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

First topic message reminder :

"Rugby Union is too complicated to understand to attract a mass audience in the first place."

which is the problem for union fans..

because otherwise league or NFL could overtake rugby and kill it.

Off course the reality is it isnt to complicated and by far the best form, but if union doesn't progress(as at the moment it is by far the biggest global rugby type game) others will over take

quinsforever wrote:he usually disappears after making a factual howler.

ERC are a "convener". the company itself is worth nothing. it is a shell company that rugby clubs and unions ascribe their TV rights to in order to arrange a tournament. and that's all they do.

How can anyone claim that "The ERC is European rugby union". That is arrogant, delusional, innacurate and naive. There is no such thing as "European rugby union". there are international european competitions, not limited to the 6N, and club competitions, only 2 of which are organised by ERC. If you killed ERC today, and set something else up tomorrow, precisely no-one would notice, aprt from JP Lux's wife who would have to put up with his whining at home!

What nonsense, quins. Bring up my 'factual howlers' that I run away from. Post them here. As for running away. I was taking time out to watch the Tigers game, rather than remaining here to read the absolute clueless rubbish you spout.
As for your take on ERC? Wise up. I actually spelt out for you what the ERC consisted of. Those Unions, and affiliated groups which combine together to form the governing body - the ERC.
As for the rest - "arrogant, delusional, innacurate and naive" Grow up.

There's no point debating with you, quins, because when you're out of your depth you resort to the nonsense you're coming out with now.

On that note I shall leave you to smoulder    Laters   

TJ wrote:

quinsforever wrote:completely, 100% irrelevant. RFU had no rights to offer up. Nothing. So they probably said at the time, well done ERC looks like a great contract, now you just have to deal with the fact that at the moment there are no english or french clubs in ERC

the French clubs are in. Yes, but could be ERC-run, could be 6N-run, who knows?

The RFU agreed were aware of the sky deal

the RFU knew nothing of the BT deal

This is the truth of the matter quins - no matter how you spin it its the PRL that are the numpties without any competition to play in because of their own greed and stupidity

made small correction for you TJ. no charge as usual RFU weren't signatories to anything that ERC signs. Neither were any of the unions themselves. This is why they can walk away from ERC and the SKY contract would die with them. If unions directly had contracted with SKY we would be in a situation where it wouldnt matter if ERC was abolished or not, the unions would be stuck with SKY, and the PRL with BT and never the twain shall meet.

seems like the no competition to play in line might be a bit early. i think the celtic unions are pretty worried about Camou and the FFR, especially as Camou leaves next year. what happens after him? At least with the BT proposal, the economics were guaranteed for the celtic unions. from 2015? ERC? no-ERC? FIRA-AER? 6N? English clubs in? Out?

looks like Ritchie's efforts to get a 6N organised tournament is the last ditch effort to salvage a full competition for 2014-15. even if Camou holds firm, then the solution from 2015 onwards, according to the IRB has to include the english clubs and has to be agreed by them. so the fractious debate is just delayed by a year.

quinsforever wrote:

TJ wrote:

quinsforever wrote:completely, 100% irrelevant. RFU had no rights to offer up. Nothing. So they probably said at the time, well done ERC looks like a great contract, now you just have to deal with the fact that at the moment there are no english or french clubs in ERC

the French clubs are in. Yes, but could be ERC-run, could be 6N-run, who knows?

The RFU agreed were aware of the sky deal

the RFU knew nothing of the BT deal

This is the truth of the matter quins - no matter how you spin it its the PRL that are the numpties without any competition to play in because of their own greed and stupidity

seems like the no competition to play in line might be a bit early. i think the celtic unions are pretty worried about Camou and the FFR, especially as Camou leaves next year. what happens after him? At least with the BT proposal, the economics were guaranteed for the celtic unions. from 2015? ERC? no-ERC? FIRA-AER? 6N? English clubs in? Out?

looks like Ritchie's efforts to get a 6N organised tournament is the last ditch effort to salvage a full competition for 2014-15. even if Camou holds firm, then the solution from 2015 onwards, according to the IRB has to include the english clubs and has to be agreed by them. so the fractious debate is just delayed by a year.

there's a few more miles in this one yet that's for sure Quins.

Munchkin wrote:

quinsforever wrote:he usually disappears after making a factual howler.

ERC are a "convener". the company itself is worth nothing. it is a shell company that rugby clubs and unions ascribe their TV rights to in order to arrange a tournament. and that's all they do.

How can anyone claim that "The ERC is European rugby union". That is arrogant, delusional, innacurate and naive. There is no such thing as "European rugby union". there are international european competitions, not limited to the 6N, and club competitions, only 2 of which are organised by ERC. If you killed ERC today, and set something else up tomorrow, precisely no-one would notice, aprt from JP Lux's wife who would have to put up with his whining at home!

What nonsense, quins. Bring up my 'factual howlers' that I run away from. Post them here. As for running away. I was taking time out to watch the Tigers game, rather than remaining here to read the absolute clueless rubbish you spout.
As for your take on ERC? Wise up. I actually spelt out for you what the ERC consisted of. Those Unions, and affiliated groups which combine together to form the governing body - the ERC.
As for the rest - "arrogant, delusional, innacurate and naive" Grow up.

There's no point debating with you, quins, because when you're out of your depth you resort to the nonsense you're coming out with now.

On that note I shall leave you to smoulder    Laters   

there is statistically about the same chance of you winding me up deliberately as there is of my 4 year old engaging in a philosophical discussion.   

accidentally, through some of your obtuse posts, is a different matter.  

the fact that you think the ERC is an entity which has any economic value in and of its own right speaks volumes. Content is king. providing referees, a website, and some basic accounting creates zero value. None. Which is why it could be replaced by 6N as Ritchie suggests, or FIRA-AER as Lapasset and Camou  suggest. Hardly a ringing endorsement of its importance when every single union chief is prepared to toss it away.

out of my depth. comedy. i analyse businesses for a living. and the very first lesson i learnt, 20 years ago, is to identify where the value is created. and it's nowhere near the nepotistic, anachronistic, protectionist ERC.   

quinsforever wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

quinsforever wrote:he usually disappears after making a factual howler.

ERC are a "convener". the company itself is worth nothing. it is a shell company that rugby clubs and unions ascribe their TV rights to in order to arrange a tournament. and that's all they do.

How can anyone claim that "The ERC is European rugby union". That is arrogant, delusional, innacurate and naive. There is no such thing as "European rugby union". there are international european competitions, not limited to the 6N, and club competitions, only 2 of which are organised by ERC. If you killed ERC today, and set something else up tomorrow, precisely no-one would notice, aprt from JP Lux's wife who would have to put up with his whining at home!

What nonsense, quins. Bring up my 'factual howlers' that I run away from. Post them here. As for running away. I was taking time out to watch the Tigers game, rather than remaining here to read the absolute clueless rubbish you spout.
As for your take on ERC? Wise up. I actually spelt out for you what the ERC consisted of. Those Unions, and affiliated groups which combine together to form the governing body - the ERC.
As for the rest - "arrogant, delusional, innacurate and naive" Grow up.

There's no point debating with you, quins, because when you're out of your depth you resort to the nonsense you're coming out with now.

On that note I shall leave you to smoulder    Laters   

there is statistically about the same chance of you winding me up deliberately as there is of my 4 year old engaging in a philosophical discussion.

accidentally, through some of your obtuse posts, is a different matter.

the fact that you think the ERC is an entity which has any economic value in and of its own right speaks volumes. Content is king. providing referees, a website, and some basic accounting creates zero value. None. Which is why it could be replaced by 6N as Ritchie suggests, or FIRA-AER as Lapasset and Camou  suggest. Hardly a ringing endorsement of its importance when every single union chief is prepared to toss it away.

out of my depth. comedy. i analyse businesses for a living. and the very first lesson i learnt, 20 years ago, is to identify where the value is created. and it's nowhere near the nepotistic, anachronistic, protectionist ERC.

Ok, quins.

i tell you want, the 606 owners must be happy with HC shambles, the amount of ad views there getting from it.   

quinsforever wrote:

TJ wrote:

quinsforever wrote:completely, 100% irrelevant. RFU had no rights to offer up. Nothing. So they probably said at the time, well done ERC looks like a great contract, now you just have to deal with the fact that at the moment there are no english or french clubs in ERC

the French clubs are in. Yes, but could be ERC-run, could be 6N-run, who knows?

The RFU agreed were aware of the sky deal

the RFU knew nothing of the BT deal

This is the truth of the matter quins - no matter how you spin it its the PRL that are the numpties without any competition to play in because of their own greed and stupidity

made small correction for you TJ. no charge as usual ;)RFU weren't signatories to anything that ERC signs. Neither were any of the unions themselves. This is why they can walk away from ERC and the SKY contract would die with them. If unions directly had contracted with SKY we would be in a situation where it wouldnt matter if ERC was abolished or not, the unions would be stuck with SKY, and the PRL with BT and never the twain shall meet.

seems like the no competition to play in line might be a bit early. i think the celtic unions are pretty worried about Camou and the FFR, especially as Camou leaves next year. what happens after him? At least with the BT proposal, the economics were guaranteed for the celtic unions. from 2015? ERC? no-ERC? FIRA-AER? 6N? English clubs in? Out?

looks like Ritchie's efforts to get a 6N organised tournament is the last ditch effort to salvage a full competition for 2014-15. even if Camou holds firm, then the solution from 2015 onwards, according to the IRB has to include the english clubs and has to be agreed by them. so the fractious debate is just delayed by a year.

They wouldn't have been required to sign anything. All they had to do was approve the deal at Board level would have been enough. And they did that. All they needed was McGrath & Lux's signature (on behalf of the Board). You seriously think everyone would have been required to sign this document     

From reports I've seen in the newspaper Sud Ouest, it seems that the LNR have signed up for 4 years to participate in the Heineken Cup organised by the ERC. It also seems that the LNR are very annoyed with Goze for his efforts to get the Heineken Cup renegotiated because he has resulted in the LNR humiliated by the FFR.

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

TJ wrote:

quinsforever wrote:completely, 100% irrelevant. RFU had no rights to offer up. Nothing. So they probably said at the time, well done ERC looks like a great contract, now you just have to deal with the fact that at the moment there are no english or french clubs in ERC

the French clubs are in. Yes, but could be ERC-run, could be 6N-run, who knows?

The RFU agreed were aware of the sky deal

the RFU knew nothing of the BT deal

This is the truth of the matter quins - no matter how you spin it its the PRL that are the numpties without any competition to play in because of their own greed and stupidity

made small correction for you TJ. no charge as usual ;)RFU weren't signatories to anything that ERC signs. Neither were any of the unions themselves. This is why they can walk away from ERC and the SKY contract would die with them. If unions directly had contracted with SKY we would be in a situation where it wouldnt matter if ERC was abolished or not, the unions would be stuck with SKY, and the PRL with BT and never the twain shall meet.

seems like the no competition to play in line might be a bit early. i think the celtic unions are pretty worried about Camou and the FFR, especially as Camou leaves next year. what happens after him? At least with the BT proposal, the economics were guaranteed for the celtic unions. from 2015? ERC? no-ERC? FIRA-AER? 6N? English clubs in? Out?

looks like Ritchie's efforts to get a 6N organised tournament is the last ditch effort to salvage a full competition for 2014-15. even if Camou holds firm, then the solution from 2015 onwards, according to the IRB has to include the english clubs and has to be agreed by them. so the fractious debate is just delayed by a year.

They wouldn't have been required to sign anything. All they had to do was approve the deal at Board level would have been enough. And they did that. All they needed was McGrath & Lux's signature (on behalf of the Board). You seriously think everyone would have been required to sign this document     

From reports I've seen in the newspaper Sud Ouest, it seems that the LNR have signed up for 4 years to participate in the Heineken Cup organised by the ERC. It also seems that the LNR are very annoyed with Goze for his efforts to get the Heineken Cup renegotiated because he has resulted in the LNR humiliated by the FFR.

Do all present have to "approve" Sin e? Or is there a voting process? Do you (or me) know these thing?

I would doubt that you would require everyone to approve of it, just a majority. (I seem to recall reading that no one objected to the Sky deal).

I'd also imagine that McGrath (CEO) would have contact the Board before signing it and not just the RFU when he heard about the PRL signing the BT contract.

We don't know do we? I should think it would be voted on by participants present/relevant to vote.

the point is, no matter what ERC signed, it cannot be binding on people who are no longer part of ERC. End of. Any suggestion to the contrary is willful ignorance.

re sin e's comments on 4 more years for LNR and ERC. get real. Camou and Lapasset have said that ERC has 1 more year then will be replaced.

been relying on google translate again much sin e?

All Boards would have rules as to how they operate their voting system. Most would require a quorum (agreed by the shareholders) and it would be rare that they would require a unanimous vote. Majority rule - isn't that what McCaff can't cope with - democracy!

Yep Sin. I doubt it requires everyone to vote affirmative.

But we don't know.

stub wrote:Yep Sin. I doubt it requires everyone to vote affirmative.

even if approval of the ERC contract with SKY was unanimous, so what? RFU directors would have voted for extension of the SKY contract if that looked to be in the best interests of ERC and as directors they had to bear that in mind. given the PRL had already given their 2 yr notice to withdraw, there is absolutely zero relevance to the english clubs and the RFU. Approving, by voting in favour, abstaining or being outvoted has ZERO relevance when the english clubs, as things stood, could not be part of any TV broadcasting rights.

This is the single biggest red herring in this whole fupping debate.

RRW have issued a new statement, can someone provide the link to fetch it on here please. Thanks

quinsforever wrote:the point is, no matter what ERC signed, it cannot be binding on people who are no longer part of ERC. End of. Any suggestion to the contrary is willful ignorance.

re sin e's comments on 4 more years for LNR and ERC. get real. Camou and Lapasset have said that ERC has 1 more year then will be replaced.

been relying on google translate again much sin e?

Gavin Mairs got a proper job done of it in the Telegraph. Google translate certainly gave the sense of what it was all about. They are definately tied into an ERC run Heineken Cup for the next 4 years.  

PS - unless McCaff resigned from the Board in writing, he is still part of the ERC. Don't think Richie has resigned  

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:the point is, no matter what ERC signed, it cannot be binding on people who are no longer part of ERC. End of. Any suggestion to the contrary is willful ignorance.

re sin e's comments on 4 more years for LNR and ERC. get real. Camou and Lapasset have said that ERC has 1 more year then will be replaced.

been relying on google translate again much sin e?

Gavin Mairs got a proper job done of it in the Telegraph. Google translate certainly gave the sense of what it was all about. They are definately tied into an ERC run Heineken Cup for the next 4 years.  

PS - unless McCaff resigned from the Board in writing, he is still part of the ERC. Don't think Richie has resigned  

you think McCaff is on the Board? you're even dimmer than i thought. it's easy to see the board composition on the website.

I read the entire renewed agreement between FFR and LNR, and it does not mention ERC even once. Not a single mention of any renewed commitment. Moreover, it would be unusual for LNR to commit to ERC when the ERC standard participation agreement runs for 7 years, and needs renewing from june 2014. So LNR have committed to ERC when FFR explicitly haven't nor the IRB, and none of the other unions?

you operate in a parallel universe where the out of date pap you keep pasting has relevance. please post the gavin mairs article and any other links you have that show this 4 yr commitment of LNR, because having read that ACTUAL LNR/FFR contract i can say you are, once again, completely making crwp up.

here you go pet, it's a link to the ERC commercial sub-committee

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

maybe they made a typo and misspelt mccaferty as Bouscatel?

and fyi, there's no-one from the RFU on the commercial sub-committee

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:the point is, no matter what ERC signed, it cannot be binding on people who are no longer part of ERC. End of. Any suggestion to the contrary is willful ignorance.

re sin e's comments on 4 more years for LNR and ERC. get real. Camou and Lapasset have said that ERC has 1 more year then will be replaced.

been relying on google translate again much sin e?

Gavin Mairs got a proper job done of it in the Telegraph. Google translate certainly gave the sense of what it was all about. They are definately tied into an ERC run Heineken Cup for the next 4 years.  

PS - unless McCaff resigned from the Board in writing, he is still part of the ERC. Don't think Richie has resigned  

you think McCaff is on the Board? you're even dimmer than i thought. it's easy to see the board composition on the website.

I read the entire renewed agreement between FFR and LNR, and it does not mention ERC even once. Not a single mention of any renewed commitment. Moreover, it would be unusual for LNR to commit to ERC when the ERC standard participation agreement runs for 7 years, and needs renewing from june 2014. So LNR have committed to ERC when FFR explicitly haven't nor the IRB, and none of the other unions?

you operate in a parallel universe where the out of date pap you keep pasting has relevance. please post the gavin mairs article and any other links you have that show this 4 yr commitment of LNR, because having read that ACTUAL LNR/FFR contract i can say you are, once again, completely making crwp up.

It wouldn't have to be McCaff - just whoever is the English club representative (Peter Wheeler - who has got very quiet recently on this subject). Maybe he realises he has Fiduciary duty to the ERC as a Board Director.

quinsforever wrote:here you go pet, it's a link to the ERC commercial sub-committee

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

maybe they made a typo and misspelt mccaferty as Bouscatel?

The writing should have been on the wall for the PRL when Bouscatel took over as chair from McCafferty. Crikey, the LNR couldn't really support the PRL/BT deal under those circumstances.

quinsforever wrote:........................ so the fractious debate is just delayed by a year.

Or it gives us a year to find a reasonable and equitable solution starting with a blank sheet not an attempt to impose something by any one party.

TJ wrote:

quinsforever wrote:........................ so the fractious debate is just delayed by a year.

Or it gives us a year to find a reasonable and equitable solution starting with a blank sheet not an attempt to impose something by any one party.

TJ, both the ERC and PRL were not in the mood for compromising. I would say ERC started it and left PRL with no choice. i can see how others might see it differently.

but getting it right with a blank sheet of paper may prove very tricky. fingers crossed though, as long ans the anglo-welsh league didnt get going in the meantime which would completely screw the rabo.

quinsforever wrote:

TJ wrote:

quinsforever wrote:........................ so the fractious debate is just delayed by a year.

Or it gives us a year to find a reasonable and equitable solution starting with a blank sheet not an attempt to impose something by any one party.

TJ, both the ERC and PRL were not in the mood for compromising. I would say ERC started it and left PRL with no choice. i can see how others might see it differently.

but getting it right with a blank sheet of paper may prove very tricky. fingers crossed though, as long ans the anglo-welsh league didnt get going in the meantime which would completely screw the rabo.

Quins you should apply for a job with PRL. Removed - BB

wayne wrote:RRW have issued a new statement, can someone provide the link to fetch it on here please. Thanks

REGIONAL RUGBY WALES HAS ISSUED THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE FOUR WELSH REGIONS:


Regional Rugby Wales, on behalf of the four Welsh Regions, have today confirmed that they are requesting an Independent Public Enquiry into the current and projected distribution of Broadcasting and Competition revenues into the Professional game in Wales.
Specifically, the Regions’ request an Independent Review to properly consider the following questions:
Why is it appropriate for the Scottish Clubs operating in the Union’s ERC competition to receive an approximate distribution of €2.45m per team when the Welsh Regions receive only €1.225m per team?
Why is it appropriate for the Italian teams operating in the same competition to receive approximately €2.3m per team?
This is the existing position and we have received no assurance that it would not continue under the new 5 Nation European Competition proposed by the Unions.
With the French clubs being able to negotiate TV revenues well in excess of €65m for their Domestic League, why is the revenue from French TV for the proposed new 5 Nation European Competition, negotiated by the Unions estimated to be only €14m?    
With the English clubs being able to negotiate TV revenues of £22m from their domestic league, why are the Unions only able to achieve revenue of £5.5m for primary TV rights for the RaboDirect Pro12 league?
With the significant proposed contribution of £3.2m from Welsh television to secondary TV rights for Pro12, why is the estimated contribution from Irish TV only £910,000 and from Scottish TV only £140,000?
Based on all of the above, have imbalances or subsidies built up in TV revenues between the various International and Club competitions negotiated by the Unions and if so, how did this arise?
If this is the case, how can it be corrected going forward to ensure the Regions have the resources to retain and grow the pool of Welsh Professional players to adequately service the Professional game and the Welsh National team?    
ENDS


There you go   

Nice one Welsh dudes..

good points.

ME-109 wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

TJ wrote:

quinsforever wrote:........................ so the fractious debate is just delayed by a year.

Or it gives us a year to find a reasonable and equitable solution starting with a blank sheet not an attempt to impose something by any one party.

TJ, both the ERC and PRL were not in the mood for compromising. I would say ERC started it and left PRL with no choice. i can see how others might see it differently.

but getting it right with a blank sheet of paper may prove very tricky. fingers crossed though, as long ans the anglo-welsh league didnt get going in the meantime which would completely screw the rabo.

Quins you should apply for a job with PRL. Removed - BB

what kind of an irishman is a nazi fanatic anyway? i understand the supra-nationalism thing fits well with the defensiveness about any changes to Heineken Cup, but really mate, you do yourself no favours.

fiar play to the welsh regions for not rolling over and licking up roger lewis's spittle.

quinsforever wrote:

ME-109 wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

TJ wrote:

quinsforever wrote:........................ so the fractious debate is just delayed by a year.

Or it gives us a year to find a reasonable and equitable solution starting with a blank sheet not an attempt to impose something by any one party.

TJ, both the ERC and PRL were not in the mood for compromising. I would say ERC started it and left PRL with no choice. i can see how others might see it differently.

but getting it right with a blank sheet of paper may prove very tricky. fingers crossed though, as long ans the anglo-welsh league didnt get going in the meantime which would completely screw the rabo.

Quins you should apply for a job with PRL. Removed - BB

removed - BB i understand the supra-nationalism thing fits well with the defensiveness about any changes to Heineken Cup, but really mate, you do yourself no favours.

109s shot down a few Englishmen I suppose.  

mystiroakey wrote:Nice one Welsh dudes..

good points.

Yeah, nicely put Welsh dudes!   

Not so sure they are good points. The reasons for the first two concerning the Scot's and Italians are well known, and, I would think, something that RRW were well aware of prior to signing their last WRU/RRW agreement.

Munchkin wrote:

wayne wrote:RRW have issued a new statement, can someone provide the link to fetch it on here please. Thanks

REGIONAL RUGBY WALES HAS ISSUED THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE FOUR WELSH REGIONS:


Regional Rugby Wales, on behalf of the four Welsh Regions, have today confirmed that they are requesting an Independent Public Enquiry into the current and projected distribution of Broadcasting and Competition revenues into the Professional game in Wales.
Specifically, the Regions’ request an Independent Review to properly consider the following questions:
Why is it appropriate for the Scottish Clubs operating in the Union’s ERC competition to receive an approximate distribution of €2.45m per team when the Welsh Regions receive only €1.225m per team?
Why is it appropriate for the Italian teams operating in the same competition to receive approximately €2.3m per team?
This is the existing position and we have received no assurance that it would not continue under the new 5 Nation European Competition proposed by the Unions.
With the French clubs being able to negotiate TV revenues well in excess of €65m for their Domestic League, why is the revenue from French TV for the proposed new 5 Nation European Competition, negotiated by the Unions estimated to be only €14m?    
With the English clubs being able to negotiate TV revenues of £22m from their domestic league, why are the Unions only able to achieve revenue of £5.5m for primary TV rights for the RaboDirect Pro12 league?
With the significant proposed contribution of £3.2m from Welsh television to secondary TV rights for Pro12, why is the estimated contribution from Irish TV only £910,000 and from Scottish TV only £140,000?
Based on all of the above, have imbalances or subsidies built up in TV revenues between the various International and Club competitions negotiated by the Unions and if so, how did this arise?
If this is the case, how can it be corrected going forward to ensure the Regions have the resources to retain and grow the pool of Welsh Professional players to adequately service the Professional game and the Welsh National team?    
ENDS 

I think I could answer at least half of these questions and I'm not sure what's going on. In fact, some of the questions seem to answer themselves in the same sentence.

RRW are fighting with WRU, not the scots or italians.

they are making the point that WRU is doing the opposite of going to bat for them. that WRU is giving them a crwppy deal in spite of the better TV and other revenues that the regions generate for the WRU (compared to scots, italians and irish). they are building their case against roger lewis for being in dereliction of his duty of care for welsh rugby at all levels.

Munchkin wrote:Not so sure they are good points. The reasons for the first two concerning the Scot's and Italians are well known, and, I would think, something that RRW were well aware of prior to signing their last WRU/RRW agreement.

They are good points.

Its black and white stuff, The RRW are getting mugged off.And a pub football tourny makes more than the rabbo

quinsforever wrote:

ME-109 wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

TJ wrote:

quinsforever wrote:........................ so the fractious debate is just delayed by a year.

Or it gives us a year to find a reasonable and equitable solution starting with a blank sheet not an attempt to impose something by any one party.

TJ, both the ERC and PRL were not in the mood for compromising. I would say ERC started it and left PRL with no choice. i can see how others might see it differently.

but getting it right with a blank sheet of paper may prove very tricky. fingers crossed though, as long ans the anglo-welsh league didnt get going in the meantime which would completely screw the rabo.

Quins you should apply for a job with PRL. Removed - BB

what kind of an irishman is a nazi fanatic anyway? i understand the supra-nationalism thing fits well with the defensiveness about any changes to Heineken Cup, but really mate, you do yourself no favours.

OMG a comparison with a propagandist is removed....jebus wept....

Anyhow...Quins you are a pure propagandist and apologist that was the comparison....I note that you decided to have a pop at Fly as well given the shallowness of your arguments being called to question.

Fly? do u mean Munchkin?

i haven't had a pop at anyone. take a long look in the mirror and maybe have a glass of water mate.

mystiroakey wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Not so sure they are good points. The reasons for the first two concerning the Scot's and Italians are well known, and, I would think, something that RRW were well aware of prior to signing their last WRU/RRW agreement.

They are good points.

Its black and white stuff, The RRW are getting mugged off.And a pub football tourny makes more than the rabbo

Good grief. The money was given to the Unions to share out to their club/regions/provinces. The Scot's have two teams, the Italians have two teams, and the Welsh have four. Now if the regions feel disadvantaged I'm sure they can put their heads together, and figure out which of the two of them should cease to exist in order for the remaining two to get more of the monies. They would have been aware of this prior to signing their present agreement with WRU. They signed the dotted line then, and if they didn't agree with what they were signing up too then perhaps that was the time to voice their grievance.
Is it coincidence that they publish this statement now just as Lewis is preparing to meet with a regions support group?

quinsforever wrote:Fly? do u mean Munchkin?

i haven't had a pop at anyone. take a long look in the mirror and maybe have a glass of water mate.

You have done it again. You have managed to confuse me. What on earth are you talking about?

quinsforever wrote:Fly? do u mean Munchkin?

i haven't had a pop at anyone. take a long look in the mirror and maybe have a glass of water mate.

You sir are a cad and an apologist for the ruination of competitive rugby and the growth of the game in the NH.   

At the moment the Heineken Cup looks like it's going to continue next year and at the moment teams from 5 nations are going to make up the numbers. With all the rubbish that has come out and has been written, the only difference with now and this time last year is that the French are not on board with the English anymore. Unfortunate for some but that's just the way it is at the moment. So let's accept it and cease the blame game and the childish cheapshots.

Yes Munchkin, good grief... quite... jolly hockey sticks and all that jazz.

The RRW are gaining backbone and they dont want less regions just because Scotland now has less reigions.

It doesn't seem like an easy choice to me. Its a free world and they have a voice.

Munchkin wrote:

quinsforever wrote:Fly? do u mean Munchkin?

i haven't had a pop at anyone. take a long look in the mirror and maybe have a glass of water mate.

You have done it again. You have managed to confuse me. What on earth are you talking about?

wasnt referring to you buddy. was replying to the apparently out of control me-109. he has already likened me to the nazi party propagandist who was hitler's nominated successor and who killed his six children before committing suicide himself.

the bloke obviously can't handle himself after a few beers without losing the plot. pretty embarrassing.

quinsforever wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

quinsforever wrote:Fly? do u mean Munchkin?

i haven't had a pop at anyone. take a long look in the mirror and maybe have a glass of water mate.

You have done it again. You have managed to confuse me. What on earth are you talking about?

wasnt referring to you buddy. was replying to the apparently out of control me-109. he has already likened me to the nazi party propagandist who was hitler's nominated successor and who killed his six children before committing suicide himself.

the bloke obviously can't handle himself after a few beers without losing the plot. pretty embarrassing.

Oh dear forever the victim quins...and incapable of reading...

mystiroakey wrote:Yes Munchkin, good grief... quite... jolly hockey sticks and all that jazz.

The RRW are gaining backbone and they dont want less regions just because Scotland now has less reigions.

It doesn't seem like an easy choice to me. Its a free world and they have a voice.

Jolly hockey stick, and all that?

People can't always have what they want, mystir. There isn't an endless supply of cash to satiate the wants, and sometimes something has got to give.
'It's a free world' simply isn't true, but it is true that RRW can voice their opinion within reason, and when it comes to choice, they had, and have the choice of not to sign an agreement with which they are not happy.

ME-109 wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

quinsforever wrote:Fly? do u mean Munchkin?

i haven't had a pop at anyone. take a long look in the mirror and maybe have a glass of water mate.

You have done it again. You have managed to confuse me. What on earth are you talking about?

wasnt referring to you buddy. was replying to the apparently out of control me-109. he has already likened me to the nazi party propagandist who was hitler's nominated successor and who killed his six children before committing suicide himself.

the bloke obviously can't handle himself after a few beers without losing the plot. pretty embarrassing.

Oh dear forever the victim quins...and incapable of reading...

i didnt complain. i haven't ever alerted a mod about a post. if what you wrote was so pure and innocent how come it was redacted faster than anything i have ever seen on 606?

go to bed and let the grown ups talk.

Munchkin wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Yes Munchkin, good grief... quite... jolly hockey sticks and all that jazz.

The RRW are gaining backbone and they dont want less regions just because Scotland now has less reigions.

It doesn't seem like an easy choice to me. Its a free world and they have a voice.

Jolly hockey stick, and all that?

People can't always have what they want, mystir. There isn't an endless supply of cash to satiate the wants, and sometimes something has got to give.
'It's a free world' simply isn't true, but it is true that RRW can voice their opinion within reason, and when it comes to choice, they had, and have the choice of not to sign an agreement with which they are not happy.

true- but there were many more points made other than the ERC split

Hey Munckin - you're a good person I think. RRW can actually voice their opinion as much as they like as can we all. Well in my opinion anyway... The talk of Nazis and Messerschmitts is making me quite depressed tonight. I would have thought that would unite us even if we are arguing the toss over the most trivial of matters.   

mystiroakey wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Yes Munchkin, good grief... quite... jolly hockey sticks and all that jazz.

The RRW are gaining backbone and they dont want less regions just because Scotland now has less reigions.

It doesn't seem like an easy choice to me. Its a free world and they have a voice.

Jolly hockey stick, and all that?

People can't always have what they want, mystir. There isn't an endless supply of cash to satiate the wants, and sometimes something has got to give.
'It's a free world' simply isn't true, but it is true that RRW can voice their opinion within reason, and when it comes to choice, they had, and have the choice of not to sign an agreement with which they are not happy.

true- but there were many more points made other than the ERC split

I haven't managed to get that far down the list, mystir. Doing about three things at once at the moment, and one is a challenge   

quinsforever wrote:

ME-109 wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

quinsforever wrote:Fly? do u mean Munchkin?

i haven't had a pop at anyone. take a long look in the mirror and maybe have a glass of water mate.

You have done it again. You have managed to confuse me. What on earth are you talking about?

wasnt referring to you buddy. was replying to the apparently out of control me-109. he has already likened me to the nazi party propagandist who was hitler's nominated successor and who killed his six children before committing suicide himself.

the bloke obviously can't handle himself after a few beers without losing the plot. pretty embarrassing.

Oh dear forever the victim quins...and incapable of reading...

i didnt complain. i haven't ever alerted a mod about a post. if what you wrote was so pure and innocent how come it was redacted faster than anything i have ever seen on 606?

go to bed and let the grown ups talk.

Ouch....I could hurt myself laughing..