Premiership Rugby out of Heineken Cup?

rrpc wrote: »

It doesn't need a huge amount of evidence to draw that conclusion. Entering into a contract that purports to include European competition when there's already another contract being negotiated (and very well advanced) at the same time, is enough 'evidence' that a complete breakaway was envisaged and in the process of being set up.

There may well have been the remote possibility that the BT contract could encompass the Heineken cup, but not without the ERC being in breach of the Sky contract. Hence the conclusion that the ERC were out of the picture once that contract was signed. Otherwise it's PRL who are in breach and unable to provide the European arm of the BT contract.

You could argue that the BT contract left some wriggle room for non-performance of the European part, but that's a significant part to be leaving out. It would be something like McIlroy signing for Nike but with a get-out clause for their clothing and footwear.

We know that they have already worked out the value for the BT contract without European rugby. So if they already know the value, then there is nothing to stop the contract including the possibility of this.


Also, if the BT deal is worth as much as it is, then you would have to wonder what the ERC were doing agreeing a contract with someone else for such a relatively small amount?

rrpc wrote: »

You can impute a value for a particular part of a contract based on the total contract price. However, not completing that part of the contract could have a greater negative effect than the actual imputed value.

But the contract is in effect. And it is giving BT domestic rights, without European rights. So they know exactly what it's worth and there is no speculation necessary.


I don't accept this argument that they never intended to negotiate. I see that as just bargaining from people who don't want to accept the anglo-french argument. It initially started with "it's just a bluff from the English, the French will never stand by them." But their argument is rooted in a strong and fair position, hence the RFU support.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I don't think so. The accord will have expired. There's talks of a Welsh side being in advanced negotiations for it, asking for a guarrantee of more money.

I think the 2 years notice was important for those who intend to leave, but if there is no subsequent accord then they can't really be bound to stay, unless the Celtic nations remain in the ERC on their own?

Which would be pretty pointless, as it would be a knock out tournament version of the Rabo?? Or turn into another version of the B&I Cup..

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No, the clubs won't remain in a structure where 26 clubs are outvoted 2 to 1.

Similarly the other 4 Unions don't want to join a structure where they could potentially have absolutely no say at all. Go figure.....

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I'm saying, given everything else he said the same day, that I think he meant "not backing" rather than "opposing."

This here sums up where a lot of your arguments fall down. You're assuming that you know what he meant better than he did himself. That's a bit much in fairness. He said the Unions opposed the new competition. That's pretty clear cut by an definition. You can't decide that it doesn't mean what it says just because it suits your argument to say so, which is what you are doing and have done again.....

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Pretty much everything he has said has been in support of Premiership Rugby. I don't think he's come out with a single thing that hasn't been, beyond saying they wouldn't support the new competition until they saw the details.

His last quote was




That's a very long way from opposing the new tournament. I think the only way the new tournament is opposed is if it is purely Anglo-French and there is an alternative. There would be legal implications with opposing it otherwise.

The entire quote in this post suggested support for the amendments to the HEC but showed absolutely no support at all for the new competition. While it didn't explicitly say it opposed the new competition you want to draw the conclusion from the statement that support exists for the PRL in general. Again this is not founded in anything other than speculation but to assert the opinion just suits your argument. Just like your assumptions re break-out clauses in the BT deal etc.

A quote from McCafferty would almost certainly confirm that the RFU have in no way come out to support the new competition and that there's a distinct possibility that they won't:

http://www.theroar.com.au/2013/09/23/new-northern-hemisphere-rugby-champions-cup-announced/

Mark McCafferty wrote:

We’re asking for the RFU’s support against the background that there will be no ERC competition in which we’re taking part at the end of the season. We need to put in place new competitions.

We ultimately expect to have RFU support and it’s in the interests of English rugby to have the teams playing in a good competition at the end of the season. If that scenario occurs where the RFU oppose what we’re doing, we’d have to look at the reasons for opposing it.

You can’t just from a legal point of view say ‘we don’t want it so we’re not going to approve it’, especially when there’s a conflict of interests. We’ll try to overcome the issues and then take it from there. We’re asking for support. We’d expect that support.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Again, there is no evidence for this. I've read quite a few of the earlier press pieces on this issue this weekend and it doesn't really seem to be the case.

I think it's a nice way for people to justify the failure of the ERC to manage this crisis though, to say "we never had a chance."

Is there any evidence that the ERC did in fact fail to manage this crisis at all? Because you keep using the term evidence despite basing a large amount of your posts on speculation, here-say and a little bit of bias (claiming the term "opposing" didn't actually mean opposing).

I think there's an inaccuracy there. The IRB council do NOT have to approve tournaments between two jurisdictions, they only have to approve representative tournaments. There was a good post on another forum complaining about Gerry Thornley only quoting half the regulation in a previous article, which would be typical Thornley fashion.

rrpc wrote: »

I never said anything of the sort. It was you who brought up majority decision making and I pointed out that that could be construed as oppression. Z

I said what wrong with the majority making a decision. You said it was called oppression. By your own definition that implies consistency. So I'm asking, where is this consistency coming from?

It's not always a good thing. Weren't PRL complaining that the 'Celtalians' were doing it all the time to them?

I wouldn't think it's quite oppressive. That's not quite the issue.

I think the confusion re Regulation 16 is down to the IRB site. If you search for the regulation on Google you get this:

http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/regulations/04/23/20/42320_pdf.pdf

IRB Regulation 16.2.7 wrote:

When any tournament is planned where it is proposed that teams, at any level, from two or more Unions will participate, the approval of the Unions concerned must be obtained in writing through the Secretaries of those Unions before applying for the consent of the Council or finalising the arrangements or issuing invitations.

But if you go through the IRB site itself you get this:

http://www.irb.com/mm/Document/AboutIRB/IRBConstitution/02/06/85/38/130801IRBHandbook.pdf

IRB Regulation 16.2.7 wrote:

When any tournament is planned where it is proposed that teams, at any level, from two or more Unions will participate, the approval of the Unions concerned must be obtained in writing through the Secretaries of those Unions before applying for the consent of the Council, where such tournament is an International Tournament involving the senior National Representative Team or the next senior National Representative Team of a High Performance Union(s), or the CEO, where such tournament is an International Tournament which does not involve the senior National Representative Team or the next senior National Representative Team of a High Performance Union, or finalising the arrangements or issuing invitations.

The difference being a clarification that National competitions need IRB approval, the others don't. It's not in any way clear in the first quote.

rrpc wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not a difference in who you apply to? As in if it's involving National (etc.) teams you need the go-ahead of (a) the unions concerned and (b) the council of the IRB and if it's not the National (etc.) teams then you need the permission of (a) the relevant unions and (b) the CEO of the IRB?

Oh hell I don't know anymore....

rrpc wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not a difference in who you apply to? As in if it's involving National (etc.) teams you need the go-ahead of (a) the unions concerned and (b) the council of the IRB and if it's not the National (etc.) teams then you need the permission of (a) the relevant unions and (b) the CEO of the IRB?

It was explained to me that it only requires IRB approval for international tournaments.

For the CEO bit, that would mean international tournaments which don't include the senior or A national side. So underage tournaments etc.

This doesn't apply to club competitions, it applies to international tournaments. I believe international tournaments is defined by the IRB as teams representing the Unions (international sides).

Gerry Thornley based an entire article on the shortened version.


Edit: and given Brett Gosper has said they won't step in, I'd say it makes more sense than the picture painted by Thornley/Fanning

rrpc wrote: »

That's not what it says though, so I'd hold fire on making definitive pronouncements on the subject.

It's exactly what it says isn't it?

consent of the Council, where such tournament is an International Tournament involving the senior National Representative Team or the next senior National Representative Team of a High Performance Union(s)

or the CEO, where such tournament is an International Tournament which does not involve the senior National Representative Team or the next senior National Representative Team of a High Performance Union