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.

Sin é wrote:

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?

wrong. conflicts get "managed", they dont get avoided. lets assume the BT deal was being negotiated subject to a confidentiality agreement, absolutely standard practice in media rights, then Peter Wheeler would legally be barred from "declaring" anything about it to ERC. He has to manage the conflicts himself, probably with advice of lawyers, which it clearly looked like he received.

being a director of ERC doesnt mean he has to empty his pockets and pull his pants down. as i've said before, conflicts exist in every boardroom in the world. the individual has to manage them. there are no legal requirements of disclosure to one board or another.

total canard.

quinsforever wrote: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?

ERC are tax exempt in Ireland.

ERC have 7 shareholders - 6 Unions + LNR. (FFR gave LNR half their shares).

The Unions employ the disciplinary and match officials. ERC just book the hotel room.

I agree Wheeler was conflicted just as the other officials were following their Union mandate which resulted in the exact oppositew of what ERC was set up to do which was facilitate a European rugby competition which it was doomed to never achieve.

Sin é wrote:

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.

wrong. it can only distribute what is left to shareholders after the monies are distributed according to the contracts in place. So yes the WRU will get the distribution but in exactly the same way they did last year, according to the pre-agreed distribution formula, nothing to do with their shareholding.

when you wind up a company you settle all contractually owed amounts in order of, for example, salaries, unpaid creditors, etc, etc. you only get to distribute to shareholders what is left. and that will be even less than the EUR100k post-tax profit from last year, obviously.

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

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?

wrong. conflicts get "managed", they dont get avoided. lets assume the BT deal was being negotiated subject to a confidentiality agreement, absolutely standard practice in media rights, then Peter Wheeler would legally be barred from "declaring" anything about it to ERC. He has to manage the conflicts himself, probably with advice of lawyers, which it clearly looked like he received.

being a director of ERC doesnt mean he has to empty his pockets and pull his pants down. as i've said before, conflicts exist in every boardroom in the world. the individual has to manage them. there are no legal requirements of disclosure to one board or another.

total canard.

Well, it looks like he got poor advice as he should have resigned from the ERC Board immediately there was any mention of a conflicting deal with BT.

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

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.

wrong. it can only distribute what is left to shareholders after the monies are distributed according to the contracts in place. So yes the WRU will get the distribution but in exactly the same way they did last year, according to the pre-agreed distribution formula, nothing to do with their shareholding.

when you wind up a company you settle all contractually owed amounts in order of, for example, salaries, unpaid creditors, etc, etc. you only get to distribute to shareholders what is left. and that will be even less than the EUR100k post-tax profit from last year, obviously.

I know salaries, etc.have to be paid off, but ERC does not have a contract with the Welsh Regions. It has a contract with the WRU (who propose/supply 4 teams in the competition).

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote: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?

ERC are tax exempt in Ireland.

ERC have 7 shareholders - 6 Unions + LNR. (FFR gave LNR half their shares).

give it a rest. you have confimed that each country holds 16.67% of the shares, thank you.

ERC being tax exempt is completely irrelevant to this case. these are not dividends. the distributions bear no relation to shareholding in size, destination or proportion. for example the PRL received the distributions directly. not the RFU. and yet PRL are NOT shareholders.

this structure was not based in ireland for massive tax advantages on the distributions of revenues. these are pre-tax items. it is a shell company. it generates not profit and pays no dividends.

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

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?

wrong. conflicts get "managed", they dont get avoided. lets assume the BT deal was being negotiated subject to a confidentiality agreement, absolutely standard practice in media rights, then Peter Wheeler would legally be barred from "declaring" anything about it to ERC. He has to manage the conflicts himself, probably with advice of lawyers, which it clearly looked like he received.

being a director of ERC doesnt mean he has to empty his pockets and pull his pants down. as i've said before, conflicts exist in every boardroom in the world. the individual has to manage them. there are no legal requirements of disclosure to one board or another.

total canard.

Well, it looks like he got poor advice as he should have resigned from the ERC Board immediately there was any mention of a conflicting deal with BT.

wrong again. conflicts dont get managed by people resigning.

look up the meaning of the word "recuse". and then consider that peter wheeler and rene bouscatel put out statements saying they DID NOT VOTE on the sky deal.

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

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.

wrong. it can only distribute what is left to shareholders after the monies are distributed according to the contracts in place. So yes the WRU will get the distribution but in exactly the same way they did last year, according to the pre-agreed distribution formula, nothing to do with their shareholding.

when you wind up a company you settle all contractually owed amounts in order of, for example, salaries, unpaid creditors, etc, etc. you only get to distribute to shareholders what is left. and that will be even less than the EUR100k post-tax profit from last year, obviously.

I know salaries, etc.have to be paid off, but ERC does not have a contract with the Welsh Regions. It has a contract with the WRU (who propose/supply 4 teams in the competition).

of course the RRW dont have a contract with ERC. that's why they are free to go off and participate in RCC and an Anglo Welsh league.

but what does that have to do with anything?

Recwatcher wrote:The Unions employ the disciplinary and match officials.  ERC just book the hotel room.

I agree Wheeler was conflicted just as the other officials were following their Union mandate which resulted in the exact oppositew of what ERC was set up to do which was facilitate a European rugby competition which it was doomed to never achieve.

Irish examiner wrote:
Creating the space for McGrath (ERC CEO) was largely regulatory, starting out. A bit like now, there was massive distrust, only back then it extended to basic things like registration and disciplinary measures. A fledgling new body had to establish some credibility and muscle, which meant quite a few trips up the steps of the high courts, but they stood their ground and laid down some markers. Tough for you that you didn’t get your southern hemisphere player registered three weeks out from the start of the competition; tough for you if the disciplinary verdict didn’t go in your favour; at least it was transparent and fair. From that foundation, more business partners came on board.

Shelll company, me eye!

No, they were not conflicted. Thats the main complaint of the private clubs - the ERC board always acted in their shareholders interest (Unions).

I am surprised you consider that to be expertise rather than the bare minimum. Shell companies are set up for the benefit of others rather than an entity with a mandate in its own right - ERC fits that definition very well.

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.

Equal rights doesn't include one body denouncing the equal rights of another member...nothing equal there, Rec.  Just powerplay.

And your final point agrees with me - if ERC is wrong in philosophy, so too is anything the PRL were cooking up.  

Best advice for PRL then is to simply content themselves with the only thing they can control independently - the AP.  The rest of it requires compromise, something alien to their nature obviously.  And one of the things requiring compromise is the meaning of the word 'equal'.

Recwatcher wrote:I am surprised you consider that to be expertise rather than the bare minimum. Shell companies are set up for the benefit of others rather than an entity with a mandate in its own right - ERC fits that definition very well.

As in PRL?

Recwatcher wrote:I am surprised you consider that to be expertise rather than the bare minimum. Shell companies are set up for the benefit of others rather than an entity with a mandate in its own right - ERC fits that definition very well.

Would you consider the PRL to be a shell company then?

edit: Got there before me Fly!

PRL doesn't even look after discipline - they get the RFU to do that.

The munsterfans comments. The first two points he makes are technically accurate, but very misleading in the case of ERC for the reasons i mention. Points 3-6 the author is clearly moving into the realms of fanstasy, compounding what-ifs, with inaccurate hypotheticals and coming to the conclusion that the PRL are financially liable for breach of SKY's ERC contract if ERC gets wound up.



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 This means not Wee weeing away the money, it doesnt mean not paying bills.
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) It pays out as distributions (not dividends) over 95% of its revenues, has few staff, small shared office space, and no valid contracts extending beyond june 2014 (as it autmatically ceases to exist june 2014 without a new participation agreement). ERC is not like a normal company. it has book value of less than a million Euros (what gets distributed to shareholders post windup) and gross revenues in excess of 55million Euros. Of which over 50million are distributed according to pre-agreed contracts with Unions and Clubs - these are effectively creditors, ie unpaid billholders above the line.
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. Unpaid billholders would still be paid for services rendered before SKY saw a single penny. Because SKY could only attempt to claim theoretical damages for FUTURE economic impact. So would be chronolically behind creditors.
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 Assets, ie book value, is max 1million Euros. Probably a lot less once redundancy payments are made. SKY are welcome to it all. The vast majority of monies owed will still get distributed before they get added to book value.
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. 3 words - Directors Liability Insurance. And how exactly does a corporate body end up with Board liability of another company? this is just silly.
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 This is just ridiculous. it's not true, but even if it was (that PRL had to share details on their SKY negotiations) it would have absolutely ZERO impact or bearing on SKY's contract with ERC.


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.

PRL are not on the board of ERC. PRL is a company. Directors dont resign, they manage conflicts, and in the case it can't be managed, they recuse themselves. And note very clearly that Wheeler and Bouscatel did not vote on the ERC/SKY contract (Sept press release 2012), nor was the signing of the ERC/SKY deal put to a Board vote.

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

SecretFly wrote:

Recwatcher wrote:I am surprised you consider that to be expertise rather than the bare minimum. Shell companies are set up for the benefit of others rather than an entity with a mandate in its own right - ERC fits that definition very well.

As in PRL?

yes absolutely. PRL, like the NFL, is effectively a trade body which exists and was created solely to maximise the commercial interests of its members.

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Recwatcher wrote:I am surprised you consider that to be expertise rather than the bare minimum. Shell companies are set up for the benefit of others rather than an entity with a mandate in its own right - ERC fits that definition very well.

As in PRL?

yes absolutely. PRL, like the NFL, is effectively a trade body which exists and was created solely to maximise the commercial interests of its members.

Thanks for the confirmation. Now tell Rec that when next he shows up

rec will undoubtedly agree. the thrust of his argument seems to be more that where interests are fundamentally different, a shell company will eventually just become the focal point for a massive bunfight.

ie, ERC.

AP clubs appear to unanimously PRL's goals of making more money for the AP.

RCC, if unions werent involved, would have the goal of making as much money as possible for all the clubs taking part. that at least would align all clubs in the same direction.

where it gets messy is where clubs and unions have different agenda - ie ERC.

Secret, I thought you and I agreed a while back that equal meant that all participant teams were treated the same, in terms of finances and qualification.

The ERC ignored these claims which led to the name calling after the bluff was called this time round.

You will no doubt correct me if I am uninformed but the PRL and LNR have not asked to get more per team than anyone else ?

One final question as I know you like these - if the greedy club owners in France, Wales and England had not invested money, who exactly do you think the IRFU teams would now be playing against ?

The comment was that ERC was not a shell company - no one is claiming anything different about the PRL which was not mentioned. Very bizarre.

It is unquestionable that the biggest % growth of revenue in rugby is in the professional club game, with Fra, Eng, SA at the top financially. International is still bigger, but i reckon its pretty close in the Northern Hemisphere these days.

So it's pretty darn clear to me that being professional and private is a very large part of what has driven the financial growth of the top14 and AP, compared to the hybrid or union-controlled models.

The ERC did not get wound up in 2014 though and that is key.

Sky therefore becomes a secured creditor and takes priority regarding any monies owed

[quote="Recwatcher"]The comment was that ERC was not a shell company - no one is claiming anything different about the PRL which was not

Correction the comments were that ERC was a shell company - at odds with the splendid perfect set up of private clubs looking after their own financial and commercial affairs.
So PRL?................ same weaknesses as ERC?

Er.... no.

The rights of the participant teams in the PRL shell company are different to the participant teams in the ERC shell company. After all these months surely that is obvious ?

Recwatcher wrote:Er.... no.

The rights of the participant teams in the PRL shell company are different to the participant teams in the ERC shell company. After all these months surely that is obvious ?

Oh come on Rec...that's just weak logic. You got caught out on the Shell company bit and are now trying to say one shell company isn't one but the other one still very much is. Sorry, it doesn't work.

geoff999rugby wrote:The ERC did not get wound up in 2014 though and that is key.

Sky therefore becomes a secured creditor and takes priority regarding any monies owed

in what parallel universe is that? they have provided no services post 2014 so how can they be a creditor for services they never provided?

do you even understand what a secured creditor is? that is a creditor who's credit (for money provided, not even services - it is is a lender) is backed up by a specific asset, ie a building, plant or the like. you bandy these terms around when it is abundantly clear you are misusing them and do not actually understand them.

SecretFly wrote:

Recwatcher wrote:Er.... no.

The rights of the participant teams in the PRL shell company are different to the participant teams in the ERC shell company. After all these months surely that is obvious ?

Oh come on Rec...that's just weak logic.  You got caught out on the Shell company bit and are now trying to say one shell company isn't one but the other one still very much is.  Sorry, it doesn't work.  

but rec is right. different unions and different clubs have different payouts, votes and representation within ERC. in PRL all clubs are i believe equal (not sure about A-shares stuff and Championship clubs that still have shares and how that influences decision making

The PRL is still a shell company, quins.  The point is in the name not the detail.  PRL is as much a shell company as ERC is.  You agreed with me a few posts back and now Rec (who you said would agree with me) didn't so you're backing him.

Come on guys, this is like PRL saying one thing in an ERC office and another thing completely when back on safe ground in their own office  Market the message to suit the audience.

SecretFly wrote:The PRL is still a shell company, quins.  The point is in the name not the detail.  PRL is as much a shell company as ERC is.  You agreed with me a few posts back and now Rec (who you said would agree with me) didn't so you're backing him.

Come on guys, this is like PRL saying one thing in an ERC office and another thing completely when back on safe ground in their own office  Market the message to suit the audience.

of course its a shell company. but he's right that one works and one doesnt, and thats because the members of one have conflicting objectives and the other complementary.

it's completely irrelevant that prl and erc and shell companies. but they both are. economics pass through them, they don't reside in them.

the point is, one works, the other doesnt. and the reason is the members.

I am now officially lost in the Secret world of logic. All entertaining though.

quinsforever wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:The ERC did not get wound up in 2014 though and that is key.

Sky therefore becomes a secured creditor and takes priority regarding any monies owed

in what parallel universe is that? they have provided no services post 2014 so how can they be a creditor for services they never provided?

do you even understand what a secured creditor is? that is a creditor who's credit (for money provided, not even services - it is is a lender) is backed up by a specific asset, ie a building, plant or the like. you bandy these terms around when it is abundantly clear you are misusing them and do not actually understand them.

I have read elsewhere a Secured Creditor can be someone with a contract that one party defaults on after signing - in this case ERC defaulting on a contract with Sky.
Now regardless of the validity of that or otherwise and you know what a court of law will say no more than me it really does become tedious that you find it impossible to post a difference of opinion without having a dig.

These board should be a place of lively debate.
Your inability to conduct such without insult is a sign of immaturity.
I leave you to, I really cant be bothered ...again.

Some people are not worth talking to

Recwatcher wrote:I am now officially lost in the Secret world of logic. All entertaining though.

You're lost on my logic???   Think how I must feel...someone says I'm right and is confident you will agree with me...but because you decide not to agree with me, he changes his mind and now you're right.    

My point Rec has always been that PRL is as much a shell company (using your very own definition) as ERC is.  The semantics of detail don't concern me - the ultimate truth of that is all that concerns me.

i doubt you read that anywhere. it is a very specific term. is nothing to to with services provided, and everything to do with a loan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secured_creditor

i cant help ridiculing ridiculous statements that are presented as fact. if you dont want to invite scorn then maybe ask a question rather than making a statement, and saying QED.

i would say this counts as lively debate. if not particularly enlightening.

quinsforever wrote:

the point is, one works, the other doesnt. and the reason is the members.

They both work - it's just that you and PRL don't like one of them... and want to change one of them to suit your (English rugby/PRL) better.

This ain't rocket science..this is propaganda. PRL produces its propaganda - "The ERC is a house made of straw" and ERC produces its counter propaganda - "So be content in your own AP house then - bye"

SecretFly wrote:

Recwatcher wrote:I am now officially lost in the Secret world of logic. All entertaining though.

You're lost on my logic???   Think how I must feel...someone says I'm right and is confident you will agree with me...but because you decide not to agree with me, he changes his mind and now you're right.    

My point Rec has always been that PRL is as much a shell company (using your very own definition) as ERC is.  The semantics of detail don't concern me - the ultimate truth of that is all that concerns me.

no-one has disputed that PRL is a shell company. not me. not rec. you and others disputed that ERC was.

rec is right about the problems. the fact that both are effectively shell companies is completely and utterly irrelevant.

i haven't changed my mind about anything. you know me better than that

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

the point is, one works, the other doesnt. and the reason is the members.

They both work - it's just that you and PRL don't like one of them... and want to change one of them to suit your (English rugby/PRL) better.

This ain't rocket science..this is propaganda.  PRL produces its propaganda - "The ERC is a house made of straw" and ERC produces its counter propaganda - "So be content in your own AP house then - bye"

no, i think you'll find that ERC hasnt worked.

when PRL itself and its structure becomes the fodder for 100,000+ posts here then i think we can safely say that it is clear which one doesnt work for all its participants.

quinsforever wrote:
no-one has disputed that PRL is a shell company. not me. not rec. you and others disputed that ERC was.

rec is right about the problems. the fact that both are effectively shell companies is completely and utterly irrelevant.

i haven't changed my mind about anything. you know me better than that

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong, quins.  The idea of a shell company (in refernce to ERC) was the slur.  
I repeat, the idea of a shell compnay was the initial slur.

The taunt was that ERC is a shell company and therefore not an ideal set up to administer a European event involving the myriad of members.  That was the initial point - a shell company is fundamentally wrong for the future of European club rugby.  Rec was asked does he refer then to PRL as a shell company (using his very words of definition).

Nope...Rec chooses to twist around that.  

But the important point is that the initial taunt is that a shell company is bad for biz.  "PRL is one?"  "Em...well then, a certain kind of shell company is bad for biz."

No, I'm not tolerating the run-around on that one.  I'm calling a spade a spade and calling someone's bluff.

quinsforever wrote:It is unquestionable that the biggest % growth of revenue in rugby is in the professional club game, with Fra, Eng, SA at the top financially. International is still bigger, but i reckon its pretty close in the Northern Hemisphere these days.

So it's pretty darn clear to me that being professional and private is a very large part of what has driven the financial growth of the top14 and AP, compared to the hybrid or union-controlled models.

Why are Habana, Bakkies & Co. all in France now? Why is BJ Botha with Munster if there is so much money in SA rugby? Are they just here to give our NH teams a bit of a dig out?


The finances of Premiership Rugby are not great. Last set of accounts (June 2013), their turnover was just under £41M. Operating profit was down 62%. And they are in the Red (-104k).

Hope the rumours are not true that the BT deal is worth less than what was offered by Sky if there is no european rugby included!

Fly, the initial comment was that ERC was a shell company set up to dodge tax (or something to that effect).

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

the point is, one works, the other doesnt. and the reason is the members.

They both work - it's just that you and PRL don't like one of them... and want to change one of them to suit your (English rugby/PRL) better.

This ain't rocket science..this is propaganda.  PRL produces its propaganda - "The ERC is a house made of straw" and ERC produces its counter propaganda - "So be content in your own AP house then - bye"

no, i think you'll find that ERC hasnt worked.

when PRL itself and its structure becomes the fodder for 100,000+ posts here then i think we can safely say that it is clear which one doesnt work for all its participants.

I think that's an opinion I naturally don't share...we're in limbo again.  You see you can't just say something and it becomes true.  Nope,PRL are having problems realising that.  "Why are you folks still here?  Why haven't you all joined up to our competition yet?  The clock was ticking.  You're all obsolete!  You guys most especially - Unions!"

Em..nope...just coz you say something PRL, that don't make it true.  Propaganda is propaganda.

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:It is unquestionable that the biggest % growth of revenue in rugby is in the professional club game, with Fra, Eng, SA at the top financially. International is still bigger, but i reckon its pretty close in the Northern Hemisphere these days.

So it's pretty darn clear to me that being professional and private is a very large part of what has driven the financial growth of the top14 and AP, compared to the hybrid or union-controlled models.

Why are Habana, Bakkies & Co. all in France now?  Why is BJ Botha with Munster if there is so much money in SA rugby? Are they just here to give our NH teams a bit of a dig out?


The finances of Premiership Rugby are not great. Last set of accounts (June 2013), their turnover was just under £41M. Operating profit was down 62%. And they are in the Red (-104k).

Hope the rumours are not true that the BT deal is worth less than what was offered by Sky if there is no european rugby included!

you need to PM Biltong and ask him the rumours he has heard about SA renegotiating their share of SANZAR revenues.

that will boost the SA revenues significantly.

Just for clarity Secret,  Sin e believed the ERC was more than shell company - I humbly begged to differ. Sin e appears to now probably very sensibly have bailed out.

You then jumped in saying PRL was the same - Quins agreed with you and I stated that nobody had stated otherwise. You then say the ERC & PRL have the same weaknesses to which I stated they have different structures.  You then take that to mean I am denying that PRL is a shell company. I give up.

What I can't decide is if this is classic diversionary tactics (we are now no longer taking about ERC tactics in case of its demise ) or you got lost in one of your conundrums again. I note you didn't feel the need to answer my earlier question but no worries.

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:It is unquestionable that the biggest % growth of revenue in rugby is in the professional club game, with Fra, Eng, SA at the top financially. International is still bigger, but i reckon its pretty close in the Northern Hemisphere these days.

So it's pretty darn clear to me that being professional and private is a very large part of what has driven the financial growth of the top14 and AP, compared to the hybrid or union-controlled models.

Why are Habana, Bakkies & Co. all in France now?  Why is BJ Botha with Munster if there is so much money in SA rugby? Are they just here to give our NH teams a bit of a dig out?


The finances of Premiership Rugby are not great. Last set of accounts (June 2013), their turnover was just under £41M. Operating profit was down 62%. And they are in the Red (-104k).

Hope the rumours are not true that the BT deal is worth less than what was offered by Sky if there is no european rugby included!

you need to PM Biltong and ask him the rumours he has heard about SA renegotiating their share of SANZAR revenues.

that will boost the SA revenues significantly.

Isn't most the dispute over SA wanting to have an additional franchise and to accommodate their 21 week window for Super Rugby, no more home and away games?

Money isn't the issue - SA knows well from the Apartheid years that money won't make up for lack of competition.

Recwatcher wrote:Just for clarity Secret,  Sin e believed the ERC was more than shell company - I humbly begged to differ. Sin e appears to now probably very sensibly have bailed out.

You then jumped in saying PRL was the same - Quins agreed with you and I stated that nobody had stated otherwise. You then say the ERC & PRL have the same weaknesses to which I stated they have different structures.  You then take that to mean I am denying that PRL is a shell company. I give up.

What I can't decide is if this is classic diversionary tactics (we are now no longer taking about ERC tactics in case of its demise ) or you got lost in one of your conundrums again. I note you didn't feel the need to answer my earlier question but no worries.

I still dispute your definition of a shell company. Just couldn't be arsed arguing with you.

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:It is unquestionable that the biggest % growth of revenue in rugby is in the professional club game, with Fra, Eng, SA at the top financially. International is still bigger, but i reckon its pretty close in the Northern Hemisphere these days.

So it's pretty darn clear to me that being professional and private is a very large part of what has driven the financial growth of the top14 and AP, compared to the hybrid or union-controlled models.

Why are Habana, Bakkies & Co. all in France now?  Why is BJ Botha with Munster if there is so much money in SA rugby? Are they just here to give our NH teams a bit of a dig out?


The finances of Premiership Rugby are not great. Last set of accounts (June 2013), their turnover was just under £41M. Operating profit was down 62%. And they are in the Red (-104k).

Hope the rumours are not true that the BT deal is worth less than what was offered by Sky if there is no european rugby included!

you need to PM Biltong and ask him the rumours he has heard about SA renegotiating their share of SANZAR revenues.

that will boost the SA revenues significantly.

Isn't most the dispute over SA wanting to have an additional franchise and to accommodate their 21 week window for Super Rugby, no more home and away games?

Money isn't the issue - SA knows well from the Apartheid years that money won't make up for lack of competition.

there is no dispute that anyone is aware of. but SA are going to flex their muscles and get what they want this time apparently.

[quote="quinsforever"]The munsterfans comments. The first two points he makes are technically accurate, but very misleading in the case of ERC for the reasons i mention. Points 3-6 the author is clearly moving into the realms of fanstasy, compounding what-ifs, with inaccurate hypotheticals and coming to the conclusion that the PRL are financially liable for breach of SKY's ERC contract if ERC gets wound up.


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 This means not Wee weeing away the money, it doesnt mean not paying bills.

**The Welsh clubs are not service providers to the ERC. They are service providers to WRU.

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) It pays out as distributions (not dividends) over 95% of its revenues, has few staff, small shared office space, and no valid contracts extending beyond june 2014 (as it autmatically ceases to exist june 2014 without a new participation agreement). ERC is not like a normal company. it has book value of less than a million Euros (what gets distributed to shareholders post windup) and gross revenues in excess of 55million Euros. Of which over 50million are distributed according to pre-agreed contracts with Unions and Clubs - these are effectively creditors, ie unpaid billholders above the line.

**The Welsh clubs are not creditors of ERC. They told invoice the ERC for services done, and the ERC doesn't write a cheque made payable to the clubs.


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. Unpaid billholders would still be paid for services rendered before SKY saw a single penny. Because SKY could only attempt to claim theoretical damages for FUTURE economic impact. So would be chronolically behind creditors.

**ERC Directors are liable for defaulting on a signed contract.
Similar situation as to why the PRL don't want to pull out of the BT deal because they are leaving themselves up to being sued by BT.

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 Assets, ie book value, is max 1million Euros. Probably a lot less once redundancy payments are made. SKY are welcome to it all. The vast majority of monies owed will still get distributed before they get added to book value.

**Book value of ERC was 2.5m Euro last June.
There is no way that a company owned by the Unions could default on their debts.
Handy that the Unions/ERC would have a leading liquidator (Tom Grace, IRFU Hon. Treasurer) as an advisor.

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. 3 words - Directors Liability Insurance. And how exactly does a corporate body end up with Board liability of another company? this is just silly.
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 This is just ridiculous. it's not true, but even if it was (that PRL had to share details on their SKY negotiations) it would have absolutely ZERO impact or bearing on SKY's contract with ERC.


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.
PRL are not on the board of ERC. PRL is a company. Directors dont resign, they manage conflicts, and in the case it can't be managed, they recuse themselves. And note very clearly that Wheeler and Bouscatel did not vote on the ERC/SKY contract (Sept press release 2012), nor was the signing of the ERC/SKY deal put to a Board vote.


**Dominic Gallagher (RRW) resigned last month from the Board of ERC. It would seem Directors do resign.

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:It is unquestionable that the biggest % growth of revenue in rugby is in the professional club game, with Fra, Eng, SA at the top financially. International is still bigger, but i reckon its pretty close in the Northern Hemisphere these days.

So it's pretty darn clear to me that being professional and private is a very large part of what has driven the financial growth of the top14 and AP, compared to the hybrid or union-controlled models.

Why are Habana, Bakkies & Co. all in France now?  Why is BJ Botha with Munster if there is so much money in SA rugby? Are they just here to give our NH teams a bit of a dig out?


The finances of Premiership Rugby are not great. Last set of accounts (June 2013), their turnover was just under £41M. Operating profit was down 62%. And they are in the Red (-104k).

Hope the rumours are not true that the BT deal is worth less than what was offered by Sky if there is no european rugby included!

you need to PM Biltong and ask him the rumours he has heard about SA renegotiating their share of SANZAR revenues.

that will boost the SA revenues significantly.

Isn't most the dispute over SA wanting to have an additional franchise and to accommodate their 21 week window for Super Rugby, no more home and away games?

Money isn't the issue - SA knows well from the Apartheid years that money won't make up for lack of competition.

there is no dispute that anyone is aware of. but SA are going to flex their muscles and get what they want this time apparently.

They do have a bigger population and so should have more teams than Australia.

They have no intention of leaving Super Rugby though!

agreed. they will get more teams and more money relative to before when they renegotiate. kind of like england and france in the heineken cup.

quinsforever wrote:agreed. they will get more teams and more money relative to before when they renegotiate. kind of like england and france in the heineken cup.

Nothing like England:

England: 6 teams
France: 6
Ireland: 3
Scotland: 3*
Wales: 3
Italy: 2

*when they had 3 teams.

South Africa had the same no of teams as Aus & New Zealand. England and France have double the teams of the rest of the countries involved.

SARU haven't tried to get rid of any Australian or New Zealand teams either and are willing to take in an Argentenian team.

So in short, SARU are nothing like the English.

hahahaha. auld one-eye strikes again. just because its not the PRL must mean its not happening right? just like the french clubs weren't the ones who pulled out of ERC...

how many argentinian club teams playing in s15 by the way?

SA could field so many pro sides its a joke. NZ and Aus rugby need SA far more than the other way around.

of course you're never going to believe anything i say, so just PM Bilt.