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.

quinsforever wrote: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.

The difference is where the money is going in SA - increasing the number of teams in the competition rather than kicking teams out of it and all so that Nigel Wray and Co can buy more South African players to try and compete with the French clubs.

The French clubs are as bad as the English ones, but at least the FFR controls their clubs and guess what - they made the French clubs agree to play in a european cup for the next 4 years.

They are looking to bring in an Argentinian team now which logistically will be very difficult.

quinsforever wrote:
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.

Paul Rees wrote:The French and English clubs want ERC to fold because it would mean that its contractual obligations, such as the television contract to Sky, which clashes with the BT deal signed by Premiership Rugby last year, would perish with it. That said, the directors of ERC, which include representatives from Premiership Rugby and LNR, have been given legal advice about the potential consequences to them of winding up the organising body if it is a means of evading legally binding commitments.

It is one reason why Premiership Rugby and LNR have decided not to attend any more ERC meetings and, significantly, they served notice they were pulling out before the contract extension with Sky was signed. They are prepared to talk to the RaboDirect unions directly, with McCafferty pointing out that no one's interests would be served if there was no European club rugby next season.

That was from a Guardian article last September.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/sep/26/premiership-french-erc-heineken-cup-rugby

i know.

that is precisely what i refer to when Wheeler and Bouscatel made clear they had NOT voted on the SKy contract. they had already been advised of their reponsibilities as Directors of multiple entities and were following that advice in making such a statement.

but nowhere does it say what "the potential consequences" are. for the company, for SKY, for anyone. directors liability insurance is absolutely standard where commercial contracts are signed off and entered into by boards so i would have to imagine that limits any personal liabilities.

most importantly however, does anyone really think that SKY is going to attempt to sue the Celtic Unions? (RFU and FFR are not on the hook because their teams had already given notice to withdraw). Seriously?

Quins, Wheeler and the French did not resign as Directors of ERC. THey neglected their legal responsibilities by not attending board meetings. They answer to ERC shareholders as ERC board members. The shareholders are the 6 Unions plus the LNR.

What board meetings did they not attend? Were these ones relating to the current ERC format? Or were they related to continuing the ERC beyond the PRL and LNR notice?

Sin é wrote:Quins, Wheeler and the French did not resign as Directors of ERC. THey neglected their legal responsibilities by not attending board meetings. They answer to ERC shareholders as ERC board members. The shareholders are the 6 Unions plus the LNR.

independent directors dont answer to anyone. they are supposed to be independent. they cannot be removed except for fraud, and only at biannual elections or whatever their frequency is.

you do come up with some wierd stuff.

no-one ever claimed they resigned either.

and there are no legal responsibilities to attend board meetings. they aren't high court judges dispensing the law.

go arrest the two SRU directors who didnt show up for yesterday's ERC Board meeting if that is the case.

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:Quins, Wheeler and the French did not resign as Directors of ERC. THey neglected their legal responsibilities by not attending board meetings. They answer to ERC shareholders as ERC board members. The shareholders are the 6 Unions plus the LNR.

independent directors dont answer to anyone. they are supposed to be independent. they cannot be removed except for fraud, and only at biannual elections or whatever their frequency is.

you do come up with some wierd stuff.

no-one ever claimed they resigned either.

and there are no legal responsibilities to attend board meetings. they aren't high court judges dispensing the law.

go arrest the two SRU directors who didnt show up for yesterday's ERC Board meeting if that is the case.

From the Office of Corporate Law Enforcement:

A company director stands in a special
relationship to the company of which they
are an officer. This special position is known
as a ‘fiduciary position’ and the director is
known as a ‘fiduciary’. A fiduciary is required
to act in a manner which is legally becoming
of their office and which places the interests
of the company ahead of their own. Perhaps
somewhat surprisingly to many, a director’s
duties are usually owed in the first instance to
the company and not to the members, creditors
or employees of the company.

http://www.odce.ie/Portals/0/Documents/Company%20law%20and%20you/Companies%20Directors%20etc/Responsibilities/1.1%20Company_Directors.pdf

The Scottish blokes made their excuses and have not actually gone out of their way to harm the company which they are Directors of.


Edit: Interesting with regard to the BT/Sky contract ... Wheeler needed to speak up about that ....

Duty of Disclosure
■where a director has in any way an interest
in a contract or proposed contract with the
company, they are required to declare the
nature of that interest at a meeting of the
directors of the company
. For the purposes of this requirement, a general notice given
to the other directors is deemed to be a
sufficient declaration of that interest

yet more obfuscating posts.

the independent director has a responsibility to do what HE OR SHE thinks is in the best interests of the company. not what you, some lawyer, or the CEO says is in the best interests of the company. and for the record, the CEO and executive office answer to the Board. always and everywhere. they are absolutely NOT there to rubber stamp things.

if it were 100% obvious what that "best interests of the company" was, there would be no need for directors at all, never mind directors with relevant and broad experience, hey sin e?

Disclosure Duty. Neither Wheeler nor PRL were party to any contract or proposed contract with ERC. therefore absolutely no need for disclosure. key words are "with the company"

quinsforever wrote:yet more obfuscating posts.

the independent director has a responsibility to do what HE OR SHE thinks is in the best interests of the company. not what you, some lawyer, or the CEO says is in the best interests of the company. and for the record, the CEO and executive office answer to the Board. always and everywhere. they are absolutely NOT there to rubber stamp things.

if it were 100% obvious what that "best interests of the company" was, there would be no need for directors at all, never mind directors with relevant and broad experience, hey sin e?

Disclosure Duty. Neither Wheeler nor PRL were party to any contract or proposed contract with ERC. therefore absolutely no need for disclosure. key words are "with the company"

There is no such thing as an independent director. What is he independent of? What is he doing there in the first place?

You may have an independent Chair, but he still isn't an independent Director. His responsibilities are always to the shareholders (in this case the 6 Unions + LNR).

I'm gonna work overtime. I'm gonna save up as much money as I can. I'm gonna put myself through law school, where I'll work my a$$ off. I'm gonna pass all my exams.

And then I'm gonna join this discussion.

 yeah, I love watching the Wall Street part of this debate....


Quins is Gordon Gekko.  Sin is his ultra fast laptop.

Feckless Rogue wrote:I'm gonna work overtime. I'm gonna save up as much money as I can. I'm gonna put myself through law school, where I'll work my a$$ off. I'm gonna pass all my exams.

And then I'm gonna join this discussion.

trust me, no qualifications required. fingers and a keyboard will do it.

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:yet more obfuscating posts.

the independent director has a responsibility to do what HE OR SHE thinks is in the best interests of the company. not what you, some lawyer, or the CEO says is in the best interests of the company. and for the record, the CEO and executive office answer to the Board. always and everywhere. they are absolutely NOT there to rubber stamp things.

if it were 100% obvious what that "best interests of the company" was, there would be no need for directors at all, never mind directors with relevant and broad experience, hey sin e?

Disclosure Duty. Neither Wheeler nor PRL were party to any contract or proposed contract with ERC. therefore absolutely no need for disclosure. key words are "with the company"

There is no such thing as an independent director. What is he independent of? What is he doing there in the first place?

You may have an independent Chair, but he still isn't an independent Director. His responsibilities are always to the shareholders (in this case the 6 Unions + LNR).

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

SecretFly wrote: yeah, I love watching the Wall Street part of this debate....


Quins is Gordon Gekko.  Sin is his ultra fast laptop.

i prefer to imagine sin e as an incorrigible, recalcitrant researcher

quinsforever wrote:yet more obfuscating posts.

the independent director has a responsibility to do what HE OR SHE thinks is in the best interests of the company. not what you, some lawyer, or the CEO says is in the best interests of the company. and for the record, the CEO and executive office answer to the Board. always and everywhere. they are absolutely NOT there to rubber stamp things.

if it were 100% obvious what that "best interests of the company" was, there would be no need for directors at all, never mind directors with relevant and broad experience, hey sin e?

Disclosure Duty. Neither Wheeler nor PRL were party to any contract or proposed contract with ERC. therefore absolutely no need for disclosure. key words are "with the company"

Below is defined the role of independent director:

Role of Independent Directors
An independent director is very often a figurehead who does not get involved in the day-to-day running of the company. Such a director is appointed to the board for a number of reasons. It could be as simple a reason as to make up the total numbers of the board. It could be for the purposes of giving the company more credence by appointing persons with standing in society. This is a common occurrence in Singapore and Malaysia. It could also be because a company feels obligated to confer upon a particular person the title of directorship.

Independent directors are thought to bring with them a number of advantages, including independence in their views and the ability to bring an outside perspective into the board meetings. Further, as their primary function is to comment on corporate strategy and to direct general policy and overall supervision of the company, they can help to provide effective leadership. Independent directors also aid in the balancing of the interests of the shareholders, employees and creditors. This balancing role is particularly important in situations where conflicts arise between the interests of the executive directors and the shareholders, for example, in a management buy out scenario. The presence of independent directors serves in bringing about impartiality in the board as a whole. Such impartiality effectively means that considered advice would be provided and developed for the purposes of steering the company strategy as a whole by the board of directors. It is a fact that whilst independent impartial advice can also come from the professional advisers appointed by the board, including financial and legal advisers, however, the independent director’s role goes further. He is, for one, able to directly contribute and possibly shape the deliberations of the board.

Independent directors also play a crucial supervisory function. It is thus that from a corporate governance perspective, independent directors are required to sit on a number of watch-dog committees, including the audit committee, the nominating committee and the remuneration committee. Given the position they occupy, they are also well placed to monitor the performance of the board as a whole. Where the board’s performance is found to be lacking, the independent directors can provide requisite reports to the shareholders to ensure that suitable remedies are taken. On balance, independent directors aid in the strengthening of the leadership qualities of the board.

(The writer is author of Corporate Governance Compliance, a book published in 2003 by LexisNexis.)

Who on the ERC board of directors would fit this role?

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote: yeah, I love watching the Wall Street part of this debate....


Quins is Gordon Gekko.  Sin is his ultra fast laptop.

i prefer to imagine sin e as an incorrigible, recalcitrant researcher

He's a quicker search engine than Google though... somebody should get a patent on him or IBM will steal his algorithm

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:yet more obfuscating posts.

the independent director has a responsibility to do what HE OR SHE thinks is in the best interests of the company. not what you, some lawyer, or the CEO says is in the best interests of the company. and for the record, the CEO and executive office answer to the Board. always and everywhere. they are absolutely NOT there to rubber stamp things.

if it were 100% obvious what that "best interests of the company" was, there would be no need for directors at all, never mind directors with relevant and broad experience, hey sin e?

Disclosure Duty. Neither Wheeler nor PRL were party to any contract or proposed contract with ERC. therefore absolutely no need for disclosure. key words are "with the company"

There is no such thing as an independent director. What is he independent of? What is he doing there in the first place?

You may have an independent Chair, but he still isn't an independent Director. His responsibilities are always to the shareholders (in this case the 6 Unions + LNR).

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

You should have read the small print!

“no director qualifies as ‘independent’ unless the board of directors affirmatively determines that the director has ‘no material relationship’ with the listed company, either directly or as a partner, shareholder or officer of an organization that has a relationship with the company.”[5]

As a director of the PRL, that rules Wheeler out.

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote: yeah, I love watching the Wall Street part of this debate....


Quins is Gordon Gekko.  Sin is his ultra fast laptop.

i prefer to imagine sin e as an incorrigible, recalcitrant researcher

He's a quicker search engine than Google though... somebody should get a patent on him or IBM will steal his algorithm

Well, its better than waffling on and chancing your arm.

Just for the record, I was on the board of a sporting organisation so I would be well up on the kind of responsibility a director has.

Sin é wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote: yeah, I love watching the Wall Street part of this debate....


Quins is Gordon Gekko.  Sin is his ultra fast laptop.

i prefer to imagine sin e as an incorrigible, recalcitrant researcher

He's a quicker search engine than Google though... somebody should get a patent on him or IBM will steal his algorithm

Well, its better than waffling on and chancing your arm.

Just for the record, I was on the board of a sporting organisation so I would be well up on the kind of responsibility a director has.

My waffle algorithm though is protected by a patent.

No, you do fantastic research work Sin, and pretty damn fast too.  Some of us have fun with how detailed you can get but I'm impressed.... you know how to find an incriminating bit of info.  You certainly are a dab hand at that.

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:yet more obfuscating posts.

the independent director has a responsibility to do what HE OR SHE thinks is in the best interests of the company. not what you, some lawyer, or the CEO says is in the best interests of the company. and for the record, the CEO and executive office answer to the Board. always and everywhere. they are absolutely NOT there to rubber stamp things.

if it were 100% obvious what that "best interests of the company" was, there would be no need for directors at all, never mind directors with relevant and broad experience, hey sin e?

Disclosure Duty. Neither Wheeler nor PRL were party to any contract or proposed contract with ERC. therefore absolutely no need for disclosure. key words are "with the company"

There is no such thing as an independent director. What is he independent of? What is he doing there in the first place?

You may have an independent Chair, but he still isn't an independent Director. His responsibilities are always to the shareholders (in this case the 6 Unions + LNR).

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

You should have read the small print!

“no director qualifies as ‘independent’ unless the board of directors affirmatively determines that the director has ‘no material relationship’ with the listed company, either directly or as a partner, shareholder or officer of an organization that has a relationship with the company.”[5]

As a director of the PRL, that rules Wheeler out.

fair cop guvnor.

but my general point was that directors are there to bring to bear their different perspectives or experience or interests that they represent. they are not there simply to agree with what the CEO (Mcgrath) or Chairman (Lux) tell them to do. otherwise why have directors at all?

 to you sin e for the fact that both of us do in fact read the small print of each others posts and linkls

Indeed and we are all the wiser for it

SecretFly wrote:

Sin é wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote: yeah, I love watching the Wall Street part of this debate....


Quins is Gordon Gekko.  Sin is his ultra fast laptop.

i prefer to imagine sin e as an incorrigible, recalcitrant researcher

He's a quicker search engine than Google though... somebody should get a patent on him or IBM will steal his algorithm

Well, its better than waffling on and chancing your arm.

Just for the record, I was on the board of a sporting organisation so I would be well up on the kind of responsibility a director has.

My waffle algorithm though is protected by a patent.

No, you do fantastic research work Sin, and pretty damn fast too.  Some of us have fun with how detailed you can get but I'm impressed.... you know how to find an incriminating bit of info.  You certainly are a dab hand at that.

Na, you're just sloppy   

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:yet more obfuscating posts.

the independent director has a responsibility to do what HE OR SHE thinks is in the best interests of the company. not what you, some lawyer, or the CEO says is in the best interests of the company. and for the record, the CEO and executive office answer to the Board. always and everywhere. they are absolutely NOT there to rubber stamp things.

if it were 100% obvious what that "best interests of the company" was, there would be no need for directors at all, never mind directors with relevant and broad experience, hey sin e?

Disclosure Duty. Neither Wheeler nor PRL were party to any contract or proposed contract with ERC. therefore absolutely no need for disclosure. key words are "with the company"

There is no such thing as an independent director. What is he independent of? What is he doing there in the first place?

You may have an independent Chair, but he still isn't an independent Director. His responsibilities are always to the shareholders (in this case the 6 Unions + LNR).

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

You should have read the small print!

“no director qualifies as ‘independent’ unless the board of directors affirmatively determines that the director has ‘no material relationship’ with the listed company, either directly or as a partner, shareholder or officer of an organization that has a relationship with the company.”[5]

As a director of the PRL, that rules Wheeler out.

fair cop guvnor.

but my general point was that directors are there to bring to bear their different perspectives or experience or interests that they represent. they are not there simply to agree with what the CEO (Mcgrath) or Chairman (Lux) tell them to do. otherwise why have directors at all?

Of course they are there to put their point of view in this instance, but they have no right to throw their toys out of the pram when the majority don't agree with them.

Lux is actually the only independent person on that board. McGrath just does what the Board directs him to do.

It fascinates me how the clubs could ever consider that Peter Wheeler would have been a suitable (as in independent) chair.

Google search page.  I read it and I thought...hmmmm -

"The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practising sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play." –Olympic Charter

SecretFly wrote:Google search page.  I read it and I thought...hmmmm -

"The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practising sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play." –Olympic Charter

You are talking about the Winter Olympics in the Soviet Union?

Yeah...but it has universal connotations about inclusivity and fairness

Oops..PS...nope...the Soviet Union is no more...and Brezhnev is dead.

SecretFly wrote:Yeah...but it has universal connotations about inclusivity and fairness

Oops..PS...nope...the Soviet Union is no more...and Brezhnev is dead.

What?  It is no more?  
We know they did some weird experiments back in the day.  Brezhnev's mind in the body of a guy who acts like a scrum half?  Wrestling (sedated) bears, taming a (sedated) tiger, competing in judo against (sedated) opponents, and so on, for the cameras?????  Gawd, the good old days are coming back.

Anyone know anything more about the witholding of monies? http://www.espn.co.uk/heineken-cup-2013-14/rugby/story/213647.html

Seems really really odd to me - why are they doing this?

Don't know how you missed all that TJ.

ERC Board met last week where they decided to withhold payment until their next board meeting (19 Feb I think), so that they can check out their legal responsibilities if there is no Heineken Cup next season.

It should be noted that Peter Wheeler/Leicester Tigers/PRL voted to do this at the Board meeting (as did the French club reps). It was a unaminous Board decision to do this.

From what I can see/read, it all down to how the funds are distributed - they need to be approved by the Board before any payments are made.

i think its fairly straightforwards. only the RRW seem to be whining about it in their media battle with WRU for hearts and minds.

ERC is not going to hang onto all the monies, as what would be the point? at the moment the french, irish, italian and scots are all having distributions delayed too.

But why? And the PRL are threatening to sue? Just seems like putting out a fire with petrol

All board members agreed except for one (the seat vacated by RRW and not refilled).

The PRL haven't threatened to sue (that I have seen). They have mused over whether it is a breach of contract (supposedly).

Also the reasons for doing are speculated as due to winding up costs but that's not been confirmed. Just that it is on legal advice.

I think

ANy progress lads?

The PRL are making threats in the link I posted.

Premiership Rugby (PRL) is seeking legal advice after the Heineken Cup organisers withheld tournament appearance payments.

ta for the explanations tho chaps

Treviso are apparently out of the pro 12, which could well be the beginning of the end for the pro 12.

English and French will get what they wanted, ie destroying the pro 12 who started to threaten their so called better leagues.

TJ wrote:The PRL are making threats in the link I posted.

Premiership Rugby (PRL) is seeking legal advice after the Heineken Cup organisers withheld tournament appearance payments.

ta for the explanations tho chaps

That's not a threat. Depending on where that comes from (did you write it yourself, from a newspaper, direct quote from PRL statement) means it lies somewhere between; made up nonsense and someone seeking legal advice. That legal advice might well be "yep, they can do that no probs". It might be "sue, sue them for all they're worth but if we lose you cover all legal fees"

Hardly a threat. Certainly no more of a threat than the ERC seeking legal advice on keeping the money. Everyone seeks legal advice at the drop of a hat on these things.

VinceWLB wrote:Treviso are apparently out of the pro 12, which could well be the beginning of the end for the pro 12.

English and French will get what they wanted, ie destroying the pro 12 who started to threaten their so called better leagues.

Says who?

That comes from the link on ESPN which I asssume is direct from the PRL

HammerofThunor wrote:
Says who?

They aren't going to say it but if the pro 12 does collapse, they will be the happiest, trust me on that.

Benetton Rugby, alla luce della situazione internazionale che vede ulteriormente protrarre le decisioni, ed in mancanza di certezze sulle future forme organizzative, sulla partecipazione e sui regolamenti relativi al Campionato RaboDirect PRO12, ritiene concluso - al suo naturale termine (30/06/2014) - l’impegno assunto il 23/10/2009 di partecipare al predetto Campionato .

Benetton Rugby, sin d’ora si dichiara disponibile a considerare, ed eventualmente partecipare, ad ogni futuro bando e/o gara che la F.I.R. intendesse promuovere, una volta che saranno state definite le finalità della partecipazione al Campionato RaboDirect PRO12, i rispettivi ruoli, gli impegni richiesti ed i regolamenti.

Translate
Benetton Rugby, in the light of the international situation, which can be seen further prolong the decisions, and in lack of certainty about future organizational forms, on the participation and on the regulations for the Championship RaboDirect PRO12, considers concluded - to its natural term (30 /06/2014 ) - the commitment the 23/10/10/2009 /10/2009 to participate in the said Championship .

Benetton Rugby, now he is willing to consider, and possibly participate in, for every future tender and/or race that the F. I.R. intend to promote, once that have been defining the purpose of participation in the Championship RaboDirect PRO12, the respective roles, the necessary commitments and regulations.

--------

It sound like to me that they will do what the FIR tell them to do.

VinceWLB wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:
Says who?

They aren't going to say it but if the pro 12 does collapse, they will be the happiest, trust me on that.

Sorry I don't understand. You said Treviso are out of the Pro12. Now you're saying they'd just be happy if it collapses. Do you mean completely or just the Italian involvement. And when you say "trust me", do you mean you've made this up or know a guy who knows a guy...or actually have a credible source of information.

VinceWLB wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:
Says who?

They aren't going to say it but if the pro 12 does collapse, they will be the happiest, trust me on that.

Why will be the happiest? The FFR offered them 2 spots in the PRO D2 and they took the Rabo option.

Sin é wrote:Benetton Rugby, alla luce della situazione internazionale che vede ulteriormente protrarre le decisioni, ed in mancanza di certezze sulle future forme organizzative, sulla partecipazione e sui regolamenti relativi al Campionato RaboDirect PRO12, ritiene concluso - al suo naturale termine (30/06/2014) - l’impegno assunto il 23/10/2009 di partecipare al predetto Campionato .

Benetton Rugby, sin d’ora si dichiara disponibile a considerare, ed eventualmente partecipare, ad ogni futuro bando e/o gara che la F.I.R. intendesse promuovere, una volta che saranno state definite le finalità della partecipazione al Campionato RaboDirect PRO12, i rispettivi ruoli, gli impegni richiesti ed i regolamenti.

Translate
Benetton Rugby, in the light of the international situation, which can be seen further prolong the decisions, and in lack of certainty about future organizational forms, on the participation and on the regulations for the Championship RaboDirect PRO12, considers concluded - to its natural term (30 /06/2014 ) - the commitment the 23/10/10/2009 /10/2009 to participate in the said Championship .

Benetton Rugby, now he is willing to consider, and possibly participate in, for every future tender and/or race that the F. I.R. intend to promote, once that have been defining the purpose of participation in the Championship RaboDirect PRO12, the respective roles, the necessary commitments and regulations.

--------

It sound like to me that they will do what the FIR tell them to do.

From that translation (google?)? It doesn't make any sense to me, one way or the other.

HammerofThunor wrote:

VinceWLB wrote:Treviso are apparently out of the pro 12, which could well be the beginning of the end for the pro 12.

English and French will get what they wanted, ie destroying the pro 12 who started to threaten their so called better leagues.

Says who?

Hammer a poster on our website (Ospreys)also said the same thing and he said it was on the news earlier today.

HammerofThunor wrote:
Sorry I don't understand. You said Treviso are out of the Pro12. Now you're saying they'd just be happy if it collapses. Do you mean completely or just the Italian involvement. And when you say "trust me", do you mean you've made this up or know a guy who knows a guy...or actually have a credible source of information.

I was talking about the French and English, who are at the origin of this european fiasco.

Don't know about the English but in France where i live they see the pro 12 as a developpment league without much pressure, teams can rotate and generate talents a bit like super rugby, they certainly don't like it.

I'm interpreting that they say their contract is finished at the end of this season with the Pro12 (started in 2009).

Benetton Rugby are willing to participate in any future comp. that FIR intend to promote, once the rules, regs and funds are clarified.

(Background to this is that FIR don't want to subsidise Treviso and Treviso want them to).

VinceWLB wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:
Sorry I don't understand. You said Treviso are out of the Pro12. Now you're saying they'd just be happy if it collapses. Do you mean completely or just the Italian involvement. And when you say "trust me", do you mean you've made this up or know a guy who knows a guy...or actually have a credible source of information.

I was talking about the French and English, who are at the origin of this european fiasco.

Don't know about the English but in France where i live they see the pro 12 as a developpment league without much pressure, teams can rotate and generate talents a bit like super rugby, they certainly don't like it.

Well, the view of the Top 14 over here is that its an awful slog where teams don't bother to compete away from home.

Does it matter what we think of each others leagues?

Sin é wrote:

VinceWLB wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:
Sorry I don't understand. You said Treviso are out of the Pro12. Now you're saying they'd just be happy if it collapses. Do you mean completely or just the Italian involvement. And when you say "trust me", do you mean you've made this up or know a guy who knows a guy...or actually have a credible source of information.

I was talking about the French and English, who are at the origin of this european fiasco.

Don't know about the English but in France where i live they see the pro 12 as a developpment league without much pressure, teams can rotate and generate talents a bit like super rugby, they certainly don't like it.

Well, the view of the Top 14 over here is that its an awful slog where teams don't bother to compete away from home.

Does it matter what we think of each others leagues?

Unfortunately it seems to matter, otherwise we wouldn't be in all this mess...

Sin é wrote:
Well, the view of the Top 14 over here is that its an awful slog where teams don't bother to compete away from home.

Does it matter what we think of each others leagues?

and many of us see the AP as an attritional league where players get flogged into the ground, no one can risk much and there is no room to develop a team

We can all pick faults in other leagues structures