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.

He obviously has a vision for how he believes club rugby should be run and whilst his ideas may resonate with many of the other club owners I'm sure that they won't want to miss out on the Euro fun for long if at all. Maybe Wray's last article was him underlining his rationale before shuffling off into the wings.

TJ, I like the way you say the PRL would be 'stupid' enough to be held to their BT contract but then also accuse them of being unwilling to compromise. Either they're 'stupid' and the union compromise was nothing but propaganda or they can get out of the BT deal and the key factor is governance. Which is it?

Wray has one vote out of 12 (or is it 13?). That's it. Not sure if it has to be unanimous or not.

The stupidity is signing a binding contract they cannot deliver or compromise on. If that is actually true. If its not true its stupid to claim it is and to state they will never play in anything organised byu the ERC. Well no euro rugby for the PRL teams unless they compromise on this.

I think control is the real sticking point. the contractual stuff is a smokescreen but as we do not know what is in the BT contract this is merely surmise

Do we know what's in the Sky contract?

HammerofThunor wrote:Do we know what's in the Sky contract?

I believe its public knowledge. certainly all the unions know.

TJ wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Do we know what's in the Sky contract?

I believe its public knowledge.  certainly all the unions know.

Public knowledge? Where did you get info from? I'm not talking about the unions, I'm talking about 'us' as 'we're' the ones talking Poopie about what is in the contracts. Do we even know what the Sky contract was for? Was it just a continuation of the previous competitions? Was it for any ERC competition? Was it for any Euro comp involving those unions? Was it for a fixed competition or a 'potential' competition?

The fact the press release was specifically for the HEC and ACC AND the fact the unions said Sky was 'still on board' (meaning they might not have been) suggests it's not clear.

We don't know what has been signed by any party so any comments based not this sort of thing is made up (mine included).

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=289632&d=1390173712

Has this been posted? BT perhaps offering PRL a way out and renouncing claims on European rugby if the RFU guarantee they will be part of a tender process for the English internationals.

Not that I'm a fan of BT but being part of a tender process is fair enough and to be honest if both parties had thought up that initially before signing bloody tv contracts we might not be in the mess we are now

That doesn't say whether it's based on anything or just speculation (that I can see).

on the Munster site

http://www.rte.ie/radio/utils/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=9:20508671:0::
Lenihan is at 00:32:40

In next two to three days "ERC will confirm a 20 team tournament" without the English clubs.

Now Lenihan isn't the brightest tool in the box but interesting to hear neverrtheless

geoff998rugby wrote:on the Munster site

http://www.rte.ie/radio/utils/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=9:20508671:0::
Lenihan is at 00:32:40

In next two to three days "ERC will confirm a 20 team tournament" without the English clubs.

Now Lenihan isn't the brightest tool in the box but interesting to hear neverrtheless

I've never heard that comment about Lenihan before. Seems to be fairly well connected in rugby if nothing else as a former Lions Team Manager and his exploits with Ireland.

JP Lux was in Thomond yesterday for the Heineken Cup call, so I'd imagine Lenihan would get to talk to him.

Comes across as a nice amiable bloke but some of his comments are pretty daft to be honest.
He is not adverse to dropping a few clangers in commentary.

Figures crossed it'll all signed off and sorted. A nice long 8 year deal, with no reveiw period or option to get out until the end.

Sin é wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:on the Munster site

http://www.rte.ie/radio/utils/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=9:20508671:0::
Lenihan is at 00:32:40

In next two to three days "ERC will confirm a 20 team tournament" without the English clubs.

Now Lenihan isn't the brightest tool in the box but interesting to hear neverrtheless

I've never heard that comment about Lenihan before. Seems to be fairly well connected in rugby if nothing else as a former Lions Team Manager and his exploits with Ireland.

JP Lux was in Thomond yesterday for the Heineken Cup call, so I'd imagine Lenihan would get to talk to him.

so Roger Lewis, yday, saying there is a 6N meeting on tuesday with everything on the table, was lying?

What has Six Nations Meeting to do with Heineken Cup? Are the same people involved. What would Wheeler be doing at a Six Nations Meeting. Lux, the chairman of the ERC won't be at that meeting either.

Sin é wrote:What has Six Nations Meeting to do with Heineken Cup? Are the same people involved. What would Wheeler be doing at a Six Nations Meeting. Lux, the chairman of the ERC won't be at that meeting either.

he said it was a meeting of the 6N involved in the european club competition.

go watch the bbc scrum v programme if you dont believe me.

but try not to deliberately misquote me.

quinsforever wrote:

Sin é wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:on the Munster site

http://www.rte.ie/radio/utils/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=9:20508671:0::
Lenihan is at 00:32:40

In next two to three days "ERC will confirm a 20 team tournament" without the English clubs.

Now Lenihan isn't the brightest tool in the box but interesting to hear neverrtheless

I've never heard that comment about Lenihan before. Seems to be fairly well connected in rugby if nothing else as a former Lions Team Manager and his exploits with Ireland.

JP Lux was in Thomond yesterday for the Heineken Cup call, so I'd imagine Lenihan would get to talk to him.

so Roger Lewis, yday, saying there is a 6N meeting on tuesday with everything on the table, was lying?

Well........................ "everything on the table" has proven itself to be a pretty dubious tag line for "no progress again" for a long time now

although when rog lewis usually refers to everything on the table what he is actually visualising is the regions bent over it....  

Iwould imagine everything on the table is a lie. there is nothing much left to bnegotiate. Looks like no one will budge - certainly I do not expect any of the 5N to budge any furtehr and I don't see the PRL moving at all they haven't so far. So unless BT want a resolution as hinted at above AND the PRL give up their demands then we continue as is. A 20 team European cup without the english.

Standulstermen wrote:http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=289632&d=1390173712

The full article was in the Times, written by Mark Souster whio is their main rugby correspondent. As it cannot be accessed free yer tiz in full






Heineken Cup dispute could be settled if BT agrees it’s good to talk
On Saturday, Nigel Wray, the owner of Saracens, spoke about sport having increasingly to dance to television’s tune and that whatever broadcasters wanted in future they would probably get. He could see nothing wrong with that; with market forces deciding the winners and losers.

Wray was specifically referring to the dispute over the Heineken Cup and what the landscape may eventually look like. Rugby is beginning to become “sexy” as the astronomical £70 million rights for the Top 14 illustrate. You can understand owners who have ploughed in millions, wanting to recoup at least some of their investment. But with riches comes responsibility. This is not a game in which any one vested interest should be allowed to dictate something which has such far-reaching ramifications.

Over the weekend the intriguing prospect emerged of TV and specifically the relationship between BT Sport and Sky holding the key to a resolution to the present ugly state of affairs. So does the RFU, whose chief executive, Ian Ritchie, ploughs on indefatigably with his shuttle diplomacy which everyone hopes might pay off by the time the Six Nations meet tomorrow.

This is how it could work. PRL, the umbrella body for the 12 Aviva Premiership clubs, has said its hands are tied in every way by its contract with BT Sport and that it cannot walk away from that. Therefore, however much it may want to negotiate or compromise it cannot. For them it is BT. For everyone else it is Sky. But what if BT Sport indicated it was willing to give way? That possibility is not as far fetched as it may seem. One source close to negotiations also told The Times that could happen .

Suddenly there is light. As always there would be a price to pay, but we will come to that later. In the short term it would enable the RFU to do a deal with PRL and deliver the clubs into the proposed new 20-team tournament to be run under the aegis of the Six Nations and with the participants calling the commercial and financial shots which would be considerably higher than those now available. Collective bargaining is always a far stronger position from which to negotiate.

Contracts for a five-nation tournament were issued last week, with an open invitation for England to jump in if and when they feel ready. Everyone knows the extra value England bring, even if only two clubs, Saracens and Leicester, made it to the Heineken Cup quarter-finals this season.

The lack of success partly explains the decision to raise the salary cap by £500,000 to enable clubs to compete more strongly with bigger squads.

A move by BT would open the door to a neat solution, which honours the TV contract for Europe with Sky and gives sponsors and fans and everyone a tournament they all want. It would also give Stuart Lancaster a high-level competition in which his players can participate in during World Cup year.

So what would BT Sport want in return? This is where it gets interesting. This year is the last of Sky’s contract to broadcast England’s autumn internationals. The next deal starting in 2016 — 2015 being World Cup year — will soon be up for negotiation. At the very least BT Sport would want a guarantee to be involved in that process. And with its vast war chest, who is to say it would not win them? We have seen how far they are prepared to dig for the Champions League football. Rugby has been a huge hit for BT, which is anxious to expand its portfolio. By playing the long game, and perhaps ceding the ground in the short term, it could land a bigger prize and be regarded as the saviours of European rugby. Not a bad place for it to be in. The next few days are likely to be very interesting.

No surprise that is in the Times. Why can't Sky give up exclusivity?

5 Nations are already signed up to Sky aren't they? And nobody was particularly happy with the PRL's individual selling of games of a cross border competition and bundling them up with their League games and not giving anyone the details of the contract. The PRL were trying to line their pockets. BT were trying to swipe European rugby from Sky without an open bidding war. It stank from the beginning. It was a mistake. And it would be good if they could back out of it.

The article suggests that BT wouldn't cede this ground out of the kindness of their hearts. They'd want a price. And test rugby is the biggest money spinner. I'd say they're probably worried about falling out with the other rugby nations too. I saw they've recently been talking about sponsoring Irish teams and saying they want a good relationship with all the rugby nations.

The article suggests that BT would want to, at least, be involved in the negotiations for the new RFU TV contract. That reads to me like normally Sky just gets renewed, which in turn means it's effectively a closed shop (give us a decent price and we'll renew). Perhaps it's the same with Europe, maybe that was their only way it. Which is itself pretty stinking. ERC/RFU in cozy with the Murdoch empire, sitting scratching each others' back.

All speculation of course but that's what we do damn it!

But it is good to know the BT dropping out is as good as made up.

Feckless Rogue wrote:5 Nations are already signed up to Sky aren't they? And nobody was particularly happy with the PRL's individual selling of games of a cross border competition and bundling them up with their League games and not giving anyone the details of the contract. The PRL were trying to line their pockets. BT were trying to swipe European rugby from Sky without an open bidding war. It stank from the beginning. It was a mistake. And it would be good if they could back out of it.

The article suggests that BT wouldn't cede this ground out of the kindness of their hearts. They'd want a price. And test rugby is the biggest money spinner. I'd say they're probably worried about falling out with the other rugby nations too. I saw they've recently been talking about sponsoring Irish teams and saying they want a good relationship with all the rugby nations.

A bit rich to criticise BT for trying to avoid a bidding war with Sky when Sky were awarded the Contract with ERC without a tender process.

Exiledinborders wrote:

Feckless Rogue wrote:5 Nations are already signed up to Sky aren't they? And nobody was particularly happy with the PRL's individual selling of games of a cross border competition and bundling them up with their League games and not giving anyone the details of the contract. The PRL were trying to line their pockets. BT were trying to swipe European rugby from Sky without an open bidding war. It stank from the beginning. It was a mistake. And it would be good if they could back out of it.

The article suggests that BT wouldn't cede this ground out of the kindness of their hearts. They'd want a price. And test rugby is the biggest money spinner. I'd say they're probably worried about falling out with the other rugby nations too. I saw they've recently been talking about sponsoring Irish teams and saying they want a good relationship with all the rugby nations.

A bit rich to criticise BT for trying to avoid a bidding war with Sky when Sky were awarded the Contract with ERC without a tender process.

Are you sure about that? It seems very obvious to me that BT had done a deal with the PRL which would have prohibited them from tendering for the ERC organised competition anyway.

BT declined to tender for the Pro 12 for some reason, but now wants to sponsor all the teams (including the Irish ones even though they sold off most, if not all their interests in Ireland).

Wanting to sponsor the Irish teams seems to suggest that they think that the Irish teams attract a lot of interest in the UK.

Sin é wrote:

Wanting to sponsor the Irish teams seems to suggest that they think that the Irish teams attract a lot of interest in the UK.

BT is right - They do. Competitors for hearts and minds in the UK itself and across Europe. Let's not forget that more people from more European countries watch HEC than just those peoples in the participating ones. People in Holland, Germany, Spain etc watch it.  It's no secret why AP sides (and indeed Top14 sides) would want Irish interests in any Euro contest watered down. Hearts and minds war.  

Competitors in a pan Euro sponsorship arena (and increasingly in the area of player buying) are always going to be competitors.  That's just the truth of it that nobody wants to admit.  We're all enemies (in sporting terms of course! ).  There is nobody in official rugby England looking out for the welfare of Irish or Welsh teams.... nor would we expect them to.  There is nobody in French rugby looking out for the welfare of English or Scottish teams.... nor would we expect them to

It's dog eat dog.  PRL admit that.  It's business - ruthless business based on exclusive self interest.  PRL admit that.  I just wish their apologists would to.  So it's every man for himself - the only difference is that more of the single entitiy self-interest parties believe in one way out of the impasse, whilst PRL only have the maybe/maybe not support of the Welsh regions.

broadlandboy wrote:No surprise that is in the Times. Why can't Sky give up exclusivity?

Because they more than likely pay a premium for being exclusive.

Except the BT deal for just the PRL games seems to be nearly as much as Sky for all games

broadlandboy wrote:Except the BT deal for just the PRL games seems to be nearly as much as Sky for all games

You can't enter a bidding war if you're not invited.  PRL seem to like BT because BT rushed in with the proverbial 'offer you couldn't refuse'.  I don't think they even wanted to ask SKY would they be interested in meeting it or going higher.  

Nope, I think we all get the feeling BT/PRL is a marriage made in heaven for some not altogether clear reason........................ which might have a paper trail back to prospective investments made by people in private capacities.  
There seems to be an unbreakable bond of love there that might become clearer when someone in PRL actually says a clear word about the detail.... or some journalist looks up share buying habits in the last year or two.

So SKY weren't invited to bid for AP?  If they walked away easily, why did they?  They know value more than most.  Was AP as valuable as BT thought it was?  SKY ain't dumb in the subscription TV department - BT, though, are novices.

Anyway, SKY not invited to bid for AP.  BT not invited to bid for ERC's HEC/AMLIN?  Why?  People in the know knew BT had already been given the Euro 'deal' by someone (PRL) who had no right to start that collective non-bidding war for a European contest.

So nobody gets to bid for anything (domestic or European) because greed takes over - everywhere.  The HEC debacle is positively vampiric in the nature of the people circling it who salivate in the presence of the money on offer all over the place.  Wall Street?  Seasame Street in comparison to the rugby union people.

I cannot get over this statement that the PRL negotiated a contract with BT sport that prevents them from competing in the h cup as it now stands. It seems utterly idiotic that they could snooker themselves like that and I don't know that I believe it's true.

Intotouch wrote:I cannot get over this statement that the PRL negotiated a contract with BT sport that prevents them from competing in the h cup as it now stands. It seems utterly idiotic that they could snooker themselves like that and I don't know that I believe it's true.

Depends if it just stops them from competing in the actual HEC or whether it stops them competing in Europe at all (assuming others were on board of course). If it just stops them playing in the current HEC then what is the issue? They wanted change anyway. Perhaps they had made the decision that they would not, in any circumstances carry on with the current setup.

SecretFly wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Except the BT deal for just the PRL games seems to be nearly as much as Sky for all games

You can't enter a bidding war if you're not invited.  PRL seem to like BT because BT rushed in with the proverbial 'offer you couldn't refuse'.  I don't think they even wanted to ask SKY would they be interested in meeting it or going higher.  

Nope, I think we all get the feeling BT/PRL is a marriage made in heaven for some not altogether clear reason........................ which might have a paper trail back to prospective investments made by people in private capacities.  
There seems to be an unbreakable bond of love there that might become clearer when someone in PRL actually says a clear word about the detail.... or some journalist looks up share buying habits in the last year or two.

So SKY weren't invited to bid for AP?  If they walked away easily, why did they?  They know value more than most.  Was AP as valuable as BT thought it was?  SKY ain't dumb in the subscription TV department - BT, though, are novices.

Anyway, SKY not invited to bid for AP.  BT not invited to bid for ERC's HEC/AMLIN?  Why?  People in the know knew BT had already been given the Euro 'deal' by someone (PRL) who had no right to start that collective non-bidding war for a European contest.

So nobody gets to bid for anything (domestic or European) because greed takes over - everywhere.  The HEC debacle is positively vampiric in the nature of the people circling it who salivate in the presence of the money on offer all over the place.  Wall Street?  Seasame Street in comparison to the rugby union people.

How do you know Sky were not invited to bid for AP.

It could just be BT outbid Sky just like they did for the European wendyball cup.

grauniad article

HC solution in sight after marathon 6N meeting

A resolution to the long dispute over the future of the Heineken Cup is in sight after a meeting of the Six Nations committee in Heathrow on Monday turned back time three months.

The six unions returned to the position where they had been on 21 October, when a proposal for the running of the tournament to be assumed by the Six Nations committee from European Rugby Cup Ltd won unanimous backing, until the French Rugby Federation later demurred.

The FFR wanted the competition to be run by Fira – the organisation made up of the smaller unions in Europe – but after a meeting with the Rugby Football Union last week, has gone back to where it was in October having floated the idea of a competition without England for next season.

The English clubs and the four Welsh regions have said they will not take part in the European Cup from next season if it continues to be run by ERC. While one obstacle to their signing a new accord has been removed, two more remain.

The first is the desire of the clubs in England and France and the regions for commercial deals in Europe to be negotiated by the clubs rather than the unions. The Six Nations committee issued a short statement after Monday's meeting, which described the five-hour talks – Europe was one item on the agenda – as constructive, saying they all remained committed to finding a six-nation solution and reaffirming everyone's commitment to the International Rugby Board regulations.

Allowing clubs to drive the European Cup commercially would be within the IRB regulations but the second obstacle is the exclusive television rights negotiated separately by ERC and Premiership Rugby to Sky and BT Sport respectively.

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

The English and French clubs did suggest at one point last year that they would be prepared to guarantee the Rabo unions £20m if the proceeds were less than £60m, even appreciably so, but that was based on BT having the sole rights.

The French, English and Welsh unions will report back to their clubs and regions, who want the issue to be resolved by the end of the month but may have to be content with signs of progress.

interesting. it always struck me that the agreed new financial format would mean a loss of income for celtic nations if they stuck with their SKY deal. Which the article explicitly refers to.

is the most positive sounding statement yet.

i guess camou's backtracking won't please TJ, but i bet Camou was given no choice by the welsh and scots unions who said they would follow the money, and if the english clubs weren't involved, that meant they would jump ship completely to the RCC to lock in the money.

To be fair, the Grauniad, Telegraph and Times all report the same facts - that governance by the 6N committee was agreed, commercial control and tv still to be debated - but with different spins. The Times is most negative and reports it as a small step (but then they would, wouldn't they?). The Guardian, as we've seen, thinks a deal is very close. The Telegraph is somewhere in the middle.

My suspicion is that the Guardian's point about revenues is at best oversimplifying a complicated situation, and at worst is pure speculation, but there's an underlying grain of truth. The principle of sharing revenues 3 ways and the guarantee of no loss of revenue for the Celtic unions can only hold if there's alot more money to play with. From what we've heard, that was dependent on BT being part of the picture.

Anyway, looks like TJ may have gloated prematurely been wrong about a 5 union HEC being a done deal.

And Fly, I can't find the source but I am pretty sure that the PRL explained that they were some way along negotiating with Sky when BT came up with an offer that Sky couldn't or wouldn't match and they couldn't refuse.

Ah, the media spin. So many straws, and never a life jacket   

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

Exiledinborders wrote:
How do you know Sky were not invited to bid for AP.

It could just be BT outbid Sky just like they did for the European wendyball cup.

"So SKY weren't invited to bid for AP?"  Question not a statement.
"If they walked away easily, why did they?"  An acknowledgement that they might have been asked.

It's hard to know anything when PRL say a lot but describe in detail nothing.  But I did include the possibility that SKYy were indeed asked to bid.

Anyway, a big chunk of my comment is based on the supposition (that's what my comments are btw - suppositions... and we all use them here) - based on the supposition that SKY were inded asked to bid.  My question in that possible scenario was "why did they walk away?"  Given that they have more experience valuing potential in sport, why did they walk away - IF asked in the first place?  

When the 'solution' is eventually reached - people will begin to talk then - and certainly SKY or BT will be eager to get their stories out if they feel they need to about how it all went right or all went wrong.

It will be fascinating to see how close we (personally) were to the truth of the matter. I am increasingly beginning to think that some sort of joint TV deal will now emerge - well the optimist in me believes that anyway.

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

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

I said the 5 n euro cup was a done deal - as it is - and that the english were invited and given a take it or leave it option - which they were. Union governance is a part of what the 5N insist on - but they do not insist on this being the ERC Nothing new in this "news"

Its not gloating - I have said mean times the competition is devalued with out the english - but its not worth any price to have them in

i suspect boobie has finally dawned on the PRL they are out in the cold and they don't like it out there. - and note none of the pieces refer to the PRL only the RFU

Munchkin wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  

Fira was never on the agenda for next year - only the years afterwards. No one ever insisted on any particular organisation for next year - just that it must remain union run. there is nothing new here at all- just more spin from the PRL mouthpieces trying to make it seem that way.

Quins - don't be suckered in - use critical thinking to unpick the truth.

TJ wrote:Fira was never on the agenda for next year - only the years afterwards.  No one ever insisted on any particular organisation for next year - just that it must remain union run.  there is nothing new here at all- just more spin from the PRL mouthpieces trying to make it seem that way.

Quins - don't be suckered in - use critical thinking to unpick the truth.

Times PRL mouthpiece? Ha Ha

TJ wrote:Fira was never on the agenda for next year - only the years afterwards.  No one ever insisted on any particular organisation for next year - just that it must remain union run.  there is nothing new here at all- just more spin from the PRL mouthpieces trying to make it seem that way.

Quins - don't be suckered in - use critical thinking to unpick the truth.

I'm calling bovine faecal matter on your post, TJ. The Times is anything but a PRL mouthpiece, and even they agree that the French position has shifted materially.

Shame it hasn't significantly at all.  the 5N agreement was for a union run comp.  No insistence on any organisation but stating it currently was the ERC.  There was never an insistence on FIRA for next year.  Its was Gozes wish for a fira run comp after next year.  Even then it was not an insistance.
Edit - wrong french blighter

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

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

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

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

  

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

stub wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wrong again TJ. As I pointed out to you in the past, the 5 Union deal statement specifically said that it would be run by the current organisation AND that they would look at changes to the current organisation. For some reason you think that because they say that the organisation is currently called the ERC it makes the rest irrelevant.

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

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

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

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

  

Not sure I follow your logic, quins. Celtic Unions want English clubs involved, therefore, ERC has to go, with 6Ns to replace it. What has that got to do with FIRA? They could all have agreed to FIRA, as FIRA is not ERC.
The 6Ns committee is basically run by the same people who run ERC, bar PRL/LNR. A face saving exercise perhaps...