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

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:
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.

The difference is that The Examiner is probably the only newspaper in the Northern Hemisphere who hasn't been speculating on what is going on. Perhaps they sent it to them because they knew they wouldn't try and put some spin on it.

It wouldn't have been the PRL/RFUs interests for the British press to get involved. The Unions were probably also trying to avoid embarrassing the RFU/Richie.

Why in the name of god would the Examiner want to make a statement like that in its papers if it was true. They don't have an agenda like Rees in the Guardian.

Munchkin wrote:

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.

The RFU/English clubs are in serious trouble here - they are going to have to find a way out of their BT deal or they can look forward to playing with themselves for a long time. Not great coming into a world cup for them.

At least the Welsh regions can still back down, stay in the Pro12 and have Heineken Cup rugby.

Who says history doesn't repeat itself. McCafferty really mustn't be the brightest.

Lapasset hopes cash shortfall will bring French clubs onside
Paul Rees

The Guardian, Thursday 5 April 2007

Bernard Lapasset, president of the French Rugby Federation, will today tell his leading clubs that, if they pull out of next season's Heineken Cup, they will not be allowed to arrange a cross-border tournament with their fellow rebels in England.

Lapasset will address a board meeting of Ligue Nationale de Rugby, the umbrella organisation for France's top 30 clubs, before a vote is taken by delegates on whether to boycott next season's Heineken and European Challenge cups. The LNR clubs are not allowed, under French law, to play matches that are not sanctioned by their governing body.

As head of the FFR Lapasset holds their licence and will tell the clubs permission will not be given for them to arrange fixtures with Premiership sides. He has spent the last month trying to broker a deal which would see the French and English clubs remain in Europe, meeting Rugby Football Union officials as well as the LNR president, Serge Blanco. He is anxious to avoid an embarrassing and, to the Celtic unions, potentially ruinous end to the Heineken Cup in a year when France is hosting the World Cup and when Lapasset is expected to challenge for the chairmanship of the International Rugby Board.

Syd Millar is standing down as chairman at the end of the year. Lapasset and the former England captain Bill Beaumont are regarded as frontrunners to succeed him but they will face opposition from the southern hemisphere if they are seen to have no control over their clubs. The board is monitoring the Heineken Cup dispute and there has been feverish diplomatic activity this week with Lapasset under pressure to achieve an LNR volte-face.

He will tell the clubs that, if they pull out, they will lose €2m (£1.3m) earmarked to them under a deal made with LNR this year over player release and he will demand a meeting of all the 30 LNR member clubs to ratify the decision next week. A question was asked at Monday's Premier Rugby meeting about whether the French clubs would hold their nerve but the clubs decided against sending a delegation to today's meeting to offer moral support. "I have spoken with the French today and their mood remains determined," said the Premier Rugby chief executive, Mark McCafferty. "They only agreed to delay the ratification of their boycott until this week in the vain hope that the RFU would fall into line with everyone else and I do not see them changing their mind."

There are indications that some French clubs feel the dispute has become like a bush-fire out of control. What they had intended as a one-year sabbatical from the Heineken Cup because of fixture congestion next season faces becoming permanent because the competition will fold without the French and English as sponsors and broadcasters pull out. Blanco, who refused an offer from the IRB to play league fixtures during the World Cup, cited the RFU's refusal to hand over half its shares on European Rugby Cup Ltd to Premier Rugby as the reason for LNR's boycott threat but he said his clubs' absence would be for only one year. Premier Rugby is considering plans for the longer term.

Northampton's owner, Keith Barwell, raised the option of increasing the size of the Premiership by two clubs next season, something the RFU would have to agree to, and said that the vision of the French and English clubs was rugby's version of football's Champions League, with unions having no control. The RFU believes the loss of money through not being in Europe and not being allowed to organise a competition with the French will concentrate the minds of the Premiership clubs. "The RFU has to be very careful," said McCafferty. "Stopping us from arranging fixtures would be anti-competitive and sport is not immune from the law.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2007/apr/05/rugbyunion.sport

The RFU have to be very careful. If they block games on a whim they probably could be taken to court. If they block them for good reason they'll be fine.

Also, we know this happened before ('which is why the claims it was happening now because the Irish were winning was childish cowpat). Difference now is that they've given notice.

As for being in trouble...why? It was stated a long time ago that the PRL were prepared to go alone if no other unions agreed a cross-border competition.

Wasn't the Examiner thing saying the unions were GOING to reaffirm their stance not that they had. So there's nothing really to say other than the 5 unions were supposed to have another meeting and we don't know the outcome (or do we?).

And finally so the term refers to traitorous Britain or England and comes from a time when it freed to Britain? So it could still be referring to the British and Irish unions not backing the FIRA-AER thing or to the English being nasty snakes in the grass. Not really clear is it.

As I voted in the poll ages ago, the most likely outcome will be some form of Euro cup with the 5 unions (not RFU). That still looks on but not sorted yet (or might be when outcome of the meeting is known).

The decision may not be one that RFU has to make though. It's up to the regions to sign the WRU PA, and if in doing so they agree to participate in HEC then the AP is isolated.
How does that effect the AP? How much would they then receive from the domestic BT contract? What about the players and fans? How will it impact England's performance come the RWC?
Remaining outside of European competition for next season will not guarantee them stronger negotiating power for the following season, as whatever structure is implemented may mean that the success of the tournament is less reliant on the inclusion of AP teams.
Without the regions to compete against next season the AP will suffer, I believe.

unless the tournament without AP teams turns out to be less commercially attractive overall, and AP, with their Bt deal, can afford to not play in a SKy broadcast competition.

in that case, the AP will be able to dictate terms.

that's why i think it's fine for the AP to have a year out, especially in a RWC year. less injuries, plenty of internationals still, RFU and PRL pulling in the same direction.

give everyone a year to cool their heels and figure out who contributes what financially to the euro clubs tournaments, and then the negotiations should be a lot more straightforward, one way or another.

quinsforever wrote:unless the tournament without AP teams turns out to be less commercially attractive overall, and AP, with their Bt deal, can afford to not play in a SKy broadcast competition.

in that case, the AP will be able to dictate terms.

that's why i think it's fine for the AP to have a year out, especially in a RWC year. less injuries, plenty of internationals still, RFU and PRL pulling in the same direction.

give everyone a year to cool their heels and figure out who contributes what financially to the euro clubs tournaments, and then the negotiations should be a lot more straightforward, one way or another.

Of course it will be less commercially attractive, just as it would be without any of the other clubs/regions/provinces in varying degrees. The AP may be able to afford to sit out next season, maybe, but, they won't be able to afford to sit it out much longer than that. That really doesn't strengthen their negotiating hand, it weakens it. As I have also pointed out, any new structure may also mean that reliance on the participation of AP may not be as crucial for success as it is for the present structure.
It also needs to be considered what impact this has on players, and fans. The RWC hopes. The 6 Nations. There's no point in attempting to negate the fact that it's damaging. It is. Just as this has been for the Celtic Nations. The French are possibly the only ones in all this who won't be hurt in some way.

Munchkin wrote:The decision may not be one that RFU has to make though. It's up to the regions to sign the WRU PA, and if in doing so they agree to participate in HEC then the AP is isolated.
How does that effect the AP? How much would they then receive from the domestic BT contract? What about the players and fans? How will it impact England's performance come the RWC?
Remaining outside of European competition for next season will not guarantee them stronger negotiating power for the following season, as whatever structure is implemented may mean that the success of the tournament is less reliant on the inclusion of AP teams.
Without the regions to compete against next season the AP will suffer, I believe.

Oh yes, if the regions sign up to the current (believed) offered PA then there's no decision (which is likely because I don't think the regions have the legal case and that's the only way to continue without it). If the IRFU fella quoted was right then it works out the PRL gets as much from the BT deal as they got from Sky + ERC. But they lose ticket sales. Most English fans (I think) would prefer a Prem/Champ cup. Not as good as HEC but probably better than ACC (in terms of attendances). The salary cap is now fixed to central income, not sure if that means it'll go up or down.

Overall the English will be ok until 2016. I think the LV is up then and can't see it being renewed if this is still going on. That would be a reduction in money but I think (hope) there will be reasonably big changes in English club rugby (championship sides will be involved in the discussion). From then on? Who knows.

As for the international side, half the English teams don't play in the HEC. If it has a big impact so be it. But I can't see it personally. You're only talking 6 games for most of the teams and generally a couple of those aren't big games. The main thing is the exposure to other sides with other ideas and styles. Will one year make a difference when they'll be playing in LV and 12 international games? Hmmm   

Munchkin wrote:

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.

The highlighted part is important. To me the statement is the IRB basically standing behind the unions and telling the Welsh regions that they'll have to deal with them too.


It also puts pressure on the RFU to get off the pot and state whether or not they'll allow an anglo Welsh league.

Fair enough if they receive roughly the same amount from BT for their domestic games. The ticket sales would have an impact on the top teams only, but still a sizeable chunk.
Do you really think most English fans would prefer a Champions Cup to HEC? My impression was that most fans, at least those of the top teams, would really miss a HEC.
I know that not all teams play in the HEC. I was really talking about those players that do, and those that have aspirations to do so. From reading some AP player interviews, the HEC is regarded very highly.
Yes, I believe even 6 games can make a difference, especially to those lacking experience in games of higher intensity than that of AP, Rabo, T14. I can't remember where I read it, but think Lancaster believes the HEC important in developing players for the national side.

HammerofThunor wrote:The RFU have to be very careful. If they block games on a whim they probably could be taken to court. If they block them for good reason they'll be fine.

Also, we know this happened before ('which is why the claims it was happening now because the Irish were winning was childish cowpat). Difference now is that they've given notice.

Thats exactly what McCaff said in 2007 (see bolded part)  

"The RFU has to be very careful," said McCafferty. "Stopping us from arranging fixtures would be anti-competitive and sport is not immune from the law.

It didn't work then, and it won't work now.

As for being in trouble...why? It was stated a long time ago that the PRL were prepared to go alone if no other unions agreed a cross-border competition.

Well, you've got your wish of playing with yourselves.

Wasn't the Examiner thing saying the unions were GOING to reaffirm their stance not that they had. So there's nothing really to say other than the 5 unions were supposed to have another meeting and we don't know the outcome (or do we?).

The Examiner wrote:The Irish Rugby Football Union will sit down with its counterparts from France, Italy, Scotland and Wales today to reaffirm its commitment to an ERC-organised pan-European club competition for next season.

We know that nothing has changed since the first meeting when the 5 Unions there agreed that there will be a 5 Nation Heineken Cup next season and that a they would consider the management of it the following season.

And finally so the term refers to traitorous Britain or England and comes from a time when it freed to Britain? So it could still be referring to the British and Irish unions not backing the FIRA-AER thing or to the English being nasty snakes in the grass. Not really clear is it.

Wiki says it goes back to 13th century (pre Act of Union in 1800), so it actually did mean England.

We have only English spin that the Celtic Unions fear FIRA-AER governance. The Six Nations already are under the jurisdiction of Fira-Aera and I'm sure the Celts will find plenty of friends in the new organisation.

As I voted in the poll ages ago, the most likely outcome will be some form of Euro cup with the 5 unions (not RFU). That still looks on but not sorted yet (or might be when outcome of the meeting is known).

As far as I understand it, the Unions indicated what is happening and they now need to sort out the details of the competition next year and that is probably what they were discussing. I'm sure they would also not want to have provided any distraction from Lapassat IRB's announcement.

profitius wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

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.

The highlighted part is important. To me the statement is the IRB basically standing behind the unions and telling the Welsh regions that they'll have to deal with them too.


It also puts pressure on the RFU to get off the pot and state whether or not they'll allow an anglo Welsh league.

True, but they're really only reaffirming something we already understood. Although to hear some regions fans talking, maybe not all had that understanding.
It would be great if Richie actually got off the fence, but at this point I don't think he's going to. Not when he doesn't really have to. Things may go completely pear-shaped with regards to RRW/WRU, so he might have to come out of his closet still.
Thing is, I'm not convinced he doesn't fully support, and agree with, PRL's position. Will be interesting if he has to declare  

From th beeb:

The Rugby Football Union has welcomed the IRB's latest statement, with chairman Bill Beaumont confirming urgent work continues towards a solution.
Beaumont said: "Our primary focus should be to maintain a genuinely pan-European tournament. Rest assured I am working closely with RFU chief executive officer Ian Ritchie and other stakeholders to find a solution.
"I welcome the support of the IRB in helping to ensure that this happens and, of course, as a member union abide by and support the IRB regulations."

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:The RFU have to be very careful. If they block games on a whim they probably could be taken to court. If they block them for good reason they'll be fine.

Also, we know this happened before ('which is why the claims it was happening now because the Irish were winning was childish cowpat). Difference now is that they've given notice.

Thats exactly what McCaff said in 2007 (see bolded part)  

"The RFU has to be very careful," said McCafferty. "Stopping us from arranging fixtures would be anti-competitive and sport is not immune from the law.

It didn't work then, and it won't work now.

As for being in trouble...why? It was stated a long time ago that the PRL were prepared to go alone if no other unions agreed a cross-border competition.

Well, you've got your wish of playing with yourselves.

Wasn't the Examiner thing saying the unions were GOING to reaffirm their stance not that they had. So there's nothing really to say other than the 5 unions were supposed to have another meeting and we don't know the outcome (or do we?).

The Examiner wrote:The Irish Rugby Football Union will sit down with its counterparts from France, Italy, Scotland and Wales today to reaffirm its commitment to an ERC-organised pan-European club competition for next season.

We know that nothing has changed since the first meeting when the 5 Unions there agreed that there will be a 5 Nation Heineken Cup next season and that a they would consider the management of it the following season.

And finally so the term refers to traitorous Britain or England and comes from a time when it freed to Britain? So it could still be referring to the British and Irish unions not backing the FIRA-AER thing or to the English being nasty snakes in the grass. Not really clear is it.

Wiki says it goes back to 13th century (pre Act of Union in 1800), so it actually did mean England.

We have only English spin that the Celtic Unions fear FIRA-AER governance. The Six Nations already are under the jurisdiction of Fira-Aera and I'm sure the Celts will find plenty of friends in the new organisation.

As I voted in the poll ages ago, the most likely outcome will be some form of Euro cup with the 5 unions (not RFU). That still looks on but not sorted yet (or might be when outcome of the meeting is known).

As far as I understand it, the Unions indicated what is happening and they now need to sort out the details of the competition next year and that is probably what they were discussing. I'm sure they would also not want to have provided any distraction from Lapassat IRB's announcement.

The Six Nations is not under the jurisdiction of FIRA-AER, and as for Celtic-FIRA friends, a visit to the FIRA-AER forum may be enlightening. Tis true that we don't know what Celtalian opinions on FIRA governance are - could that be what yesterday's meeting was really about - is it time that IRFU et al came off the fence and declared their position?

lots of very carefully worded non-statements.

nothing new. WRU and RFU need to approve a new anglo-welsh competition. we knew that. will be interesting though if the RFU give it the thumbs up, as the union representing english clubs, and the host nation union. will really focus the dispute on wru vs rrw.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:The RFU have to be very careful. If they block games on a whim they probably could be taken to court. If they block them for good reason they'll be fine.

Also, we know this happened before ('which is why the claims it was happening now because the Irish were winning was childish cowpat). Difference now is that they've given notice.

Thats exactly what McCaff said in 2007 (see bolded part)  

"The RFU has to be very careful," said McCafferty. "Stopping us from arranging fixtures would be anti-competitive and sport is not immune from the law.

It didn't work then, and it won't work now.

As for being in trouble...why? It was stated a long time ago that the PRL were prepared to go alone if no other unions agreed a cross-border competition.

Well, you've got your wish of playing with yourselves.

Wasn't the Examiner thing saying the unions were GOING to reaffirm their stance not that they had. So there's nothing really to say other than the 5 unions were supposed to have another meeting and we don't know the outcome (or do we?).

The Examiner wrote:The Irish Rugby Football Union will sit down with its counterparts from France, Italy, Scotland and Wales today to reaffirm its commitment to an ERC-organised pan-European club competition for next season.

We know that nothing has changed since the first meeting when the 5 Unions there agreed that there will be a 5 Nation Heineken Cup next season and that a they would consider the management of it the following season.

And finally so the term refers to traitorous Britain or England and comes from a time when it freed to Britain? So it could still be referring to the British and Irish unions not backing the FIRA-AER thing or to the English being nasty snakes in the grass. Not really clear is it.

Wiki says it goes back to 13th century (pre Act of Union in 1800), so it actually did mean England.

We have only English spin that the Celtic Unions fear FIRA-AER governance. The Six Nations already are under the jurisdiction of Fira-Aera and I'm sure the Celts will find plenty of friends in the new organisation.

As I voted in the poll ages ago, the most likely outcome will be some form of Euro cup with the 5 unions (not RFU). That still looks on but not sorted yet (or might be when outcome of the meeting is known).

As far as I understand it, the Unions indicated what is happening and they now need to sort out the details of the competition next year and that is probably what they were discussing. I'm sure they would also not want to have provided any distraction from Lapassat IRB's announcement.

The Six Nations is not under the jurisdiction of FIRA-AER, and as for Celtic-FIRA friends, a visit to the FIRA-AER forum may be enlightening. Tis true that we don't know what Celtalian opinions on FIRA governance are - could that be what yesterday's meeting was really about - is it time that IRFU et al came off the fence and declared their position?

Hardly. The FIRA-AER is a newish addition to this fiasco, and it's not just IRFU that has to consider any proposals. It's all the Unions, including RFU, and so I would expect this to drag on for some time yet before anything is decided. Just like always   

irfu, sru and fir will go wherever the tournament and money is. they can't afford not to.

there will be a quasi european tournie next year, involving sru, irfu, maybe wru, maybe fir clubs, and either french or english clubs but not both.

quinsforever wrote:irfu, sru and fir will go wherever the tournament and money is. they can't afford not to.

there will be a quasi european tournie next year, involving sru, irfu, maybe wru, maybe fir clubs, and either french or english clubs but not both.

Pretty much agree, but think there are some wider considerations re:

quinsforever wrote: will be interesting though if the RFU give it the thumbs up, as the union representing english clubs, and the host nation union. will really focus the dispute on wru vs rrw.

Don't believe the WRU will follow the RFU say so - there is the much bigger picture of the 6 nations and while RFU money and relationship is arguablly more important to WRU than the relationship with any one of the other four, it isn't more important and they won't risk the collective relations with all of them. Which brings us back to the Beaumont quotes, my reading between the lines has one of the following as potential outcomes a) trying to work out a B&I competition OR b)Trying to unpick the ERC to allow the BT deal to go ahead with everyone OR c) Drawing a line with the PRL and pulling McCaffrey/PRL back in line a little 'as a member union abide by and support the IRB regulations'

b) looks unlikely so as you say Europe without either England or France.

Regarding 2007, did anyone try and set up another competition? If not then I don't see how it "failed".

Also, I don't understand the significance of the IRB statement. The PRL have already said any competition would need union approval. And the RFU don't need to say anything about a AW league because it is purely hypothetical.

The key thing about the IRB statement is that they only refer to the unions taking part. If the WRU join the RFU and both agreed to such a comp (not going to happen) the there is no suggestion that the IRB would block it on behalf of the SRU, etc (nor stop a 5 union thing for the English).

If the WRU approved an Anglo welsh deal (and they have said they won't without the other unions) they would potentially leave themselves open to be used for millions by the other Celtic unions.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:
The Six Nations is not under the jurisdiction of FIRA-AER, and as for Celtic-FIRA friends, a visit to the FIRA-AER forum may be enlightening. Tis true that we don't know what Celtalian opinions on FIRA governance are - could that be what yesterday's meeting was really about - is it time that IRFU et al came off the fence and declared their position?

Check out their website and look under competitions. The Six Nations is there, while the Heineken Cup is not.

http://www.fira-aer-rugby.com

Its irrelevant what posters on a forum have to say. They don't actually know anything. For instance, none of them seemed to realise that Ireland toured Canada/USA this year or that Ireland had a team at the Tiblisi Cup or that Ireland is hosting either Georgia or Romania this autumn.

Secondly, the Italians came up from FIRA into the Six Nations. As far as I know it was the IRFU that fought their corner to get them in and the IRFU also backed bringing the Italian teams into the Pro12 (the Scots didn't want them).

IRFU is firmly behind the IRB and its Chairman, Lapassat.

HammerofThunor wrote:Regarding 2007, did anyone try and set up another competition? If not then I don't see how it "failed".

Also, I don't understand the significance of the IRB statement. The PRL have already said any competition would need union approval. And the RFU don't need to say anything about a AW league because it is purely hypothetical.

The key thing about the IRB statement is that they only refer to the unions taking part. If the WRU join the RFU and both agreed to such a comp (not going to happen) the there is no suggestion that the IRB would block it on behalf of the SRU, etc (nor stop a 5 union thing for the English).

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."

A Welsh-Anglo league would not be in the best interests of the global game as it would affect Scotland, Ireland and Italy, so it won't get the approval of the IRB (which is basically a collection of Unions).

Lapassat was the FFR Chair in 2007 and look how he went ball-headed for the French clubs and would not even give the year off from participating in the Heineken Cup. He is now in a much more powerful position as IRB Chair and he has the support of the French Chair as well.

Sin é wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:
The Six Nations is not under the jurisdiction of FIRA-AER, and as for Celtic-FIRA friends, a visit to the FIRA-AER forum may be enlightening. Tis true that we don't know what Celtalian opinions on FIRA governance are - could that be what yesterday's meeting was really about - is it time that IRFU et al came off the fence and declared their position?

Check out their website and look under competitions. The Six Nations is there, while the Heineken Cup is not.

http://www.fira-aer-rugby.com

Its irrelevant what posters on a forum have to say. They don't actually know anything. For instance, none of them seemed to realise that Ireland toured Canada/USA this year or that Ireland had a team at the Tiblisi Cup or that Ireland is hosting either Georgia or Romania this autumn.

Secondly, the Italians came up from FIRA into the Six Nations. As far as I know it was the IRFU that fought their corner to get them in and the IRFU also backed bringing the Italian teams into the Pro12 (the Scots didn't want them).

IRFU is firmly behind the IRB and its Chairman, Lapassat.

Check out their regulations and bye-laws

Sin é wrote:
Its irrelevant what posters on a forum have to say. They don't actually know anything.

Ain't that the truth, or is it?

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Regarding 2007, did anyone try and set up another competition? If not then I don't see how it "failed".

Also, I don't understand the significance of the IRB statement. The PRL have already said any competition would need union approval. And the RFU don't need to say anything about a AW league because it is purely hypothetical.

The key thing about the IRB statement is that they only refer to the unions taking part. If the WRU join the RFU and both agreed to such a comp (not going to happen) the there is no suggestion that the IRB would block it on behalf of the SRU, etc (nor stop a 5 union thing for the English).

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."

A Welsh-Anglo league would not be in the best interests of the global game as it would affect Scotland, Ireland and Italy, so it won't get the approval of the IRB (which is basically a collection of Unions).

Lapassat was the FFR Chair in 2007 and look how he went ball-headed for the French clubs and  would not even give the year off from participating in the Heineken Cup. He is now in a much more powerful position as IRB Chair and he has the support of the French Chair as well.

To summarise what you are saying. The IRB will not sanction a competition that negatively affects some of its members i.e. Scotland, Ireland and Italy.

I am sure you are right in saying that but it is such a clear example of both conflict of interest and restraint of trade that any court would strike down such a ruling in seconds (actually weeks so the lawyers can earn their fees!). Now the game is professional it has to play by the rules of business. Cartels are not only illegal under both European and UK civil law but operating one is a criminal offence.

The RRW nor the PRL will go to court against the IRB. The notion is fanciful

Exiledinborders wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Regarding 2007, did anyone try and set up another competition? If not then I don't see how it "failed".

Also, I don't understand the significance of the IRB statement. The PRL have already said any competition would need union approval. And the RFU don't need to say anything about a AW league because it is purely hypothetical.

The key thing about the IRB statement is that they only refer to the unions taking part. If the WRU join the RFU and both agreed to such a comp (not going to happen) the there is no suggestion that the IRB would block it on behalf of the SRU, etc (nor stop a 5 union thing for the English).

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."

A Welsh-Anglo league would not be in the best interests of the global game as it would affect Scotland, Ireland and Italy, so it won't get the approval of the IRB (which is basically a collection of Unions).

Lapassat was the FFR Chair in 2007 and look how he went ball-headed for the French clubs and  would not even give the year off from participating in the Heineken Cup. He is now in a much more powerful position as IRB Chair and he has the support of the French Chair as well.

To summarise what you are saying. The IRB will not sanction a competition that negatively affects some of its members i.e. Scotland, Ireland and Italy.

I am sure you are right in saying that but it is such a clear example of both conflict of interest and restraint of trade that any court would strike down such a ruling in seconds (actually weeks so the lawyers can earn their fees!). Now the game is professional it has to play by the rules of business. Cartels are not only illegal under both European and UK civil law but operating one is a criminal offence.

If it ever went to European Court, it would take years. It will never go to Court. WRU have no case to answer. RRW decided to take the option of opting out after completing 5 years of a 10 year contract, something which the contract entitled them to do after 5 years. They are now out of contract. The WRU have now offered them a new contract. It is their choice whether to accept or reject. If they reject then there are others, allegedly, that will take their place as the new regions.
Season ending, they are free to play rugby across the border, however, unless it's sanctioned by WRU, and host Unions, they will not be playing rugby union. No case to answer for WRU.

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Regarding 2007, did anyone try and set up another competition? If not then I don't see how it "failed".

Also, I don't understand the significance of the IRB statement. The PRL have already said any competition would need union approval. And the RFU don't need to say anything about a AW league because it is purely hypothetical.

The key thing about the IRB statement is that they only refer to the unions taking part. If the WRU join the RFU and both agreed to such a comp (not going to happen) the there is no suggestion that the IRB would block it on behalf of the SRU, etc (nor stop a 5 union thing for the English).

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."

A Welsh-Anglo league would not be in the best interests of the global game as it would affect Scotland, Ireland and Italy, so it won't get the approval of the IRB (which is basically a collection of Unions).

Lapassat was the FFR Chair in 2007 and look how he went ball-headed for the French clubs and  would not even give the year off from participating in the Heineken Cup. He is now in a much more powerful position as IRB Chair and he has the support of the French Chair as well.

Nice bit of bolding there. However "In the interests of the global Game" which you highlighted is followed by ", the IRB reaffirm 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 the IRB Regulations and Bye-Laws". So it is saying that the global interest of the game is that only competitions approved by unions will be approved by the IRB. It doesn't say what you claim it says. Even if they mean what you say they mean you can't infer that from that statement.

Now, unlike some people I don't take negative statement (we will NOT do this) and turn it into a positive (we WILL do the opposite of this). So the statement doesn't mean they WILL always approve a competition that has union approval. But likewise there is NOTHING in that statement to suggest what they would do if the unions involved approved.

Standulstermen wrote:If the WRU approved an Anglo welsh deal (and they have said they won't without the other unions) they would potentially leave themselves open to be used for millions by the other Celtic unions.

Used for millions. WRU really would be whoring themselves out then. Mind you with Roger in charge...

HammerofThunor wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:If the WRU approved an Anglo welsh deal (and they have said they won't without the other unions) they would potentially leave themselves open to be used for millions by the other Celtic unions.

Used for millions. WRU really would be whoring themselves out then. Mind you with Roger in charge...

 

  

HammerofThunor wrote:
Nice bit of bolding there. However "In the interests of the global Game" which you highlighted is followed by ", the IRB reaffirm 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 the IRB Regulations and Bye-Laws".  So it is saying that the global interest of the game is that only competitions approved by unions will be approved by the IRB. It doesn't say what you claim it says. Even if they mean what you say they mean you can't infer that from that statement.

Now, unlike some people I don't take negative statement (we will NOT do this) and turn it into a positive (we WILL do the opposite of this). So the statement doesn't mean they WILL always approve a competition that has union approval. But likewise there is NOTHING in that statement to suggest what they would do if the unions involved approved.

I suggest you read the following article to get the IRB's view on how the problems caused by the clubs in Europe is viewed:

Last Updated: Monday, 9 April 2007, 13:01 GMT 14:01 UK

Millar attacks clubs over boycott
IRB chairman Dr Syd Millar
Millar hopes his intervention will help solve the dispute
The chairman of the International Rugby Board, Dr Syd Millar, has attacked the Anglo-French clubs' Heineken Cup boycott as "absolutely disgraceful".

In a powerfully-worded statement, Dr Millar said the clubs' "selfish" attitude would not be allowed to "dictate the course of world rugby".

He also said French clubs chief Serge Blanco was "naive" in his own role.

"It is unbelievable that one man should be allowed to bring European rugby to this state," Dr Millar said.

England's Premiership clubs joined the French National League (LNR), the umbrella organisation of the top two divisions in France, last Thursday in pulling out of next season's Heineken and European Challenge Cups.

Blanco, the LNR chairman, blamed the English Rugby Football Union's refusal to hand 50% of its shareholding and voting rights in European Rugby Cup Ltd, the tournament's organisers, to the English clubs.

But Dr Millar insists there is still time to reach a workable solution on the Heineken Cup's future, with the IRB hosting a meeting of the six affected unions following an ERC council meeting on Wednesday.


I can only assume that Serge Blanco is being very badly advised or he is being naïve

Dr Syd Millar
"The decision by the French and English clubs to withdraw from the European Rugby Cup has been described as regrettable, unfortunate and shameful," Millar said in his statement.

"It is more than that. It is absolutely disgraceful and selfish to destroy a tournament which has developed into a hugely successful and special annual rugby event that is vital to the well being of European rugby.

"It will have serious consequences for world rugby.

"This decision is not about fixing match schedule congestion in France as was first suggested.

"Indeed it is difficult for the average rugby supporter to understand why Serge Blanco has withdrawn the French clubs.

"The IRB made the concession of allowing the French rugby Premiership (LNR) to play matches during the Rugby World Cup to alleviate match congestion in the 2007/08 season.

"He talks now for support for the English Premiership clubs, he talks of respect.

"What respect has he shown for those who have worked hard to develop this tournament into the excellent event that it has become?

ACP

"What respect is he showing for other European rugby nations who will suffer financial hardship with a direct consequence to player employment?

"What respect is there for the players who enjoy and want to play in the tournament? What respect is there for the supporters who have enjoyed the event and travelled in their tens of thousands throughout Europe in support of their teams, therefore producing a great festival of rugby?

"What respect is he showing for the sponsors and media who have made their contribution to the tournament? None.

"What respect has he shown for the French Rugby Federation and French rugby in a year that is hugely important for the game in France as it hosts the Rugby World Cup in September and October?

"He says he has no dispute with his own national union but why is he interfering with the affairs of another union?

"It is unbelievable that one man should be allowed to bring European rugby to this state. We understand that not all clubs agree. Is there no-one among the clubs of France who has the courage to say no, we will not be part of this?


It is not too late for the Premiership clubs to reverse their decision

Dr Syd Millar
"I have always had a great respect for Serge Blanco as a player and a person.

"But in this instance I can only assume that he is being very badly advised or he is being naïve and has allowed himself to be used by certain people in England not just to destabilise ERC but to support a challenge to the way club rugby is governed through national unions and the International Rugby Board."

Dr Millar said the English clubs had also "sought to destroy" the Heineken Cup with their boycott in 1998/99, and was scathing about their plans to set up an alternative tournament.

"What next, a new Six Nations run by the Premiership clubs?" he added.

"The Premiership clubs in the main are owned by entrepreneurs who are not used to and do not like deferring to governing bodies such as the RFU. They do not want to have a governing body which controls the game for the good of all and not just for a handful of elite professional clubs."

Dr Millar ended his statement on a conciliatoy note, voicing his hope that the Heineken and European Challenge Cup competitions could still be saved.

"It is not too late for the Premiership clubs to reverse their decision and have the courage to do so and to show the rugby world at large that they are prepared to work within a system where their voice is heard and has been listened to."

He concluded: "The rugby unions of the world will not allow 26 clubs to dictate the course of world rugby and the present situation has brought those unions even closer and more determined to preserve the game for the good of all.

"Rugby has progressed enormously over the past few years and will continue to grow under the guidance of the unions and IRB who cater for the needs of all the game's stakeholders.

"The IRB has obligations to all of its stakeholders and envisages meetings with other senior unions around the world to allay their fears on the direction professional rugby is taking in Europe due to the actions of the English and French clubs."

Premier Rugby, the Premiership clubs umbrella body, was studying Dr Millar's statement and considering its response.

It argues the RFU has reneged on a deal struck last October over the shareholding rights, something Twickenham's top brass categorically deny.

The RFU says it would agree to the clubs' request but not in isolation - it wants it to form part of a wider-reaching domestic agreement covering international release periods and player welfare.

The knock-on effects of any boycott could be severe.

The four Welsh regions are set to lose £500,000 each while the Scottish Rugby Union warned their professional game could die without European competition next year.

Although the views of the ex (Irish) IRB chairman are fascinating none of that says they wouldn't approve a competition if the UNIONS involved agree.

HammerofThunor wrote:Although the views of the ex (Irish) IRB chairman are fascinating none of that says they wouldn't approve a competition if the UNIONS involved agree.

Its the views of the IRB (Unions) expressed (rather strongly) by the former president. There is no way he would be making a statement like that without the approval of his IRB Board.

In the piece I posted from the Guardian about that same dispute in 2007, Rees's opinion was that Lapassat was coming out so strongly because he had the IRB chairmanship election coming up and he wanted to impress the SH Unions (which would lead one to believe that they saw the clubs in the NH as being problematic for the world game).

Yes and it's all very nice and you can extrapolate from it to anything you want. But it's not saying that the IRB wouldn't approve a competition that had the unions approval.

Exiledinborders wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Regarding 2007, did anyone try and set up another competition? If not then I don't see how it "failed".

Also, I don't understand the significance of the IRB statement. The PRL have already said any competition would need union approval. And the RFU don't need to say anything about a AW league because it is purely hypothetical.

The key thing about the IRB statement is that they only refer to the unions taking part. If the WRU join the RFU and both agreed to such a comp (not going to happen) the there is no suggestion that the IRB would block it on behalf of the SRU, etc (nor stop a 5 union thing for the English).

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."

A Welsh-Anglo league would not be in the best interests of the global game as it would affect Scotland, Ireland and Italy, so it won't get the approval of the IRB (which is basically a collection of Unions).

Lapassat was the FFR Chair in 2007 and look how he went ball-headed for the French clubs and  would not even give the year off from participating in the Heineken Cup. He is now in a much more powerful position as IRB Chair and he has the support of the French Chair as well.

To summarise what you are saying. The IRB will not sanction a competition that negatively affects some of its members i.e. Scotland, Ireland and Italy.

I am sure you are right in saying that but it is such a clear example of both conflict of interest and restraint of trade that any court would strike down such a ruling in seconds (actually weeks so the lawyers can earn their fees!). Now the game is professional it has to play by the rules of business. Cartels are not only illegal under both European and UK civil law but operating one is a criminal offence.

There is a European directive, which makes it legal to exercise limited restraint of trade in certain situation, for the greater good and sport is specifically mentioned.
It most definitely would not be a open and shut case and who would win is highly debateable.

geoff999rugby wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Regarding 2007, did anyone try and set up another competition? If not then I don't see how it "failed".

Also, I don't understand the significance of the IRB statement. The PRL have already said any competition would need union approval. And the RFU don't need to say anything about a AW league because it is purely hypothetical.

The key thing about the IRB statement is that they only refer to the unions taking part. If the WRU join the RFU and both agreed to such a comp (not going to happen) the there is no suggestion that the IRB would block it on behalf of the SRU, etc (nor stop a 5 union thing for the English).

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."

A Welsh-Anglo league would not be in the best interests of the global game as it would affect Scotland, Ireland and Italy, so it won't get the approval of the IRB (which is basically a collection of Unions).

Lapassat was the FFR Chair in 2007 and look how he went ball-headed for the French clubs and  would not even give the year off from participating in the Heineken Cup. He is now in a much more powerful position as IRB Chair and he has the support of the French Chair as well.

To summarise what you are saying. The IRB will not sanction a competition that negatively affects some of its members i.e. Scotland, Ireland and Italy.

I am sure you are right in saying that but it is such a clear example of both conflict of interest and restraint of trade that any court would strike down such a ruling in seconds (actually weeks so the lawyers can earn their fees!). Now the game is professional it has to play by the rules of business. Cartels are not only illegal under both European and UK civil law but operating one is a criminal offence.

There is a European directive, which makes it legal to exercise limited restraint of trade in certain situation, for the greater good and sport is specifically mentioned.
It most definitely would not be a open and shut case and who would win is highly debateable.

Spot on , geoff, that is paramount in this case - sport is considered outside restraint of trade when it is for the greater good - hope RRW, PRL and LNR are smelling the coffee this morning

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/jun/29/london-welsh-win-appeal-premiership

Not the same thing but courts have over-ruled a union before regarding allowing a team to compete in a competition or not. I know it was the dirty sinking RFU but Sport isn't immune to law.

As I've said before I don't think the Regions would have a case in this regard unless they had some evidence that the union was deliberately trying to destroy them over the next five years with a poor PA agreement so that they could set up Union controlled teams in 2020 when the MS is paid off.

That would be a case of a union using it's powers to deliberate bankrupt/destroy sporting teams/businesses so it could replace them with their own product.

I'm not convinced the WRU are doing it and doubly convinced the RRW wouldn't have any evidence they are.

Indeed, Thunor, altho the case against London Welsh effectively collapsed when it was revealed that the PRL had one rule for existing teams and another for promoted teams - palpably unfair

The London Welsh case like the oft quoted Newport soccer case were both internal matter for a particular league not cross border issues. (I know Welsh soccer tried to block Newport but Newport had been a member of the English league for decades).

The EU dictate makes it quite clear that all affected parties must not be adversely affected.
So even if they conclude WRU had acted in an unacceptable way, bizarrely, WRU could still win the case because of the impact on Irish, Scottish and Italian rugby.

So the clubs almost have to win 2 cases not 1.

Anyone else smelling the possibility of a whiff of caudite?

One nuclear option would be for a professional player/club breakaway from the IRB structure altogether. i.e. a second schism.

Were the wealthiest/lucrative nations (E, F, SA, Aus & NZ) to force the issue with common greed and concensus, it would be the end of rugby as we know it and we'd all be wringing our hands and wiping our tears as rugby sails away into the sunset.

Just conjecturin'. But all of these conflicting, divergent forces straining away at the rugby edifice might just bring it down.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Indeed, Thunor, altho the case against London Welsh effectively collapsed when it was revealed that the PRL had one rule for existing teams and another for promoted teams - palpably unfair

The RFU. The PRL suggest criteria but the RFU approve them and control them. They're managed by the PGB, which will include the Champion representatives from 2016. But that's another issue.

The is no way the WRU would be forced into agreeing an AW league.

1) The regions have a comparable league to enter (PRO12)
2) The WRU are contracted to provide teams
3) It would mean being reduced to 6-8 team league and heavily impact on other nations

We all know these reasons, and that's not even counting the RFU's approval which I doubt would be there and the legals cases the RRW have (or not) against the WRU do not apply with the RFU. So, no, I really can't see any court ruling that a AW league MUST be allowed.

But the issue would be the PRO12 remaining and the regions being allowed into the RCC. In this case they might be able to get somewhere...but not in time. The regions can't survive on just the RCC and they staying in the PRO12 without signing the PA, which currently seems to include playing in the ERC specifically. So I can't really anything other than two options:

1) Sign up to the PA, continue to collapse over the next 5 years.
2) Just wind themselves up now and save themselves 5 years of pain.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Anyone else smelling the possibility of a whiff of caudite?

One nuclear option would be for a professional player/club breakaway from the IRB structure altogether. i.e. a second schism.

Were the wealthiest/lucrative nations (E, F, SA, Aus & NZ) to force the issue with common greed and concensus, it would be the end of rugby as we know it and we'd all be wringing our hands and wiping our tears as rugby sails away into the sunset.

Just conjecturin'. But all of these conflicting, divergent forces straining away at the rugby edifice might just bring it down.

Aus and NZ aren't wealthy. They just about survive on international game money. If those 5 did break away it would get a bit dull if just them. If they brought across significant parts of the rest of the world where the game is growing it may survive (the FIRA was orginally set up as a French rival to the 'Anglo' IRB) but I can't see it. Too much risk. The only ones who would pull away completely would be the richer clubs, so a group of French and English ones possible, but even that is highly unlikely to occur or survive if it did.

IMO

i think it is very unclear what would happen if various parts of this dispute ended up in the courts.

the IRB rules and regulations stem from the amateur era. especially as it relates to governance of tournaments, etc. it was basically a private members club that you had to agree to abide by the rules if you didnt want to be kicked out.

now though, the french and english clubs (and welsh regions sort of) are privately owned, and are often run for profit (even if not actually achieving it).

so reconciling the IRB regulations with cross border commercial practices of for-profit companies is not something that i think is clear cut at all.

especially when the reality is that ERC is itself a private company that is being favoured here by the IRB, and its constituent rugby playing nations. so it appears that one set of private interests are being preferred over another competing set, for non-commercial reasons. that seems pretty messy to me.

i can see why the IRB are completely unwilling to actually step in themselves. they are not sure what the outcome would be. that's why they are adamant that the "relevant unions" have to give their approval. then they can say that it was not their decision at all.

i do think this whole mess is going to run and run though. it's not possible to put the professionalism genie back into the box, so in the club arena, there is always going to be a big tension between private clubs and union owned clubs in the competition in which both compete.

quinsforever wrote: so reconciling the IRB regulations with cross border commercial practices of for-profit companies is not something that i think is clear cut at all.

.

But if it gets to the courts none of this is, directly, relevant.

What is relevant is the law; which this case means European law and how it pertains to sport and whether or not a level of restrictive practise is justified for the particular case under consideration.

geoff999rugby wrote:

quinsforever wrote: so reconciling the IRB regulations with cross border commercial practices of for-profit companies is not something that i think is clear cut at all.

.

But if it gets to the courts none of this is, directly, relevant.

What is relevant is the law; which this case means European law and how it pertains to sport and whether or not a level of restrictive practise is justified for the particular case under consideration.

Which isn't clear cut. The court wouldn't be that the IRB regulations aren't lawful (the governing body needs to approve a competition in their sphere). This issue will be whether the reasons the WRU don't approve are lawful and 'fair'.

I would have thought, as someone with no clue about law whatsoever.

Absolutely - this is a very murky area.

If I was a betting man, and from what I have read, I would say 60/40 the WRU would win.
However no doubt whoever loses will appeal

One thing it would be useful to know is what is the position if the case is unresolved at the start of next season.
Could an Anglo-Welsh league start pending resolution or can it not start till the case is resolved?

I would have thought the former is an absolute nightmare scenario for the eRFU with a World Cup coming up - being in open conflict with the IRB

geoff999rugby wrote:Absolutely - this is a very murky area.

If I was a betting man, and from what I have read, I would say 60/40 the WRU would win.
However no doubt whoever loses will appeal

One thing it would be useful to know is what is the position if the case is unresolved at the start of next season.
Could an Anglo-Welsh league start pending resolution or can it not start till the case is resolved?

I would have thought the former is an absolute nightmare scenario for the eRFU with a World Cup coming up - being in open conflict with the IRB

I can't see any way whatsoever that an Anglo-Welsh league would get approval. It's never going to be a case of teams can do what they want for the reasons already stated and I can't see the unions approving it. Unless I suppose the WRU offer 'unfair' terms to the regions to take part in the PRO12.

Also, since the court case would be required to overturn the WRU veto I would have thought any competition would have to wait until after the courts had decided. Then, maybe, if the WRU chose to appeal they could go ahead until the appeal was lost/won?

The Guardian's take on the IRB's position is somewhat different from what's been posted on here: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/jan/08/heineken-cup-international-rugby-board-six-nations

The article is bylined by Paul Rees, so no doubt it will be dismissed by the Celtic side of this board, but he claims that "it is understood" Lapasset has asked everyone to go back to the 21 October proposal (i.e. run by 6 Nations, only TV rights to be resolved) rather than the French one that usurped it. No mention of sources but if that is the case it would a) show support for the RFU position (as opposed to the FFR one); b) add yet another layer of Frenchman-on-Frenchman internecine strife to the picture.

That puts a different slant on things.

On the WRU / RRW dispute, bear in mind that RRW say the current offer from the WRU effectively commits the RRW to a certain minimum expenditure but provides no guarantee of revenues (because there is no guarantee of a cup competition or what it's worth) and has handled the central contracting issue by removing budget from the regions to fund the player salaries.

If that's the case, it's not a contract that anyone in their right minds would sign up to and I suspect a European court would take that into account in deciding whether it could overrule restraint of trade in a case like this. If it allowed sports governing bodies to effectively force teams into signing commercially unfair contracts "for the good of the game" that would stir up a hornets' nest. How would all the other professional sports react to a ruling like that?

Just for balance thornleys article claimed the IRB statement is the death knell for the B & I cup proposal the RFU are working on. I suppose it's about as likely as Rees claims.

Regarding the proposal that everyone bar the French signed up for... Has any Celtic Union official said that they had agreed this. I can't recall seeing it from anyone in any report and again Thornley denied it was agreed at all.

I'm not saying he is right I can't recall anyone saying it. For what it's worth my preference (if there isn't a 6 union comp) would be for a British and Irish competition as opposed to an English-less Heineken. As long as said competition is appropriately governed And the tv rights were re-opened to tender for all parties (as if)