Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Premiership Rugby out of Heineken Cup?

1…125126128130131…326

Comments

  • #3812
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    rrpc wrote: »
    I might add here that meetings are not where the work is done, despite what IBF may think. I have been and am on a number of boards and I can tell you that meetings are called to report progress from previous meetings and direct efforts towards the next meetings.

    Most of the work is done between meetings and carried out by a combination of board members and appropriately delegated staff.

    So the number of meetings is indicative of nothing.

    That is true to be fair, but the progress has certainly been incredibly slow. Which suits one side much more than the other.


  • #3813
    Jazlynn Nutritious Bellboy
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Jazlynn Nutritious Bellboy


    The only view that I am entrenched in is that PRL are an organisation who's aim is their betterment and their's alone. That is actually their job.

    I don't believe everything they've said, as they've managed to come out with conflicting stories on more than one occasion.

    Again, Actions speak volumes louder than words. They have said things and done others many times, as have other businessmen. Business is Business.

    The BT Deal alone tells me more about PRL's intentions than any press conference they've ever given, any quote that they've ever been attributed with, and any issue they've ever raised as a smokescreen to the ERC.
    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    As for Marc Watson, he made a poorly judged statement and it was completely out of line with everything else that was being said. But if I was running for President of America and claimed I wanted a "New America" as many have, that doesn't mean I am trying to disestablish the United States.

    There are straw men absolutely everywhere queuing up to get into your quiver.


  • #3814
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The only view that I am entrenched in is that PRL are an organisation who's aim is their betterment and their's alone. That is actually their job.

    I don't believe everything they've said, as they've managed to come out with conflicting stories on more than one occasion.

    Again, Actions speak volumes louder than words. They have said things and done others many times, as have other businessmen. Business is Business.

    The BT Deal alone tells me more about PRL's intentions than any press conference they've ever given, any quote that they've ever been attributed with, and any issue they've ever raised as a smokescreen to the ERC.



    There are straw men absolutely everywhere queuing up to get into your quiver.

    OK, so let's forget that Daily Mail article you tried to frame as a McCafferty quote then ;)

    You must have seen the BT contract then, if that's all you need?


  • #3815
    molloyjh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,779 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    I'm not swallowing what they've been saying as fact. I was accusing the ERC of it in this thread long before Quentin Smith said it. It's my opinion that the ERC are doing it and it has been echoed by statements from those involved.

    It makes no sense for Premiership Rugby to have delayed the negotiations, so I'm not sure what you're basing that accusation on. The ERC and Celtic Unions have done it in order to force the clock to run down on negotiations, according to people who were there. If you want to believe an alternative to that you are welcome to.

    I think you just need to be a little more careful how you phrase things. You're using terms like "fact" when you're presenting opinion and not fact. You've done it again in the part bolded above, which presents your argument as a statement of absolute truth when we all know you are no better informed on this than the rest of us.
    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    That is true to be fair, but the progress has certainly been incredibly slow. Which suits one side much more than the other.

    I have no idea how not meeting and not reaching agreement is of any benefit to the other Unions in the ERC given that by doing this they are effectively killing the HEC and the ERC along with it. The PRL and LNR were very clear from day 1 that they would not participate unless changes were made. It would seem a ridiculously outlandish notion that the other Unions genuinely thought that the PRL and LNR would just come back into the fold even if they were ignored completely.

    The only logical benefit I can see is the undermining of the ERC through a refusal to reach agreement and making it appear to be the ERCs fault. This gives the PRL and LNR far more "justification" in the public eye for proceeding with "their" new tournament. They are after a club run set-up, they don't think the ERC should be involved in club rugby and so undermining the ERC would be a positive thing in the context of their motives.


  • #3816
    Jazlynn Nutritious Bellboy
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Jazlynn Nutritious Bellboy


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    OK, so let's forget that Daily Mail article you tried to frame as a McCafferty quote then ;)

    You must have seen the BT contract then, if that's all you need?

    No, let's not forget it. It's there, clear as day. Let people take what they want from it. I only pasted the link to give in to your demands.

    Again, I'm not spending all day searching for articles to appease your desire for evidence that you will then explain as "he was having a rough day" (see above) or "he didn't mean that" (again above) or "that's a rubbish paper" (again above).

    The very fact that a BT contract was signed which included the wording "ANY FUTURE EUROPEAN COMPETITION" (as used directly from the press release) shows everything you need to know about their intentions to work with the ERC. If you want me to write it again, I'll just quote my post and save myself the time.

    In essence, even talking to BT was a massive, massive deal in undermining the ERC.


  • Advertisement
  • #3817
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    molloyjh wrote: »
    I think you just need to be a little more careful how you phrase things. You're using terms like "fact" when you're presenting opinion and not fact. You've done it again in the part bolded above, which presents your argument as a statement of absolute truth when we all know you are no better informed on this than the rest of us.

    Ah FFS! You didn't bold the entire sentence!

    I said:

    "The ERC and Celtic Unions have done it in order to force the clock to run down on negotiations, according to people who were there."

    I have no idea how not meeting and not reaching agreement is of any benefit to the other Unions in the ERC given that by doing this they are effectively killing the HEC and the ERC along with it. The PRL and LNR were very clear from day 1 that they would not participate unless changes were made. It would seem a ridiculously outlandish notion that the other Unions genuinely thought that the PRL and LNR would just come back into the fold even if they were ignored completely.

    The only logical benefit I can see is the undermining of the ERC through a refusal to reach agreement and making it appear to be the ERCs fault. This gives the PRL and LNR far more "justification" in the public eye for proceeding with "their" new tournament. They are after a club run set-up, they don't think the ERC should be involved in club rugby and so undermining the ERC would be a positive thing in the context of their motives.

    The reason for it is clear, according to someone who knows a lot more about these negotations than either of us.
    That is what, frankly, a number of the other unions around the table and the ERC had hoped would happen. They filibustered and procrastinated and thought if we got deep into this season there would not be an alternative created and we would all go for an ‘ERC mark II’. But we are not doing that, because that would mean we would go backwards.

    They were playing brinksmanship to force the status quo. That's my opinion, I'm quite satisfied that was the case. And as soon as it was clear that the other side weren't interested in brinksmanship (this September), suddenly we see everyone from those Unions coming out everywhere and clarifying their positions and talking about compromise, and now JP Lux saying they will now consider negotiating (completely in contrast to his statement earlier this year which pretty much said they had no reason to vote in favour of the changes and they were the majority).


  • #3818
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Again, I'm not spending all day searching for articles to appease your desire for evidence that you will then explain as "he was having a rough day" (see above) or "he didn't mean that" (again above) or "that's a rubbish paper" (again above).

    Another bit of Daily Mailesque quoting because I never said those terms! I'm beginning to see a pattern here. Jumping to conclusions on things you've never seen, misquoting and taking quotes out of context... I guess you must have access to all our voicemail inboxes as well eh! :P


  • #3819
    OldRio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,442 ✭✭✭OldRio


    Ahhh now you'll be saying Sky own Formula 1 next.


  • #3820
    Teferi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,320 ✭✭✭Teferi


    Out of interest - in 255 pages of posts have IBF or Emmet given ground to each other at all?


  • #3821
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Teferi wrote: »
    Out of interest - in 255 pages of posts have IBF or Emmet given ground to each other at all?

    Well from the beginning of this thread I've actually moved further over to supporting Premiership rugby than I was at the beginning. Just due to many things including things that happened outside of this thread. So probably not.

    I've said many times I don't think PRL were right in the way they conducted the TV negotiations though, I think it was needlessly seclusive. But there is no evidence to say the existence of the deal meant they were never going to negotiate, and that is what people here have presented as fact, in classic irisbucsfan fashion.


  • Advertisement
  • #3822
    Jazlynn Nutritious Bellboy
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Jazlynn Nutritious Bellboy


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Well from the beginning of this thread I've actually moved further over to supporting Premiership rugby than I was at the beginning. Just due to many things including things that happened outside of this thread. So probably not.

    I've said many times I don't think PRL were right in the way they conducted the TV negotiations though, I think it was needlessly seclusive. But there is no evidence to say the existence of the deal meant they were never going to negotiate, and that is what people here have presented as fact, in classic irisbucsfan fashion.

    Luckily, the evidence that says that they've been negotiating all along with a clear intent to stay in the ERC is here : <insert missing link>


  • #3823
    eire_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 135 ✭✭eire_lad


    Until ERC come out out publicly with a proposed new format then this is going nowhere....

    The ERC must come public with their idea and show up the french and english leagues for what they are trying to do..

    If this happened it might put some bit of doubt into the clubs mindset in france and england and give the IRB a stornger case for preventing the alternative tournament


  • #3824
    Teferi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,320 ✭✭✭Teferi


    So that would be a 'no' then.


  • #3825
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Luckily, the evidence that says that they've been negotiating all along with a clear intent to stay in the ERC is here : <insert missing link>

    Well given you don't accept direct quotes as evidence there will never be any I'm sure.

    But here was a quote from JP Lux in September 2012, the supposed independent chairman of the ERC. Does this seem very even handed?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=80933381


  • #3826
    Jazlynn Nutritious Bellboy
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Jazlynn Nutritious Bellboy


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Well given you don't accept direct quotes as evidence there will never be any I'm sure.

    But here was a quote from JP Lux in September 2012, the supposed independent chairman of the ERC. Does this seem very even handed?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=80933381

    How on earth is that evidence that PRL were committed to the ERC?


  • #3827
    molloyjh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,779 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    ....that is what people here have presented as fact, in classic irisbucsfan fashion.

    Well played sir. :D


  • #3828
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Deleted User wrote: »
    How on earth is that evidence that PRL were committed to the ERC?

    It's not supposed to be


  • #3829
    thomond2006
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 45,433 ✭✭✭✭thomond2006


    Emmet and bucs,

    Pick a number between 1 and 10. Whoever gets the right number first wins this argument. :D


  • #3830
    Eponymous
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,374 ✭✭✭Eponymous


    This has become, quite possibly, the worst thread on this forum ever - and I'd include the Leinster/Munster schiesse threads of old.


  • #3831
    molloyjh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,779 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Well given you don't accept direct quotes as evidence there will never be any I'm sure.

    But here was a quote from JP Lux in September 2012, the supposed independent chairman of the ERC. Does this seem very even handed?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=80933381

    It sounds like he was being too honest there, which for the record I'm saying is a bad thing. But in retrospect there's plenty of interesting comments in it. Like for example the comments of how the PRL were pulling out of meetings even back then, assuring the other parties rumours of the BT deal weren't true only to announce it the morning of one of the ERC meetings, the point that they were looking for an Anglo-French competition over a year ago and had been talking about looking to South Africa even then.

    There's plenty of detail there, if you were to believe Lux, that would indicate that the PRL never really properly engaged in the negotiations at all. Which makes sense to me in the context of everything that's happened.

    EDIT: Combine that with the quotes in this article:

    http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/english-and-french-leagues-lack-respect-says-erc-chief-1.1537425
    Jean-Pierre Lux wrote:
    While this process began in 2012, ERC met with the parties during the summer, with the exception of Premiership Rugby, who refused to engage. They have never entered into negotiations.

    And for as much as Lux doesn't speak for the FFR, they have been fairly clear themselves thus far:

    http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/european/2013/0922/475828-french-rugby-chiefs-set-to-veto-new-tournament/
    FFR Statement wrote:
    No meeting or international competition involving French clubs can be organised outside the framework of the FFR and without its prior agreement.

    The FFR has always been and will remain a major player in the European cups organised by ERC and backs proposals to permit the continuity and development of these.

    If the FFR is in favour of an improvement in the European cups, their organisation can only be envisaged under the edict of the European federations which make up ERC.

    The statement released by the clubs appears therefore irrelevant and inappropriate.


  • Advertisement
  • #3832
    Ugo Monye spacecraft experience
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,221 ✭✭✭Ugo Monye spacecraft experience


    Eponymous wrote: »
    This has become, quite possibly, the worst thread on this forum ever - and I'd include the Leinster/Munster schiesse threads of old.

    It's also the only thread where all four of my accounts have posted. And I still haven't a clue what to make of it all :D


  • #3833
    molloyjh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,779 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    Eponymous wrote: »
    This has become, quite possibly, the worst thread on this forum ever - and I'd include the Leinster/Munster schiesse threads of old.

    The crazy thing is we came to a fairly reasonable compromise weeks ago on most of it with the only outstanding thing being governance. We've moved away from that since and have been talking in circles ad naseum. Myself included....


  • #3834
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    molloyjh wrote: »
    The crazy thing is we came to a fairly reasonable compromise weeks ago on most of it with the only outstanding thing being governance. We've moved away from that since and have been talking in circles ad naseum. Myself included....

    You may have moved away from it. But I'm still happy with it. But it was an agreement on participation, not governance. And this definitely is all about governance and control for the clubs and Unions.

    That compromise was 6 teams from England, 6 teams from France and 8 from the Rabo, with Scottish and Italians guarranteed 1 each.

    That would mean 30% of the money going to the English, 30% to the French and 40% split across the Rabo. Which in a pot of £70m would be £1.75m to each team in the Premiership and Top 14 and £2.3m per team in the Rabo (given they share it evenly). It's still uneven but it much closer than the massive disparity that exists currently. If the Rabo Unions didn't agree to share it evenly, which all evidence of how money is split currently suggests they wouldn't, it would mean you'd probably see the IRFU benefit greatly to the expense of the others if the Irish provinces performances continued, so I'd hope an agreement would be reached similar to that in the Top 14 and Premiership.

    Governance would still be open for debate and it's the single most important part of it anyway. I think 40 votes split between 38 league participants and 2 held over for FIRA representatives or something like that would be fair. But others don't think it is. So the whole compromise is pretty meaningless, the Celtic unions still want to control everything.


  • #3835
    rrpc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    molloyjh wrote: »
    The crazy thing is we came to a fairly reasonable compromise weeks ago on most of it with the only outstanding thing being governance. We've moved away from that since and have been talking in circles ad naseum. Myself included....
    Yep, I think all that could have been said, has been said, many, many, many times.

    Right at the beginning of this (on the older thread in May 2012) I said this was about money. There is nothing I have heard, read or seen in the interim that's done anything but copper fasten that notion in my mind.

    It's waddling and quacking and will take off soon. :)


  • #3836
    Howard Juneau
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,901 ✭✭✭Howard Juneau


    thomond2006 wrote: »
    Emmet and bucs,

    Pick a number between 1 and 10. Whoever gets the right number first wins this argument. :D

    Do I get partial credit if I guess "ligind" ?


  • #3837
    molloyjh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,779 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    You may have moved away from it. But I'm still happy with it.

    What I meant was that the conversation moved away from it. I wasn't saying that I stopped agreeing with it.
    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    But it was an agreement on participation, not governance. And this definitely is all about governance and control for the clubs and Unions.

    That compromise was 6 teams from England, 6 teams from France and 8 from the Rabo, with Scottish and Italians guarranteed 1 each.

    That would mean 30% of the money going to the English, 30% to the French and 40% split across the Rabo. Which in a pot of £70m would be £1.75m to each team in the Premiership and Top 14 and £2.3m per team in the Rabo (given they share it evenly). It's still uneven but it much closer than the massive disparity that exists currently. If the Rabo Unions didn't agree to share it evenly, which all evidence of how money is split currently suggests they wouldn't, it would mean you'd probably see the IRFU benefit greatly to the expense of the others if the Irish provinces performances continued, so I'd hope an agreement would be reached similar to that in the Top 14 and Premiership.

    Again here you want the English to get money based on the number of teams they are entering, France to get money based on the number of teams they are entering with Ireland & Wales to share their money with other countries. Either you get money based on participation or you don't. If so then that has to apply across the board. If the English and French should not be sharing their money then neither should the Irish or Welsh.
    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Governance would still be open for debate and it's the single most important part of it anyway. I think 40 votes split between 38 league participants and 2 held over for FIRA representatives or something like that would be fair. But others don't think it is. So the whole compromise is pretty meaningless, the Celtic unions still want to control everything.

    The nasty, mean, horrible and selfish Celtic Unions..... :rolleyes:


  • #3838
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    molloyjh wrote: »
    Again here you want the English to get money based on the number of teams they are entering, France to get money based on the number of teams they are entering with Ireland & Wales to share their money with other countries. Either you get money based on participation or you don't. If so then that has to apply across the board. If the English and French should not be sharing their money then neither should the Irish or Welsh.

    OK, if you don't believe the Rabo should share money across the league then it's completly unequal. That is exactly what happens in England and France and means no one team is financially dominant. If it doesn't happen in the Rabo then if 3 Irish teams qualify they will get £3.5m each while the Italian, Scottish and Welsh side would get the same for all their teams. Meaning the 4 Welsh sides would be sharing £875k between them.

    It's by not sharing the money across the Rabo that you are creating the inequality. Not by sharing it! The English and French sides share the money to nearly all sides regardless of if the qualify for that exact reason. The Rabo should agree to do the same as them. I'd like to see all the Unions undertake to ensure that the money is shared across their leagues, to ensure that PRL and LNR continue to do it and that the Rabo start.


  • #3839
    rrpc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    That would mean 30% of the money going to the English, 30% to the French and 40% split across the Rabo. Which in a pot of £70m would be £1.75m to each team in the Premiership and Top 14 and £2.3m per team in the Rabo (given they share it evenly). It's still uneven but it much closer than the massive disparity that exists currently.
    It's not a massive disparity currently. According to your figures, the current dole out is 48% for England and France and 52% for Ire/Wal/Ita/Sco.

    On current participation that's 48% for 12 teams and 52% for 10 (not counting the winners).

    What has me confused about this is the bonus payments. That's supposed to be 15% to all the knockout/winners/runners up. How does that fit in?


  • #3840
    rrpc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    Whiff of Cordite is having a bit of a giggle:
    Yesterday we had Bath chairman Bruce Craig, a man with the greater good of the game no doubt at the forefront of his mind, effectively blackmail the Celtalian unions. If you do not join our ‘fabulous new European competition’, said the man who paid Beaver to eat out, you will face ‘financial oblivion’. The highlight of his little outburst was his assertion that the Cup for Winningest Winners was going to ‘save European rugby’. Those who didn’t know exactly what European rugby needed saving from now had their answer: these guys.


    And about the possibility of this being a World Cup:
    ...Will Bath be trekking the 30-plus hours required to get to Canterbury to play a Cham-pi-on-es Cup match against the Crusaders? And get toasted by 60 points based on current squads? It looks like a ludicrous over-bet. Perhaps the next step for those on the other side of the table is to call them on it.


  • Advertisement
  • #3841
    19543261
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,973 ✭✭✭19543261


    So what happens now.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement