The European club rugby debacle continues part IV: the quest for peace

justsomebloke

continued from here

So 6 unions walk into a bar.......


so let the debate on this joke of a situation continue

Deleted User wrote: »

Glossary

Clubs' Representative Groups
RRW - Regional Rugby Wales
PRL - Premiership Rugby Limited
LNR - Ligue Nationale de Rugby

Union Representatives
SRU - Scottish Rugby Union
WRU - Welsh Rugby Union
RFU - Rugby Football Union (England)
IRFU - Irish Rugby Football Union
FIR - Federazione Italiana Rugby
FFR - Federation Francaise de Rugby

Companies with Vested Interests
ERC - European Rugby Cup Ltd - Run the Heineken Cup & Amlin Challenge Cup, and have sold the rights for their upcoming cups (as usual) to Sky Sports.
Sky Sports - Currently contracted for any ERC competition coverage for the next 4 years.
BT - British Telecom (have an exclusive contract for all rugby played by PRL teams)
Celtic Cup Ltd - Runs the Pro 12
FIRA - Agency akin to a "Euro-IRB", that operates for mainly the second tier teams.

Battlegrounds as at 11/02/2014

RRW vs WRU - No participation agreement signed, central contracts have been signed without proper 'authorization' by RRW. RRW looking to have a far bigger say in what they're contracted to play in. Have suggested that if a Club-Ran european tournament can't be organised and sanctioned, that they'd be looking to play in an Anglo-Welsh league instead of both the Pro12 and any Union Ran Cup. WRU denying everything, even that this is a problem. Lewis is a bit of a Teflon character.

PRL vs ERC - PRL have signed an exclusive contract with BT Sports that means that they cannot take part in the ERC tournaments (as ERC has (and almost always has had)) an exclusive partner for its tournaments (Sky). As a result of this, PRL have voiced the ideal of the RCC*.

PRL vs RFU - Martyn Thomas has mentioned two points on this. Firstly, that PRL had no right to sell their European rights as they were only entitled to advise on them with the RFU having the final say in the matter. Secondly, there is apparently an agreement in existence which binds the PRL clubs to the ERC for at least one more year. This 'battleground' has been invisible as neither PRL nor RFU are interested in any public issues being raised here. The issues of the AW-League is also going to prove very interesting, as once again PRL are roaming way outside the boundaries of what they are apparently entitled to do. RFU has final say on this matter, and WRU (Roger Lewis) has publicly stated that RFU will not sanction it.

LNR vs FFR - LNR were very eager to get out from under their Union and ERC and play with the PRL clubs in the RCC* (deceased), but appear to have been reigned in and controlled with a long-term agreement signed in time for them to enact their break clause with Canal+, which managed to almost double their domestic contract for the coming seasons. We have heard very little from LNR in recent months.
EDIT to add this French Clubs refusing to listen to Union when it comes to players. I have a feeling this might re-ignite quite quickly.

SRU vs nobody - Sound lads these Scots

WRU vs PRL/RFU - WRU have already stated that they wouldn't sanction an AW League. As the RFU have not publicly done so, this is technically still a "live" battleground.

RFU vs All really - RFU nervously sitting in the middle of a pile up here. RWC 2015 on the horizon. They've been almost anonymous in terms of anything of flesh/tangibility. But to be fair, they simply cannot afford to rock any boats.

IRFU vs nobody in particular. Though Mick Dawson (Leinster CEO) has said previously that if any non-ERC tournament is run, that they'd not like to be left behind, and would try to find way to take part.

FIR vs Celtic Cup Ltd - They want to continue playing in the tournament, but don't want to have to pay anywhere near as much of a contribution as before (fair imo). They have suggested the idea that if they cannot reach agreement with the Celtic Cup Ltd, that they would return to an Italian Premiera (Super 8), and Treviso have this week backed their Union's call. They will play wherever they are asked to. (Zebre are Union owned so will also be backing the Union)

* RCC - Rugby Champions Cup - This was the mooted ERC replacement which PRL proposed once the conflicts of contracts which ERC and PRL held for coming seasons became apparent. To this date, no logo has appeared.

LeinsterDub

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/italian-side-treviso-prepared-quit-6692617

Peace in our times?


Meanwhile, union’s world governors are confident a peace deal to save the Heineken Cup will be agreed with another meeting due to take place in Paris on Wednesda

IrishRugbyUA

so 7 pro 12 spots: top team from each region plus next 3.

CatFromHue

It's usually at the start of March when the renewals for the following seasons season tickets come online so everyone is running out of time here. It'll have to be sorted in the new week or two at the most really.

RoyalCelt

Is anyone willing to summarize who is against who in this war all parties included? If not I completely understand as it's a right mess.

At least we have a great 6N to keep us happy. And then the mouthwatering HEC QF's!!

odin_ie

So a Pro 10 then if the Italians pull out, with the RRW coming back to the fold with a lot of egg on their faces and tails tucked between their legs, and a fair bit of bad blood over the whole incident if this is true.

I know that the SRU scrapped their other two clubs due to funding issues and a push to get Rugby established in Glasgow, but if push came to shove and both Italian teams do pull out to join an eight team FIR league, which to be fair would probably have a good contract from Sky Italia, does anybody thing that the SRU could revive the Border Reivers given the tradition in that region?

irishbucsfan

odin_ie wrote: »

So a Pro 10 then if the Italians pull out, with the RRW coming back to the fold with a lot of egg on their faces and tails tucked between their legs, and a fair bit of bad blood over the whole incident if this is true.

Not really. The RRW have said since the very beginning that their preference is to remain in the Pro 12 with the new European competition being agreed to, the Anglo-Welsh league was always supposed to be the alternative to that.

Winters

Irish Times:

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/paris-meeting-could-prove-crucial-for-future-of-pan-european-rugby-1.1686682

Podge_irl

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Not really. The RRW have said since the very beginning that their preference is to remain in the Pro 12 with the new European competition being agreed to, the Anglo-Welsh league was always supposed to be the alternative to that.

And I think the European question is close to being settled one way or the other.

There were bound to be jitters in the Pro12 over all this. I still think PRL are using the Anglo-Welsh league to sow discord in the Pro12 to better their chances of success in European negotiations.

death1234567

odin_ie wrote: »

does anybody thing that the SRU could revive the Border Reivers given the tradition in that region?

No. They folded for a reason and if anything the SRU have even less money now.

It would be interesting to see how an 8 team italian league would do. Italy have made huge progress as a rugby nation and it would be nice to see them get a successfull league up and running.

justsomebloke

copied over the last few posts from the other thread to keep the discussion going

BBDBB

jeez this saga is getting tedious

at least Peter Jackson had the decency to cut the Hobbit into 3 films

justsomebloke

BBDBB wrote: »

at least Peter Jackson had the decency to cut the Hobbit into 3 films

there is still time for a third instalment on this! So don't jinx it

iDave

So if the Italians go it alone with their own league does that mean it will have equal financial distribution as per the PRL demands?

wp_rathead

CatFromHue wrote: »

It'll have to be sorted in the new week or two at the most really.

We sais that months ago

odin_ie

iDave wrote: »

So if the Italians go it alone with their own league does that mean it will have equal financial distribution as per the PRL demands?

Bet the PRL and LNR didn't see that one coming so soon!!

RoyalCelt

RoyalCelt wrote: »

Is anyone willing to summarize who is against who in this war all parties included? If not I completely understand as it's a right mess.

At least we have a great 6N to keep us happy. And then the mouthwatering HEC QF's!!

Glossary

Clubs' Representative Groups
RRW - Regional Rugby Wales
PRL - Premiership Rugby Limited
LNR - Ligue Nationale de Rugby

Union Representatives
SRU - Scottish Rugby Union
WRU - Welsh Rugby Union
RFU - Rugby Football Union (England)
IRFU - Irish Rugby Football Union
FIR - Federazione Italiana Rugby
FFR - Federation Francaise de Rugby

Companies with Vested Interests
ERC - European Rugby Cup Ltd - Run the Heineken Cup & Amlin Challenge Cup, and have sold the rights for their upcoming cups (as usual) to Sky Sports.
Sky Sports - Currently contracted for any ERC competition coverage for the next 4 years.
BT - British Telecom (have an exclusive contract for all rugby played by PRL teams)
Celtic Cup Ltd - Runs the Pro 12
FIRA - Agency akin to a "Euro-IRB", that operates for mainly the second tier teams.

Battlegrounds as at 11/02/2014

RRW vs WRU - No participation agreement signed, central contracts have been signed without proper 'authorization' by RRW. RRW looking to have a far bigger say in what they're contracted to play in. Have suggested that if a Club-Ran european tournament can't be organised and sanctioned, that they'd be looking to play in an Anglo-Welsh league instead of both the Pro12 and any Union Ran Cup. WRU denying everything, even that this is a problem. Lewis is a bit of a Teflon character.

PRL vs ERC - PRL have signed an exclusive contract with BT Sports that means that they cannot take part in the ERC tournaments (as ERC has (and almost always has had)) an exclusive partner for its tournaments (Sky). As a result of this, PRL have voiced the ideal of the RCC*.

PRL vs RFU - Martyn Thomas has mentioned two points on this. Firstly, that PRL had no right to sell their European rights as they were only entitled to advise on them with the RFU having the final say in the matter. Secondly, there is apparently an agreement in existence which binds the PRL clubs to the ERC for at least one more year. This 'battleground' has been invisible as neither PRL nor RFU are interested in any public issues being raised here. The issues of the AW-League is also going to prove very interesting, as once again PRL are roaming way outside the boundaries of what they are apparently entitled to do. RFU has final say on this matter, and WRU (Roger Lewis) has publicly stated that RFU will not sanction it.

LNR vs FFR - LNR were very eager to get out from under their Union and ERC and play with the PRL clubs in the RCC* (deceased), but appear to have been reigned in and controlled with a long-term agreement signed in time for them to enact their break clause with Canal+, which managed to almost double their domestic contract for the coming seasons. We have heard very little from LNR in recent months.
EDIT to add this French Clubs refusing to listen to Union when it comes to players. I have a feeling this might re-ignite quite quickly.

SRU vs nobody - Sound lads these Scots

WRU vs PRL/RFU - WRU have already stated that they wouldn't sanction an AW League. As the RFU have not publicly done so, this is technically still a "live" battleground.

RFU vs All really - RFU nervously sitting in the middle of a pile up here. RWC 2015 on the horizon. They've been almost anonymous in terms of anything of flesh/tangibility. But to be fair, they simply cannot afford to rock any boats.

IRFU vs nobody in particular. Though Mick Dawson (Leinster CEO) has said previously that if any non-ERC tournament is run, that they'd not like to be left behind, and would try to find way to take part.

FIR vs Celtic Cup Ltd - They want to continue playing in the tournament, but don't want to have to pay anywhere near as much of a contribution as before (fair imo). They have suggested the idea that if they cannot reach agreement with the Celtic Cup Ltd, that they would return to an Italian Premiera (Super 8), and Treviso have this week backed their Union's call. They will play wherever they are asked to. (Zebre are Union owned so will also be backing the Union)

* RCC - Rugby Champions Cup - This was the mooted ERC replacement which PRL proposed once the conflicts of contracts which ERC and PRL held for coming seasons became apparent. To this date, no logo has appeared.

MugMugs

odin_ie wrote: »

Bet the PRL and LNR didn't see that one coming so soon!!

I'd say they were standing behind goading it

irishbucsfan

iDave wrote: »

So if the Italians go it alone with their own league does that mean it will have equal financial distribution as per the PRL demands?

The Italians already have their own league.

PRL never argued what you are making them out to have argued. If the Italians go their own way they'll end up with more guarranteed from Europe than they'd get under the Rabo, but it won't be enough to make up for the major drop in competitiveness.

The Celtic League should consider pooling European revenue, but the bigger Unions would never agree to such a thing I suppose.

eireannBEAR

My name for thread got picked..............Waaaaaaaayyyy!!!

.ak

I'm going to go to Paddy Power and see if they'll give odds on the amount of posts on this thread before the situation sorts itself.

eireannBEAR

.ak wrote: »

I'm going to go to Paddy Power and see if they'll give odds on the amount of posts on this thread before the situation sorts itself.

Ill place fiddy on IBF to have 12,000 posts i know thats 2000 over the thread limit but im confident he can do it!!!

justsomebloke

eireannBEAR wrote: »

Ill place fiddy on IBF to have 12,000 posts i know thats 2000 over the thread limit but im confident he can do it!!!

quick fact: over 14% of IBF's total boards post count came from one thread

Akrasia

Someone needs to do this as a youtube video with the overly dramatic movie trailer voice.

It's almost but not quite beyond parody at this point

LeinsterDub

Deleted User wrote: »

Glossary

Can a mod copy and paste this into the opening post?

bilston

justsomebloke wrote: »

quick fact: over 14% of IBF's total boards post count came from one thread

I'm sure he isn't alone in fairness!

eireannBEAR

bilston wrote: »

I'm sure he isn't alone in fairness!

Yup your the other one!!

irishbucsfan

Why are people continuing to believe Martyn Thomas? He's about as trustworthy as the likes of Wray or Lux and he's commenting about a body who fired him with no current position to hold him accountable for what he says. He's odd, and his only use in this saga (a bit like Wray) is as a soundbite manufactory.

bilston

eireannBEAR wrote: »

Yup your the other one!!

Aye, if I actually had a clue what was going I might well have been the other one!

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Why are people continuing to believe Martyn Thomas? He's about as trustworthy as the likes of Wray or Lux and he's commenting about a body who fired him with no current position to hold him accountable for what he says. He's odd, and his only use in this saga (a bit like Wray) is as a soundbite manufactory.

Except, if like he says, as head of the RFU he signed 'a participation agreement' with the clubs that is ongoing.

So unless he's definitely lying, he's massively relevant.

That you personally have come to the conclusion that he is lying, without anyone of substance (RFU or PRL) ever publicly refuting his statements, is what is irrelevant here. That is a question of faith, as opposed to anything tangible.

thomond2006

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Why are people continuing to believe Martyn Thomas? He's about as trustworthy as the likes of Wray or Lux and he's commenting about a body who fired him with no current position to hold him accountable for what he says. He's odd, and his only use in this saga (a bit like Wray) is as a soundbite manufactory.

What he's said that makes you think so?

sydthebeat

would it be too much trouble to add a little footnote, or in brackets beside the specific union, rep body etc.. of the names of the main people who are players here?

for example:

PRL - Premiership Rugby Limited (Mike McCafferty)


???

Larbre34

So whatever the outcome is about to be, let the accord be all inclusive, let it be comprehensive, let it set European Rugby on the path of a 1,000 Year Rei....never mind...

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

Except, if like he says, as head of the RFU he signed 'a participation agreement' with the clubs that is ongoing.

So unless he's definitely lying, he's massively relevant.

That you personally have come to the conclusion that he is lying, without anyone of substance (RFU or PRL) ever publicly refuting his statements, is what is irrelevant here. That is a question of faith, as opposed to anything tangible.

Why is he the only one saying anything like this and why has no one paid him any notice whatsoever? Commenting on his claims just gives him more relevancy. He has a terrible reputation in England and the likes of Beaumont would have no trouble coming out to back him up if they considered him to have any legitimacy whatsoever.

I can understand people believing him if they are unaware of who he is, or his background, based on the previous positions he held, I suppose.

irishbucsfan

sydthebeat wrote: »

would it be too much trouble to add a little footnote, or in brackets beside the specific union, rep body etc.. of the names of the main people who are players here?

for example:

PRL - Premiership Rugby Limited (Mike McCafferty)


???

The main problem with doing that is that they continually change!

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Why is he the only one saying anything like this and why has no one paid him any notice whatsoever? Commenting on his claims just gives him more relevancy. He has a terrible reputation in England and the likes of Beaumont would have no trouble coming out to back him up if they considered him to have any legitimacy whatsoever.

I can understand people believing him if they are unaware of who he is, or his background, based on the previous positions he held, I suppose.

He was invited to speak in the BBC Scrum V debate, he made those claims on a National broadcast by the National Broadcaster.

Surely the RFU would be looking for their €85k damages if there's absolutely not a drop of truth behind it?

Why was he allowed make the same claim twice, more than 6 months apart, on a National Broadcast (first on BBC.co.uk) without being called up on it?
For some comparison, look at the speed in which Roger Lewis responded to the Osprey's CEO's radio interview (one day).

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

He was invited to speak in the BBC Scrum V debate, he made those claims on a National broadcast by the National Broadcaster.

Surely the RFU would be looking for their €85k damages if there's absolutely not a drop of truth behind it?

Why was he allowed make the same claim twice, more than 6 months apart, on a National Broadcast (first on BBC.co.uk) without being called up on it?
For some comparison, look at the speed in which Roger Lewis responded to the Osprey's CEO's radio interview (one day).

The BBC are a media outlet like any other, particularly when it comes to sports broadcasting.

If Martyn Thomas' claims were true, the landscape would be very different to what it is at the moment. I think people can use their own judgement to view the complete lack of credibility the things he's said have been offered. It's madness, or wishful thinking, to include it in a breakdown of the current state of affairs between the RFU and PRL.

If Martyn Thomas was the CEO of a club, or even remotely employable at all, then maybe someone like Roger Lewis might have responded to the things he's been saying since he was disposed of.

thomond2006

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Why is he the only one saying anything like this and why has no one paid him any notice whatsoever? Commenting on his claims just gives him more relevancy. He has a terrible reputation in England and the likes of Beaumont would have no trouble coming out to back him up if they considered him to have any legitimacy whatsoever.

I can understand people believing him if they are unaware of who he is, or his background, based on the previous positions he held, I suppose.

What has he said that makes you not believe/trust him?

ArmaniJeanss

This link from the last page of the first thread (thread 1 of 4 as we will call it someday) was interesting for having another reference to the £2.5M/€3 Italy->CelticNations payment being a yearly charge for the last few seasons, not just a once-off warranty. A few people reckoned in the previous thread that it was just a one-off.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/heineken-cup-peace-deal-moves-6692617

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The BBC are a media outlet like any other, particularly when it comes to sports broadcasting.

If Martyn Thomas' claims were true, the landscape would be very different to what it is at the moment. I think people can use their own judgement to view the complete lack of credibility the things he's said have been offered. It's madness, or wishful thinking, to include it in a breakdown of the current state of affairs between the RFU and PRL.

If Martyn Thomas was the CEO of a club, or even remotely employable at all, then maybe someone like Roger Lewis might have responded to the things he's been saying since he was disposed of.

Not sure if you missed my reference to the €85k. National broadcasters have to be very careful, they are not akin to any media outlet.

Also Martyn Thomas was Head of the RFU when the last agreement was signed. Not a journalist covering the agreement, he would have been implicitly involved in the minutiae. If he's wrong, or lying (as you are suggesting) someone else who was involved might be best pressed to comment.
Until they do, I completely reserve the right to mention it as a potential battleground. Feel free to ignore that, but if you wan't me to remove it, I'll require something more tangible than a character assassination.

irishbucsfan

thomond2006 wrote: »

What has he said that makes you not believe/trust him?

Well he's done plenty since he oversaw a clusterf*ck at the RFU while he was in charge, but in this case he is claiming that the Premiership Clubs are locked into the ERC next season and also that they didn't have the rights under the LTA to do various things that they've been doing with no obstruction from the RFU.

English Lurker

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The BBC are a media outlet like any other, particularly when it comes to sports broadcasting.

If Martyn Thomas' claims were true, the landscape would be very different to what it is at the moment. I think people can use their own judgement to view the complete lack of credibility the things he's said have been offered. It's madness, or wishful thinking, to include it in a breakdown of the current state of affairs between the RFU and PRL.

If Martyn Thomas was the CEO of a club, or even remotely employable at all, then maybe someone like Roger Lewis might have responded to the things he's been saying since he was disposed of.

I don't think this is true.

The RFU clearly don't want to antagonise PRL and there are several things they could have done to try and force them into line which they haven't. That is the landscape. I don't find it inconsistent with the idea that the RFU could legally force PRL to stay in the Heineken Cup for another year but would prefer not to.

rrpc

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Well he's done plenty since he oversaw a clusterf*ck at the RFU while he was in charge, but in this case he is claiming that the Premiership Clubs are locked into the ERC next season and also that they didn't have the rights under the LTA to do various things that they've been doing with no obstruction from the RFU.

obstruction???

They certainly did some things that they didn't have the rights to under the LTA. Signing a 'domestic' TV deal for a season beyond the expiry of the LTA being one of them.

Podge_irl

English Lurker wrote: »

I don't think this is true.

The RFU clearly don't want to antagonise PRL and there are several things they could have done to try and force them into line which they haven't. That is the landscape. I don't find it inconsistent with the idea that the RFU could legally force PRL to stay in the Heineken Cup for another year but would prefer not to.

I'd agree with that.

The RFU know they'll face this problem sooner or later, even if they can force PRL to compete in the HEC for another season (or even a couple) they'll simply face the same problem with considerable more animosity between the two sides at a later date.

irishbucsfan

rrpc wrote: »

obstruction???

They certainly did some things that they didn't have the rights to under the LTA. Signing a 'domestic' TV deal for a season beyond the expiry of the LTA being one of them.

Where does it say they can't do that in the LTA, and if it does, how do you know the BT Contract's final year is not subject to the extension of the LTA?

For reference.

http://www.rfu.com/news/2007/november/news%20articles/rfuandprlsignneweightyearagreement

Regarding Thomas' dates, an 8 year agreement from 1st July 2008 would certainly suggest that PRL are bound by RFU.

This also worth a look.
http://www.premiershiprugby.com/downloads/PRLTermsto_RFU270307.pdf

Neil3030

Thanks Amari Enough Vow for the recap. When part three opens I'll pop back in again :pac:

thomond2006

Will Part V be called The Empire Strikes Back?

LeinsterDub

thomond2006 wrote: »

Will Part V be called The Empire Strikes Back?

Only if you agree to type it like this The Empire Strikes Back

[Jackass]

I don't know why, but I just have a feeling that after all the drama, everything next season will be the same, same Pro12, same AP, same T14 and the only thing may be no English in the Heineken Cup for a season.

rrpc

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Where does it say they can't do that in the LTA, and if it does, how do you know the BT Contract's final year is not subject to the extension of the LTA?

Why do I have to prove what it doesn't say in the LTA? Or for that matter what's in the BT contract?

The RFU said it was outside the scope of the LTA, is that not good enough for you?