Premiership Rugby out of Heineken Cup?

McCBrian · 24-09-2013 12:25AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Actually you have a point about the invitations. They need written permission from the Unions, before they can offer invitations.

But how can they know which Unions they need permission from without offering invitations first? Seems that is supposed to be aimed at international tournaments as well, but it says any tourmanents.

Exactly PRL have to get permission from the RFU and LNR from FFR firstly to propose and run a cross border competition (don't think either PRL or LNR have this yet).

But PRL/LNR have inviited other clubs/provinces/regions to join this new competition before they have approval.

Consequently the other invitees will be in breach of IRB regs if they accept PRL/LNR's invitation as the tournament has not been approved by the Unions who are responsible for the bodies proposing the new tournament and this is even before we get into the ramifications of the TV deals;)

It has the all the makings of a long drawn out battle that will only be resolved legally:(

irishbucsfan · 24-09-2013 12:26AM

No they're all from much more recently, that was after he was sacked by the RFU, and he's become a bit loony since then it seems!

I should hopefully get a chance to find it tomorrow, it was from years ago.

irishbucsfan · 24-09-2013 12:30AM

McCBrian wrote: »

Exactly PRL have to get permission from the RFU and LNR from FFR firstly to propose and run a cross border competition (don't think either PRL or LNR have this yet).

But PRL/LNR have inviited other clubs/provinces/regions to join this new competition before they have approval.

Consequently the other invitees will be in breach of IRB regs if they accept PRL/LNR's invitation as the tournament has not been approved by the Unions who are responsible for the bodies proposing the new tournament and this is even before we get into the ramifications of the TV deals;)

It has the all the makings of a long drawn out battle that will only be resolved legally:(

Yeah but I think you'll find that there is a specific action which constitutes an invitation and that they haven't in fact done that yet. Also it seems they didn't actually invite anyone, rather said it was open to anyone and they were approached by other sides. I'd say they're being very specific so as not to break those sorts of rules.

Also they don't need the permissions of the Unions to propose the competition itself. They need to permissions of the Unions to arrange the matches of the competition which will take place in the jurisdiction of those Unions, so they haven't reached that point yet.

I don't see the Unions being at all willing to turn this into a legal battle.

thebaz · 24-09-2013 12:34AM

The HC has been a breath of fresh air to Northern Hemisphere rugby , best thing to happen to rugby here since I can remember , so what do we do ?sabotage it , by greed - is it any wonder rugby fails to expand globally when it can be so self destrutive by itself. Can't comprehend the short sighted greed of the few, insead of looking at the wider global picture.

rrpc · 24-09-2013 07:53AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Well I think it was rrpc who posted the orginal article but I can't remember, but it was from about 2007 so finding it would take me all night. I'm sure other posters here saw it.

It was on the RFU website and it was regarding the PRL/RFU accord. What it agreed was that PRL would deal with all financial matters relating to the European cups and RFU would deal with governance issues. This was purely an agreement between these two as to what they would deal with on the ERC board.

I quoted it to demonstrate how PRL would have been well aware of the Sky deal and its progress whilst they were negotiating with BT. Nice to see how it's been turned around to mean something else completely. :rolleyes:

jacothelad · 24-09-2013 08:52AM

rrpc wrote: »

It was on the RFU website and it was regarding the PRL/RFU accord. What it agreed was that PRL would deal with all financial matters relating to the European cups and RFU would deal with governance issues. This was purely an agreement between these two as to what they would deal with on the ERC board.

I quoted it to demonstrate how PRL would have been well aware of the Sky deal and its progress whilst they were negotiating with BT. Nice to see how it's been turned around to mean something else completely. :rolleyes:

Of course they would. Peter Wheeler is a Director of ERC and a director of PRL so very able to keep them informed. What is the legal position of such a situation re directorships in Ireland? There would be a legal duty on a director of ERC to inform them of a situation that was not in their interests if they were based in the U.K. So it seems that PRL were negotiating in at the very best, in dubious faith with BT in a deal aimed, not at advancing the benefits of the European Cup at all as these heroes claimed at first but aimed at destroying the best club competition on the planet, sabotaging the incomes of smaller Unions, blocking development of Union in new areas in order to line their own pockets while simultaneously sabotaging ERC to the benefit of BT and PRL. Is there no such thing as directorial responsibility, integrity and legal obligation? Had a director, in a position of knowing that a deal was being done to weaken their company not a legal duty to ERC, for example, if he was in possession of relevant information, to inform them of the sh8tstorm that PRL were concocting behind everyone's backs. What a bunch of scrotes.

irishbucsfan · 24-09-2013 10:06AM

Is Peter Wheeler a director of both companies? I didn't know he was listed as a Director of either. Does he have a position with PRL? I thought he was just Chairman of the Tigers.

Either way, the Premiership Rugby guys will say they informed the ERC in writing that they would not be a part of anything and that was after informing them in person 5 days prior. I don't think they acted in good faith by negotiating a TV deal in private, I don't see what the privacy achieved. But I don't think the ERC were acting responsibly either. Especially the way they announced the deal, which was ludicrous.

irishbucsfan · 24-09-2013 10:07AM

rrpc wrote: »

I quoted it to demonstrate how PRL would have been well aware of the Sky deal and its progress whilst they were negotiating with BT. Nice to see how it's been turned around to mean something else completely. :rolleyes:

I read the whole statement, was I only supposed to read the bits you wanted me to? I apologise.

Grandpa Hassan · 24-09-2013 10:28AM

Does any of this matter? is all this legal stuff (going on for pages now) simply an irrelevance. If the english and french unions agree (presumably after getting concessions from their clubs with respect to the domestic arrangements), the IRB will agree, albeit reluctantly, and everyone will pile in to the new competition. As, lets face it, the irish will have no choice.

if either the RFU or the FFR face down their clubs and dont agree, we have the ERC in charge, and the English either left out in the cold, or coming back with their tail betweem their legs.

2 scenarios. This is in the hands of the english and french unions, and they will do wahetever they see fit. Or am I missing something?

irishbucsfan · 24-09-2013 10:35AM

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Does any of this matter? is all this legal stuff (going on for pages now) simply an irrelevance. If the english and french unions agree (presumably after getting concessions from their clubs with respect to the domestic arrangements), the IRB will agree, albeit reluctantly, and everyone will pile in to the new competition. As, lets face it, the irish will have no choice.

if either the RFU or the FFR face down their clubs and dont agree, we have the ERC in charge, and the English either left out in the cold, or coming back with their tail betweem their legs.

2 scenarios. This is in the hands of the english and french unions, and they will do wahetever they see fit. Or am I missing something?

I think that's pretty much it. If the ERC is wound down, then the Unions won't be able to legally stand in the way of the clubs it seems. So the only way the ERC lasts longer than this season is if the Unions go over the heads of the clubs and sign a new accord.

The RFU seem to be less likely to cause a fuss, but I still wouldn't put it past them. The FFR are in current ongoing negotiations with LNR over a different issue, so they're going to make life as hard as possible for them over this until that is taken care of at least, or at least that seems to be the interpretation of what's going on by a French "insider" elsewhere.

.ak · 24-09-2013 10:47AM

I wonder will there be some sort of penalty for the fence sitters if the ERC is dissolved and the celtic nations try and join up with the new competition only after the fact? I can't see the new competition being a harmonious union.

irishbucsfan · 24-09-2013 10:55AM

.ak wrote: »

I wonder will there be some sort of penalty for the fence sitters if the ERC is dissolved and the celtic nations try and join up with the new competition only after the fact? I can't see the new competition being a harmonious union.

They've said that the competition will be exactly as they proposed. Equal for everyone financially and equal qualification. So if they penalised people they'd be going back on that.

At the same time though I wouldn't be surprised if they instituted a hard deadline and told people they had to get on board before it.

I'm interested to see if qualification for the new competition would include the guarrantee for Scotland and Italy. I wonder if IRFU/WRUs position on that one might have shifted a little bit (although I'm not sure they ever officially supported it).

ColmH81 · 24-09-2013 11:00AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

They've said that the competition will be exactly as they proposed. Equal for everyone financially and equal qualification. So if they penalised people they'd be going back on that.

At the same time though I wouldn't be surprised if they instituted a hard deadline and told people they had to get on board before it.

I'm interested to see if qualification for the new competition would include the guarrantee for Scotland and Italy. I wonder if IRFU/WRUs position on that one might have shifted a little bit (although I'm not sure they ever officially supported it).

Call me cynical, but if the Celtic and Italian teams sign up(after the disolving of the ERC), I just can't see the Premiership teams giving them an equal cut..

Probably a completely unfair comment, but it's just my opinion.. They're acting like children here.. ERC won't give us what we want(more money) so we're talking our ball and creating our own game..

Again, as I said, probably unfair comment, but that's the taste this has left in my mouth.. I'd love nothing more than the IRB, RFU and FFR to end this issue.. (granted the ERC aren't halping themselves by dragging out the meetings and negotiations)

irishbucsfan · 24-09-2013 11:02AM

ColmH81 wrote: »

Call me cynical, but if the Celtic and Italian teams sign up(after the disolving of the ERC), I just can't see the Premiership teams giving them an equal cut..

Probably a completely unfair comment, but it's just my opinion.. They're acting like children here.. ERC won't give us what we want(more money) so we're talking our ball and creating our own game..

Again, as I said, probably unfair comment, but that's the taste this has left in my mouth.. I'd love nothing more than the IRB, RFU and FFR to end this issue.. (granted the ERC aren't halping themselves by dragging out the meetings and negotiations)

They've already said it will be 33/33/33 across the leagues with everyone on board. Or rather LNR did. So if that is your definition of an equal cut then it's equal. How that breaks down per country depends on the meritocracy element.

ColmH81 · 24-09-2013 11:05AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

They've already said it will be 33/33/33 across the leagues with everyone on board. Or rather LNR did. So if that is your definition of an equal cut then it's equal. How that breaks down per country depends on the meritocracy element.

Out of curiousity, why is the current distribution so vaired? ie PRL get 20 odd % and Rabo get 52%(going by figures I saw on this thread many, many posts back)

Winters · 24-09-2013 11:10AM

"The IRB will defend this principle: not a privatisation of a competition in the interest of some people," he said, adding that "unions maintain pre-eminence over the leagues... the unions must remain masters of the game.

http://m.espnscrum.com/s/47127/95?allinOne=true&newsDetails=true&country=topNews

Finally, some governance. I'm so relieved I could kiss him.

rrpc · 24-09-2013 11:10AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I read the whole statement, was I only supposed to read the bits you wanted me to? I apologise.

You stated that the RFU gave PRL carte blanche to negotiate TV rights with regard to European rugby. This is only partially true in that this was within the confines of the ERC only. It did not mean a wider remit to go looking for deals or selling rights to a competition outside the ERC.

rrpc · 24-09-2013 11:12AM

ColmH81 wrote: »

Out of curiousity, why is the current distribution so vaired? ie PRL get 20 odd % and Rabo get 52%(going by figures I saw on this thread many, many posts back)

Because the distribution is on the basis of Unions and not Leagues. When the last accord was signed, the Italians weren't even in the Celtic league, so it would be nonsensical to allocate on that basis.

irishbucsfan · 24-09-2013 11:15AM

ColmH81 wrote: »

Out of curiousity, why is the current distribution so vaired? ie PRL get 20 odd % and Rabo get 52%(going by figures I saw on this thread many, many posts back)

Because there are 10-12 Rabo teams in the competition in any given year. So they make up half the competition. The French and English get 24% each because they provide 6-8 teams. This year, there are 11 Rabo teams (4 Irish, 3 Welsh, 2 Scottish , 2 Italian), 7 French teams and 6 English teams.

The money is pretty much split based on who puts what team into the competition, which is fair. It's just there are too many Rabo teams in the competition.

irishbucsfan · 24-09-2013 11:17AM

rrpc wrote: »

You stated that the RFU gave PRL carte blanche to negotiate TV rights with regard to European rugby. This is only partially true in that this was within the confines of the ERC only. It did not mean a wider remit to go looking for deals or selling rights to a competition outside the ERC.

Well I haven't seen their agreement with the RFU. Not sure if it provides for anything outside of the ERC, if it doesn't then they'll need to change it.

But that's not what we were discussing earlier.

ColmH81 · 24-09-2013 11:18AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Because there are 10-12 Rabo teams in the competition in any given year. So they make up half the competition. The French and English get 24% each because they provide 6-8 teams. This year, there are 11 Rabo teams (4 Irish, 3 Welsh, 2 Scottish , 2 Italian), 7 French teams and 6 English teams.

The money is pretty much split based on who puts what team into the competition, which is fair. It's just there are too many Rabo teams in the competition.

So with this (potentially) new tournament, Rabo teams would have less money per team?

irishbucsfan · 24-09-2013 11:19AM

Winters wrote: »

http://m.espnscrum.com/s/47127/95?allinOne=true&newsDetails=true&country=topNews

Finally, some governance. I'm so relieved I could kiss him.

The IRB are right to defend that principle. But influencing the competition itself is beyond their remit.

Regardless of that, there is scope for Union control of both the ERC and the new competition.

Winters · 24-09-2013 11:19AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The money is pretty much split based on who puts what team into the competition, which is fair. It's just there are too many Rabo teams in the competition.

2 clubs each for Scotland and Italy? 4 each for Wales and Ireland.

Could one equally say that there are too many professional clubs in England?

irishbucsfan · 24-09-2013 11:21AM

ColmH81 wrote: »

So with this (potentially) new tournament, Rabo teams would have less money per team?

They'd have more money per team in the comeptition as the tournament would reduce from 24 to 20 teams.

But if you mean in the Rabo overall, they'd have to split the money more ways, so it would be less per team in that regard (rather than splitting 52% between 12 teams).

irishbucsfan · 24-09-2013 11:23AM

Winters wrote: »

2 clubs each for Scotland and Italy? 4 each for Wales and Ireland.

Could one equally say that there are too many professional clubs in England?

I don't know how you would be able to justify such an argument from a rugby perspective given the standard of the teams in the Premiership versus similar leagues.

ColmH81 · 24-09-2013 11:26AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

They'd have more money per team in the comeptition as the tournament would reduce from 24 to 20 teams.

But if you mean in the Rabo overall, they'd have to split the money more ways, so it would be less per team in that regard (rather than splitting 52% between 12 teams).

Yeah, that's what I meant..

24-09-2013 11:31AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The IRB are right to defend that principle. But influencing the competition itself is beyond their remit.

Regardless of that, there is scope for Union control of both the ERC and the new competition.

Is that the competition that McCafferty has repeatedly said will be run by the clubs?

Or are to re-interpret this now?

irishbucsfan · 24-09-2013 11:36AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Is that the competition that McCafferty has repeatedly said will be run by the clubs?

Or are to re-interpret this now?

You can interpret that whatever way you want, I know what the proposed structure is.

irishbucsfan · 24-09-2013 11:37AM

ColmH81 wrote: »

Yeah, that's what I meant..

So effectively in Europe everyone would be equal, rather than Premiership and Top 14 sides all getting far less than Rabo sides. Conor O'Shea said it when we was on RTE, his Harlequins got 400k out of Europe while Zebre got 1.2m

24-09-2013 11:38AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You can interpret that whatever way you want, I know what the proposed structure is.

Care to share?

I personally have no idea why any rational Union would actively look to work with two organisations that have done their utmost to dissolve their organisation and undermine them at every turn.

Premiership Rugby out of Heineken Cup?

Comments