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:an ERC run HEC next season would require a new agreement to be signed between all participants (current one expires june 2014). therefore, as per the PA just agreed between FFR and LNR, the FFR would negotiate the new terms (as it is a new agreement) on behalf of the LNR, and would need the approval of the LNR to do so.

the french are sticklers for institutional process so that is exactly what will need to happen as that is exactly what is written down.

and just to be clear, there is no HEC next year until a brand new participation agreement is negotiated between all parties as the current one expires june 2014. even if its only for 1 year, it still needs to be renegotiated, because as things stand, with a simple "extension" the RFU and PRL will still have votes, board seats and 24% of the revenue.

An agreement for next seasons competition has already been reached: (Edit: this is the original agreement reached in November)



The five Unions reconfirmed:

• Their agreement with the new competition formats and financial distribution formula previously agreed by the six Unions who attended the mediated meeting in Dublin on 23-24 October.

Following today's discussions, the five Unions have agreed the following:

• A European club competition is to take place during the 2014/2015 season following an optimised sporting and economic format with 20 teams, no matter how many countries are involved.

• The competition will be driven by the existing organisation (currently named ERC) which will remain in charge of the centralised sale and management of all commercial rights, amongst other things.

• Discussions over governance will be pursued in order to optimise the internal functioning of the existing organisation (currently named ERC).

• The common aim is to move eventually towards the integration of European competitions within an all-encompassing European rugby framework.

is this from today's meeting in dublin?

funny how similar this looks to what is in the french PA

now everyone just has to hope that the best french clubs choose to play, and the WRU doesn't enter 4 welsh premiership clubs

ah i see you edited your post.

so not from todays mtg then.

quinsforever wrote:ah i see you edited your post.

so not from todays mtg then.

Yes. I didn't want anyone confusing it with whatever comes out of today's meeting.

you never know, they might just re-issue the nov statement with a change of date at the top?

quinsforever wrote:you never know, they might just re-issue the nov statement with a change of date at the top?

They might, but I would hope for a little more substance. That's assuming the report of the meeting is correct.

quinsforever wrote:all of article 14 is really just laying down how the process for Euro club comps works between the FFR and LNR. it is clarifying the mechanism, and hinting at making "improvements" while aiming to get FIRA-AER more involved.

classic french institutional stuff!

Legalese is just as difficult in French as in English. I am taking a break but have to stick my hands in some blokes chest cavity in a half hour. Will try to blast my way through the legal-french later. Quins, you speak French? Is it hard reading?

Mates, I would caution against using a program like Google translate for all but the basic things. it doesn't capture meaning. Such as:
Let's have mum for dinner (let's invite mum to join us around the table as we dine this evening)
Let's have mum for dinner (let's fry her body parts with butter, lemon, and a little white wine)

most of its fairly straightforwards. however article 14 (which deals with european stuff) is i suspect by design more precise and at the same time more ambiguous on some things. no mean feat, and makes for trickier translation.

yes i speak decent french, but shouldnt be relied upon for 100% faithful translation of french legal stuff, as it is a bit tortured, and the devil is clearly in the detail. mind you, i shouldnt be relied upon for 100% understanding of english legalese either! am better with numbers than contracts...

good luck to you and your victim!

But Google Translate is zoo funny. Also being able to translate Google Translator is much more useful skill than be able to read a language.

too true!

Notch wrote:It seems like the two options on the table are an ERC competition without teams from England on Sky or a British and Irish Cup without the French and Italians on BT Sport.

From a purely rugby point of view, I'd much rather play against the French teams than the English but I'm completely fed up with this whole mess. It seems set to just run and run...  by the time it comes to renew my season ticket for next season I'd like to know what I'm renewing it for.

there are not two options on the table. the british and irish cup will not happen. Its a figment of the PRLs imagination.

As Munchkin above says - the 5 unions and the french clubs are committed to a european cup based on the agreement from the meeting mediated by Mew and Ritchie where the rest gave the prl almost everything they wanted but it was still rejected out of hand by the PRL. This isolates the PRL, ends the RCC as a concept and gives a solid agreement for the outline of next years european cup. it is not wedded to the ERC - but must be union run. the prl can join or they can sulk. their choice. No more room for negoitiation over next years comp. It will be a 20 team comp based on that agreement run by unions.

Plenty of attempts by the PRL and their pet mouthpieces to muddy the waters and plenty of attempts to divide an conquer. can be happly ignored for the nonsense it is

after next year there will be a new European cup format to be negotiated but it must remain union run.

this is the solid facts of the matter.

TJ wrote:As Munchkin above says - the 5 unions and the french clubs are committed to a european cup based on the agreement from the meeting mediated by Mew and Ritchie where the rest gave the prl almost everything they wanted but it was still rejected out of hand by the PRL.  This isolates the PRL, ends the RCC as a concept and gives a solid agreement for the outline of next years european cup. it is not wedded to the ERC - but must be union run.  the prl can join or they can sulk.  their choice.  No more room for negoitiation over next years comp.  It will be a 20 team comp based on that agreement run by unions.

Plenty of attempts by the PRL and their pet mouthpieces to muddy the waters and plenty of attempts to divide an conquer.  can be happly ignored for the nonsense it is

after next year there will be a new European cup format to be negotiated but it must remain union run.

this is the solid facts of the matter.

  Everything except the one thing that was contractually required.   

They were never going to give that. It was up to PRL to extricate themselves from any constraints binding them to the contract, or find an alternative solution within it.

Actually two issues Hammer - also on governance.  No union was every going to give the PRL control which they wanted. Only because the PRL signed a contract for something they did not own and could not deliver and where stupid enough to make it so they had no second option.

Munchkin, if they were never going to go with the BT deal then there was no point to any of it and the PRL were right to just let go. They were fully prepared to not have European rugby as they stated several times.

TJ I'm not even going to bother.

BTW any news on the meeting? Don't they usually like to do a press release when they have positive stuff to report? Is it still going on?

HammerofThunor wrote:BTW any news on the meeting? Don't they usually like to do a press release when they have positive stuff to report? Is it still going on?

No news just yet. If the Unions have met today I think there must be more to the meeting than simply reaffirming their commitment to HEC. Well, it isn't as though they have little to discuss  

HammerofThunor wrote:Munchkin, if they were never going to go with the BT deal then there was no point to any of it and the PRL were right to just let go. They were fully prepared to not have European rugby as they stated several times.

TJ I'm not even going to bother.

I think they at least had to be seen to make an offer, but then it's also possible that PRL could have been released from the BT deal. Richie, and Goze seemed to hint at that possibility.

Anyway, there's no point us dancing around that particular handbag anymore. We can agree to disagree   

Munchkin wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Munchkin, if they were never going to go with the BT deal then there was no point to any of it and the PRL were right to just let go. They were fully prepared to not have European rugby as they stated several times.

TJ I'm not even going to bother.

I think they at least had to be seen to make an offer, but then it's also possible that PRL could have been released from the BT deal. Richie, and Goze seemed to hint at that possibility.

Anyway, there's no point us dancing around that particular handbag anymore. We can agree to disagree   

I disagree with agreeing to disagree      

  

HammerofThunor wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Munchkin, if they were never going to go with the BT deal then there was no point to any of it and the PRL were right to just let go. They were fully prepared to not have European rugby as they stated several times.

TJ I'm not even going to bother.

I think they at least had to be seen to make an offer, but then it's also possible that PRL could have been released from the BT deal. Richie, and Goze seemed to hint at that possibility.

Anyway, there's no point us dancing around that particular handbag anymore. We can agree to disagree   

I disagree with agreeing to disagree      

  

Well although I personally disagree with your disagreeing to agree to disagree, I can agree that that you personally disagree to agree to disagree. Agreed?   






I would tend to agree to disagree when arguments are based on assumptions or speculation, or become circular, as this one tends to. There's so much we don't know as fact....

TJ doth protest too much, methinks. As far as I can see, the quafars [1] are

The current HEC agreement expires June 2014
5 unions have agreed in principle to extend the HEC for a further year.
3 of these unions can guarantee to supply 8 teams between them
1 union (France) claims to be able to supply 14 teams. Or possibly 7 or 8, depending on who you believe
The teams in question claim that they will reconsider their involvement if the English teams aren't involved
The published legal agreement between the French union and the French clubs is equivocal on whether the ERC has to be involved
1 union (Wales) cannot currently guarantee any top flight teams, because it does not have an agreement in place with its current teams, who have given it a month to come up with a commercial proposition that gives them reasonable certainty of a viable level of income.

The new ERC deal with Sky was signed after the PRL and LNR had given notice of their withdrawal from the current format, and after the BT deal was signed.

The ERC and Celtic Unions did not publicly offer any movement from the status quo until after the PRL and LNR had served notice and the PRL had signed the BT deal

The PRL's public position on governance has consistently been that they want all the teams involved to collectively control at least the commercial aspects of the competition.

The RFU negotiated a compromise position on qualification and revenues that was acceptable to 5 (or possibly 6) unions - but it was clear at the time that governance still needed to be discussed and there was a timetable for doing so.

The French subsequently agreed a governance structure with the Rabo unions without any English involvement. It is not clear which bits of that agreement the other unions and French clubs actually think they have agreed. There has definitely been some dissent about FIRA-AER as the future governing body.

Both the ERC and PRL have "sold" rights to English domestic games in a future European competition, but to different broadcasters. In effect they have both negotiated something along the lines of "we won't sign up to a new European competition unless we can offer you, mr broadcaster, the rights to English domestic games in that competiiton."

It is likely that the PRL could negotiate with BT to allow a 1-year extension to the current ERC / Sky arrangement. It is very unlikely that they would renegotiate something that would leave BT without European games in the long run, because the price to do so would probably be a big drop in what BT were prepared to pay for the AP.

Nobody is in this "for the good of rugby". Everyone is defending their own turf. With the possible exception of Ian Ritchie, all of the participants have repeatedly adopted positions that have left at least one other participant in a position where their alternative was to escalate or fold. The ERC and Celts' initial and extended refusal to negotiate led the PRL and LNR to take a fairly extreme path. The BT deal led to the Sky deal being rushed through. The RCC led to Ritchie's initial compromise (which was defending the RFU's interests as much as anything else). That compromise led to the FFR deal. The FFR strong-armed the LNR into backing down. The WRU is attempting to strong-arm RRW into accepting a very risky and seemingly unfavourable Participation Agreement (and may be trying to run them out of business); RRW is reciprocating by refusing to play ball. No-one is spotless.

You can't take any media view on this at face value, because no-one is neutral. Everyone has a vested interest through nationality, affiliation (or not) to News International or both. [2]

This all has at least a few more weeks still to run.

Sorry for the long post but a) I have been up since 4.45 yesterday and am currently stuck on a 10 hour train journey that should have taken 5 hours and won't get to bed until 4.45 today. b) I'm like that anyway and c) I wanted to try to set down as clearly as possible where I think things are. If anyone disagrees, I'd like to hope they can respond with a specific, non-pejorative, non-emotional and preferably referenced statement of what a more accurate view of the position should be.

And pigs might fly.

[1] quasi-factual rugby object. cf Quasar. We have so many conflicting views that I don't think any of us can be sure what will hold up under pressure
[2] Personally, I trust Brian Moore's views on this stuff more than most because he is a former partner in a law firm, which to me suggests that a) he has a better understanding of the legalese, b) a better chance of guessing what commitments and get-outs might have been negotiated, c) a much better understanding of the commercial aspects than most sports journalists. But he also d) isn't employed by Sky, a Sky sister company or BT, e) tends to take a fan's perspective and f) calls a spade a spade and is happy to criticise anyone.

His (and my) bias comes in being English and wanting to see English clubs involved (see e), which means he tends to see their side of the argument on qualification, money and governance (because c). He has also long been a vocal critic of the way the ERC is run as a sporting body.

Thanks for taking the time to write that.

yes, thanks poorfour i think that's a really good summary of what's happened, and where things stand currently.

to add to your summary, i think the most pressing current issue is WRU v RRW. i think that the WRU are going to be putting pressure on the other unions at the meeting to get things nailed down as soon as possible so that they can use the clarity over money to get the regions to sign up to a new PA. until the 5 unions commit theselves contractually in writing to next year's HEC, i cant see the RRW signing a new PA.

Munchkin wrote:

Well although I personally disagree with your disagreeing to agree to disagree, I can agree that that you personally disagree to agree to disagree. Agreed?   






I would tend to agree to disagree when arguments are based on assumptions or speculation, or become circular, as this one tends to. There's so much we don't know as fact....

I agree with the top part (I think)   

Definitely, to the second (except for TJ, he knows, FACT)

Poorfour, bravo Glad that you were able to while away some of your train journey, presumably coming down from the great wastelands of the north! A very worthy effort.

I would only question that Iain Ritchie is the only administrator to come out not smelling of cow-poo - for example, I don't think that Mark Dodson at the SRU has offended many, but then the Scots are in the weakest position of all and the most vulnerable to certain outcomes. Hope you get a deserved lie-in this morning, altho I suspect the kids will have you up early doors!

Poorfour wrote:

Code:

TJ doth protest too much, methinks. As far as I can see, the quafars [1] are

The current HEC agreement expires June 2014
5 unions have agreed in principle to extend the HEC for a further year.
3 of these unions can guarantee to supply 8 teams between them
1 union (France) claims to be able to supply 14 teams. Or possibly 7 or 8, depending on who you believe
The teams in question claim that they will reconsider their involvement if the English teams aren't involved
The published legal agreement between the French union and the French clubs is equivocal on whether the ERC has to be involved
1 union (Wales) cannot currently guarantee any top flight teams, because it does not have an agreement in place with its current teams, who have given it a month to come up with a commercial proposition that gives them reasonable certainty of a viable level of income.

The new ERC deal with Sky was signed after the PRL and LNR had given notice of their withdrawal from the current format, and after the BT deal was signed.

The ERC and Celtic Unions did not publicly offer any movement from the status quo until after the PRL and LNR had served notice and the PRL had signed the BT deal

The PRL's public position on governance has consistently been that they want all the teams involved to collectively control at least the commercial aspects of the competition.

The RFU negotiated a compromise position on qualification and revenues that was acceptable to 5 (or possibly 6) unions - but it was clear at the time that governance still needed to be discussed and there was a timetable for doing so.

The French subsequently agreed a governance structure with the Rabo unions without any English involvement. It is not clear which bits of that agreement the other unions and French clubs actually think they have agreed. There has definitely been some dissent about FIRA-AER as the future governing body.

Both the ERC and PRL have "sold" rights to English domestic games in a future European competition, but to different broadcasters. In effect they have both negotiated something along the lines of "we won't sign up to a new European competition unless we can offer you, mr broadcaster, the rights to English domestic games in that competiiton."

It is likely that the PRL could negotiate with BT to allow a 1-year extension to the current ERC / Sky arrangement. It is very unlikely that they would renegotiate something that would leave BT without European games in the long run, because the price to do so would probably be a big drop in what BT were prepared to pay for the AP.

Nobody is in this "for the good of rugby". Everyone is defending their own turf. With the possible exception of Ian Ritchie, all of the participants have repeatedly adopted positions that have left at least one other participant in a position where their alternative was to escalate or fold. The ERC and Celts' initial and extended refusal to negotiate led the PRL and LNR to take a fairly extreme path. The BT deal led to the Sky deal being rushed through. The RCC led to Ritchie's initial compromise (which was defending the RFU's interests as much as anything else). That compromise led to the FFR deal. The FFR strong-armed the LNR into backing down. The WRU is attempting to strong-arm RRW into accepting a very risky and seemingly unfavourable Participation Agreement (and may be trying to run them out of business); RRW is reciprocating by refusing to play ball. No-one is spotless.

You can't take any media view on this at face value, because no-one is neutral. Everyone has a vested interest through nationality, affiliation (or not) to News International or both. [2]

This all has at least a few more weeks still to run.

Sorry for the long post but a) I have been up since 4.45 yesterday and am currently stuck on a 10 hour train journey that should have taken 5 hours and won't get to bed until 4.45 today. b) I'm like that anyway and c) I wanted to try to set down as clearly as possible where I think things are. If anyone disagrees, I'd like to hope they can respond with a specific, non-pejorative, non-emotional and preferably referenced statement of what a more accurate view of the position should be.

And pigs might fly.

[1] quasi-factual rugby object. cf Quasar. We have so many conflicting views that I don't think any of us can be sure what will hold up under pressure
[2] Personally, I trust Brian Moore's views on this stuff more than most because he is a former partner in a law firm, which to me suggests that a) he has a better understanding of the legalese, b) a better chance of guessing what commitments and get-outs might have been negotiated, c) a much better understanding of the commercial aspects than most sports journalists. But he also d) isn't employed by Sky, a Sky sister company or BT, e) tends to take a fan's perspective and f) calls a spade a spade and is happy to criticise anyone.

His (and my) bias comes in being English and wanting to see English clubs involved (see e), which means he tends to see their side of the argument on qualification, money and governance (because c). He has also long been a vocal critic of the way the ERC is run as a sporting body.

A fine summary, Poor4.

Unfortunately this whole affair stinks of a replay of the 1895 schism writ large. Only cash issues are now not so simple as payments are now not just a matter of how much cash can fit in a Union player's sock in the changing room without disabling him to walk. Now it's about sealing deals with multinational organisations and detailed contract law.

I'm not at all sure that the main players have the required ability to manage the complexities. Or rather whose negotiating skills and abilities are greater than their egos.

I suppose that a train wreck of some description was inevitable as soon as the points were switched and the track set to destination professionalism in 1995.

This time I'm not even sure that any of the existing structures can survive unscathed from collateral damage (IRB down) as greed, power and filthy lucre slog this war out.

2014 - a hundred years on and the power-brokers await their version of Archduke Ferdinand to be assassinated it seems.

quinsforever wrote:most of its fairly straightforwards. however article 14 (which deals with european stuff) is i suspect by design more precise and at the same time more ambiguous on some things. no mean feat, and makes for trickier translation.

yes i speak decent french, but shouldnt be relied upon for 100% faithful translation of french legal stuff, as it is a bit tortured, and the devil is clearly in the detail. mind you, i shouldnt be relied upon for 100% understanding of english legalese either! am better with numbers than contracts...

good luck to you and your victim!

Morning, mates.  Gawd, that was boring.  I sat down around 10:00 my time last night to read the document.  Poured a nice glass of wine and started to read.  I fell asleep fairly quickly.  I did eventually get through much of the document because (probably like you) I wanted overall context.  And I interpret the statements the same as you.  Regarding the ERC and Euro Rugby, it does seem to lack some definitive commitments or statements of intent.  Only ERC mention is they are the managing organisation as of the date the document was agreed and signed.  Not being a lawyer, the agreement seems big enough to drive a semi through.  I spent a good hour or so of time and some good wine on this?  

As for my victim, well I guess we win some and lose some..................

Yes, thanks Poorfour, a really good summary which also reflects my understanding of this complex situation. You managed to simply outline what is in reality is a real dog's breakfast!

Sorry to hear about your "victim" Doc - as you say - unfortunately you can't win 'em all.

Hi Poorfour, nice summary, however: "The ERC and Celtic Unions did not publicly offer any movement from the status quo until after the PRL and LNR had served notice and the PRL had signed the BT deal"
This part doesn't correspond with what I remember. The SRU and the IRFU both came up with different proposals. Neither were considered.

Intotouch wrote:Hi Poorfour, nice summary, however: "The ERC and Celtic Unions did not publicly offer any movement from the status quo until after the PRL and LNR had served notice and the PRL had signed the BT deal"
This part doesn't correspond with what I remember. The SRU and the IRFU both came up with different proposals. Neither were considered.

When?

I don't know why you are lauding Ian Richie & the RFU. They have angered all the Unions by sitting on the fence over this. While it now seems to be acknowledged that 5 Unions have agreed that there will be an ERC organised European Cup next season, it must have been Richie/RFU who were spreading the lies that Camou was withdrawing his support over the objection of the other nations to control by FIRA. David Walsh in his article pre Xmas which I posted elsewhere said that the RFU were attempting to do this.

Sorry, Richie/RFU are regarded as complete clowns outside England and it says it all that they are now shunned by their fellow IRB members. The French journalist who seems to break a lot of the French news was putting #PervidiousAlbion on his tweets.

Pourfour & Doc, I'd like to know what you actually think of RFU/Richie's / English press efforts to destabilise the Pro12 and the HCup. Do you find their actions admirable?

With regard to whether the French clubs will choose to play in the Heineken Cup next year. Bearing in mind that Camou was prepared to pay 6 clubs a once off payment before the PA was signed, I suspect that they will be playing in the competition next year and I bet Toulon will be there because they will fancy their chances of winning it again.

Mike Prendergast, (Irish coach at Grenoble) when speaking about Grenoble's Away win and how well they are doing in the Top 14, said that the aim at the start of the season was to settle in the Top 14. Now he says that there is great excitement in the club because there is a good chance that they will make Top 6 and the players are really excited about there being a good chance that they will be playing in the Heineken Cup next year. I suspect there are a few clubs in France who might want to play in that competition.

SRU, FIR & IRFU have basically kept their mouths shut because they have had to and got on with their own business. I find that far more admirable than any of the antics of the rest.

Excellent piece from the lads over at Whiff-of-Cordite:

B&I Cup Redux

When we broke up for Christmas (not Palla and I thankfully, you and us), we had reached what seemed like the end of the beginning of the HEC/RCC saga – the old HEC wasn’t coming back but what, if anything, would replace it was unclear. Since then, the already messy scene has tippled over into mayhem with the Welsh regions announcing their intention to stomp their feet up and down if they didn’t get their way opt out of the WRU participation agreement and join with PRL in a 16 team Anglo-Welsh league.

It is often said that Irish rugby is always in a great place even if the team never wins, but Welsh rugby is always in crisis even though they are always winning. It’s never rung more true.

The WRU responded with a ‘meh’ and swiftly threatened to replace the franchises with, erm, four new, equally makey-uppey ones for the Pro12-Feet-Under – effectively North (never a rugby stronghold), East, West and .. er … Millennium Stadium. Riiiiiiiiight. However, outrage from the clubs and fans (both of them) have resulted in something of a rowback, and the union are working out how to get the genie back in the bottle.

Meanwhile, from what we can piece together, it appears the IRFU and SRU have taken a break from pinching pennies to meet the RFU and WRU for crisis talks – the power grab from PRL and intentional killing of the HEC have resulted in a proposal for a beefed up B&I Cup containing the 12 Premiership and ten Pro-12-Feet-Under sides … to be broadcast by … BT Sport! Heads you lose, tails I win. We’re not exactly sure what has happened to the Heineken Cup run by the ERC, which all bar the English had apparently agreed to play in, but it appears to once again have fallen apart, presumably because of the Welsh defection. Or has it? Eddie O’Sullivan said on the recent Second Captains podcast that they still want to play in the European competition. Confused? You’re not the only one.

The PRL (and the Welsh regions) will bugger off on their own if this doesn’t come to pass. A season-long Anglo-Welsh Cup may sound beyond beyond dreadful, and who knows if it is even feasible (what happens when the Dragons get relegated?) but it may be an acceptable position for the English clubs if it is enough to trigger the lovely, lovely money BT Sport will pay them. They have a powerful card to play to get the RFU to do their bidding – they sort of own the England players and the RFU are hosting the World Cup. If a schism isn’t avoided, England D, led by Luke Narraway, will be humiliated in their home tournament. None of the old farts want that.

[ Aside: unpopular and, on the face of it, pointless competitions might be unappealing for fans and annoying for coaches who have to manage their players' fitness, but if they bring in money, who cares? Look at the Europa League - fans don't give a hoot, managers hate the disruption, but TV money means it happens.]

The first thing missing in all of this is the French clubs, who appear to have played a blinder – they’ll probably get what most of them want, a Top16, and the English will get the blame. Mark McCafferty and his army of Stephen Joneses might bemoan the treachery, but he can hardly complain about self-interest when the PRL are interested only in lining their own pockets at the expense of whoever gets in their way.

The second is the Italian sides, and it’s not clear exactly what they’ve done to deserve being isolated like this. Italy won two matches in the recent Six Nations and its development as a rugby nation should remain a key concern of European rugby. In the 3 seasons they have been in the Pro12, the national side has improved each year – 2 wins and 4th last year tied for their best outcome, and a points difference of -36 was their best ever by far, and shows improving competitiveness. Besides, if nothing else, their involvement would bring the numbers from an awkward 22 to a more rounded 24.

So how will this impact the provinces? If the Anglo-Welsh contingent break away on their own, it’s terrible news – for everyone. The Irish will dominate the rump Pro-12-Feet-Under (or should that be Pro8) even more than they currently do, if it even continues to exist. Ireland will correspondingly suffer with their players (those who don’t leave anyway) starved of competitive rugger. It’s a nightmare scenario, no question. If the compromise B&I Cup happens, they’ll get two home games against reps of Perfidious Albion, which always gets Gerry’s syntax bubbling and fans’ goats up – that’s not as good as a full HEC, but it’s something, and the Pro12 will continue to muddle on.

That’s not to say they should row in behind the tournament on everyone else’s terms, and to date the IRFU have talked a commendable game on the importance of governance of the sport: it’s crucial they continue to uphold this principle. The Anglo-Welsh fallback position is hardly the best hand to be going up against with issues such as relegation and promotion almost certainly not even given a moment’s thought as yet and for all the English sweet-talking to the Welsh, it’s hard to see what they can really bring to improve the Premiership. The move looks like it’s designed to decimate the Pro12 more than build anything constructive.

This saga probably has a fair bit of mileage in it yet. Lucky us.

PS. complaining about Stephen Jones hypocrisy is pointless, but he has really taken the biscuit in this saga. At Lions time, he breaks down in tears at mention of the amateur Corinthian spirit the concept embodies and takes potshots at the likes of Willie John McBride, the greatest Lion of all, for besmirching the idea with nationalism, then morphs into a red in tooth and claw laissez-faire money talks capitalist four-square behind the blood-sucking club owners of PRL. When rugby ends up with odious villains like Vincent Tan or dodgy tyrants like the owners of Manchester City and Chelsea owning the big clubs, we hope he’s happy.

Sin é wrote:SRU, FIR & IRFU have basically kept their mouths shut because they have had to and got on with their own business. I find that far more admirable than any of the antics of the rest.

If that's admirable behaviour, then why criticize Richie for "sitting on the fence" when all he was doing was keeping his mouth shut too?

Rugby Fan wrote:

Sin é wrote:SRU, FIR & IRFU have basically kept their mouths shut because they have had to and got on with their own business. I find that far more admirable than any of the antics of the rest.

If that's admirable behaviour, then why criticize Richie for "sitting on the fence" when all he was doing was keeping his mouth shut too?

RFU/Richie (who else would have done that) spinning stuff to Rees that the French were not supporting the Heineken Cup next season which now seems to be untrue. This spin seemed to have emanated from Rees.

The other unions obviously don't trust the RFU because they have been excluded from the meeting yesterday (and guess what, there are no leaks to the press from the other Unions).

Sin é wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Sin é wrote:SRU, FIR & IRFU have basically kept their mouths shut because they have had to and got on with their own business. I find that far more admirable than any of the antics of the rest.

If that's admirable behaviour, then why criticize Richie for "sitting on the fence" when all he was doing was keeping his mouth shut too?

RFU/Richie (who else would have done that) spinning stuff to Rees that the French were not supporting the Heineken Cup next season which now seems to be untrue. This spin seemed to have emanated from Rees.

The other unions obviously don't trust the RFU because they have been excluded from the meeting yesterday (and guess what, there are no leaks to the press from the other Unions).

Actually all that would have been said was that Conou stormed out becasue there was no agreement on FIRA-AER. Everything else was media speculation. But don't let that stop you. After all if you've ruled out everything else (that you want to consider) the remainer must be the truth.

Oh and I'm getting confused. Are the lying or leaking? Or is it a cunning mix of the two. Leak enough to be taking seriously and then add in some extras. Oh those crafty devils. If only someone of integrity like Martyn Thomas was still there.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Sin é wrote:SRU, FIR & IRFU have basically kept their mouths shut because they have had to and got on with their own business. I find that far more admirable than any of the antics of the rest.

If that's admirable behaviour, then why criticize Richie for "sitting on the fence" when all he was doing was keeping his mouth shut too?

RFU/Richie (who else would have done that) spinning stuff to Rees that the French were not supporting the Heineken Cup next season which now seems to be untrue. This spin seemed to have emanated from Rees.

The other unions obviously don't trust the RFU because they have been excluded from the meeting yesterday (and guess what, there are no leaks to the press from the other Unions).

Actually all that would have been said was that Conou stormed out becasue there was no agreement on FIRA-AER. Everything else was media speculation. But don't let that stop you. After all if you've ruled out everything else (that you want to consider) the remainer must be the truth.

Only one person (Rees) claimed that Camou stormed out over wanting FIRA to organise the competition next year. And since then, prior to their meeting yesterday (without the RFU), the 5 Unions reaffirmed their commitment to an ERC organised HC next year.

HammerofThunor wrote:Oh and I'm getting confused. Are the lying or leaking? Or is it a cunning mix of the two. Leak enough to be taking seriously and then add in some extras. Oh those crafty devils. If only someone of integrity like Martyn Thomas was still there.

A (not so) cunning mix of the two (because obviously most intelligent people see through it). As the French Journalist has #PervidiousAlbion

Sin, I think if you are going to say Richie was lying - and there's no reason why he shouldn't be fair game for that kind of accusation - then it would be helpful if you could supply quotations or links.

This way, we can separate what we know from what we suspect.

Rugby Fan wrote:This way, we can separate what we know from what we suspect.

 
That is the most perceptive remark by anyone since this started several thousand postings ago, bravo sir!

Sin e, regarding your French journalist, I might be a bit daft but isn't Albion = Britain? So he's saying 'traitorous British'? Or did he clarify he meant the English?

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Sin é wrote:SRU, FIR & IRFU have basically kept their mouths shut because they have had to and got on with their own business. I find that far more admirable than any of the antics of the rest.

If that's admirable behaviour, then why criticize Richie for "sitting on the fence" when all he was doing was keeping his mouth shut too?

RFU/Richie (who else would have done that) spinning stuff to Rees that the French were not supporting the Heineken Cup next season which now seems to be untrue. This spin seemed to have emanated from Rees.

The other unions obviously don't trust the RFU because they have been excluded from the meeting yesterday (and guess what, there are no leaks to the press from the other Unions).

Actually all that would have been said was that Conou stormed out becasue there was no agreement on FIRA-AER. Everything else was media speculation. But don't let that stop you. After all if you've ruled out everything else (that you want to consider) the remainer must be the truth.

Only one person (Rees) claimed that Camou stormed out over wanting FIRA to organise the competition next year. And since then, prior to their meeting yesterday (without the RFU), the 5 Unions reaffirmed their commitment to an ERC organised HC next year.

As far as I'ver seen, only one person (Lewis in the Irish Examiner) claimed that the 5 Unions reaffirmed their commitment to an ERC organised HC next year. His article is as worthy of scrutinisation for leaks, lies and spin as was that of Rees "Camou storms" article (which was lent some credibility by being carried in both British and Irish press).

In particular, what do we think his sources are for the following paragraph:

"The feeling within the five unions is they are the only ones with a concrete, five-nation, 20-club European tournament agreed and in place for the autumn."

Did he speak to authoritative representatives from all 5 Unions in order to gauge their feelings, or perhaps this would be second hand information from a single mouthpiece from just one of the Unions? It could, of course, be that he just made it up, or heard it off a bloke in the pub. Time will, probably, tell.

Still a few twists to come in this one lads.

The PRL are very quiet these days. Not a good sign. They were easier to read when they were shouting their gobs off.

I reckon we will see some kind of outcome this month.

The fact that the RRW came out with the 31th of Jan as a date in their statement (obviously at the behest of the PRL) says to me that there is another angle to this that is not yet in the public domain.

Also the phrase "Rugby Champions Cup" which had not had an airing for a good few weeks came out several times on Stephen's day (Sorry Boxing day to some of you) from various Welsh personages.

Also. May I say that I thought yerman Poorfour (obviously not quite tall enough to be a decent 2nd row) made a fairly good and unbiased summary earlier.

Having started from a pro Union stance 18 months ago, I have to say that over the course of that period I have become less and less so. I can see both sides and wish they could find a way of making everyone just a little unhappy so we can all get on with watching Rugby

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:Still a few twists to come in this one lads.

The PRL are very quiet these days. Not a good sign. They were easier to read when they were shouting their gobs off.

I reckon we will see some kind of outcome this month.

The fact that the RRW came out with the 31th of Jan as a date in their statement (obviously at the behest of the PRL) says to me that there is another angle to this that is not yet in the public domain.

Also the phrase "Rugby Champions Cup" which had not had an airing for a good few weeks came out several times on Stephen's day (Sorry Boxing day to some of you) from various Welsh personages.

Also. May I say that I thought yerman Poorfour (obviously not quite tall enough to be a decent 2nd row) made a fairly good and unbiased summary earlier.

Having started from a pro Union stance 18 months ago, I have to say that over the course of that period I have become less and less so.  I can see both sides and wish they could find a way of making everyone just a little unhappy so we can all get on with watching Rugby

Not because they (the Regions) want it sorted then?

I'm personally hoping for a real pan European competitions starting this year or next year. Quality may well not be as good for some of the games but it'll be more interesting (IMO)

Why would they pull that date out of their arses?

It ties in with some "behind the scenes" stuff I have also heard. Not any secret though that all parties (in European Club and International Rugby) would want as much of the mess as possible sorted ahead of the 6N for a variety of reasons.

Latest from Dublin-based cabal IRB:

IRB statement on European competitions


The International Rugby Board strongly believes that the establishment of a truly representative pan-European Rugby competition that fully complies with IRB Regulations and Bye-Laws is in the best interests of the global Game.

The IRB acknowledges and supports the commitment of the Six Nations Member Unions in their ongoing attempts to reach an accord for a genuine European competition that has Europe’s top players and fans at heart.

However, despite progress on key terms for the future of European competition, the apparent lack of a common solution across the Six Nations Unions and their respective clubs, regions and provinces is of concern to the IRB.

IRB Chairman Bernard Lapasset said: "In order to reach an outcome that is in the best interests of Rugby globally, the IRB will work actively with its Unions towards the goal of achieving a unified and acceptable outcome for all stakeholders involved."

"In the interests of the global Game, the IRB reaffirms that it will not support any cross border competitions that are not approved by the Unions of any participating clubs, Rugby bodies and host countries in full accordance with IRB Regulations and Bye-Laws."

Basically a death knell to an Anglo welsh league then. Not that I think the PRL or RFU were particularly enamoured of it anyway

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Latest from Dublin-based cabal IRB:

IRB statement on European competitions


The International Rugby Board strongly believes that the establishment of a truly representative pan-European Rugby competition that fully complies with IRB Regulations and Bye-Laws is in the best interests of the global Game.

The IRB acknowledges and supports the commitment of the Six Nations Member Unions in their ongoing attempts to reach an accord for a genuine European competition that has Europe’s top players and fans at heart.

However, despite progress on key terms for the future of European competition, the apparent lack of a common solution across the Six Nations Unions and their respective clubs, regions and provinces is of concern to the IRB.

IRB Chairman Bernard Lapasset said: "In order to reach an outcome that is in the best interests of Rugby globally, the IRB will work actively with its Unions towards the goal of achieving a unified and acceptable outcome for all stakeholders involved."

"In the interests of the global Game, the IRB reaffirms that it will not support any cross border competitions that are not approved by the Unions of any participating clubs, Rugby bodies and host countries in full accordance with IRB Regulations and Bye-Laws."

Soooo nothing new then.... We already know that IRB will not sanction a cross border competition unless approved by the Unions involved. WRU will not sanction an Anglo Welsh, and so an Anglo Welsh league is not going to happen.
As for an RCC/B&I? I don't believe that's going to happen either. It's either a revamped HEC, or the preferred IRB/FFR option.

HammerofThunor wrote:Sin e, regarding your French journalist, I might be a bit daft but isn't Albion = Britain? So he's saying 'traitorous British'? Or did he clarify he meant the English?

Perfidious Albion is a pejorative phrase used within the context of international relations and diplomacy to refer to acts of duplicity, treachery and hence infidelity (with respect to promises made to or alliances formed with other nation states) by monarchs or governments of Britain (or England) in their pursuit of self-interest and the requirements of realpolitik.

Perfidious signifies one who does not keep his faith or word (from the Latin word "perfidia"), while Albion is derived from an ancient Greek name for Great Britain.

Apparently its origins were:

'L'Angleterre, ah, la perfide Angleterre,
que le rempart de ses mers rendait inaccessible aux Romains,
la foi du Sauveur y est abordée.

(England, oh, treacherous England,
that the ramparts of her seas made inaccessible to the Romans,
there also the faith of Christ has landed.)

Interesting one actually,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidious_Albion