Union chiefs abdicating responsibility left, right and centre in anglo-welsh league "debate"

Comedy lack of cojones at the top of various unions and governing bodies. they are all hoping the other is going to put the kibbosh on any attempted anglo-welsh league.

wru chief lewis says the rfu won't allow it (avoiding the direct question on the scrumv panel of whether the wru will allow it)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/25801941

irb chief lapasset allegedly trying to put pressure on the rfu also not to approve it, rather than risking the irb's neck and coming out and saying no themselves

rfu saying nothing to anyone about it

how is this in any way inspiring, transparent or professional in the field of for-profit club rugby? is it any surprise that the welsh clubs are fed up of being treated like mushrooms?

What I find interesting is the view of some of the WRU - to some they appear to be out for themselves and to be malign - is this really so? Or are they just incompetent. I also find the actions of the regions owners inexplicable - biting the hand that feeds them. Mind you this is a view from an outsider who is not up to speed with the minutae of the situation. It does appear to be from where I sit tho that the structure is wrong and leads to the conflict.

Unfortunately they are basically mushrooms

I find all Unions incompetent.

quinsforever wrote:

rfu saying nothing to anyone about it

how is this in any way inspiring, transparent or professional...?

So RFU back on fence-sitting "we is neutral observers" duty? Their position has been very 'transparent' all the way through. Everyone is quite clear on their position    .............. "hmm, well if the hounds are hunting that way, that'a'ways we will go too. On the other hand, if the fox is off down that way, we might run with him for a while too."

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

rfu saying nothing to anyone about it

how is this in any way inspiring, transparent or professional...?

So RFU back on fence-sitting "we is neutral observers" duty?  Their position has been very 'transparent' all the way through.  Everyone is quite clear on their position    .............. "hmm, well if the hounds are hunting that way, that'a'ways we will go too.  On the other hand, if the fox is off down that way, we might run with him for a while too."

welcome back SF

I think the RFU are between a rock and a hard place and all thru these debates have actually been OK. Been honest brokers and a lot of the "silence" is because they don't go about shouting to the press. The IRFU and SRU have been quiet as well - for the same professional reasons

TJ wrote:What I find interesting is the view of some of the WRU - to some they appear to be out for themselves and to be malign - is this really so?  Or are they just incompetent.  I also find the actions of the regions owners inexplicable - biting the hand that feeds them.  Mind you this is a view from an outsider who is not up to speed with the minutae of the situation.  It does appear to be from where I sit tho that the structure is wrong and leads to the conflict.

The owners view is that (to use a terrible analogy) the WRU are like a farmer that feeds his animals just enough to keep them alive but weak enough that they can be killed easily. I'd be biting that hand as well. Remember this all kicked off again following the WRU boast about record turnover and profits and being the fastest growing union and the best managed union, etc but they give their professional teams less money than the SRU, IRFU and FIR give their teams, even though the WRU run the 4th international, supposedly for more money for the regions. I said at the time that that would be liable to urine of some regional bods and they decided to pull their money out.

The strucure is wrong and :cuss knows what the solution is. I can't help but think a new start is needed but one where the current sides aren't bent over and... They're stuck in a half way house at the moment.

But is there really any more money? if so where is it?

Scrumpy wrote:I find all Unions incompetent.

Unions have been running the show everyone want their hands on now since its inception (HEC)..they've also been running the 6N, that everyone allegedly loves so much (tradition and teary rememberances of the romance of it all, and all that).  Union also ran the Tri-Nations Championship and now the Rugby Championship.  They also run the Lions and the WC.

So three, four or five of the biggest rugby events are run by Unions.  And what do the clubs be running?  Two nice little domestic things called the AP and the Top14.  I think we all know who creates more bang per buck in rugby union terms.

But yes, clubs want to own something they didn't create  - and (according to most of them historically in England and France) never really wanted in the first place.  AP and Top14 League is much more important to players, coaches and fans afterall, wasn't that the propaganda for the last half decade or so?

HammerofThunor wrote:

TJ wrote:What I find interesting is the view of some of the WRU - to some they appear to be out for themselves and to be malign - is this really so?  Or are they just incompetent.  I also find the actions of the regions owners inexplicable - biting the hand that feeds them.  Mind you this is a view from an outsider who is not up to speed with the minutae of the situation.  It does appear to be from where I sit tho that the structure is wrong and leads to the conflict.

The owners view is that (to use a terrible analogy) the WRU are like a farmer that feeds his animals just enough to keep them alive but weak enough that they can be killed easily.

The Union's view is that if you're a fool, you'll get into the same cage as your pet tiger and feed it by hand.  And that might be a cosy loveable relationship for a year or even three, four or five...but eventually that tiger is going to pounce on an idiot who trusts too much;  bite him, let him bleed out and eat his entrails.  

So yes, if strength is power then let it be a fight for power based on respective strength.  But there is absolutely no obligation for rugby Unions to roll over and die just to placate stroppy owners who want it all, want it all, want it all, and want it now!

Is the RFU dead? They have more time then ever before with English players, they have more English players to choose from at the top level, there are more people in England playing rugby. They still run the discipline, control the refs, control the overall structure of the English game.

The PRL organise the TV deals and sponsorship for the league and jointly work on running professional rugby with the Players Association and the RFU.

Would it be better for the RFU if they had to organise the TV deal?

TJ wrote:But is there really any more money?  if so where is it?

in the scrum v show, roger lewis hilariously (to me anyway) said that there was "extra" money to be paid for central contracts, that wouldnt be a reduction of the monies paid to the regions currently. when pushed on where this "extra" money came from, he said they had some extra in inventory!!!! wtf! there is no such concept in accounting terms, so unless he's talking about it being under some kind of rainy-day mattress at millenium stadium, i have no idea what he is talking about.

the money paid for central contracts for 6 players, of lets say, £2m per annum, has to come from somewhere.

HammerofThunor wrote:Is the RFU dead? They have more time then ever before with English players, they have more English players to choose from at the top level, there are more people in England playing rugby. They still run the discipline, control the refs, control the overall structure of the English game.

The PRL organise the TV deals and sponsorship for the league and jointly work on running professional rugby with the Players Association and the RFU.

Would it be better for the RFU if they had to organise the TV deal?

Good for England and the 'English' game.  

Europe is about Europe.  And most of us aren't English  

If the PRL are happy with their controlling lot in England and are so content with their domestic competiton, then why are the RFU pleading with their fellow UNIONs (BTW - RFU the only good Union in Europe? - Really?) to either 1: Let the PRL sides back into Europe.  2: Forget the French Union and side with the PRL plan instead. 3: Claiming all is not lost if we all keep talking to each other - except them (RFU) of course, who are neutral observers and just want to see everybody get along.

Cute - but no dice.  If "English" rugby works, then it doesn't need the European element at all - does it?  If it doesn't work, that's maybe the reason it's been trying for months now to change Europe, to own Europe, to control Europe, to change Europe's clothes and have it match the "English" model.

And non-English Unions and Nations are meant to say thanks?  "Thanks for the overthrow fellas.  Thanks for telling us which of the rest of us should qualify for Europe.  You'll do a better job for our 'clubs' than we've done for ourselves, even if it means dropping them into lesser competitions and killing them off (quickly or slowly).  Here's the keys to our car.  And thanks ever so much awfully again.  Yours etc, etc."

Nice rant, but I think you missed my point (not sure). The PRL are asking for the same control over the European competition as they have over their domestic competition. I.e. they want the commercial aspects, etc run by the involved teams and the higher level stuff to stay with the unions. That has happened in England and the RFU aren't dead. Why would it kill off unions if it hasn't killed off the RFU? Even if it looked like it was they could simply not renew the PA the next time round.

As for the actual structure, well that's up to the them. If all parties aren't willing then no competition involving them all will happen. If the SRU refuse to take part in a competition with having 2 places then they won't take part. If the IRFU don't want to take part in a competition where they don't have at least 3 place then they won't take part. If the PRL don't want to take part in a competition where half are involved in a competition that most of the shareholders don't give a Poopie about (but have control of) and several teams qualify automatically then they don't have to.

It's one of the reasons I didn't under the supposed 'compromise' that was offered. The structural changes, which are main impactors on the unions were 'agreed' but the TV stuff wasn't. It's one of the reasons I think the 'compromise' was cowpat.

Let's be fair now- their problem wasn't that they weren't given a voice, it was that their voice was just one along with other countries. 12 votes of the six major rugby unions in Europe (does Italy have two votes in the ERC or one? can't recall) and the RFU, WRU and FFR handed over one of their votes each to their club sides.

So the problem they have there is... shock horror... to get anything their own way they had to actually convince people in other countries to work alongside them! Otherwise they would be outvoted! What an unfair system, where each of the major countries who provide teams would get an equal say in the running of the competition and only proposals which are universally agreed upon by those countries go forward.

It's almost like rich, wealthy white men aren't used to not getting their own way over everything 

HammerofThunor wrote:Nice rant, but I think you missed my point (not sure).

It's not a rant... it's the point you were making - answered. The answer was not to your liking, therefore you use the lazy reprimand of calling it a rant. No, it's a discussion. And I've rejoined it.  

The PRL are 'asking' for nothing.  They've been demanding.  Demanding Europe changes to suit the English structures more.  Demanding that Unions let go of the reins.  Demanding that it's their way, without a hint of compromise, or no way.  

And when they were told it's 'no way' then - that didn't stop them.  They were free to leave and be content with their domestic game and domestic monies. But no. Their agent (RFU) is still at it, still trying to say the plan that was turned down is the plan that should be adopted, without compromise as PRL are a non-compromise party.  The English RFU is batting for England and English rugby - just as it should be. No issue with that. It's right that they do.

The issue is that the truth of that, so blatantly obvious to most observers outside England, is being contantly denied. It's as if we're all meant to believe that somehow the RFU doesn't have the best intentions for specifically English rugby behind all their non-talk, behind-the-scenes-lotsa-talk shenanigans.  We're all meant to somehow believe that the RFU are some quasi-mythic All encompassing European overloard, there to direct the little bickering Unions and clubs to the best solution for all. The Father figure.

The RFU is English... why would any sane English player or coach play for any club that wanted to kill off its own Union?  But the RFU is only that - English.  The welfare of other Unions/nations is not its over-riding concern. It most certainly isn't the concern of navel-gazing PRL.

The RFU's natural bias is to improve English rugby.  It's not Everyman amongst the maddening European crowd.  It's part of the ongoing battle.  And contantly trying to play the aloof negotiator/facilitator is something no Englishman would buy if the French or Irish Unions tried the same game. I don't buy it and never have.

I do have a more benign view of the RFU in all this Secretfly. However I tend to agree with you about the PRL. however lets not go round in these circles again.

I'm not convinced that the relationship between PRL and RFU is as harmonious as it appears on the surface. Wray made mention that should AP teams not receive compensation for 2015 RWC disruption then the clubs may withhold players:

Guardian 17/01/2014

"There is another ticking issue, though, that may yet overtake all the European squabbling. No compensation package to cover the disruption to the club season during the 2015 Rugby World Cup in England has been finalised and Wray is far from happy. "How on earth can the Rugby Football Union have signed a contract to effectively close down the clubs for two months without the clubs agreeing or being party to the contract? Who's going to pay the bills and wages for two months?"

The RFU and Premiership Rugby insist negotiations are continuing but Wray warns the clubs may have to consider drastic action. "If you've got a gun and you're not prepared to fire it, you haven't got a gun," he says bluntly, when asked if withholding players might be an option. "We don't want to do that but we're being put in a very difficult position. If we say we'll release all the players, the RFU would say: 'Great, we don't have to do anything.' We shouldn't be being put in that position. It's wrong."

Wray also argues "the RFU has got to pay a lot more" to compensate clubs for the use of their leading players. "The professional guys there are not idiots. They understand the commercial pressures and understand they can't tell us what to do." He is equally convinced central contracts would be "a disaster for players" because they would have just one potential employer with a monopoly. At heart, though, he is a fan who simply yearns to see his beloved Sarries in the last eight, irrespective of Euro politics."

I wouldn't argue that compensation wouldn't be deserving. Just pointing to potential conflicts between the two, and the means of leverage in the hands of PRL against RFU (how they do business).
Should clubs be given more control over Union, it's reasonable to suspect that clubs will hold Union run competitions to ransom until they gain further concessions.

Notch, I believe the term 'Turkey's voting for Christmas' was used quite often on here. The other participants were on a great deal, why would they vote for a change where they're not better off? Then it was a case of the english of bluffing, they'll come back, what they're asking for is ridiculous. Then the 'compromise' was offered and suddenly well the qualification changes are fairer now, that is better. Now it seems they want to control the global game of rugby and kill off the unions. If the unions agree to a change in governance will that become fair and right as well?

Fly, there's been no hint of compromise because there have been no real negotiations. As soon as the two TV deal were signed the PRL couldn't be involved in Europe without some way around those contracts. Neither side was moving on that so the rest doesn't mean anything.

The RFU only purposes are to grow English rugby and govern English rugby. They're representatives in the IRB are there to grow the game outside of England

And who are the IRB? Its not just Lapassat on his own you know!

Beaumont is a Council Member of the IRB as well being RFU Chair.

Hammer - of course their has been compromise from everyone bar the PRL. Its simple nonsense to suggest otherwise.

The RFU were clearly angered by the BT deal and other things. However they wisely didn't make too much fuss in public

TJ wrote:I do have a more benign view of the RFU in all this Secretfly.  However I tend to agree with you about the PRL.  however lets not go round in these circles again.

In brief, TJ.  I don't.  And a circle is the only route this continuing debate can take.  The problem remains the same - European rugby for all, not for some with the biggest cheque book, - and how to achieve it.  That's the focal point.  You can't go too far away from that or you've headed into a different argument (perhaps one nobody wants to contemplate - yet another major CODE change/breakup of Rugby Union itself?).

But if the focal point is always the same (European rugby in practice as well as spirit), then the arguments are always going to circle it.  That's what we have.  A circle around a focal point.

I haven't been so pessimistic about the prospect of an amicable and mutually agreeable resolution to a debate since some folks took a fleg down of a building one time and it upset some other folks.

What a mess!

and all because ERC were not willing to negotiate.   

Scrumpy wrote:What a mess!

and all because ERC were not willing to negotiate.   

Welcome to scrumpies bizarro world.
The ERC has English and French members by the way and has moved on both qualification and money.


The reality is PRL sign a locked in TV contract, they don't even tell there Union about - that is the primary cause of the impass.
That and the fact Welsh rugby is a clusterf$$k

rodders wrote:I haven't been so pessimistic about the prospect of an amicable and mutually agreeable resolution to a debate since some folks took a fleg down of a building one time and it upset some other folks.

There is your solution a bit of mindless rioting will make things better worse

 

geoff998rugby wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:What a mess!

and all because ERC were not willing to negotiate.   

Welcome to scrumpies bizarro world.
The ERC has English and French members by the way and has moved on both qualification and money.


The reality is PRL sign a locked in TV contract, they don't even tell there Union about - that is the primary cause of the impass.
That and the fact Welsh rugby is a clusterf$$k

That's what happens when you allow a contract to enter its final year whilst at the same time refusing to budge on T&Cs, can't blame the clubs for looking elsewhere, especially when they found a much better deal with BT.

You might have guessed it, I blame ERC for all this mess, bunch of   

Nothing to do with the PRL making demands the Rabo unions could never agree to?

Scrumpy I blame the clubs for a lot

Public Enemy no 1 for me no question.
Not any way saying the ERC are blameless

geoff998rugby wrote:

rodders wrote:I haven't been so pessimistic about the prospect of an amicable and mutually agreeable resolution to a debate since some folks took a fleg down of a building one time and it upset some other folks.

There is your solution a bit of mindless rioting will make things better worse

 

Couldn't make things worse anyways!

 Right Rodders says it ok to get tanked up and take your flag to your Club/Union office and throw missles at them -

If a copper tries to arrest you just say some block on the internet organized it

Or peer through the PRL's glass doors in ...London is it? - and shout NO SURRENDER!!!! in a womanly cat-screech.

That worked for me. That caught my attention. An image for the history books.

Fly, apologises for the "rant" comment. I was in a cob. I agreed to agree with TJ today and it shook me to my core

That's okay Hammer. All just the cut and trust of the lively debate this subject always is. A subject that seems to stir the passions in all of us.

It's not really lively debate though is it? It's just the same crap being thrown about with bugger all solid information to base it on. Every now and then a 'meeting' occurs, a statement is issued and details extrapolated.

Thankfully it seems that a long term agreement is just around the corner (unless that too turns out to be cowpat speculation).

HammerofThunor wrote:Fly, apologises for the "rant" comment. I was in a cob. I agreed to agree with TJ today and it shook me to my core

Scared me as well or is it scarred?

TJ wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Fly, apologises for the "rant" comment. I was in a cob. I agreed to agree with TJ today and it shook me to my core

Scared me as well  or is it scarred?

  

The RFU have a RWC to host and to win it they need players who are employed by the members of the PRL. So they're terrified of falling out with them and are sitting on the fence and trying to help get an agreement without actually reigning in the clubs and p!shing them off. I believe Wray has actually publicly mentioned the threat to the England's hopes for the RWC. Or if they do actually agree with all the PRL's demands then they have the opposite problem of falling out with the other unions. Either way they're not really in a great position to take sides.

It does seem that the IRB want the RFU or the WRU to block the clubs plans. But if both unions agreed to let it go ahead how could the IRB then say no? What right would they have?

It may also be the case that the IRB's rules and regulations and ways of working have their roots in the amateur era, where gentlemen's agreements and handshakes and the like sealed agreements. There's always been the feeling that the PRL are willing to bring people to court and the IRB aren't sure they wouldn't lose such a case. But I have no knowledge of these legal things.

To be honest I think it's just a case of it being up to the two unions to deal with their club owners. And the IRB may want a certain outcome but they can't really stop anything that unions and clubs agree to so they may be applying pressure behind the scenes but it's up to the parties involved to agree or not agree. Like I said the RFU have a gun to their heads, and are probably waiting for the WRU to persuade the regions to stick with the rabo and HC, which would effectively let the RFU off the hook.

Summary
I don't have a bloody clue.

The PRL cannot not release the players without being sued their asses off. They're contracted to and have received payments for it. The stadia will be signed up now and it's just Kingholm that's used I think. Wray is making empty threats. It could break down afterwards but not before.

TJ wrote:Nothing to do with the PRL making demands the Rabo unions could never agree to?

Well they said they would never agree to qualification and equal revenue sharing and then agreed to them once it was too late. If the Rabo unions had sat down with LNR and PRL when they gave notice I am sure it could all have been sorted out. They waited until positions were entrenched and contracts signed.

Exiledinborders wrote:

TJ wrote:Nothing to do with the PRL making demands the Rabo unions could never agree to?

Well they said they would never agree to qualification and equal revenue sharing and then agreed to them once it was too late.  If the Rabo unions had sat down with LNR and PRL when they gave notice I am sure it could all have been sorted out. They waited until positions were entrenched and contracts signed.

They were forced into accepting it.

Bearing in mind all the club negotiations seem to over run their agreed deadline time, the PRL taking a strop that quickly is a bit childish.

But of course we all know that it wasn't over these things (still think the qualification back down to 20 is pointless).

I hope Leicester & Saracens are writing letters of thanks to the Italian teams for helping them scrape through to the QFs   

Surely that's another sign that things haven't changed much? The pools with the Italians in providing the best runners up....again.

Regarding the drop to 20 teams, of course it is pointless to you. The ACC is just a short knockout competition for the runners in the HEC pools. The reason was to strengthen the ACC by taking 4 teams from the 1st tier and putting them in the 2nd tier. Significant analysis over many years shows that generally the bottom placed teams are from the Pro12 (or Italians before they joined) so it makes snese these collectively lose the places. English teams have been demonstrated as mediocre many times. It's just an unfortunate coincidence that those driving for change aren't losing places.

HammerofThunor wrote:It's just an unfortunate coincidence that those driving for change aren't losing places.

Hammer, I don't know how to read that/work it out??? Those driving for change weren't going to comtemplate losing places. There was no coincidence to it. The drive for change was intended to lose external sides their places. But also, isn't the practical outcome that those 'driving for change' actually are losing all 6 places as of next year if no overall solution is found?

And does the act of aggessively 'driving for change' absolve a League of having to deal with the reality that those driving for change can often be 'mediocre' (your words not mine) in the European competitions themselves?

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:It's just an unfortunate coincidence that those driving for change aren't losing places.

Hammer, I don't know how to read that/work it out???  Those driving for change weren't going to comtemplate losing places.  There was no coincidence to it.  The drive for change was intended to lose external sides their places.  But also, isn't the practical outcome that those 'driving for change' actually are losing all 6 places as of next year if no overall solution is found?

Of course there's no coinidence it was a poor attempt at humour. And yes they will lose all 12 of their European spots.

And does the act of aggessively 'driving for change' absolve a League of having to deal with the reality that those driving for change can often be 'mediocre' (your words not mine) in the European competitions themselves?

I don't understand what you mean by the reality of being mediocre (average quality in this instance). Split European rugby into three levels and the top is inhabited mainly by the Irish and top French clubs. The middle is mainly inhabited by the English clubs. If you're going to skim off the bottom you skim off the bottom. It's not the English clubs on evidence (or at least the ones that get into the 1st tier). If you skimmed the current bottom off the English would become the bottom feeders of the 1st tier of European rugby and any more skimming should rightly be them.