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

First topic message reminder :

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:I don't think any one is argueing that the HEC is not a great comp, some are saying that it is not be all & end all & there is more to rugby.
PRL/BT have not stated the amount for Aviva & Europe separately as this would give information to Sky. However PRL have stated that PRL clubs will be better off with just the Aviva under the BT deal than they are now with the present combined Aviva/Europe.
The BT deal is for Aviva with an agreement that BT will have PRL's rights in any European comp.

It sounds like they have. The quote from Sin e suggests the BT part is worth about 20-odd million per year. Assuming he's talking in Euros and that 20-odd is about 20 (certainly reads that way). Over three years so thats 60 million. So that's about £50MM. Assuming that's top amount and therefore releases the whole "up to" £152M it means there is between £102M for the Premiership over four years. So thats £25M per year. Previous Sky/ESPN deal was for around £54M for 3 years, or about £18M per year. So that's an extra £7M a year for the Premeirship.

About

Thats working out ok so for the AP clubs. They now have a little over £2m for tv rights this year. Last year they got £1.9m (between AP & ERC).

Down guarantee of 3 home sell-out games (plus corporate entertainment ect).

They weren't sell outs. Even Tigers didn't sell out all the ERC games. But they can replace it with an English cup. Won't make as much but will probably make enough. Would be great if the Championship sides got involved and got an equal share (per team).

I wouldn't expect Tigers to sell out as they have a fairly big stadium, but clubs like Exeter were selling out (average 10k for HCup). Average about 7K for Aviva Premiership last year.

No HC sell-outs at Sandy Park last year (not even for Leinster), and the AP average was a little higher.

Last season:

Sale Sharks 5,568
Saracens 6,141
Quins 8,472
Warriors 7,295
Wasps 7,557
L Irish 7,557
Bath 10,744
L Welsh 7,317

etc. etc..

Heineken Cup
Clermont 9,819
Scarlets 9,258
Leinster 10,198

At least 2k more per game (and tickets are also more expensive).

Big trev.  Nothing more to negotiate.  the negotiations are over.  Its the HC in an agreed format and the english clubs either join or do not.  thats it

TJ, we need this competition in its current format though. Look at the crowds yesterday and Friday. Its fabulous - even if Glasgow are rubbish in it. I still remember the Saints fans in Glasgow in January partying hard after a defeat and being knocked out of Europe. It is the best club competition in the world by a long way in terms of excitement and is superb for the supporters of all (rugby apart in Glasgow's case  ). I know you are on board with this view but I feel we need to state how much we love the Heino.

The heino is fantastic and it is diminished without the english. However the price of having he English on board cannot be too high.

as regards the situation now? there is nothing more to negotiate. English clubs come in or do not. the rest have moved a long way to meet them. Well more than halfway.

I see Ritchie refers to Court and Afoa as examples of Irish Provinces struggling to hold onto players.

Utter nonsense.
Afoa's departure had nothing to do with money - it was for well documented family reasons.
Court is 33 and was given a three contract. We simply do not give three contracts to 33 year olds
We do if we rate the player highly enough and they are young enough e.g. this year Pienaer, Henry, Cave

If Ritchie wants to make a point always good to get the facts straight rather than talking crap

Yep, Court & Afoa going to the Premieship to collect their pension cheque!

Neil Francis has a few things to say about the PRL!

Neil Francis: Premiership's motley crew are risking financial oblivion with their arrogance

08 December 2013
If we learned anything about the recent European spat, it is that you don't have to be smart to be a millionaire. I'm not sure how Nigel Wray earned his money, but I hope it was the hard way. His 'investment' in Saracens has been a disaster and he has been slowly selling his shareholding to Johann Rupert, the South African billionaire who most certainly did not earn his money the hard way.

The inevitability of PRL's dishonest and irresponsible attempt to break away and form the Rugby Champions Cup which came to a crashing conclusion last week brought into stark focus some of the central characters in this sorry episode. It served to magnify just who they were and what a disaster it would have been if these bandoleros had seized power and sought to govern the game in this part of the world.

Wading through the backwash of defeat, Wray claimed that the Welsh clubs would like to join the Premiership. "They'd love to play in the Aviva Premiership and we'd love it too," Wray said. "English and Welsh rugby has an enormous history, a rich culture of big club matches. What could be better than the restoration of the traditional fixtures, guaranteeing massive matches of real importance?

"We play each other anyway in the LV= Cup so why not make the fixtures really meaningful? An enlarged Aviva Premiership can be created with no extra fixtures to be squeezed into the calendar. It would be good for the WRFU because it would provide their teams with tougher competition.

"There are fantastic old rivalries there and games would sell out. Games like Leicester versus Cardiff and Scarlets versus Northampton would have real bite and meaning, which would appeal to the customers who often get forgotten in all of this.

"Bring in the Welsh, go to 16 teams and play 30 games plus the play-offs. You'd have to agree on promotion and relegation but that's not too difficult, so let's move forward and give our customers meaningful games."

Which planet does he inhabit? The LV= Cup, or the Liverpool Victoria Friendly Society Ltd Cup, has been in existence in its current form since 2009; before that it was the EDF Energy Cup and before that . . . well who cares? This competition has been on the go in various guises for 41 years. The Taffies have won it just twice and frankly they don't give a Poopie about it. The competition is used to give squad members and hopefuls a run-out when the November and Six Nations international window is in play.

Is Nigel Wray suggesting that they extend the Premiership and retain this cup as well? Has he been to an LV= Cup match? What about the Taffs? If they are struggling in the Rabo, how will they do in the new Aviva Premiership? What happens when the Dragons get relegated? Do they play in the . . . eh . . . which league do they play in? Would they go back to the Rabo? Would the Rabo still exist if the Welsh left it? Nigel Wray doesn't really care what effect his cowpat half-arsed proposals would have on the Rabo. What about the South Africans I hear you say? Forget about the Taffies and start a competition with the Saffers, the Sanglo Cup. The South Africans could just totally rearrange their Currie Cup and Super XV schedules to accommodate a great new competition that will see thousands of Worcester Warriors fans head down to Bloemfontein to play the Free State Cheetahs. The Cook Islands maybe?

All of the Super XV and individual domestic competitions are sanctioned and governed by the SANZAR Unions. England and France alone have their domestic competition controlled by the clubs. That needs to change. It won't happen in France but now there is scope to do it in England. With the PRL on the floor but amazingly showing no outward signs of embarrassment why not turn this victory into a rout?

Mark McCafferty, whose position is untenable, has stated that the English clubs will stay out of Europe. They have nowhere else to go. If the PRL group of 12 Premiership clubs lost £19m last year how much will they lose if they choose not to participate? They would be due to pick up circa £18m under their new ERC revenue share-out agreement.

If McCafferty thinks that BT will absorb that loss by way of an increased contribution he is deluded. I wonder did he ever stop to ask the players or the supporters what they thought.

How can this highly damaging infighting be stopped? The model doesn't work and all the diverse commercial interests who invested in a rugby club have been badly burned. Buy the lot of them out.

The RFU will be hosting the World Cup in 2015 and England will field a team with kind permission of this motley rabble (PRL) and the RFU's coffers will swell.

Most of the Premiership clubs are under water and their sustained viability is a little more than uncertain. How do you value a club that loses money year after year? How do you value a club that has no ground or tangible assets? From speaking to people who would have knowledge in this area – a Premiership club with no ground/property that is losing money on an annualised basis is worth about £2-3m. High if you ask me.

A club like Leicester or Northampton, who own their own grounds and who do make a profit, well their multiplier would be a lot higher. Twelve clubs – £100m the lot! If the RFU have spent £100m on building a new hotel and renovating the Twickenham stands, surely £100m to control their players and have them centrally contracted would be money well spent – very well spent.

They already dole out £4m a year to each Premiership club for very little value in return. What price peace and harmony? If the island of Ireland can run four centrally controlled professional teams with a population of six million then why can't the English run 12 clubs with a population of 60 million?

If English teams don't have a diet of really competitive European competition and they insist on the abstentionist mode then their national team will wither. The RFU must know that.

Already I'm hearing of dissatisfaction in the English ranks. Not all the clubs are behind their leaders and as we speak a Five-Nation ERC accord is already in draft phase. The financial oblivion that these idiots forecast for the Celtic nations will visit them now and their folly, arrogance and town hall political rhetoric only leaves them one course of action. Do it quickly.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/neil-francis-premierships-motley-crew-are-risking-financial-oblivion-with-their-arrogance-29819401.html

geoff999rugby wrote:I see Ritchie refers to Court and Afoa as examples of Irish Provinces struggling to hold onto players.

Surely that was the journalist making those assertions, not the RFU chief.

geoff999rugby wrote:I see Ritchie refers to Court and Afoa as examples of Irish Provinces struggling to hold onto players.

Utter nonsense.
Afoa's departure had nothing to do with money - it was for well documented family reasons.
Court is 33 and was given a three contract. We simply do not give three contracts to 33 year olds
We do if we rate the player highly enough and they are young enough e.g. this year Pienaer, Henry, Cave

If Ritchie wants to make a point always good to get the facts straight rather than talking crap

\
Actually if you want to make a point read the article first - it wasn't Ritchie referring to Court and Afoa it was the article's author Rees.

Fair enough we all know Rees is a total tube.

FFR-LNR agreement has been agreed by the FFR general assembly. pretty comprehensive, but interestingly no specific mention of european club competitions. awful lot of other stuff covered though. reinforces FFR supremacy at the top of french rugby. clearly hands commercial responsibility to LNR. good and sensible France XV release, compensation, training and insurance pieces.

http://www.lnr.fr/IMG/pdf/CONVENTION_2013-2017.pdf

Superb article from Mr Francis

Where are the lads who say Connacht add nothing to the HC?

This is an amazing competition full of upsets and games that will never be forgotten. Hows about we keep it?

Extraordinary idea, LF4L - I'm with you

Let's keep it - JUST as it is.

Why mess with perfection... we can come to an agreement about the specifics of revenue if all sides negotiate in good faith, but the format is spot on.

It's great to see a small team upset the odds. That's why my favoured solution to the Franglo qualification complaint was to expand the HC so every team in the three leagues gets to play in it every year. Not reducing the number of qualifying teams.

Francis says in his article that McCafferty's position is untenable. What do you guys think? I'd dearly like to see the back of that guy.

Feckless Rogue wrote:It's great to see a small team upset the odds. That's why my favoured solution to the Franglo qualification complaint was to expand the HC so every team in the three leagues gets to play in it every year. Not reducing the number of qualifying teams.

Francis says in his article that McCafferty's position is untenable. What do you guys think? I'd dearly like to see the back of that guy.

Why is McCafferty the subject of so much individual opprobium? As far as I can see, he's done nothing that isn't matched by something equally outspoken or unhelpful from someone on the ERC side of the fence. The English and French would dearly love to see the back of Lux, Camou and some of the more intransigent Irish officials. But we haven't gone on and on about it..

But enough of that.

Rogue, if you've got a serious proposal for how 38 teams (plus the Italian Amlin teams) could play a meaningful competition that would satisfy two essential criteria, I would genuinely love to hear it:
1) It can't take up more time in the schedule than today's competition (9 weekends - 6 pool games, QF, SF, Final) - or fewer if possible (to accommodate the French)
2) It offers teams a minimum number of home games as part of the competition - 3 at the moment unless you can propose how to replace the revenue some other way.

McCaffrrey is clearly in an unsustainable position. He will go - probably once the deals are signed. An obvious barrier to any compromise and has annoyed all stakeholders

Pourfour - a bigger cup? 30 odd teams - play more groups - say 6 groups of 6 ( or 8x5). From each group top team into cup. second into bowl . 3rd into sheild each set of 8 teams plays knock-out. Not home and away - just one game head to head. ( or more smaller groups and play home adn away) It could be done no problemo. It would however lead to bad mismatches - its the main issue with it. This was proposed by the rabo unions but rejected.

Poorfour wrote:
Why is McCafferty the subject of so much individual opprobium? As far as I can see, he's done nothing that isn't matched by something equally outspoken or unhelpful from someone on the ERC  side of the fence. The English and French would dearly love to see the back of Lux, Camou and some of the more intransigent Irish officials. But we haven't gone on and on about it..

Nobody wanted rid of McCafferty (indeed, I'd suspect quite a lot of Europe didn't quite know who he was!!) until he decided to start talking - and when he started talking, his actual main issues were names he didn't like and wanted rid of himself.  He certainly wanted their 'influence' blunted.

So - if someone wants rid of certain names that he doesn't like then he can't be surprised now that people wouldn't be all that sad for him if it turns out he's the one that has to fall on his sword instead.  

If that's the life he loves, the cut and thrust of aggressive bargaining and deal making, then he shouldn't be shocked that many people don't really care in business terms what happens to him.  Live by that sword, and die by it.

Poorfour wrote:

Feckless Rogue wrote:It's great to see a small team upset the odds. That's why my favoured solution to the Franglo qualification complaint was to expand the HC so every team in the three leagues gets to play in it every year. Not reducing the number of qualifying teams.

Francis says in his article that McCafferty's position is untenable. What do you guys think? I'd dearly like to see the back of that guy.

Why is McCafferty the subject of so much individual opprobium? As far as I can see, he's done nothing that isn't matched by something equally outspoken or unhelpful from someone on the ERC  side of the fence. The English and French would dearly love to see the back of Lux, Camou and some of the more intransigent Irish officials. But we haven't gone on and on about it..

But enough of that.

Rogue, if you've got a serious proposal for how 38 teams (plus the Italian Amlin teams) could play a meaningful competition that would satisfy two essential criteria, I would genuinely love to hear it:
1) It can't take up more time in the schedule than today's competition (9 weekends - 6 pool games, QF, SF, Final) - or fewer if possible (to accommodate the French)
2) It offers teams a minimum number of home games as part of the competition - 3 at the moment unless you can propose how to replace the revenue some other way.

I have always preferred a premier competition of 16 and a second one of 32.
That would ensure a second competition with some high class teams.

Split of 6 (pro 12)/5/5
The remaining 22 + 10 other nation teams make up the secondary competition.
Same number of fixtures and does away with the comparing of 2nd team results to see who goes through, which is a bit of a farce

Poorfour I just don't like how McCafferty conducts his business. I think he's dishonest, underhanded, reckless and generally completely untrustworthy. I don't like bully boy threats or the suggestion that Irish sides don't deserve three places in Europe's premier competition, but England deserve six. And his secret BT deal seemed to me to be a transparent attempt to bundle AP and HC TV rights into one deal, then pretend most of the money is for the AP, and put the rest in the European "shared pot".

What made me mention him is that Francis says his position is untenable. But the majority of clubs just voted to stay out of the HC. Is his position untenable? Him leaving wouldn't make the disagreements go away. But it might make a future resolution, bringing the English teams back into the HC more possible. I was just interested in what others think about whether his position is untenable or not.

Whether he is liked for the way he conducts his business or otherwise, he is acting with the complete faith of the 12 Premiership clubs (+ Leeds and Bristol, who are PRL shareholders) and therefore his position would seem to be totally tenable.

So - meritocratic qualification for the HC. something the PRL made a huge fuss of ( so long as meritocratic meant 6 english teams). So I thought a little look at the groups might be interesting  

Pool 1 Leinster thru, Castres might,
Pool 2 Toulon, cardiff blues
Pool 3 toulouse Saracens Connacht all even
Pool 4 clermont - quins have a chance
Pool 5 Ulster, Leicester tigers
Pool 6 Munster Gloucster.

!3 teams with a chance of getting to the knockouts and quins are unlikely

4 french, 1 welsh 4 english 4 Irish, However none of the english teams are in the driving seat in their groups - Scots absent completely, welsh not showing much. Its between the irish and the french with 3 group leaders each

SB wrote:Whether he is liked for the way he conducts his business or otherwise, he is acting with the complete faith of the 12 Premiership clubs (+ Leeds and Bristol, who are PRL shareholders) and therefore his position would seem to be totally tenable.

do you really think that? He has spectacularly failed in acheiving anything and has alienated everyone even potential allies along the way. I bet he is gone within a year.

Already I'm hearing of dissatisfaction in the English ranks. Not all the clubs are behind their leaders and as we speak a Five-Nation ERC accord is already in draft phase. The financial oblivion that these idiots forecast for the Celtic nations will visit them now and their folly, arrogance and town hall political rhetoric only leaves them one course of action. Do it quickly.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/neil-francis-premierships-motley-crew-are-risking-financial-oblivion-with-their-arrogance-29819401.html

What does he mean by that?

SB wrote:Whether he is liked for the way he conducts his business or otherwise, he is acting with the complete faith of the 12 Premiership clubs (+ Leeds and Bristol, who are PRL shareholders) and therefore his position would seem to be totally tenable.

You do not seem to be aware of the criticism he received in 2012 from other members of the PRL

Nonsense.

The reason the English clubs have pulled out is that the 12 Aviva clubs unanimously backed him and that they weren't prepared to play in any tournament under the auspices of the ERC.

As much as I don't like the chap and his methods, his arguments are lent a tremendous amount of weight with the clubs behind him.

The argument of alienation, which is totally true, doesn't suggest that his position is untenable.

Which league is proping up 5 of the pools?

profitius wrote:

Already I'm hearing of dissatisfaction in the English ranks. Not all the clubs are behind their leaders and as we speak a Five-Nation ERC accord is already in draft phase. The financial oblivion that these idiots forecast for the Celtic nations will visit them now and their folly, arrogance and town hall political rhetoric only leaves them one course of action. Do it quickly.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/neil-francis-premierships-motley-crew-are-risking-financial-oblivion-with-their-arrogance-29819401.html

What does he mean by that?

The five unions are close to agreement on an HC without the english.

broadlandboy wrote:Which league is propping up 5 of the pools?

Rabo? as I said - interesting

I think one conclusion to be drawn is the range of quality in the Rabo might be more - the best teams better and the worst worse. That and no easy games, upsets are good, a broader range of teams means more upsets

And...?

That was cut and dried in essence when the LNR agreed to participate in the Heineken Cup with the sweetener from the FFR.

As for the point in which the AP sides are struggling this year? They are. No bones to pick about that, they've had better years no doubt.

But if you think this is about performances on the paddock then it's a foolish assumption to make.

To ask a question back to you guys for opinion, how do you feel a Rabo+LNR league would work?

SB - the point is the PRL shouted long and hard about meritocracy but wanted 6 guaranteed places.  Not very meritocratic looking at the pools. Just poking fun at the PRLs stance and the fanboys

I agree with them on the principle of meritocracy - not so much the guaranteed six places - but it has been seconded to the main issue of TV money in truth.

Like others have already probably said, this is only the beginning rather than the end.

It'd be interesting to see how a new 'RaboLNR Heineken' Cup would operate.

SB wrote:

To ask a question back to you guys for opinion, how do you feel a Rabo+LNR league would work?

A league that takes over from Top14 and Pro12?

It's a legit question.  Not sure if I'd be able to answer it as I have a little difficulty understanding the drive for ever-enlargement of leagues.  

Yes, the HEC is a lovely idea, as for a few periods in a season we all start being interested in other League's teams and it's nice to feel the 'exoticness' of playing sides you've either never played before or have played very infrequently.  HEC not only embellishes European club rugby itself it also gets each individual League more prominence, as people look at league placings - working out how big a deal the guys they are meeting are in their own league etc.

But I think the idea that HEC is limited is the great selling point.  The more these sides would meet each other in enlarged leagues, the less grandeur and sense of occasion these encounters would be.  And it is the exotic quality that actually adds to the players sense of involvement themselves.  It virtually becomes a quasi International competition and the crowds also take to it at that level.

SB wrote:And...?


To ask a question back to you guys for opinion, how do you feel a Rabo+LNR league would work?

league? - it wouldnt

The PRL proposal was for the top 6 from each league so if Ireland had 4 teams in the top 6 they participated ,no problem except some want every nation involved.

broadlandboy wrote:The PRL proposal was for the top 6 from each league so if Ireland had 4 teams in the top 6 they participated ,no problem except some want every nation involved.

the PRL wanted 6 english. do they merit this? and the rabo only meriting 6?

SB wrote:Nonsense.

The reason the English clubs have pulled out is that the 12 Aviva clubs unanimously backed him and that they weren't prepared to play in any tournament under the auspices of the ERC.

As much as I don't like the chap and his methods, his arguments are lent a tremendous amount of weight with the clubs behind him.

The argument of alienation, which is totally true, doesn't suggest that his position is untenable.

A unanimous vote doesn't always mean that all are fully supportive. If you read the Guardian article printed on the eve of the PRL meeting, it does suggest that not all voting members were/are fully supportive of McCafferty and co. 'Strong words' having been spoken, and so on. It also suggests that not all are happy with how negotiations have been conducted.
So many people warned that PRL may well find themselves isolated, but they still persisted in their aim to bring down European competition, and now find themselves isolated. Even when the Unions agreed to most of their demands.
It could be that due to their signing the BT contract they really have no other option, but then if that's true....how stupid...

TJ wrote:SB - the point is the PRL shouted long and hard about meritocracy but wanted 6 guaranteed places.  Not very meritocratic looking at the pools.  Just poking fun at the PRLs stance and the fanboys

Well currently the average pool ranking for each nations is:

England 2.3
Ireland 1.5
Wales 3
Scotland 4
Italy 4
France 2.1

In terms of meritocracy that reads to me that it would be (from European competitions) Irish, French, English with a few more from the Pro12. Pretty much the proposition, so I don't really understand your point.

Edit: only half way through. I'm sure you'll be vindicated by the end.

My personal preference would be half of the teams from each country that compete in their top level league. But I have no say so my opinion doesn't matter

Munchkin wrote:

SB wrote:Nonsense.

The reason the English clubs have pulled out is that the 12 Aviva clubs unanimously backed him and that they weren't prepared to play in any tournament under the auspices of the ERC.

As much as I don't like the chap and his methods, his arguments are lent a tremendous amount of weight with the clubs behind him.

The argument of alienation, which is totally true, doesn't suggest that his position is untenable.

A unanimous vote doesn't always mean that all are fully supportive. If you read the Guardian article printed on the eve of the PRL meeting, it does suggest that not all voting members were/are fully supportive of McCafferty and co. 'Strong words' having been spoken, and so on. It also suggests that not all are happy with how negotiations have been conducted.
So many people warned that PRL may well find themselves isolated, but they still persisted in their aim to bring down European competition, and now find themselves isolated. Even when the Unions agreed to most of their demands.
It could be that due to their signing the BT contract they really have no other option, but then if that's true....how stupid...

I thought the Guardian articles on this were full of Poopie and not to be trusted? Or is it ok if it's saying something you want to hear/to be true?

how have you worked that out?


the point is simple - the PRL claim 1/3 of the places for England is meritocratic. Its clearly not on this years showing. they may well not get a team into the last 8 - although they probably will get one.

Look at each league as the PRL say we should be doing. england do not deserve 1/3 of the places on a meritocratic basis

broadlandboy wrote:The PRL proposal was for the top 6 from each league so if Ireland had 4 teams in the top 6 they participated ,no problem except some want every nation involved.

But it's easy to understand Ireland involvement in the current climate at club level.  

Yet the point is that England had a guaranteed 6 places - not 6 places they had to work hard for on 'merit' terms - six places, regardless of the quality of rugby played in any given year in AP.  But if in the future, Irish teams suffered a down swing in form - PRL plans meant HEC wouldn't be seeing any of them - or maybe just one.

So the conditions attached to an English 6 are markedly different to the conditions PRL wanted to attach to , let's say, Ireland's 3, 2 or 1, or to Wales's 1, 2 or 3.

Our argument is that the same conditions should apply for all.  If two nations have a guaranteed 6 places each, then other nations must have similar rights to have enough clubs involved for proper interest levels.

TJ wrote:how have you worked that out?


the point is simple - the PRL claim 1/3 of the places for England is meritocratic.  Its clearly not on this years showing.  they may well not get a team into the last 8 - although they probably will get one.  

Look at each league as the PRL say we should be doing.  england do not deserve 1/3 of the places on a meritocratic basis

The English make up 4 of the top 12 (top two spots). 3 are Irish, 1 Welsh and 4 are French. The Scots and Italians make up the bottom spots. I'm still not seeing your point.

BTW to work out an average I added up each English pool place and divided by the number of teams. Lower the better.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

SB wrote:Nonsense.

The reason the English clubs have pulled out is that the 12 Aviva clubs unanimously backed him and that they weren't prepared to play in any tournament under the auspices of the ERC.

As much as I don't like the chap and his methods, his arguments are lent a tremendous amount of weight with the clubs behind him.

The argument of alienation, which is totally true, doesn't suggest that his position is untenable.

A unanimous vote doesn't always mean that all are fully supportive. If you read the Guardian article printed on the eve of the PRL meeting, it does suggest that not all voting members were/are fully supportive of McCafferty and co. 'Strong words' having been spoken, and so on. It also suggests that not all are happy with how negotiations have been conducted.
So many people warned that PRL may well find themselves isolated, but they still persisted in their aim to bring down European competition, and now find themselves isolated. Even when the Unions agreed to most of their demands.
It could be that due to their signing the BT contract they really have no other option, but then if that's true....how stupid...

I thought the Guardian articles on this were full of Poopie and not to be trusted? Or is it ok if it's saying something you want to hear/to be true?

Absolutely. Rees/Kitson are heavily biased in favour of PRL, and so when the Guardian prints an article suggesting not all is well within the PRL camp it's worth considering.
So much damage has been caused by the posturing of McCafferty, Wray, Craig and co. The AP teams will return to European competition, maybe not this year, but it would be some stretch to believe that the Unions will deal with McCafferty.

Munchkin wrote:Absolutely. Rees/Kitson are heavily biased in favour of PRL, and so when the Guardian prints an article suggesting not all is well within the PRL camp, it's worth considering.
So much damage has been caused by the posturing of McCafferty, Wray, Craig and co. The AP teams will return to European competition, maybe not this year, but it would be some stretch to believe that the Unions will deal with McCafferty.

So yes then. Since, in your unbiased opinion, the Guardian is biased, anything you don't like is spin and cowpat, and anything you do like is their goodness and true journalism shining throughout the spin.

Awesome.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Absolutely. Rees/Kitson are heavily biased in favour of PRL, and so when the Guardian prints an article suggesting not all is well within the PRL camp, it's worth considering.
So much damage has been caused by the posturing of McCafferty, Wray, Craig and co. The AP teams will return to European competition, maybe not this year, but it would be some stretch to believe that the Unions will deal with McCafferty.

So yes then. Since, in your unbiased opinion, the Guardian is biased, anything you don't like is spin and cowpat, and anything you do like is their goodness and true journalism shining throughout the spin.

Awesome.

Wind your horns in.

The reason they are biased is because they print whatever it is their sources within PRL are telling them, and without any possible counter argument to help provide balance. A certain Irish journalist is often accused of being heavily biased in favour of IRFU. Regardless of that bias he does have inside sources, and if he was to suggest that there was infighting within the Irish camp then all would take notice. Yes, even those who accuse him of bias.

And yep, much of Guardian articles printed on behalf of PRL has been spin, and cowpat. Nicely put  

Key dates coming up:

WRU RRW meeting wednesday. need to sign a new participation agreement by end Dec or its principality rugby meltdown
LNR club owners need to approve FFR-LNR "Convention" from their side dec 19th

any more to add to the calendar?

PRL appear to be out so not expecting anything from them.

When do the format, etc info about 2014-15 HC get agreed/announced?

quinsforever wrote:Key dates coming up:

WRU RRW meeting wednesday. need to sign a new participation agreement by end Dec or its principality rugby meltdown
LNR club owners need to approve FFR-LNR "Convention" from their side dec 19th

any more to add to the calendar?

PRL appear to be out so not expecting anything from them.

When do the format, etc info about 2014-15 HC get agreed/announced?

Thought I had read somewhere that RFU are asking the other 5 Unions to meet on Tuesday? Also think FFR and LNR have signed agreement, but just waiting until the AGM to announce it?

There was a Guardian article saying he wanted to try and salvage a 6 country competition but there was no substance to any of it. Not a single quote from Richie. Nothing about proposed meetings Nothing really.

I seem to remember in one of quinsforever's translated articles that the agreement would be made (has been now) but wouldn't be formally announced until it have been ratified by whoever needs to do that (20th Dec was the date I think).

Christmas is coming up.