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.

SecretFly wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

SecretFly wrote:
They do.  You're deluded.  They do.  They are and have been of the calibre to reach further into HEC for some years now... but they haven't.

You're accusing players of not trying in H Cup games? Which HEC performances are these? Which players? Genuine examples please. Thanks.

It is the coaching.

It is the coaching ...in your opinion.  

We all have opinions.  

The Regions blame the WRU for all their ills?  I say the Regions have to shoulder a big part of the burden that their teams haven't made the impact in Europe that the Welsh players certainly had the skills to progress in.  You would blame the WRU, I'd blame the Regions.  Opinions.

Examples please.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

I don't believe that for a moment. As the PWC report points out, the regions made a horlicks of finances. The regions were equipped with all they needed for success, including top players, and failed miserably, bar Ospreys success in Rabo. It's about time region supporters starting pointing the finger of blame at those who manage regions for failure to deliver. I know some do. Some point at poor choice in coaching, for a start.

You don't believe it. Awesome.

The earth is flat.

Neither did PWC. Maybe they also think the earth is flat. Well done in your rebuff though......

Munchkin wrote:

Neither did PWC. Maybe they also think the earth is flat. Well done in your rebuff though......

The PWC that dismissed central contracts?

Have you got a copy by the way. I'd love to read it.

Munchkin wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Munchkin - apologies, only skim read your post the first time I replied.  Your right if the union want the regions then now is the point when they should man up and either do it, or back off leave the regions be stand alone businesses making their own tv deals etc.  But sadly, and I don't usually buy into conspiracy theories, the slow death of the regions (making them cheaper to buy as money men will just want to get shot) and then riding in on a white charger in a few years time, does seem the unions main plan.

Absolutely agree. Now is the time for WRU to take over regions, if that is their aim. I think it is. Yes, buying over an existing business can be more expensive than starting from scratch, but usually only when buying over a successful existing business. Even then it can work out much cheaper in the long term. As things stand, I would think the cheaper option for WRU would be to take ownership of the existing regions, but also think that they should do it now. Neither side can afford to allow this to rumble on until the MS is bought, and paid for.

I think the regions would cost a fair bit to buy (sure as hell I want top dollar for my shares), but at the same time they have a fan base built up in place already, sponsors, players etc. Where as new regions would be a really big gamble, and there is nor certainty of fans getting on board with the concept. Even if they did it as a gradual thing, buying into each region by an agreed % per season, until the debts are cleared it would be more honest than grinding them down in order to buy them dirt cheap, and probably far less of a legal issue too.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

SecretFly wrote:
They do.  You're deluded.  They do.  They are and have been of the calibre to reach further into HEC for some years now... but they haven't.

You're accusing players of not trying in H Cup games? Which HEC performances are these? Which players? Genuine examples please. Thanks.

It is the coaching.

It is the coaching ...in your opinion.  

We all have opinions.  

The Regions blame the WRU for all their ills?  I say the Regions have to shoulder a big part of the burden that their teams haven't made the impact in Europe that the Welsh players certainly had the skills to progress in.  You would blame the WRU, I'd blame the Regions.  Opinions.

Examples please.

Well you name the Internationals and there are your examples.............. opinions.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Neither did PWC. Maybe they also think the earth is flat. Well done in your rebuff though......

The PWC that dismissed central contracts?

Have you got a copy by the way. I'd love to read it.

How do you know PWC dismissed central contracts if you didn't read it? On the point of central contracts; PWC gave their report on the assumption of the regions continuing as are. Not as branches of WRU.

SecretFly wrote:

Well you name the Internationals and there are your examples.............. opinions.

That's a pretty big statement. Alun Wyn Joens doesn't put in 100% when playing for the Ospreys in the Heineken Cup?

You're embarassing yourself.

Munchkin wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Neither did PWC. Maybe they also think the earth is flat. Well done in your rebuff though......

The PWC that dismissed central contracts?

Have you got a copy by the way. I'd love to read it.

How do you know PWC dismissed central contracts if you didn't read it? On the point of central contracts; PWC gave their report on the assumption of the regions continuing as are. Not as branches of WRU.

That's what was reported on the BBC. But I'd like to read the whole thing before making complete judgement. It's a mystery why it hasn't been published.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Neither did PWC. Maybe they also think the earth is flat. Well done in your rebuff though......

The PWC that dismissed central contracts?

Have you got a copy by the way. I'd love to read it.

How do you know PWC dismissed central contracts if you didn't read it? On the point of central contracts; PWC gave their report on the assumption of the regions continuing as are. Not as branches of WRU.

That's what was reported on the BBC. But I'd like to read the whole thing before making complete judgement. It's a mystery why it hasn't been published.

It is, I agree. Could be that there is sensitive information contained within, that neither RRW, or WRU, want disclosed. If all this ends up in court we may yet get to find out.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Well you name the Internationals and there are your examples.............. opinions.

That's a pretty big statement. Alun Wyn Joens doesn't put in 100% when playing for the Ospreys in the Heineken Cup?

You're embarassing yourself.

I'm giving you an opinion of priorities for Welsh players playing for Regions v International.  

You give me your opinions on WRU,and all the bad things they're responsible for and you give the impression your word is Law on that one.  I'm saying weak Regions who didn't push themselves harder in Europe, using Welsh Internationals and other lesser players (every bit as skilled as lesser Irish ones), are responsible for much of their own lack of impact in performance and success.

I'll have my opinions just as you have yours...and no, I won't be distracted by the attempted putdown of "You're embarrassing yourself".
I'm much too robust a character to be silenced by that stuff, Chunky

SecretFly wrote:

I'm giving you an opinion of priorities for Welsh players playing for Regions v International.

Yes, and this opinion is making you look rather foolish. 

You give me your opinions on WRU,and all the bad things they're responsible for and you give the impression your word is Law on that one.  I'm saying weak Regions who didn't push themselves harder in Europe, using Welsh Internationals and other lesser players (every bit as skilled as lesser Irish ones), are responsible for much of their own lack of impact in performance and success.

I'll have my opinions just as you have yours...and no, I won't be distracted by the attempted putdown of "You're embarrassing yourself".
I'm much too robust a character to be silenced by that stuff, Chunky

I'd love to see you say to a players face that he doesn't try int he Heineken Cup.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

I'm giving you an opinion of priorities for Welsh players playing for Regions v International.

Yes, and this opinion is making you look rather foolish. 

You give me your opinions on WRU,and all the bad things they're responsible for and you give the impression your word is Law on that one.  I'm saying weak Regions who didn't push themselves harder in Europe, using Welsh Internationals and other lesser players (every bit as skilled as lesser Irish ones), are responsible for much of their own lack of impact in performance and success.

I'll have my opinions just as you have yours...and no, I won't be distracted by the attempted putdown of "You're embarrassing yourself".
I'm much too robust a character to be silenced by that stuff, Chunky

I'd love to see you say to a players face that he doesn't try int he Heineken Cup.

You don't like what I say... that doesn't make it foolish.  Try again to embarrass me into silence.  You'll be a long time here trying. Good luck with it.

Welsh players have priorities.... Irish players probably have priorities.  A season is a long time, form doesn't always last....you have your goals and you manage your season accordingly.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Munchkin - apologies, only skim read your post the first time I replied.  Your right if the union want the regions then now is the point when they should man up and either do it, or back off leave the regions be stand alone businesses making their own tv deals etc.  But sadly, and I don't usually buy into conspiracy theories, the slow death of the regions (making them cheaper to buy as money men will just want to get shot) and then riding in on a white charger in a few years time, does seem the unions main plan.

Absolutely agree. Now is the time for WRU to take over regions, if that is their aim. I think it is. Yes, buying over an existing business can be more expensive than starting from scratch, but usually only when buying over a successful existing business. Even then it can work out much cheaper in the long term. As things stand, I would think the cheaper option for WRU would be to take ownership of the existing regions, but also think that they should do it now. Neither side can afford to allow this to rumble on until the MS is bought, and paid for.

I think the regions would cost a fair bit to buy (sure as hell I want top dollar for my shares), but at the same time they have a fan base built up in place already, sponsors, players etc.  Where as new regions would be a really big gamble, and there is nor certainty of fans getting on board with the concept.  Even if they did it as a gradual thing, buying into each region by an agreed % per season, until the debts are cleared it would be more honest than grinding them down in order to buy them dirt cheap, and probably far less of a legal issue too.

The unfortunate truth is that shares fall. 'Someone's loss being another person's gain', and all that.
The regions may still be too pricey to buy out. Much depends on what the owners would consider an acceptable offer, but the regions are not in a good place financially, if reports are true. Having to take out a bank loan to cover player wages isn't a healthy sign, but one that indicates the regions are close to going to the wall. If the regions did manage a move to the Aviva, it would be at a considerable loss of revenue. Again if reports are true. If they remain in Rabo, then WRU are in a very strong bargaining position to take ownership. Rock and a hard place.

Munchkin, just to be clear. The bits leaked out from the PWC report said that the regions HAD made mistakes but had clearly made significant changes to turn it around. But if they wanted to compete in Europe there was a significant funding gap that had to be closed. Central Contracts on their own were not viable and the additional funding required to make CC viable isn't available from the WRU.

The Regions (according to Hore) aren't allowed to properly engage in community rugby in their region, that's the WRU's job and the Regions' job is to play professional rugby. That is a system that simply isn't going to work (and hasn't). It's not as simple as saying the Regions haven't engaged or gain interest from the community. They were never set up to allow it.

HammerofThunor wrote:Munchkin, just to be clear.  The bits leaked out from the PWC report said that the regions HAD made mistakes but had clearly made significant changes to turn it around. But if they wanted to compete in Europe there was a significant funding gap that had to be closed. Central Contracts on their own were not viable and the additional funding required to make CC viable isn't available from the WRU.

The Regions (according to Hore) aren't allowed to properly engage in community rugby in their region, that's the WRU's job and the Regions' job is to play professional rugby. That is a system that simply isn't going to work (and hasn't). It's not as simple as saying the Regions haven't engaged or gain interest from the community. They were never set up to allow it.

It still means that the regions handled their finances badly. If the regions really are turning around their financial management, then it may be too little too late, as it appears they have to take out bank loans to cover wages, due to alleged late payment of HEC funds, and some are selling of assets - players. Losing their players will not help achieve success, and will not help make up any funding gap in the long term.
I agree with you on the present system not working, and will not work. The WRU want more, if not complete, control. The WRU possibly views allowing the regions having more influence within the community as giving the regions more control.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Guys lets try to avoid all the personal stuff, after all it isn't covering either side in glory.  I have tidied the thread up a bit now, so please keep it on topic

I was on topic...all the way through.

RRW will be pleased:

Statement from the Directors of ERC 05/02/2014:

The directors of ERC voted unanimously at a Board meeting to postpone all decisions including the release of further instalments of ERC's distributable central revenues to the six shareholder countries until 19 February next when the Board will meet again to reconsider the issue.

The ERC Board of Directors is made up of representatives from the six unions of England, France, Ireland, Italy, Wales and Scotland, as well as representatives from three club bodies, namely the Ligue Nationale de Rugby (LNR), Premiership Rugby (PRL) and Regional Rugby Wales (RRW).

(Please see list of Board meeting attendees below)

The vote to postpone any decision followed preliminary advice received by the Board, and was taken in the best interests of the company after lengthy discussions.

The Board agreed unanimously that further detailed legal and other professional advice was necessary in order to facilitate the ongoing discussions in relation to the future of European club rugby tournaments and the distribution of funds deriving from the 2013/14 season.
Each season, ERC makes five payments of its distributable funds from its central revenues to the six participant countries from October through to September.
At the ERC Board meeting of 11 September 2013, it was decided that distribution payments should be approved by the Board before any funds are released. The first payment of €15 million (euro) was made in October 2013 following Board approval.

Mark Dodson and Ian McLauchlan, the directors of ERC representing Scottish Rugby, did not attend today's Board meeting, while Regional Rugby Wales has chosen not to replace Stuart Gallacher who resigned as as a director of ERC in December 2013.

ERC Board directors in attendance:
Jean-Pierre Lux - ERC independent Chairman
Michel Palmié - FFR
Marcel Martin - LNR
Rob Andrew - RFU
Peter Wheeler - PRL
Fabrizio Gaetaniello - FIR
Andrea Rinaldo - FIR
Peter Boyle - IRFU
Philip Browne - IRFU
Roger Lewis - WRU

Also in attendance:
Derek McGrath - ERC
Roger O'Connor - ERC
Steve Phillips - WRU

ERC Board directors not in attendance:
Mark Dodson - SR
Ian McLauchlan - SR
Regional Rugby Wales has chosen not to replace Stuart Gallacher as its Board director

Even the PRL turned up.  Now that's an advance.  
RRW needs to get back in the mix or things could go pear shaped.  It's allowing itself to be influenced and 'strengthened' by the defiance of others but, as I say, even PRL turned up for that meeting with its Arch enemy.  If they can do it, certainly RRW can.

Munchkin, they mishandled their finances because they tried to compete with others in Europe. They didn't have the number sort he union support to do it. They were always screwed in the long term and have limped along for as long as they have because of private finances.

Regarding the ERC statement. It makes sense. I imagine there are legal costs for winding it up if it collapses so they need to retain money to cover this...I would have thought. Note the PRL voted for this.

HammerofThunor wrote:Munchkin, they mishandled their finances because they tried to compete with others in Europe. They didn't have the number sort he union support to do it. They were always screwed in the long term and have limped along for as long as they have because of private finances.

Regarding the ERC statement. It makes sense. I imagine there are legal costs for winding it up if it collapses so they need to retain money to cover this...I would have thought. Note the PRL voted for this.

Oh ...so the PRL are there to sign the ERC death warrant? Oh - So fwiendships haven't been renewed? - Another false dawn? - Oh right.......... so that's how it is. Okay.

SecretFly wrote:Even the PRL turned up.  Now that's an advance.  
RRW needs to get back in the mix or things could go pear shaped.  It's allowing itself to be influenced and 'strengthened' by the defiance of others but, as I say, even PRL turned up for that meeting with its Arch enemy.  If they can do it, certainly RRW can.

Have the PRL not gone the any ERC meetings related to the current competition? I thought they missed the ones to discuss continuing the ERC after this season.

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Munchkin, they mishandled their finances because they tried to compete with others in Europe. They didn't have the number sort he union support to do it. They were always screwed in the long term and have limped along for as long as they have because of private finances.

Regarding the ERC statement. It makes sense. I imagine there are legal costs for winding it up if it collapses so they need to retain money to cover this...I would have thought. Note the PRL voted for this.

Oh ...so the PRL are there to sign the ERC death warrant?  Oh -  So fwiendships haven't been renewed? -  Another false dawn? -  Oh right.......... so that's how it is.  Okay.

I have no idea what you are talking about   

HammerofThunor wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Munchkin, they mishandled their finances because they tried to compete with others in Europe. They didn't have the number sort he union support to do it. They were always screwed in the long term and have limped along for as long as they have because of private finances.

Regarding the ERC statement. It makes sense. I imagine there are legal costs for winding it up if it collapses so they need to retain money to cover this...I would have thought. Note the PRL voted for this.

Oh ...so the PRL are there to sign the ERC death warrant?  Oh -  So fwiendships haven't been renewed? -  Another false dawn? -  Oh right.......... so that's how it is.  Okay.

I have no idea what you are talking about   

You don't? You're the one talking about the PRL showing up to vote for an ERC measure to retain funds for legal measures in the event of it winding up? ERC winding up? PRL voting for funding decisions that might be needed to effect a winding up?

You have no idea what I'm talking about?

HammerofThunor wrote:Munchkin, they mishandled their finances because they tried to compete with others in Europe. They didn't have the number sort he union support to do it. They were always screwed in the long term and have limped along for as long as they have because of private finances.

Regarding the ERC statement. It makes sense. I imagine there are legal costs for winding it up if it collapses so they need to retain money to cover this...I would have thought. Note the PRL voted for this.

I don't buy that at all, Hammer. They had the players to compete. Ospreys certainly did, and the money they received wouldn't have been far off those of the Provinces. It's right that IRFU fund the Provinces to the level they do. The Provinces are branches of the IRFU. Can't say the same about the regions.
I also remember claims of money lavishly spent by at least one region, but can't remember the detail just now.

On the ERC statement; yep, I think it's about sorting out legal costs on winding up. You would think RRW being the business men they are would have realised this...

It's possible that there is more behind the withholding of payments, not to pressure RRW, but I think the above is most likely.

SecretFly wrote:Even the PRL turned up.  Now that's an advance.  
RRW needs to get back in the mix or things could go pear shaped.  It's allowing itself to be influenced and 'strengthened' by the defiance of others but, as I say, even PRL turned up for that meeting with its Arch enemy.  If they can do it, certainly RRW can.

Things are fairly pear shaped for RRW as it is, but they are doing a sterling job at shooting themselves in the foot. Imagine if this ever did go to court, and their behaviour on refusing to attend meeting was brought into question?

PRL comments on further revenue distribution delays:

"We believe this inflames the issues we have in coming to a European solution and the next step is for Premiership Rugby to take advice to see if this action represents a fundamental breach in the contract between ERC and its clubs," said PRL in a statement."

So...who is this Peter Wheeler guy then?   

My guess at what is going on.

1) Unions are prepared to sacrifice ERC to help out England.
2) Plan will be to move European cup to Six Nations Company
3) They are going to make the clubs pay for the hassle they have caused (by obviously scaring the Poopie out of Peter Wheeler about his fiduciary responsibilities to ERC that he voted to hang onto all funds to cover any shortfall or potential legal action from broadcasters). Bear in mind the fairly onerous legal penalties for anyone who goes bankrupt in ROI.
The ERC's turnover is about 55m, they have distributed 15m so far, so they are building up a fairly decent warchest to deal with any shortfall.

By the way, from what I can see, the clubs have no contract with ERC. They pass the money to the Unions who pass the money onto the clubs.

Looks like the ERC won't tolerate the PRL/Regions spin anymore - thats a fairly strong press release that leaves nothing in doubt.

SecretFly wrote:
You don't?  You're the one talking about the PRL showing up to vote for an ERC measure to retain funds for legal measures in the event of it winding up?  ERC winding up?  PRL voting for funding decisions that might be needed to effect a winding up?

You have no idea what I'm talking about?

You can't see the difference between retaining funds in case it's needed (as no deal for next year has been signed on yet) and it being about it killing the ERC? Lewis has said/suggested it's for legal reasons. Someone on Munsterfans suggested it might be for winding up costs (in response to a welsh fan saying was no legal reason to withhold it) as that was the only legal issue people could think of. It makes sense, but not 'true'.

The comment about the PRL was relating to some comments I had seen that the PRL wasn't aware of the withholding and wanted to point out they voted on this and it was unanimous.

Munchkin wrote:PRL comments on further revenue distribution delays:

"We believe this inflames the issues we have in coming to a European solution and the next step is for Premiership Rugby to take advice to see if this action represents a fundamental breach in the contract between ERC and its clubs," said PRL in a statement."

So...who is this Peter Wheeler guy then?      

Hadn't read this   

I guess Wheeler is successfully performing his duties for the ERC and separating them from his PRL status. Retaining the money may well be the right thing for the ERC to do. It doesn't mean the PRL have to be happy about it.

And regarding the regions' success, the Ospreys put massive amounts of money in AT&T heir height. They had the shear loads of their best player when the cap came in and still asked for dispensation. Also the English cap at the time was about £4M total (Welsh one was £3.5M for ERC squad), yet there were still complaints of money bags English clubs. But the coaching wasn't up to it. Who controls the coaches in Wales? WRU. Who's said they want welsh coaches? WRU. The Regions have been hampered since their inception simply because their inception was flawed. Hopefully the outcome of all this is a better structure, either with the current regions or without them.

Sin e, nice conjecture there. Of course you seem to be forgetting (ignoring) that each club doesn't get that much from the ERC. This payment is about €1.9M so it works out as about €150k for each club. And they get to complain about the ERC holding back the cash. So not a big impact and also it might actually be legally required for some reason as has been suggested. But you running him being scared Poopie if it makes you happy.

I also think the RRW bank loans for player salaries is more of a publicity stunt than anything else. Their whole point is that the WRU don't give enough or generate enough from TV deals for them to survive (on a salary cap lower than anyone else at the top level in Western Europe).

HammerofThunor wrote:
I guess Wheeler is successfully performing his duties for the ERC and separating them from his PRL status. Retaining the money may well be the right thing for the ERC to do. It doesn't mean the PRL have to be happy about it.

?  There is only so far that logic will take you trying to support two different responses to the same meeting from PRL,  Hammer.  So with their ERC participant PRL hat on, they've agreed that money must be witheld - but with their non-participatory PRL hat on (the bit that doesn't like the ERC or talk to it!) they think the whole withdrawal of monies stinks?

And you think that's a noble position to have, having two opinions on the one topic, because Wheeler might need to appear two faced for legal reasons?

I know what you'd be saying if the ERC were talking with such a brazen forked tongue.

I am not making any comment on the amount of cash the clubs are not getting - its more to do with the significance of the amount of money the ERC are retaining to deal with a possible liquidation. 40 m seems to be a lot.

Just for the record, I don't think the ERC have a contract with the clubs because the ERC issues a dividend to its shareholders (the 6 Unions) who have a participation agreement with the clubs and who pass on the money.

This may seem odd to many, but it is more than likely set up like that to avail of Ireland's very generous tax exemption to not-for-profit sporting organisations.

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:
I guess Wheeler is successfully performing his duties for the ERC and separating them from his PRL status. Retaining the money may well be the right thing for the ERC to do. It doesn't mean the PRL have to be happy about it.

?  There is only so far that logic will take you trying to support two different responses to the same meeting from PRL,  Hammer.  So with their ERC participant PRL hat on, they've agreed that money must be witheld - but with their non-participatory PRL hat on (the bit that doesn't like the ERC or talk to it!) they think the whole withdrawal of monies stinks?

And you think that's a noble position to have, having two opinions on the one topic, because Wheeler might need to appear two faced for legal reasons?

I know what you'd be saying if the ERC were talking with such a brazen forked tongue.

Do you not see how something could be the right thing to do for the ERC but not the right thing to do for the PRL? Wheeler isn't there to get the best out of it for the PRL, he's there to get the best for the ERC. Which doesn't include anything to do with next year as the PRL are not involved. But for things concerning this year, he's a director of the ERC.

But, I'm sure it's really that he's been scared Poopie and just went along with everyone else out of fear like sin e suggested.

HammerofThunor wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:
I guess Wheeler is successfully performing his duties for the ERC and separating them from his PRL status. Retaining the money may well be the right thing for the ERC to do. It doesn't mean the PRL have to be happy about it.

?  There is only so far that logic will take you trying to support two different responses to the same meeting from PRL,  Hammer.  So with their ERC participant PRL hat on, they've agreed that money must be witheld - but with their non-participatory PRL hat on (the bit that doesn't like the ERC or talk to it!) they think the whole withdrawal of monies stinks?

And you think that's a noble position to have, having two opinions on the one topic, because Wheeler might need to appear two faced for legal reasons?

I know what you'd be saying if the ERC were talking with such a brazen forked tongue.

Do you not see how something could be the right thing to do for the ERC but not the right thing to do for the PRL?

I see the PRL mentioned twice.
Firstly; - in a communication from ERC - PRL distinctly present, named and voting.  
Secondly: Their own published statement subsequent to the meeting.  

The PRL have stated previously that they don't even want to acknowledge the existence of the ERC, they've refused to attend meetings, they've not been invited to others.  But they've turned up to this meeting and two contradictory opinions emerge from it. What has emerged is spin.

There was talk before that this was why others found it so difficult to work with PRL.  Saying one thing in private to ERC members and then coming out in public with a completely different spin.  Very difficult to trust a body that engages in this political means of extracting as much as they can by manipulating public mood.  It's two contradictory opinions from the one organisation. If Wheeler felt pressurised at the ERC meeting - add that to the PRL statement.

No, they've refused to be involved in ERC competitions following this season. They've refused be involved in meetings with the ERC to discuss future competitions.

Who says they've not gone to meetings to discuss the current season?

I don't think Wheeler was pressurised. Sin e dreamed that one up. I think he was party to legal advise and voted that the best thing for the ERC was to retain the funds for the time being. What exactly that legal advise was we don't know.

Wheeler isn't the PRL and shouldn't act as a PRL man in the ERC board meetings. He sees things from the PRL perspective but he's primarily an ERC director at these meetings. He then reports back to the PRL board, who will question it and release their statement.

Although as I keep reaffirming I have no idea what I'm talking about on all this.

I think Wheeler is in a very poor position if legal preceedings were to be taken by Sky and the funds were not in place to cover them as he certainly did not perform his fiduciary responsibilities to ERC (by conspiring with PRL to put ERC out of business) with negotiating a contract with BT while being privy to Sky's negotiations with ERC.

Sin é wrote:I think Wheeler is in a very poor position if legal preceedings were to be taken by Sky and the funds were not in place to cover them as he certainly did not perform his fiduciary responsibilities to ERC (by conspiring with PRL to put ERC out of business) with negotiating a contract with BT while being privy to Sky's negotiations with ERC.

Why? The PRL negotiations was for a competition involving the English clubs. The ERC deal was not for the PRL clubs (or at least shouldn't have been).

We don't even know what the Sky deal was for. Was it, "this competition will definately happen"? Or was it, "if the compeititon is renewed you will broadcast it for XX"?

To very different things, and if it was the former then way any discussions about the competition? It's already sorted out...except it's not so it's most likely the latter.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Munchkin wrote:PRL comments on further revenue distribution delays:

"We believe this inflames the issues we have in coming to a European solution and the next step is for Premiership Rugby to take advice to see if this action represents a fundamental breach in the contract between ERC and its clubs," said PRL in a statement."

So...who is this Peter Wheeler guy then?      

Hadn't read this   

I guess Wheeler is successfully performing his duties for the ERC and separating them from his PRL status. Retaining the money may well be the right thing for the ERC to do. It doesn't mean the PRL have to be happy about it.

And regarding the regions' success, the Ospreys put massive amounts of money in AT&T heir height. They had the shear loads of their best player when the cap came in and still asked for dispensation. Also the English cap at the time was about £4M total (Welsh one was £3.5M for ERC squad), yet there were still complaints of money bags English clubs. But the coaching wasn't up to it. Who controls the coaches in Wales? WRU. Who's said they want welsh coaches? WRU. The Regions have been hampered since their inception simply because their inception was flawed. Hopefully the outcome of all this is a better structure, either with the current regions or without them.

Sin e, nice conjecture there. Of course you seem to be forgetting (ignoring) that each club doesn't get that much from the ERC. This payment is about €1.9M so it works out as about €150k for each club. And they get to complain about the ERC holding back the cash. So not a big impact and also it might actually be legally required for some reason as has been suggested. But you running him being scared Poopie if it makes you happy.

I also think the RRW bank loans for player salaries is more of a publicity stunt than anything else. Their whole point is that the WRU don't give enough or generate enough from TV deals for them to survive (on a salary cap lower than anyone else at the top level in Western Europe).

Hammer, if you take the PRL comment to its logical conclusion it doesn't make sense. Peter Wheeler was at the meeting as PRL representative, and agreed to the withholding of funds. PRL have no grounds for complaint. It's comedy, and it's the sort of nonsense I have come to expect from PRL.

I should have added a little more detail on the regions success. I agree, the Ospreys spent much on players. My point was that they had the players to compete at the highest level, and although doing well at Rabo level, they failed at HEC level. I have previously stated on this thread, and elsewhere, that I believe that failure is down to poor coaching.
I've read many comments about poor coaching in regions, on region fan sites, and this is the first time I've heard that it's the fault of WRU that the regions have poor coaching. Neither have I heard any RRW complaints about WRU restricting their choice of coaches. Maybe I have just missed those bits. It happens. Do you have evidence to support this?

A considered piece on Munsterforum worth reading:

'

This gets complicated but there are a few factors;
1) The Directors in holding back the payments is not a sign of the ERC folding. But if there is any doubt about the company as an on-going concern they have to preserve assets or else face personal liability for reckless trading
2) The winding up of the company means creditors get preferential treatment followed by equity holders. In essence this means that any liabilities the company has have to be paid first (including for example tax, leases / rent agreements, suppliers, salaries etc). Only after that can excess assets be paid out. Which could mean a long wait for pay outs (I've seen a couple of years)
3) This could be delayed even further. If Sky were to come in and claim damages for breach of contract, then the extent of liabilities would only be known after that was settled.
4) If (hypothetically) Sky were awarded damages in excess of available assets - obviously there would be no pay out - there is an interesting scenario where Sky move from claiming from the company to looking at whether any of the Directors acted in bad faith and then looking to include those Directors in the proceedings personally. This could put Wheeler in a difficult position as he (from what is known publically) was on the board of ERC and at the same time acting in a way that harmed the ERC. He also was privy to the Sky negotiations while also privy to the PRL / BT talks. He would have to show the two were separated and he was at all times acting in the best interest of the ERC to avoid personal exposure - that could be tough
5) More interestingly - as Wheeler was PRL's nominee he could also be named as a shadow director which would mean PRL would be exposed as being in effect a Director. This wouldn't remove Wheeler's personal exposure as the courts recognise a separation between the individual and the body appointing the individual and both have to act properly.
6) If Sky were to go down this route, once they initiate court proceedings they would be entitled to full discovery on PRL files relating to the BT negotiations i.e. PRL would have to open up their files to Sky

I think PRL and RRW took a very risky and ill thought out strategy which they must have assumed would win early. PRL should, if they wanted to avoid the above mess, have resigned from the ERC as soon as the Board of ERC decided to sign the Sky deal - it would put them in a much sounder place right now.

It also leaves RRW in a nasty position - they are likely to see nothing for a long while and must cause them a lot of financial stress added to which is that any proposed Anglo / Welsh league will not be approved immediately (if at all) and therefore they will face even further reduction in income. They could end up broke before any of this even gets to court - in fact they have a risk of trying to continue to trade under UK law where the on-going ability to trade must be under doubt. I suspect - unless they get capital injections (not bank loans) - they will need to do the same thing as ERC i.e. preserve assets. UK law is similar to here and they would face personal liability of they trade recklessly. PRL not as bad but you got to think some of the clubs will face similar pressures.

The irony of this is that ERC actions were sparked by RRW announcing they wouldn't participate in the HEC next year - that caused the requirement to suspend - talk about ill-conceived

Wheeler as a director of ERC Ltd (that organises a European Cup competition) is a director of another organisation (PRL), which is organising a competing European Cup.

How could he be acting in the best interests of ERC Ltd (which he legally agrees to do by agreeing to be a director of ERC Ltd)?

Definite conflict of interests.

This saga just sums up why a shell company set up for tax reasons but encompassing members with different business models doesn't work. All members are conflicted - the structure was flawed from the start.

The result is that some members ( Unions) have had a disproportionate allocation of the vote compared to participants (teams) for the current two European competitions.

It appears that because this is a sporting context the commercial imperatives for sensible governance were originally put on hold to enable everyone to get a foothold.  Commercial realities however mean that rarely lasts in perpetuity.

I might not like it but the professional era is what this is all about and a bottom up structure will always be more robust particularly if you have scale.

Recwatcher wrote:This saga just sums up why a shell company set up for tax reasons but encompassing members with different business models doesn't work. All members are conflicted - the structure was flawed from the start.

The result is that some members ( Unions) have had a disproportionate allocation of the vote compared to participants (teams) for the current two European competitions.

It appears that because this is a sporting context the commercial imperatives for sensible governance were originally put on hold to enable everyone to get a foothold.  Commercial realities however mean that rarely lasts in perpetuity.

I might not like it but the professional era is what this is all about and a bottom up structure will always be more robust particularly if you have scale.

1. Its not a shell company. It was set up to organise a cross border competition (in a similar way that the PRL was set up to organise the Aviva League in England.
2. It was based in Ireland initially because the driving force behind its setting up was an Irishman (Tommy Kiernan, who was its first chairman).
3. The English Premier league/RFU were not involved in setting up this competition, came in a year later when they saw what a good idea it was.
4. Not all members are conflicted. The Irish, Welsh, Scottish, French & Italian shareholders have much in common, i.e., the majority.

Recwatcher wrote:This saga just sums up why a shell company set up for tax reasons but encompassing members with different business models doesn't work. All members are conflicted - the structure was flawed from the start.

The result is that some members ( Unions) have had a disproportionate allocation of the vote compared to participants (teams) for the current two European competitions.

It appears that because this is a sporting context the commercial imperatives for sensible governance were originally put on hold to enable everyone to get a foothold.  Commercial realities however mean that rarely lasts in perpetuity.

I might not like it but the professional era is what this is all about and a bottom up structure will always be more robust particularly if you have scale.

Professionalism doesn't require private owned clubs. Professionalism is players, staff and coaches getting paid to play, train and manage.  Professionalism happens as much in a Union run system as in a 'privately owned club' system.

Plus, you say the ERC tried to make divergent systems work together and you say it is impossible - why then did the PRL advance their plans which equally tried to merge the unmergeable in your terms?

Ah, my two favourite proponents.

All the ERC membership hold two hats with the exception of Lux. They are conflicted.
The ERC operate a book keeping set up to hoover in the tv money under an advantageous tax regime, little else that requires expertise.

Professionalism on the pitch has little to do with all financial participants wanting equal rights to determine the own futures.
I agree any new body set up along similar lines will be no better.

ERC can hold back money for a while. But it is holding back all money from everyone. IRFU, top14, SRU, FIR, WRU, PRL.

ERC can't spend that money on prawn sandwiches.

There will be some wind-up costs involved in shuttering ERC, but they will be borne pro-rata by everyone who is owed distributions. So actually the RRW have the least to lose, them receiving the least pro-rata compared to the IRFU, FIR and SRU.

so i dont see what all the fuss is about. it's just people selectively using the media to make themselves look like victims.

that munsterfans piece was unadulterated fantasy. so many errors that there's not even any point starting, as fact was obviously not a consideration for whoever wrote it.

Recwatcher wrote:Ah, my two favourite  proponents.

All the ERC membership hold two hats with the exception of Lux. They are conflicted.
The ERC operate a book keeping set up to hoover in the tv money under an advantageous tax regime,  little else that requires expertise.

Professionalism on the pitch has little to do with all financial participants wanting equal rights to determine the own futures.
I agree any new body set up along similar lines will be no better.

1. Any conflict can be avoided by declaring it. For instance, Wheeler must have known about the negotiations that the PRL were having about their proposed contract with BT, but didn't say anything about this to his fellow ERC board members when agreeing to the Sky deal.

The Directors of ERC Ltd are answerable to their shareholders (6 Unions + LNR). That is who Wheeler is answerable to.

So, operating the disciplinary precedures requires little expertise? What about arranging match officials?

one other thing. these payments are not dividends. they are distributions above the line according to a pre-agreed formula. dividends, in every country in the world, come out of post-tax earnings, and ERC's post tax earnings were of the order of EUR100k. and dividends in every country in the world are payed pro-rata to shareholders. each country hold 16.67% of the shares, the monies are clearly not distributed that way.

all good now?

quinsforever wrote:

that munsterfans piece was unadulterated fantasy. so many errors that there's not even any point starting, as fact was obviously not a consideration for whoever wrote it.

Really please enlighten us.

quinsforever wrote:ERC can hold back money for a while. But it is holding back all money from everyone. IRFU, top14, SRU, FIR, WRU, PRL.

ERC can't spend that money on prawn sandwiches.

There will be some wind-up costs involved in shuttering ERC, but they will be borne pro-rata by everyone who is owed distributions. So actually the RRW have the least to lose, them receiving the least pro-rata compared to the IRFU, FIR and SRU.

so i dont see what all the fuss is about. it's just people selectively using the media to make themselves look like victims.

that munsterfans piece was unadulterated fantasy. so many errors that there's not even any point starting, as fact was obviously not a consideration for whoever wrote it.

I agree that RRW, and possibly PRL, are using this to cry victim, but not so sure about your last comment. I don't see much to disagree with in the munsterfans article. Would you elaborate on what you perceive to be fantasy?

quinsforever wrote:ERC can hold back money for a while. But it is holding back all money from everyone. IRFU, top14, SRU, FIR, WRU, PRL.

ERC can't spend that money on prawn sandwiches.

There will be some wind-up costs involved in shuttering ERC, but they will be borne pro-rata by everyone who is owed distributions. So actually the RRW have the least to lose, them receiving the least pro-rata compared to the IRFU, FIR and SRU.

so i dont see what all the fuss is about. it's just people selectively using the media to make themselves look like victims.

that munsterfans piece was unadulterated fantasy. so many errors that there's not even any point starting, as fact was obviously not a consideration for whoever wrote it.

ERC has no contract with RRW. RRW's service agreement is with WRU. Thats who they have to sue for the money.

ERC will distribute whatever funds it has left over to its shareholders.