sportifs. J’ai bon espoir qu'on trouve des solutions avant le 3 décembre, car il n’y a que des détails à régler.»

http://www.lequipe.fr/Rugby/Actualites/Goze-explique-sa-strategie/420863

my translation:

On the end of ERC:

we were heard on financials and qualification. only governance left to sort. in the provisional then permanent structure, the organising body has to be completely reformed. there is no reason we can't work this out. we want a different structure, a type of association of federations. like wendyball. we have 18 months to get it all done, with all the problems that will entail. anyway, from next season it won't be called ERC.

On the role/strength of the leagues:
in the new world order, the tv and marketing will be run by the Celts, the english clubs and us the french clubs. And if the unions don't give in on this condition there will be no european competition from september 2014. if we dont get what we want regarding governance, we will be in the same pickle as we are today as far as decision-making goes.

On the RCC:
RCC was not a goal in and of itself: it was a means of getting the advances in format, financials and governance that we wanted. We have got two out of three. We have retreated (on the third) perhaps, but because we are intelligent. Why keep going towards something which could fracture european rugby, when we can obtain the same outcome via an alternative route? We have been pragmatic.

On the English:
If the Anglais, for one reason or another, decide not to take part in european competition with us, well we would need to meet up again to discuss whether we will take part in that case. And i think we wouldnt! But i dont want to anticipate what will happen in 3 months. The idea is to figure out a way to enable the english clubs to play in a european cup. It's true that there is nothing specifically about this in the statement we released thursday afternoon. But that is for tactical/strategic reasons that i dont want to bring up.

On the agreement with FFR (La Convention):
I swear, if there hadn't been the FFR-LNR Agreement to sign, we would have discussed the European Cup a bit longer. Today, our Agreement is fairly advanced. The point regarding Europe is clear, as well as the financial and sporting aspects. I am hopeful we will get it signed before the 3rd December, because there are only small details to iron out.

apologies for any typos, i am not going to check/proof-read it.

Thanks for that.

3 steps to a fully integrated European competition in 2015-16

Send McCafferty and Camou packing - both have so confrontational that, understandably, the other side is not prepared to trust them.

Arrange Governance so Unions have control of format, schedule, refs, legal matters and clubs are responsible for marketing and sponsorship

Tear up the BT contract and sit down as a group of 6 countries with BT, Sky and French TV and sort it out

Camou's term as FFR President/Chair is up shortly. Like all elected positions he has a term of office. Serge Blanco will be the new President/Chair of FFR.

Lux is also retiring as Chair of the ERC.

Someone will have to fire McCafferty, but unfortunately I think Wray in particular is more of a problem.

Wray would be terrible replacement I agree

Craig is equally abhorrent to Wray and McCafferty

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Craig is equally abhorrent to Wray and McCafferty

Wow, have we found something we all agree with?

geoff999rugby wrote:3 steps to a fully integrated European competition in 2015-16

Send McCafferty and Camou packing - both have so confrontational that, understandably, the other side is not prepared to trust them.

Arrange Governance so Unions have control of format, schedule, refs, legal matters and clubs are responsible for marketing and sponsorship

Tear up the BT contract and sit down as a group of 6 countries with BT, Sky and French TV and sort it out

Surely that is all the PRL wanted(for clubs to sort out marketing, sponsorship and TV deals)


What ever certain posters are stating I am sure they never wanted complete control of governance, they only want the ability to sort out there own tv deals etc,

mystiroakey wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:3 steps to a fully integrated European competition in 2015-16

Send McCafferty and Camou packing - both have so confrontational that, understandably, the other side is not prepared to trust them.

Arrange Governance so Unions have control of format, schedule, refs, legal matters and clubs are responsible for marketing and sponsorship

Tear up the BT contract and sit down as a group of 6 countries with BT, Sky and French TV and sort it out

Surely that is all the PRL wanted(for clubs to sort out marketing, sponsorship and TV deals)


What ever certain posters are stating I am sure they never wanted complete control of governance, they only want the ability to sort out there own tv deals etc,

No, its not all they wanted. They signed a deal with BT a few months after giving their 2 year notice. They had made their minds up a long time ago that they wanted to run their own competition (no matter if it destroyed in particular Welsh rugby), let alone Italian & Scottish.

England and English teams really need to remember that when it comes selling broadcasting rights, they are effectively 1/3 of a country. How can a Welsh or Scottish club sell the rights to their own fames when playing against an English club in the UK if England have already sold the rights to BT.

Sin é wrote:England and English teams really need to remember that when it comes selling broadcasting rights, they are effectively 1/3 of a country. How can a Welsh or Scottish club sell the rights to their own fames when playing against an English club in the UK if England have already sold the rights to BT.

The UK issue has nothing to do with it. The English control the rights to the games played in England, regardless of who is playing them and where it is broadcast. The Welsh control the rights to games played in Wales. What has the UK got to do with it?

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:England and English teams really need to remember that when it comes selling broadcasting rights, they are effectively 1/3 of a country. How can a Welsh or Scottish club sell the rights to their own fames when playing against an English club in the UK if England have already sold the rights to BT.

The UK issue has nothing to do with it. The English control the rights to the games played in England, regardless of who is playing them and where it is broadcast. The Welsh control the rights to games played in Wales. What has the UK got to do with it?

Is it possible to sell broadcasting rights to a part of one country? BT broadcast in the UK, not just England. Who would be interested in buying the rights to Welsh team games when playing English teams if they are already available to them on FTA BT?

Just to clarify what I mean: Ospreys v Northampton - Ospreys can't sell them to their home market (Wales) because Wales is part of the UK.

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:England and English teams really need to remember that when it comes selling broadcasting rights, they are effectively 1/3 of a country. How can a Welsh or Scottish club sell the rights to their own fames when playing against an English club in the UK if England have already sold the rights to BT.

The UK issue has nothing to do with it. The English control the rights to the games played in England, regardless of who is playing them and where it is broadcast. The Welsh control the rights to games played in Wales. What has the UK got to do with it?

Is it possible to sell broadcasting rights to a part of one country? BT broadcast in the UK, not just England. Who would be interested in buying the rights to Welsh team games when playing English teams if they are already available to them on FTA BT?

Just to clarify what I mean: Ospreys v Northampton - Ospreys can't sell them to their home market (Wales) because Wales is part of the UK.

Sin e, who has the rights to Ospreys v Leinster in the Rabo with Ospreys at home?