New European cup. (Or whatever it's called) Qualification agreed? Part 2

First topic message reminder :

A continuation of the previous thread. For everyone with more to say.

Hammer - you need the critical thinking again. that was clearly a get out clause to allow the 6N or FIRA or another union led organisation to run it. think critically chaps!

No One ever said FIRA for next year. It was mooted for following years.

Munchkin wrote:

stub wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

stub wrote:It sounds quite promising this one -  I hope that it turns out to be so rather than media spin.

It's speculation based on very little. The most recent Unions statement tells us no more than nothing has really changed. There will be an agreement soon because there has to be. Hopefully this includes the AP.
As for the four Rabo unions having to make up for a loss in revenue? Rubbish. It was agreed within the 5 Unions agreement that revenue can be divided equally between the three leagues, but on condition that all four Rabo unions receive revenue at least equal to what they currently receive. So the agreement for an equal split of HEC revenue is conditional.

I suppose the thing is that we don't really know if it's speculation or not? Also (if it isn't speculation) I was unaware that the French were happy to move away from FIRA running things and going to Six Nations control. I understand that this may not be news to you as it's quite possible that I'm not as well informed as you are on this matter. If The Times and Telegraph are  reporting similar albeit with varying shades of optimism then that adds some weight to the "development." Regarding the 4 Unions' incomes I can't comment on that except to say the minimum status quo does always seem to have protected all the way through - not sure the article says different although I haven't reread carefully.

All in all  I still feel more optimistic than I did.   

"There is a growing belief....."  Speculation   

Yep, the French softening their stance on a FIRA-AER run competition has been news for over a week now.

Sometimes, quite often, different newspapers will follow the lead of one. Although they may add their own spin to it. Cheap journalism, but people buy it. The same papers have been telling us that the RCC was almost a done deal, and news to that effect would be shortly forthcoming. That was weeks ago, and that was wrong.

Here's what the article says concerning the Rabo Unions income :

"There is a growing belief that the two rivals may reach an accommodation over the rights so that they are shared rather than exclusive. There is a problem, though, for the four RaboDirect Pro12 countries, who last year agreed that the proceeds from Europe should be divided equally between their league, the Premiership and France's Top 14, rather than the current system where the French and English share half and the Rabo unions get the rest. They now all face a sharp drop in income and need turnover to be increased by 50% just to be where they are now."

There really isn't much in the article that hasn't been said before. The mention of going back to an original 6 Nations solution is based on what? The fact that it's a 6 Nations meeting, and the strong possibility that they will work around what was the 5 Nations agreement perhaps?

I'm optimistic that an agreement will be met soon. Not so optimistic that it is one in which the AP will be involved, but I hope so.

So not all speculation then in your opinion Munchkin? Good news... I agree that you could speculate that newspapers are merely following each other's lead and that this might happen quite often. However you also could speculate that that is not the case - I guess that we'll see soon. Still for my part I feel more optimistic than before   and not just that the previous 5N agreement will be reached under a different umbrella organisation but rather that there is still a will to negotiate some of the other sticking points. Time will tell.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

quinsforever wrote:what has changed is that camou has been brought to heel. he has backed down on FIRA (something all 3 articles agree on i believe).

that can only have been brought about by the celtic unions telling him that they need the english clubs, so ERC has to be sacrificed.

now just the TV (and hence money) needs to be sorted. and the PRL need to agree.

then off we go with our new tournament in a sparkly new qualification fomat, with revenue divided equally between leagues.

  

I think it's equally likely, perhaps more so, that Lapasset was leant on within IRB to abandon the FIRA-AER initiative (on the assumption that Camou was acting as his agent in proposing it). It'll come back, though and hopefully it will be a good thing when it does.

very possible. that hadnt occurred to me.

"-by stub Today at 11:00 pm

So not all speculation then in your opinion Munchkin? Good news... I agree that you could speculate that newspapers are merely following each other's lead and that this might happen quite often. However you also could speculate that that is not the case - I guess that we'll see soon. Still for my part I feel more optimistic than before  Very Happy and not just that the previous 5N agreement will be reached under a different umbrella organisation but rather that there is still a will to negotiate some of the other sticking points. Time will tell."

What did I speculate on? As for the papers? They do follow the leads of others, adding their own spin. That isn't speculation. Anyone can speculate that it isn't the case, but they would very obviously be wrong.
What different umbrella organisation for the 5 Nations agreement? It will be the same for the most part. The 5 Nations agreement explains that the agreed new competition will be ran by ERC, however, the agreement leaves room for change of name:

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

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

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

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

Lets drop the name ERC, and call it '6 Nations Committee'...

twaddle. they are not merely proposing changing the name but ditching the current infrastructure entirely. if you dont understand that then i am worried for you munchkin.

do i need to spell it out?

they...are...allowing...a...way...back...in...for...english...clubs

quinsforever wrote:twaddle. they are not merely proposing changing the name but ditching the current infrastructure entirely. if you dont understand that then i am worried for you munchkin.

Now that is speculation, but hey, don't worry for me. I will be ok   

Of course they will be trying to build a bridge for them. It's all about saving face. All will come out proclaiming victory, and PRL already have the tools for that - Rees, etc, etc. A good PR machine for those who want to hear what they want to hear  

we need a new emoticon. the "whatever" emoticon. or the "talk to the hand cause the face aint listening" emoticon.

http://cdn.head-fi.org/2/2f/1000x500px-LL-2fcc5fd1_talkhand-talk-to-the-hand-talk-hand-smiley-emoticon-000673-large.gif

quinsforever wrote:we need a new emoticon. the "whatever" emoticon. or the "talk to the hand cause the face aint listening" emoticon.

http://cdn.head-fi.org/2/2f/1000x500px-LL-2fcc5fd1_talkhand-talk-to-the-hand-talk-hand-smiley-emoticon-000673-large.gif

Sure.....

Thats right quins - they are allowing a way back in for the english clubs - as there has always been. that bit you highlighted was obviously put there to allow this face saving exercise.

What do you mean by critical thinking TJ? Modifying information so it fits your view point?

What part of "the competition will be driven by the existing organisation" and "optimising the functions of the existing organisation" suggest to you they're going to ditch the current organisation? They may well ditch it because they can change their minds but this is the only statement we have with any info no.

Please dazzle me with your critical thinking about how this shows they're willing to ditch the current organisation. BTW I'm a Chartered Scientist so please don't just say "it's obvious". If it's opinion then just say so and stop claiming them as facts.

Of course its only my opinion - however it was clearly obvious to me.  Critical thinking is important when dealing with slippery political people and their statements.  I guess if you are a scientist you expect terminological exactitude from folk and you dont get this from slippey politician.  tTo me its an obvious form of weasel word that allows the authors to change the controilling organisation slightly and then allow both sides to claim vindication.  IE use most of the same staff and organisation, change the name and tinker with the board / structure so tha thte PRL can come on board as its not the ERC and the rest can be happy they still have 90% of the ERC under another name.

Its about thinking " what do they really mean"  and what is left unsaid as much as what is said. Its about thinking " why did they use that form of words" Its an obvious politicians phrase giving room for a name change and structural changes but promising nothing.

Too many years as a political geek for me I guess but as soon as I saw that I thought " setting up a face saving compromise for the PRL!

That's not really critical thinking thing. Critical thinking "IMO" is extracting information from something, information that is necessarily on the surface. You're talking about using preconceived ideas to guess things.

The reason the PRL don't want the ERC is mostly likely (or at least partially) the TV deals. The 5 unions have specifically stated (in the quoted statement) that the current organisation will remain in charge, although they will review it's function. If it's the same organisation they will be tied to all the same contracts so how does that help anyone? I know you've used 'critical thinking' to assume PRL can get out if the BT contract but let's include the possibility they can't.

Indeed its extracting something - the hidden meanings behind the words.  The information was there.  

I think that statement is very cleverly worded to be ambiguous and to leave the wriggle room.  Clearly drafted by a politician.  there is more it it as well " don't expect wholessale change, we will allow you to claim victory, details are up for discussion but principles are not" etc etc.

Its not "what did they say" but "why would they say it in that way - what does the form of words allow?"

I have not said the PRL "can" get out of the contract - I said I would be surprised if they couldn't.

I also meant critical thinking in the non technical way - ie think critically and cynically,l look for the hidden meanings, look for the hidden subtext - too many years following politics and deciphering the multilayered ambiguities I guess.

They worded it that way to REMOVE wiggle room. They clearly state it will be the current organisation. There is nothing whatsoever in the statement that the current organisation won't be organising the competition next year or in the future.

If it's so obvious please spell it out, how your thinking shows they would change which organisation runs the competition.

And again, there's nothing wrong with them changing mind if the 6 nations or FIRA-aec take over.

Wriggle room " will be driven by" "currently called"  Not "will be run by" and "the erc"

If it had been meant to remove wriggle room then it would not have used phrases like this

I think the difference here is you are a scientist so look for precision in the wording - and see it.  I am a political geek so look for imprecision in the wording and see it and look for the intent behind the words which to me is obvious.  As soon as that statement came out I saw it as an obvious use of weasel words deliberately written to allow this wriggle room.  It allows them to change the name of the organisation and to change the governance enough to allow the appearance of a new organisation which would allow the PRL to join as they would not be joining an ERC run comp but a committee of european rugby comp - the CER.  the staement clearly allows for a name change and goverence changes but only from within. Ie any changges have to be agreed by the constituent parts of the ERC and not imposed from outside.

to me it says we will allow the PRL to save face by not insisting on the ERC running it but a successor organisation, but the ERC will create the successor organisation not the PRL

So you think that the fact it is open that the ERC may not always be called 'ERC' is wriggle room? Again, for what? It wouldn't have any impact on contracts.

And again no, again you're saying a "new organisation", it's not a new organisation. The specifically say the "current organisation".

With that statement they could give in to every one of the PRL's demands (competition structure, governance, etc) but they would still be tied to the Sky deal (potentially). The issue with the ERC is contractual obligations not the name.

You keep saying face saving exercise. Personally I would say a financial increase from 24% to 33% AND the changes to qualification from the Pro12 is more than enough of their face saved. But they're holding out for the ERC to change their name to the-organisation-formally-known-as-ERC? Sorry, but in no way shape or form is that the result of any critical thinking.

"Currently the ERC" gives room for it to not be the ERC in future. Both structure and name are deliberately left open. As I said - its about how you are used to interpreting words. Its clear and obvious to me this gives a load of wriggle room and the choice of words was made deliberately to allow this.

I am saying a new organisation is possible while remaining true to what they said. the Rest do not need to save face - its the PRL with their absolutist position that needs to be left the room to save space.

You asked for my explanation of why I see it this way - I gave it. As soon as I saw the statement I thought it was a very clever political statement that gave a way back for the PRL if they wanted to take it without the PRL haveing to go back on their "not the ERC" stance

Hopefully we will actually get some news to chew over at some point

   

Quins - we need something new to argue over. I do so enjoy a mass debate  

LOL. very funny.

well soon we will be able to argue about who was right. that one could run for ages

Munchkin wrote:"-by stub Today at 11:00 pm

So not all speculation then in your opinion Munchkin? Good news... I agree that you could speculate that newspapers are merely following each other's lead and that this might happen quite often. However you also could speculate that that is not the case - I guess that we'll see soon. Still for my part I feel more optimistic than before  Very Happy and not just that the previous 5N agreement will be reached under a different umbrella organisation but rather that there is still a will to negotiate some of the other sticking points. Time will tell."

What did I speculate on? As for the papers? They do follow the leads of others, adding their own spin. That isn't speculation. Anyone can speculate that it isn't the case, but they would very obviously be wrong.
What different umbrella organisation for the 5 Nations agreement? It will be the same for the most part. The 5 Nations agreement explains that the agreed new competition will be ran by ERC, however, the agreement leaves room for change of name:

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

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

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

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

Lets drop the name ERC, and call it '6 Nations Committee'...

Munchkin - sorry if my post came across as a little curt - it certainly wasn't intended to be. It was late and I could have explained in a more fulsome way. I was merely pointing out that IMO we are all speculating really although some of us come across as very assured in our assertations and some even seem to entirely believe that they just know what is happening and indeed what will happen. As far as I'm concerned we certainly have no way of really KNOWING much including the actual substance of what the newspapers are printing and therefore we are all just speculating as to whether or not they are speculating themselves if you follow my drift...! I obviously stand corrected if we have journalists or Wray et al posting from within 606.

As to my "5 Nations different umbrella organisation" comment that was in response to your doubt that European rugby would take place with AP clubs involved next season - my point being that I feel that there is some cause for optimism that negotiations are continuing to include AP clubs next season. Therefore I am still somewhat optimistic that we might end up with 6 Nations Euro competition run by a different umbrella organisation next season. I have no interest in getting involved in the debate as to whether the new organisation is ERC in disguise or not. All I am interested in is a positive end result.

It also dawns on me that you appear to want rugby with all six nations properly represented as do I so it would seem that we're not too far off from being on the same side at least in the broadest sense!   

TJ wrote:"Currently the ERC" gives room for it to not be the ERC in future.

Except that's not what it said. It's what you've twisted it to say. It said "currently called the ERC". It means something completely different.

Again, it doesn't really matter as they can change there minds at any point (until there are contracts involved) but you can't [correctly] infer what you inferred from that statement. If anything it means the opposite of what you claim it means.

I disagree Hammer - "currently called the ERC" is clearly meant to give wriggle room as otherwise it would have said "the ERC" Nice correction tho - accepted. the same statement also gives room for manoeuvre in other areas.

stub wrote:

Munchkin wrote:"-by stub Today at 11:00 pm

So not all speculation then in your opinion Munchkin? Good news... I agree that you could speculate that newspapers are merely following each other's lead and that this might happen quite often. However you also could speculate that that is not the case - I guess that we'll see soon. Still for my part I feel more optimistic than before  Very Happy and not just that the previous 5N agreement will be reached under a different umbrella organisation but rather that there is still a will to negotiate some of the other sticking points. Time will tell."

What did I speculate on? As for the papers? They do follow the leads of others, adding their own spin. That isn't speculation. Anyone can speculate that it isn't the case, but they would very obviously be wrong.
What different umbrella organisation for the 5 Nations agreement? It will be the same for the most part. The 5 Nations agreement explains that the agreed new competition will be ran by ERC, however, the agreement leaves room for change of name:

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

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

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

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

Lets drop the name ERC, and call it '6 Nations Committee'...

Munchkin - sorry if my post came across as a little curt -  it certainly wasn't intended to be. It was late and I could have explained in a more fulsome way. I was merely pointing out that IMO we are all speculating really although some of us come across as very assured in our assertations and some even seem to entirely believe that they just know what is happening and indeed what will happen. As far as I'm concerned we certainly have no way of really KNOWING much including the actual substance of what the newspapers are printing and therefore we are all just speculating as to whether or not they are speculating themselves if you follow my drift...! I obviously stand corrected if we have journalists or Wray et al posting from within 606.

As to my "5 Nations different umbrella organisation" comment that was in response to your doubt that European rugby would take place with AP clubs involved next season - my point being that I feel that there is some cause for optimism that negotiations are continuing to include AP clubs next season. Therefore I am still somewhat optimistic that we might end up with 6 Nations Euro competition run by a different umbrella organisation next season. I have no interest in getting involved in the debate as to whether the new organisation is ERC in disguise or not. All I am interested in is a positive end result.

It also dawns on me that you appear to want rugby with all six nations properly represented as do I so it would seem that we're not too far off from being on the same side at least in the broadest sense!   

You're one of the most reasonable posters on here. No need to apologise   

I agree with all you say really. For the most part we feast on the crumbs provided by whatever media. We speculate much on few facts. It's fun to do that so long as we don't take ourselves too seriously. I frequently have to remind myself of this   
Wray of course is present on 606 in the guise of quins   
We all want to see a positive result, although we may have different ideas of what positive means within the context of agreement. I do hope it is all resolved soon, and with the inclusion of AP teams. I think that is dependant on whether PRL can get out of the BT contract.

I think, Munchkin, that there's the rub.

The PRL don't want to get out of the BT contract. It was only once they had the bargaining power that the BT money afforded that any change started to happen. Coming back into the centrally-negotiated fold effectively puts them back where they were in the first place as far as governance and long-term stability are concerned. Renegotiating it would also very likely damage their domestic tv revenue quite badly.

I can see a deal in which the BT deal is deferred, but not one in which they walk away from the European element completely.

i agree with this poorfour. BT are committed to rugby. they are putting their fingers in lots of rugby pies. And the PRL are committed to not playing any more rugby under the auspices of ERC. fairly straightforward.

Poorfour wrote:I think, Munchkin, that there's the rub.

The PRL don't want to get out of the BT contract. It was only once they had the bargaining power that the BT money afforded that any change started to happen. Coming back into the centrally-negotiated fold effectively puts them back where they were in the first place as far as governance and long-term stability are concerned. Renegotiating it would also very likely damage their domestic tv revenue quite badly.

I can see a deal in which the BT deal is deferred, but not one in which they walk away from the European element completely.

Absolutely. Getting out of the BT contract doesn't have to mean PRL and BT go their separate ways. That probably depends on how BT respond now, but if they are willing to give a little, then it's possible they defer any action until the season following next.

Why would PRL want to go back to ERC after how they have been treated? Years of being ignored, the signing of the Sky deal which effectivly made it impossible for PRL to return, not being invited to talks that LNR were although both had given notice. So not surprising that PRL are unwilling to return to a comp under ERC.

quinsforever wrote:what has changed is that camou has been brought to heel. he has backed down on FIRA (something all 3 articles agree on i believe).

  

What a bizarre interpretation. Camou is allowing the PRL a lifeline you mean rather than "brought to heel"

TJ wrote:I disagree Hammer - "currently called the ERC" is clearly meant to give wriggle room as otherwise it would have said "the ERC"  Nice correction tho - accepted. the same statement also gives room for manoeuvre in other areas.

No, there are many organisations called ERC. The PRL could have set up the European Rugby Committee or something like that. Instead they very clearly said the current organisation would remain in control and said that the current organisation is called the ERC.  You can disagree all you want but unless you can give some logical reason you're just plain wrong.

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

quinsforever wrote:what has changed is that camou has been brought to heel. he has backed down on FIRA (something all 3 articles agree on i believe).

  

What a bizarre interpretation. Camou is allowing the PRL a lifeline you mean rather than "brought to heel"

I prefer it my way. if it goes under the auspices of the 6N committee (all 3 articles suggest this) that is directly contrary to the article 14 in the newly approved french Participation Agreement (La Convention). so yes Camou has been brought to heel. maybe by the celtic unions, maybe by the IRB. who did it doesnt matter.

broadlandboy wrote:Why would PRL want to go back to ERC after how they have been treated? Years of being ignored, the signing of the Sky deal which effectivly made it impossible for PRL to return, not being invited to talks that LNR were although both had given notice. So not surprising that PRL are unwilling to return to a comp under ERC.

Oh lordy, the poor old PRL, badly treated by the ERC - give me strength!   

quinsforever wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

quinsforever wrote:what has changed is that camou has been brought to heel. he has backed down on FIRA (something all 3 articles agree on i believe).

  

What a bizarre interpretation. Camou is allowing the PRL a lifeline you mean rather than "brought to heel"

I prefer it my way. if it goes under the auspices of the 6N committee (all 3 articles suggest this) that is directly contrary to the article 14 in the newly approved french Participation Agreement (La Convention). so yes Camou has been brought to heel. maybe by the celtic unions, maybe by the IRB. who did it doesnt matter.

It isn't really though, is it? Remember that FFR were party to the 5 Nations agreement. It isn't likely that Camou would then make it conditional that LNR sign an agreement which contradicts that. The 5 Nations agreement allows room to change the name of the organising committee from ERC to ... something else.

And to alter governance within the successor organisation.

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

yes its a figleaf - it would be a modified ERC under another name - but it does give the PRL a way to come back in and save face which seems to be important to them as it allows them to say they are true to their stance of no negotiations with the ERC or joining any comp run by the ERC.

TJ wrote:And to alter governance within the successor organisation.

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

yes its a figleaf - it would be a modified ERC under another name - but it does give the PRL a way to come back in and save face which seems to be important to them as it allows them to say they are true to their stance of no negotiations with the ERC or joining any comp run by the ERC.  

Because it is effectively a new competition particular aspects of the structure will have changed, but what doesn't change is who remains in control of 'centralised sale and management of all commercial rights, amongst other things'. :

- which will remain in charge of the centralised sale and management of all commercial rights, amongst other things.

TJ wrote:And to alter governance within the successor organisation.

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

yes its a figleaf - it would be a modified ERC under another name - but it does give the PRL a way to come back in and save face which seems to be important to them as it allows them to say they are true to their stance of no negotiations with the ERC or joining any comp run by the ERC.  

But it's still the ERC, just with another name. And why would the PRL need to 'save face' when they have nearly doubled their relative share of the top tier in Europe? And once again, there is no successor organisation. It's the same organisation, with potential changes to the 'internal functioning'.

If it is the same organisation, then it's an empty gesture, isn't it? The PRL aren't looking for a figleaf. They are looking for a change in governance and a way to participate in Europe without major renegotiation of the BT deal.

If all that's going to happen is the ERC gets renamed to Coupe Europeene du Rugby, then the governance doesn't change and - more importantly in the short term - the Sky deal stays in place. That's going to achieve precisely nothing.

It's only going to amount to anything if the new body is sufficiently different that the PRL are confident it will be better to be a part of than the ERC, and if it's sufficiently different that it offers a way out of the Sky / BT impasse. Anything less is a kind of reverse willy-waving.

Ian Ritchie does not appear to be a complet idiot, so I doubt he's actually gone and negotiated something that doesn't move the debate forward. It may end up with similar elements to the ERC. It will probably employ many of the existing ERC staff. But it needs to be a materially different body or nothing will happen.

It just has to be different enough for the PRL to claim victory. Of course its not what they wanted but from the situation they are in now its all they are getting.

TJ, I think you're getting twisted up in circles again. This is what you said earlier which I disagreed with.

TJ wrote:Hammer - you need the critical thinking again.  that was clearly a get out clause to allow the 6N or FIRA or another union led organisation to run it.  think critically chaps!

No One ever said FIRA for next year.  It was mooted for following years.

There is no way that those statements suggested you claim (which changed from allowing them to move to FIRA-AEC or 6N to allowing the PRL to save face).

Poorfour wrote:If it is the same organisation, then it's an empty gesture, isn't it? The PRL aren't looking for a figleaf. They are looking for a change in governance and a way to participate in Europe without major renegotiation of the BT deal.

If all that's going to happen is the ERC gets renamed to Coupe Europeene du Rugby, then the governance doesn't change and - more importantly in the short term - the Sky deal stays in place. That's going to achieve precisely nothing.

It's only going to amount to anything if the new body is sufficiently different that the PRL are confident it will be better to be a part of than the ERC, and if it's sufficiently different that it offers a way out of the Sky / BT impasse. Anything less is a kind of reverse willy-waving.

Ian Ritchie does not appear to be a complet idiot, so I doubt he's actually gone and negotiated something that doesn't move the debate forward. It may end up with similar elements to the ERC. It will probably employ many of the existing ERC staff. But it needs to be a materially different body or nothing will happen.

It was PRL that suggested their RCC be headed by a 6Ns committee. Whether it's a '6 Nations Committee', or an 'ERC', makes little difference (although should ERC cease to exist then the SKY deal will also cease to exist). Maybe a change in personnel, but then ERC could just as easily have a change in personnel rather than change its name.

The fact that all of the concessions that the PRL wanted could have easily been achieved through the ERC (by modifying it's structure or governance, etc) strongly suggests it's contractual reasons for the change, most likely TV.

HammerofThunor wrote:The fact that all of the concessions that the PRL wanted could have easily been achieved through the ERC (by modifying it's structure or governance, etc) strongly suggests it's contractual reasons for the change, most likely TV.

Absolutely agree. Unless ERC was dropped, it was unlikely that PRLs European BT deal could go ahead due to contractual agreements on both sides.

"It was PRL that suggested their RCC be headed by a 6Ns committee. Whether it's a '6 Nations Committee', or an 'ERC', makes little difference (although should ERC cease to exist then the SKY deal will also cease to exist). Maybe a change in personnel, but then ERC could just as easily have a change in personnel rather than change its name."

Is it that easy though? Does a contract simply cease to exist with no repercussions for either party if one party decides to disband? There must be some sort of penalty for doing this.

Intotouch wrote:"It was PRL that suggested their RCC be headed by a 6Ns committee. Whether it's a '6 Nations Committee', or an 'ERC', makes little difference (although should ERC cease to exist then the SKY deal will also cease to exist). Maybe a change in personnel, but then ERC could just as easily have a change in personnel rather than change its name."

Is it that easy though? Does a contract simply cease to exist with no repercussions for either party if one party decides to disband? There must be some sort of penalty for doing this.

I don't know    I would argue that it must depend on the terms & conditions of the contract, whether or not any signatories could be held liable, but others have argued that should ERC cease to exist then no contract is binding. One argument being that it isn't actually the Unions which sign the contract, but those who represent them. Amounts to the same thing to me, but I don't know for sure. Again, I think it must depend on the terms & conditions of the contract.

Munchkin wrote:

stub wrote:

Munchkin wrote:"-by stub Today at 11:00 pm

So not all speculation then in your opinion Munchkin? Good news... I agree that you could speculate that newspapers are merely following each other's lead and that this might happen quite often. However you also could speculate that that is not the case - I guess that we'll see soon. Still for my part I feel more optimistic than before  Very Happy and not just that the previous 5N agreement will be reached under a different umbrella organisation but rather that there is still a will to negotiate some of the other sticking points. Time will tell."

What did I speculate on? As for the papers? They do follow the leads of others, adding their own spin. That isn't speculation. Anyone can speculate that it isn't the case, but they would very obviously be wrong.
What different umbrella organisation for the 5 Nations agreement? It will be the same for the most part. The 5 Nations agreement explains that the agreed new competition will be ran by ERC, however, the agreement leaves room for change of name:

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

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

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

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

Lets drop the name ERC, and call it '6 Nations Committee'...

Munchkin - sorry if my post came across as a little curt -  it certainly wasn't intended to be. It was late and I could have explained in a more fulsome way. I was merely pointing out that IMO we are all speculating really although some of us come across as very assured in our assertations and some even seem to entirely believe that they just know what is happening and indeed what will happen. As far as I'm concerned we certainly have no way of really KNOWING much including the actual substance of what the newspapers are printing and therefore we are all just speculating as to whether or not they are speculating themselves if you follow my drift...! I obviously stand corrected if we have journalists or Wray et al posting from within 606.

As to my "5 Nations different umbrella organisation" comment that was in response to your doubt that European rugby would take place with AP clubs involved next season - my point being that I feel that there is some cause for optimism that negotiations are continuing to include AP clubs next season. Therefore I am still somewhat optimistic that we might end up with 6 Nations Euro competition run by a different umbrella organisation next season. I have no interest in getting involved in the debate as to whether the new organisation is ERC in disguise or not. All I am interested in is a positive end result.

It also dawns on me that you appear to want rugby with all six nations properly represented as do I so it would seem that we're not too far off from being on the same side at least in the broadest sense!   

You're one of the most reasonable posters on here. No need to apologise   

I agree with all you say really. For the most part we feast on the crumbs provided by whatever media. We speculate much on few facts. It's fun to do that so long as we don't take ourselves too seriously. I frequently have to remind myself of this   
Wray of course is present on 606 in the guise of quins   
We all want to see a positive result, although we may have different ideas of what positive means within the context of agreement. I do hope it is all resolved soon, and with the inclusion of AP teams. I think that is dependant on whether PRL can get out of the BT contract.

Cheers Munchkin! Let's hope we get more than crumbs soon...   

Munchkin wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

quinsforever wrote:what has changed is that camou has been brought to heel. he has backed down on FIRA (something all 3 articles agree on i believe).

  

What a bizarre interpretation. Camou is allowing the PRL a lifeline you mean rather than "brought to heel"

I prefer it my way. if it goes under the auspices of the 6N committee (all 3 articles suggest this) that is directly contrary to the article 14 in the newly approved french Participation Agreement (La Convention). so yes Camou has been brought to heel. maybe by the celtic unions, maybe by the IRB. who did it doesnt matter.

It isn't really though, is it? Remember that FFR were party to the 5 Nations agreement. It isn't likely that Camou would then make it conditional that LNR sign an agreement which contradicts that. The 5 Nations agreement allows room to change the name of the organising committee from ERC to ... something else.

actually, the french PA reconfirms the 5N statement. hence why i am saying that if the 6Nations organisation is taking over, that is a definite backtracking by Camou, he of the many humps.

"Camou, he of the many humps." What??? Now I'm really lost. Is there some strange medical condition that the poor man suffers from? Camelugbyitis? Recurring ERC compounded by permanent PRL? Main symptoms to include uncomfortable lumpy growths near the FFR...


"I don't know Headscratch I would argue that it must depend on the terms & conditions of the contract, whether or not any signatories could be held liable, but others have argued that should ERC cease to exist then no contract is binding."
Ok so basically this may or may not be a solution and the contract may or may not be binding and the English and Welsh may or may not join the new comp. Glad that's cleared up.