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

So why can we not see this then?  Why was it offered to the rest as buying a pig in a poke?

To me if someone refuses to let you see something they have something to hide

We do not know what our income would be had we signed up to the RCC. Can you not see how flawed this is?

If you would to draw attention to how I used the quote can you quote the whole thing so I can see?

TJ wrote:So why can we not see this then?  Why was it offered to the rest as buying a pig in a poke?

To me if someone refuses to let you see something they have something to hide

We do not know what our income would be had we signed up to the RCC.  Can you not see how flawed this is?

How can you know how much a competition is worth until you know who would be in it? Are you suggesting the PRL should have sold everyone's rights? That would breach IRB regs

That is precisely what they did tho. And then refused to let anyone else see the details.

Hammer - I merely usued that quote to illustrate a point.

TJ wrote:To me if someone refuses to let you see something they have something to hide

There's a difference between privacy and secrecy. When I shut the door behind me on going to the toilet, it's not because there's any secret about what I will do, it's because I feel entitled to some privacy.

The vast majority of contracts between private parties remain publicly undisclosed.

But the BT contract would be binding on anyone who entered the RCC and no one could see it before they signed up to it.

TJ wrote:But the BT contract would be binding on anyone who entered the RCC and no one could see it before they signed up to it.

Of course, none of that is actually true.

TJ wrote:But the BT contract would be binding on anyone who entered the RCC and no one could see it before they signed up to it.

TJ that seems very unlikely, can you point me to a source that led you to believe that.

Thanks

Fred

TJ wrote:Hammer - I merely usued that quote to illustrate a point.

What was it? Again, could you quote me in full so I can see what your point was?

TJ wrote:But the BT contract would be binding on anyone who entered the RCC and no one could see it before they signed up to it.

I don't understand why that would necessarily be the case. BT and PRL would be bound, but other parties only bound by a Participation Agreement. It's only if the PA includes all the provisions of BT that other parties would be bound if they sign up to it and, as far as I have seen, there's been no info on a provisional PA on which to base an opinion.

If a PA includes only that PRL will bung, say, £20m pa into a central pot, that would be fine. If a PA says that new Euro Cup will be held during AI's (so BT can challenge Sky's international broadcasts), that wouldn't be fine. All parties will need to see and agree a PA before committing, but that's very different from seeing the PRL/BT contract.

Rugby Fan wrote:

TJ wrote:But the BT contract would be binding on anyone who entered the RCC and no one could see it before they signed up to it.

Of course, none of that is actually true.

Yes it is. go back to the beginning of this saga. Look at it with an open mind. Could we have had an RCC with sky as the broadcaster? No. PRL had signed with BT and presented it as a fait acompli. the rest either had to sign up to the RCC blind to the TV contract. All we got was assurances that it would be worth loadsamoney.

McCafferty said:

“Because of the way we had to do the BT deal we haven’t had the opportunity yet to explain to people the benefits – i.e. the amount of money we can put in the pot, which is substantially better than they’ve previously been enjoying. Once they see that I hope they’ll be open-minded.

We have yet to see this deal in any detail. would you buy a pig in a poke?

HammerofThunor wrote:

TJ wrote:Hammer - I merely usued that quote to illustrate a point.

What was it? Again, could you quote me in full so I can see what your point was?

the point is simple.

People on here are quoting the PRL spin as if it were true. The PRL claims - like the one quoted - are accepted as the only truth when like this one they are only a partial truth or a complete untruth.

However - once again I got sucked in. Nothing new has happened. the RCC will not happen, the PRL are isolated and their attempts to bully the rest have been rebuffed and their bluff called.

I shall leave you to your fantasise of a PRL controlled RCC under a BT contract. I shall merely loo forward to next years european cup with or without the PRL clubs and hope that the years breathing space this interim agreement has given allows a sensible renegotiation of the european cup without the threats and bullying and unilateral actions of the PRL

TJ wrote:

McCafferty said:

“Because of the way we had to do the BT deal we haven’t had the opportunity yet to explain to people the benefits – i.e. the amount of money we can put in the pot, which is substantially better than they’ve previously been enjoying. Once they see that I hope they’ll be open-minded.

We have yet to see this deal in any detail.   would you buy a pig in a poke?

I think it was in October that McGrath bleated about not seeing the BT contract. Since then, we "know" that Unions have held face to face meetings with PRL immediately prior to the November mediation. At that mediation Unions unequivocally accepted a minimum financial dividend, albelt with governance and TV issues pending.

How much certainty can there be that interested parties haven't yet seen details of a proposed deal?

TJ wrote:Could we have had an RCC with sky as the broadcaster?

Not as the monopoly broadcaster, but why do you think Sky would have been unable to bid for those matches to which BT had not yet contracted?

Are you sure about that? The PRL have refused to attend any meeting from what I recall. The PRL may have met with the RFU, but I don't think they have met with anyone else.

Sin é wrote:Are you sure about that? The PRL have refused to attend any meeting from what I recall. The PRL may have met with the RFU, but I don't think they have met with anyone else.

I'm not sure of the facts, but I'm sure that it was reported that some or all Celtic unions met with PRL immediately prior to the mediation, I think on an individual basis. To me that has the ring of truth - it would have been remiss to the point of dereliction for Unions not to have availed themselves of every opportunity to glean information and prepare their negotiating stance, however distasteful some individuals may have found the experience.

It may well have been Rees or other journos that are regularly dismissed as PRL conduits that did the reporting, but I do not dismiss their reportage out of hand. Others may do.

Edit: It is widely reported that PRL have refused to meet with ERC in an official capacity. I have not seen it reported that they have refused to meet with individual parties, but I'm open to correction.

TJ wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

TJ wrote:Hammer - I merely usued that quote to illustrate a point.

What was it? Again, could you quote me in full so I can see what your point was?

the point is simple.

People on here are quoting the PRL spin as if it were true.  The PRL claims - like the one quoted - are accepted as the only truth when like this one they are only a partial truth or a complete untruth.

Again, you seem to have missed the point. That quote was referencing what the PRL had said as an attempt to deduce what they had sold. Since the PRL said the RFU had given them the rights it is logical to deduce that only rights the RFU had control over had been sold. It doesn't say whether the PRL actually did have those rights.

Dubbelyew L Overate, I don't think the PRL have met. They weren't invited to some, they didn't go to ones that were to 'save' the ERC. The PRL have invited others to meet them with regards to a new competition but they've refused to meet regarding saving the current (even if both were basically the same).

Hammer - its you that have missed my point but its not important. i simply used that as an example of the folk quoting PRL spin as fact.

TJ wrote:Hammer - its you that have missed my point but its not important.  i simply used that as an example of the folk quoting PRL spin as fact.

But I wasn't.

Not one English club top of their group in the Heineken cup. Leicester and Sarries will probably go through as runners up. however, on this evidence do the English teams just make up the numbers in the Heineken cup?

Will they be missed that much if the tournament went ahead without them next year? It does appear that the standard of English teams in european competition has dropped gradually but significantly since the Hcup began.

It seems to be all set for the French power houses vs the irish again:

Toulouse, Toulon, Clermont v Ulster, Munster and Leinster.

GunsGerms wrote:Not one English club top of their group in the Heineken cup. Leicester and Sarries will probably go through as runners up. however, on this evidence do the English teams just make up the numbers in the Heineken cup?

Will they be missed that much if the tournament went ahead without them next year? It does appear that the standard of English teams in european competition has dropped gradually but significantly since the Hcup began.

It seems to be all set for the French power houses vs the irish again:

Toulouse, Toulon, Clermont v Ulster, Munster and Leinster.

Since the proposals were for equal representation from each of the 3 leagues a 3/3/2 split would be reasonable wouldn't it? The three teams bottom of the pools with the fewest points (for now) are all from the PRO12 (and they won 1 game between the 3 of them). The three teams at the bottom of the pool (for now) are French (2) and English (1).

So I'm not sure what your point is (unless it was get rid of everyone not topping their pools, which would certainly make it an elite competition.

Oh and as things stand 3 English teams have a 'chance' of topping their group. No Scottish, Welsh or Italian teams have any chance of topping their group at all.

Do you really think this is sensible lane to go down?

English clubs will be missed next year if they continue with the "cut their noses off to spite thier face" stance. However it will not be as much as they would like to think.

Oh TJ, just for you, here's my quote in full

"The PRL specifically stated that the RFU gave them control over their TV rights in the 2008 EPS agreement. It's possible for that to give them control over the English home games. It's impossible for it to give them control over any other games. Make of that what you will."

Now, how is that parroting the PRL lies?

I think it is clear from the group standings what the weakest league in Europe is at the moment. On this evidence I dont think the AP "merits" more automatic spots. If anything the AP should get less.

There are always two or three good English teams in the h-cup and I for one will miss them. Even if those teams are not in the top 5 of Europe they are still good teams and the competition is better with them in it.

Guns you are right, with Rabo teams propping up half the pools they are obviously the weakest league.
The AP don't want more they just want equal.

broadlandboy wrote:Guns you are right, with Rabo teams propping up half the pools they are obviously the weakest league.
The AP don't want more they just want equal.

Rabo teams also the largest representation in the QFs probably.

the PRL want far more than parity - they want 6 guaranteed places while the 4 rabo unions would have 6 between them.  Thats not equal.  1 union gets 6 places regardless of merit, the 4 rabo unions share six.  How on earth is 6 equal with 1.5?

IOf it was truely on merit the AP would have less than the rabo as the rabo provides more qfs every year and more winners in recent years.

this is another example of a poster quoting PRL propaganda as fact. either its meritocratic and the ap lose places for their poor performance or its a fixed number of places per union.

broadlandboy wrote:Guns you are right, with Rabo teams propping up half the pools they are obviously the weakest league.
The AP don't want more they just want equal.

The APs demands are greedy. They should get less not more.

The last 6 years the HC winner has been from the Rabo or the top14. Cant see the trend changing this year. You would swear European rugby revolves around the English sides.

It doesnt!!

broadlandboy wrote:Guns you are right, with Rabo teams propping up half the pools they are obviously the weakest league.
The AP don't want more they just want equal.

Sorry to spoil your arguement with facts but all 3 leagues have exactly the same record with respect to Wins and Losses
No one league is showing up any stronger than any other

TJ Guns started talking about leagues being the "weakest". Surely the teams at the bottom of the pools are weakest. You also trip yourself up by saying Unions should have representation but talk about league representation in the QFs. A 3/3/2 split would be right for leagues but for Unions it is 3/3/2/0/0/0 so which is it going to be?
Geoff I was not saying which was the strongest but replying to Guns about the weakest, pointing out the different view that teams at the bottom are weakest not teams that are not at the top.

Teams at the bottom are the weakest - equally teams at  the top are the strongest
Both points need to be considered

No tipping up merely responding to a particularly point

What is interesting is if we end up with the provisionally agreed 6/6/7+1 split the record of the Pro12 teams would be significantlly higher  -seeing as we would be droping the weakest 3/4 teams.

What are the French and Englsih going to do to match the standard of the Pro12 qualfiers ? They will have some catching up to do.  

Geoff, was talking about TJ tripping up, he always talks about Unions but quoted league representation for QFs

geoff998rugby wrote:Teams at the bottom are the weakest - equally teams at  the top are the strongest
Both points need to be considered

No tipping up merely responding to a particularly point

What is interesting is if we end up with the provisionally agreed 6/6/7+1 split the record of the Pro12 teams would be significantlly higher  -seeing as we would be droping the weakest 3/4 teams.

What are the French and Englsih going to do to match the standard of the Pro12 qualfiers ? They will have some catching up to do.  

Surely if you're on about trimming the weakest teams the strongest are irrelvant. The relevant parts are the weakest and those just above. Not that any of this is relevant. Personally I'd go for Frirish Cup, with the 4 Provinces and the top 4 from the T14. That way only the best teams are involved. Granted there would only be 8 teams but that way you can have 6 home and away games in the pools, then all 8 can be seeded for the QF (either that or 4 go for home/away semi).

Sorted.

geoff998rugby wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Guns you are right, with Rabo teams propping up half the pools they are obviously the weakest league.
The AP don't want more they just want equal.

Sorry to spoil your arguement with facts but all 3 leagues have exactly the same record with respect to Wins and Losses
No one league is showing up any stronger than any other

I find it very interesting that you direct this comment not towards the poster who actually started the pointless discussion about which league is the weakest, but instead aimed it at the guy who came in later to defend his league. I do wonder if no one had come in to defend the AP, whether or not you would have felt the need to share your knowledge or would you have allowed the Prem bashing to continue?

HammerofThunor wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:Teams at the bottom are the weakest - equally teams at  the top are the strongest
Both points need to be considered

No tipping up merely responding to a particularly point

What is interesting is if we end up with the provisionally agreed 6/6/7+1 split the record of the Pro12 teams would be significantlly higher  -seeing as we would be droping the weakest 3/4 teams.

What are the French and Englsih going to do to match the standard of the Pro12 qualfiers ? They will have some catching up to do.  

Surely if you're on about trimming the weakest teams the strongest are irrelvant. The relevant parts are the weakest and those just above.  Not that any of this is relevant. Personally I'd go for Frirish Cup, with the 4 Provinces and the top 4 from the T14. That way only the best teams are involved. Granted there would only be 8 teams but that way you can have 6 home and away games in the pools, then all 8 can be seeded for the QF (either that or 4 go for home/away semi).

Sorted.

What would be the point of that? In all honesty I am all for the inclusion of English teams. Without their inclusion English rugby would suffer and that wouldnt be good for anyone.

That said the PRL proposals have been ridiculous from day one. The only fair way to structure European rugby that takes in to account all factors is they way it already is structured.

In your opinion

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:I find it very interesting that you direct this comment not towards the poster who actually started the pointless discussion about which league is the weakest, but instead aimed it at the guy who came in later to defend his league.

Same could be said about you couldnt it? Why is the discussion pointless? The APs proposals are centered around their league "meriting" more more places and money. Just pointing out why they dont.

The PRL don't want more they want equal

If you assume that there quarter will be made up of 3 French, 2 English and 3 Irish then that would mean 43% of French teams got out of their groups, 33% of English and only 27% of rabo. Lots of different ways to look at these pointless stats.

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Guns you are right, with Rabo teams propping up half the pools they are obviously the weakest league.
The AP don't want more they just want equal.

Sorry to spoil your arguement with facts but all 3 leagues have exactly the same record with respect to Wins and Losses
No one league is showing up any stronger than any other

I find it very interesting that you direct this comment not towards the poster who actually started the pointless discussion about which league is the weakest, but instead aimed it at the guy who came in later to defend his league. I do wonder if no one had come in to defend the AP, whether or not you would have felt the need to share your knowledge or would you have allowed the Prem bashing to continue?

Prem bashing? Think it's the Rabo league that has been on the receiving end of most of the bashing lately, and if you take your time to read his comment you will find that Geoff isn't 'bashing' the AP, but is in fact stating that stats have the 3 leagues as virtual equals when considering Euro form. Maybe suggesting that Rabo is equal to AP is bashing AP to your thinking?

Fuzzy Logic....... 

broadlandboy wrote:The PRL don't want more they want equal

They already have more than their fair share.

GunsGerms wrote:
Same could be said about you couldnt it?

Er, no Germs, not at all. Slightly confused about how you could think that the point I was making could be applied to me in any way at all? But nevermind.

GunsGerms wrote:
The APs proposals are centered around their league "meriting" more more places and money.

Er, no Germs, not at all. The PRL proposals are that their league merits the same number of places and an equal share of the money. The evidence would suggest this is pretty reasonable, no? AP sides generally fall below the elite (Irish and French) sides, but above the usual weak teams.

How is it meritocratic to have 6 guaranteed places reserved for AP teams when 4 unions would have no guaranteed places which is what the PRL want.  Neither fair nor meritocratic.  Under the PRL proposals it would be almost impossible for 3 Irish teams to go thru. They do not want a "fair" european cup - they want one Biased towards themselves and to take the lions share of the money.

Munchkin wrote:Prem bashing? Think it's the Rabo league that has been on the receiving end of most of the bashing lately, and if you take your time to read his comment you will find that Geoff isn't 'bashing' the AP, but is in fact stating that stats have the 3 leagues as virtual equals when considering Euro form. Maybe suggesting that Rabo is equal to AP is bashing AP to your thinking?

Fuzzy Logic....... 

I think he was referring to Guns who 'started it' saying only two English sides in the QF is poor and they need to be dropped (paraphrasing/over-egging/etc).  So Geoff jumped in when someone pointed out 3 of the pools are currently propped up by Pro12 teams, but he didn't jump before (because he didn't see it, or cared, or whatever).

I still find the idea there is some absolute notion of 'fairness' in this amusing (in an arrogant English kind of way)

Interesting article (from the Roar) here posted on munsterfans. It gives the background politics of the French & English.

The part I've put in italics is an interesting aside about the selection of the refs for the world cup!



Roar scoop: Why the IRB dumped Bill Beaumont

By Spiro Zavos, 14 Dec 2011

France’s Bernard Lapasset was re-elected chairman of the International Rugby Board by a 14 – 12 vote over former vice-chairman, England’s Bill Beaumont, at a meeting in Los Angeles on Monday, according to details of the official media release.

The real information is that for the first time since the IRB was formed in 1886, neither its chairman nor its vice-chairman is a delegate from the so-called, formerly all-powerful Home Unions (England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland).

A profound shift in the power axis of world rugby is taking place. That axis is moving away from the Home Unions and moving inexorably towards France, the SANZAR unions and the developing second-tier unions.

The Los Angeles meeting and its decisions represent an historic change in the power structure of world rugby. We are looking at the end of the Home Unions exercising their iron control over the IRB to benefit their own unions at the expense of the health and dynamism of the game worldwide.

There have been many examples of this closed-shop mentality, starting with the creation of the IRB (then called the International Rugby Football Board).

The board was formed by the Irish, Scottish and Welsh unions in 1886 to give them more representation in the running of the game against the English union, the so-called Rugby Football Union.

The RFU resented any challenge to its control over the laws of the game, and to its general administration. When England finally did join in 1890, it was on its terms. The RFU had six seats on the board and the other Home Unions had only two each.

England’s seats were reduced to two in 1948 when Australia, New Zealand and South Africa were given direct representation of a seat (increased to two in 1958) on the board. France was allowed representation as late as 1978.

It is fair to say that England’s domination of the IRB has impeded the development of rugby as a worldwide sport. I will give three examples.

The IRB killed off the practice in Yorkshire and Lancashire of allowing the wages of players (many of them coal miners) to be paid after they were injured playing rugby. This act of stupidity, with its class obsession, resulted in the creation of the rugby league code.

If rugby union had allowed partial professionalism and the use of competitions (also banned by the RFU in England), rugby rather than soccer would have emerged in the 20th century as the worldwide football game.

In 1924 the IRB organised a special conference to legislate for rugby to be an English-speakers game. This was designed to get France out of rugby. The initiative failed, but only because the South African delegate pointed out that the main language of the majority of rugby players in his country was not English but Afrikaans.

In the 1980s the ARU’s Sir Nicholas Shehadie and the NZRU’s Dick Littlejohn could not even get a meeting with Home Union officials to discuss the concept of a Rugby World Cup tournament. In the end, the NZRU and the ARU went ahead with the project themselves and carried all the monetary risks of the tournament in 1987.

This provides the background to the politics behind Bill Beaumont’s bid to become the chairman and the inside story on how his attempt to turn back the clock to the hegemony of the Home Unions was defeated.

Beaumont was one of England’s greatest forwards, a second-rower who captained England and the British and Irish Lions. After his rugby career, he became a successful businessman. He has been deeply involved with the RFU and the IRB.

As a person he is gruff, laconic, dogmatic and ambitious. At the one meeting I had with him, when he was with an IRB delegation meeting Australian rugby writers, he told me he was opposed to most of the ELVs innovations, especially those relating to the maul. This explains why the RFU vetoed many of the best ELVs ideas, including the dispensation to pull down the rolling maul (which is the only real defence against the maul).

It is not the usual practice for the sitting chairman of the IRB to be challenged. Beaumont broke this precedent. He told the media that Lapasset had done a deal with him for Beaumont to take over in 2011. Lapasset denied this.

Beaumont also told the media that he was running as a candidate who wanted the governance of world rugby changed in favour of the international aspect of the game, rather than the former closed shop Home Unions system practised under previous chairmen Vernon Pugh (Wales) and Syd Millar (Ireland).

Beaumont argued, bizarrely in my opinion given his background, that Lapasset was the traditionalist and that he was ‘committed to change’.

Before the vote, the Beaumont camp leaked to the media that the NZRU and ARU both supported him as an agent of change.

The rugby media, especially the New Zealand media (which is generally uninformed on rugby politics), accepted this.

The Beaumont line made no sense. His home union, the RFU, is national in its outlook, not international. And it was Lapasset who successfully pushed for rugby to be an Olympic sport. My understanding is that his vice-chairman at the time, Beaumont, was less than enthusiastic about the innitiative.

The NZRU supported the Beaumont push, not because of its ‘change’ potential, but because Beaumont promised to use his voting support to get former All Blacks captain Graham Mourie up as the new vice-chairman. He offered the NZRU, in other words, a Beaumont-Mourie ticket.

The attractiveness of the ticket and the possibility of winning the chairman’s job in due course was the real reason for the NZRU’s support of Beaumont.

The ARU was never a Beaumont supporter, despite newspaper reports that it was. The ARU never believed the Beaumont pitch.

Nor did the Asian authorities, who selected as their delegate to the Los Angeles IRB meeting Japan’s Koji Tokumasi, a Lapasset supporter. Hong Kong’s Trevor Gregory, a previous delegate and a Beaumont supporter, was ditched.

The same switch was done, too, by the North American/Caribbean unions when the Canadian Pearce Higgins (a Beaumont supporter) was replaced by the American Bob Latham (a Lapasset supporter).

This last switch is significant because it exposes the hollowness of the Beaumont line. RugbyUSA has a strong link with the NZRU. But it supported the candidate the NZRU did not back. Why? Because Rugby USA was grateful for Lapasset’s work in ensuring that rugby became an Olympic sport.

This change means that rugby will get access to significant funding from the USA Olympic authorities, especially for its RugbySevens program.

So when the voting for the IRB chairman began at Los Angeles, the contests for the delegates to vote on were (apparently) between Lapasset v Beaumont for the chairman, and Mourie v Hoskins for the vice-chairman.

Much to the consternation of Beaumont, Lapasset was re-appointed 14 -12 on the first vote.

When it came to the vote for the vice-chairman, Beaumont showed his true colours by ditching his deal with the NZRU and Mourie and announcing that he was nominating now to retain his position.

The NZRU allowed Mourie to withdraw his nomination (not a smart move, in my opinion) and gave its support to Beaumont. The New Zealand rugby media, again showing its invincible ignorance on rugby politics, reported that Mourie was actually defeated in the contest, even though he had withdrawn from it.

The vote between Beaumont and Hoskins was 13-13. Why the difference with the vote for the chairman’s position? The Asian delegate apparently was heavied, to the point where he was visibly upset, by officials from the Hong Kong union to support Beaumont over the South African Hoskins.

Lapasset then intervened and gave the chairman’s casting vote to Hoskins.

This completed the rout against Beaumont. But there was a further blow in store for the Home Union powerbrokers.

Beaumont, as the RFU representative, stayed on this powerful IRB executive commitee, at least until early next year when the RFU selects its IRB delegates for the new four-year term.

The other members of the committee are Lapasset, Hoskins, Mike Miller (CEO of the IRB), Tatsuzo Yabe (Japan), Giancarlo Dondi (Italy), Peter McGrath (Australia), Peter Doyle (Ireland), Graham Mourie (New Zealand) and Bob Latham (North America Caribbean Rugby Association).

Dropped from the executive committee is David Pickering. This demotion is as significant for the future of the IRB and its dedication to make rugby a world game as the defeat of Beaumont.

David Pickering is a former captain of Wales and is currently chairman of the Welsh Rugby Union. Despite this allegiance, Pickering was made chairman of the influential IRB committee that selected the referees for each match of the RWC 2011. In my view and virtually everyone who thought through the issue, this was a totally unacceptable conflict of interest.

Apparently neither Beaumont nor Pickering (who like Beaumont sees himself as a future IRB chairman) took their demotions with very much grace. They were clearly angry and made threats to some of the delegates about the future of Lions tours to their countries if the trend against Home Union dominance of the IRB continues.

To wrap this long and complicated story, it is necessary to make a couple of further points. NZRU CEO Steve Tew exposed the shallowness of the Beaumont line that he was the only real agent for change by expressing the view that he is ‘unfazed’ by the re-election of Lapasset, who had his ‘full support’.

Tew argued that with two developing countries (Japan and the USA) on the IRB executive committee for the first time, there is ‘definitely a change in the wind’.