Premiership Rugby out of Heineken Cup?

irishbucsfan · 27-09-2013 12:27PM

Crystal clear in that statement that they are not saying it has to go through the ERC. Read it again.

The FFR are not even agreed themselves on which way to decide and the statement is disputed in France. And they are still currently negotiating with the LNR over international availability for this season. Regardless if anyone knew how the FFR will decide, the French minister for sport is the guy everyone will be looking towards. But that won't be until the end of October I'd say.

Edit: The AP qualification thing is completely unconnected to that meeting, that article is questionable.

molloyjh · 27-09-2013 12:28PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It's from a comment that someone posted under an article in the Irish Times. It's very unlikely to be true.

It's from some blog somewhere apparently as it's made it into the comments section on a few sites overnight. Obviously more than a healthy pinch of salt is required, but then at the same time stranger things have happened.

For now it's best to count that as unsubstantiated rumour/gossip. Like the vast majority of everything else in this debate.

rrpc · 27-09-2013 12:30PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I don't mean splitting it based on participation is unfair. I mean that way participation is currently split is unfair.

And I think it's marginal. Any benefit accrued in losing the weaker nations in terms of competitiveness is probably lost in terms of development. But it's really about the money, the numbers only come into it as a means to reduce the money that the four nations get whilst disguising it under the cloak of 'meritocracy'. It's the Emperor's new clothes all over again and it's coming to an ending remarkably similar to the morality tale.

Conor O'Shea is looking in the correct direction. At the organisation who promise Edinburgh, Glasgow, Zebre and Treviso a place in the competition every year and 20% of the money between them.

No he's not. Even based on the reduced finances under the new Ready Cash Cow, any one of those clubs could still conceivably end up with more than Quins if the current distribution methods are adhered to.

who_me · 27-09-2013 12:30PM

The funny thing about Quins complaining about their take from the QF, was they may have made as much from the knock-outs as Munster did, despite Munster making the semi final.

Quins - 400K prize money, plus 50% of the gate revenue after expenses.
Munster - 0 prize money for the QF, 0 prize money for the semi, 25% of the gate revenue after expenses in QF, the same(??) for the semi?

Phonehead · 27-09-2013 12:30PM

molloyjh wrote: »

Does anyone really have the time or money for lengthy court action? And will the LNR have the will for that if the ERC are prepared to meet them somewhere in the middle re tournament size and meritocracy?

That comment sums up the likely eventuality

irishbucsfan · 27-09-2013 12:33PM

molloyjh wrote: »

It's from some blog somewhere apparently as it's made it into the comments section on a few sites overnight. Obviously more than a healthy pinch of salt is required, but then at the same time stranger things have happened.

For now it's best to count that as unsubstantiated rumour/gossip. Like the vast majority of everything else in this debate.

I've seen the full original comment. It's full of all sorts of nonsense, people just lifted the parts about the 4 unions because it's the most believable part.

andrewdcs · 27-09-2013 12:37PM

Much like a season of Game of Thrones, I think this will end in (metaphorically / alleGOREically speaking) McClafferty losing his head.

I think he's over playing PRLs hand more and more desperately at the moment. The IRB, unions and smaller nations will break this up. The RFU will wake up and lean on the PRL executive body, to oust its Chief Exec, rational being he has screwed them politically/ internationally.

You win or you die.

UNLESS THERES A TWIST!

molloyjh · 27-09-2013 12:39PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Crystal clear in that statement that they are not saying it has to go through the ERC. Read it again.

The FFR are not even agreed themselves on which way to decide and the statement is disputed in France. And they are still currently negotiating with the LNR over international availability for this season. Regardless if anyone knew how the FFR will decide, the French minister for sport is the guy everyone will be looking towards. But that won't be until the end of October I'd say.

I've read it multiple times. They've said they are committed to back proposals that will see the continuation of "European cups organised by ERC" and that the European competitions can only be run by the players that make up the ERC. They support some of the calls made by the LNR, but not the governance ones and intend to remain at the table.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Edit: The AP qualification thing is completely unconnected to that meeting, that article is questionable.

It may be unconnected to the meeting that was held, and it may not be the best article ever written, but the general points are still valid. If the regions want to join this new competition without the WRU approval then they'll have to become completely independent entities and will not be able to rely on anything at all from the WRU, i.e. no 6Ns money. Also as independent entities they won't be involved in the Pro12. So they'd need to get involved in another league to make up the revenue loss and get regular games. The AP can't accommodate them so that means they can't realistically break from the WRU.

irishbucsfan · 27-09-2013 12:42PM

Phonehead wrote: »

That comment sums up the likely eventuality

The LNR want the BeIn contract. And the clubs know that if there is no alternative in Europe the Unions position will be very hard to defend legally.

But no one wants court. The Unions have opened the door for this new competition this week and you can be sure not mentioning the ERC in their statement was an extremely calculated decision. So a resolution is closer. PRL and LNR just need to appease their Unions now.

irishbucsfan · 27-09-2013 12:47PM

molloyjh wrote: »

I've read it multiple times. They've said they are committed to back proposals that will see the continuation of "European cups organised by ERC" and that the European competitions can only be run by the players that make up the ERC. They support some of the calls made by the LNR, but not the governance ones and intend to remain at the table.

Exactly. That doesn't mean that any future competitions need to be organised by the ERC which is what you said. Again, crucial.

molloyjh wrote: »

It may be unconnected to the meeting that was held, and it may not be the best article ever written, but the general points are still valid. If the regions want to join this new competition without the WRU approval then they'll have to become completely independent entities and will not be able to rely on anything at all from the WRU, i.e. no 6Ns money. Also as independent entities they won't be involved in the Pro12. So they'd need to get involved in another league to make up the revenue loss and get regular games. The AP can't accommodate them so that means they can't realistically break from the WRU.

That is absolutely not what the WRU told the regions about the RCC. I think you have your wires crossed. That is what that journalist put together in his head about some sort of weird situation where they would become independent entities and join the AP. But that's a different thing altogether.

rrpc · 27-09-2013 12:51PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The LNR want the BeIn contract. And the clubs know that if there is no alternative in Europe the Unions position will be very hard to defend legally.

But no one wants court. The Unions have opened the door for this new competition this week and you can be sure not mentioning the ERC in their statement was an extremely calculated decision. So a resolution is closer. PRL and LNR just need to appease their Unions now.

I think you're grasping at straws. You seem to be able to read between the lines of some quotes and then discard other ones as 'not in context', 'newspaper is a rag', 'he's a twat' or 'that journalist has made mistakes before, so he's damaged goods'.

The FFR mentioned the ERC twice, in a context of working within it and yet you seem to be able to read it in an entirely different light.

irishbucsfan · 27-09-2013 12:55PM

rrpc wrote: »

I think you're grasping at straws. You seem to be able to read between the lines of some quotes and then discard other ones as 'not in context', 'newspaper is a rag', 'he's a twat' or 'that journalist has made mistakes before, so he's damaged goods'.

The FFR mentioned the ERC twice, in a context of working within it and yet you seem to be able to read it in an entirely different light.

It's very simple. Did they say the competitions had to be organised by the ERC? No.

27-09-2013 12:56PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The LNR want the BeIn contract. And the clubs know that if there is no alternative in Europe the Unions position will be very hard to defend legally.

But no one wants court. The Unions have opened the door for this new competition this week and you can be sure not mentioning the ERC in their statement was an extremely calculated decision. So a resolution is closer. PRL and LNR just need to appease their Unions now.

Undoubtedly the Celtic unions and Italy are leaving their options open, but simply not mentioning the erc is little indication that they're suddenly open to a club run competition. The meeting on October 23rd will be pivotal and the French are the real power brokers here. If the French union refuses to back a club run competition then McCafferty's masterplan is dead in the water.

We must not forget that strong voices in the IRB will be very opposed to a new club run competition as all this extra cash that French and English clubs will be able to accrue will undoubtedly create greater pressure on Sanzar players to jump to Europe.

rrpc · 27-09-2013 01:02PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It's very simple. Did they say the competitions had to be organised by the ERC? No.

It's very hard to read it to mean anything other than that. I mean really hard to the point of semantic gymnastics. But fair play to you for trying.

irishbucsfan · 27-09-2013 01:05PM

wittycynic wrote: »

Undoubtedly the Celtic unions and Italy are leaving their options open, but simply not mentioning the erc is little indication that they're suddenly open to a club run competition. The meeting on October 23rd will be pivotal and the French are the real power brokers here. If the French union refuses to back a club run competition then McCafferty's masterplan is dead in the water.

No doubt. The French and English could kill the competition dead at that meeting if they choose to. But if Serge Blanco is there as part of the FFR's party that would be very surprising.

People are overstating FFR's anti-club stance. Their Vice President is staunchly pro LNR and has a reputation for doing dodgy things to help Biarritz. Even the head of the LNR is the ex-treasaurer of the FFR. The FFR and LNR are pretty incestuous and even if Pierre Camou isn't a huge fan.

wittycynic wrote: »

We must not forget that strong voices in the IRB will be very opposed to a new club run competition as all this extra cash that French and English clubs will be able to accrue will undoubtedly create greater pressure on Sanzar players to jump to Europe.

If the RFU and FFR approve the competition, then it will have satisfied IRB regulations and it's unlikely the IRB will get involved. Despite Gerry Thornley's misleading article in the past. The RFU and FFR are the people we need to watch.

molloyjh · 27-09-2013 01:07PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Exactly. That doesn't mean that any future competitions need to be organised by the ERC which is what you said. Again, crucial.

You're getting into semantics now. They said that they want to see a future to the ERC competitions. They then said that the people who make the decisions should be the same bodies that make up the ERC. So technically they didn't say it had to be the ERC, but they did say the same "federations", i.e. Unions, "which make up the the ERC" are the only ones who can decide the future of the European club game.

So at an absolute stretch (and that's all it is, a stretch) they are talking about the ERC in all but name.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

That is absolutely not what the WRU told the regions about the RCC. I think you have your wires crossed. That is what that journalist put together in his head about some sort of weird situation where they would become independent entities and join the AP. But that's a different thing altogether.

Ah look I'm not getting into a debate on this. It's irrelevant. As you said yourself the WRU won't approve the regions joining the competition at present anyway.

molloyjh · 27-09-2013 01:11PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The RFU and FFR are the people we need to watch.

Of course we should also take their statements on the matter with a grain of salt and a massive helping of imagination. Just because the FFR have clearly said in a statement that the future of the European club game should be in the hands of the Unions and that the LNR press statements have been "irrelevant and inappropriate" that doesn't mean they won't support the dissolution of the ERC and the creation of a club run organisation.

Niallof9 · 27-09-2013 01:12PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I've seen the full original comment. It's full of all sorts of nonsense, people just lifted the parts about the 4 unions because it's the most believable part.

Suits your agenda, claiming its nonsense. you're starting to pollute this conversation with so many replies. You must be one of the few Irish rugby fans who can't understand how this will be bad for the game here and why people have a problem with it. Its simple enough to understand.

irishbucsfan · 27-09-2013 01:16PM

molloyjh wrote: »

Of course we should also take their statements on the matter with a grain of salt and a massive helping of imagination. Just because the FFR have clearly said in a statement that the future of the European club game should be in the hands of the Unions and that the LNR press statements have been "irrelevant and inappropriate" that doesn't mean they won't support the dissolution of the ERC and the creation of a club run organisation.

No absolutely. But the statement is disputed in France from seeing French people discussing it.

Also I think you'll find they'll support the dissolution of the ERC. They just want to ensure its replacement has a seat for them. Ultimately I think that might be where PRL and LNR will give ground. Something along the lines of splitting control by participation but the Unions will decide how that's controlled internally.

Winters · 27-09-2013 01:37PM

By declaring that they will not be going to the Oct talks and I assume by not being involved in the mediation currently ongoing it must put PRL and LNR on a collision course with the IRB and their unions no?

I hope that Peter Wheeler and Rene Whatsit are speaking to their lawyers because as current directors of ERC their no show and possible envolvement with a competing entity is serious.

In my utopian rugby tournament world the IRB would come out and state that to safeguard the future of the sport only union or member owned clubs can compete at the sport of rugby*, only union employed players can play in IRB tournaments and the maximum number of players in a squad is 40 with a limit of 5 non domestic union qualified players permitted.

One can dream.

*The 50+1 rule could be a compromise.

irishbucsfan · 27-09-2013 01:47PM

Winters wrote: »

By declaring that they will not be going to the Oct talks and I assume by not being involved in the mediation currently ongoing it must put PRL and LNR on a collision course with the IRB no?

Why the IRB?

Winters wrote: »

I hope that Peter Wheeler and Rene Whatsit are speaking to their lawyers because as current directors of ERC their no show and possible envolvement with a competing entity is serious.

It was the lawyers who told them not to attend the meeting in the first place supposedly. Also there is no competing entity at the moment, is there?

Winters · 27-09-2013 01:58PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Why the IRB? It was the lawyers who told them not to attend the meeting in the first place supposedly. Also there is no competing entity at the moment, is there?

I changed that, I meant the IRB and their respective unions. The reason is that there is a serious impasse in the sport at the moment and the governing body of the sport has asked all the parties to reconvene discussions and they also recommended a mediator.

We don't really know what they have apart from a name and a TV Deal I suppose but it is still in conflict with the ERC.

Noopti · 27-09-2013 02:02PM

The BT deal has been leaked and it’s not nice reading if you’re an English rugby fan. Apparently, unless 4 or more tier 1 unions sign up to the new competition (which looks increasingly unlikely) the PRL get next to nothing, just the travel costs for the teams involved.. Also, the deal for Premiership games is contingent on the new comp being formed, again with four or more tier 1 nations signed up, otherwise the rights for the league games will be worth less than they were when SKY had them. There is a bonus to be paid every year for the new competition, but this is again conditional on the four or more tier 1 unions being involved. So again, less than four and they get zero. So, the PRL has played it’s hand and lost. The BT deal is predicated on the European Cup continuing as it was but under new management. The PRL have so alienated the other clubs through their mouthpieces on the BBC and on ESPNScrum, ( ESPN are FoxSports main rivals in America and Fox is of course owned by 21st Century Fox, formerly News International, who of course also own SKY, so they have a vested interest in destroying the ERC), that this is now highly unlikely. The IRFU, WRU, SRU and FIR have all stated that none of their teams will be playing in this new tournament. Who else would be included? The South Africans are tied into the Super 15 until 2015. Do the English teams have that much time?

If that is true (take it with a very large dose of salt as it is just a comment someone put on a news article), then it isn't good for the PRL.

Here is a link to the comment by the way:
http://thescore.thejournal.ie/profile/112811/the-bt-deal-leaked-its-nice-reading-youre-1633273/

rrpc · 27-09-2013 02:03PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Why the IRB?

It was the lawyers who told them not to attend the meeting in the first place supposedly. Also there is no competing entity at the moment, is there?

It's got a name, and a joint working group, so it's an entity. It doesn't have to have much else tbh, a club can be formed as quickly.

danthefan · 27-09-2013 02:04PM

Noopti wrote: »

If that is true (take it with a very large dose of salt as it is just a comment someone put on a news article), then it isn't good for the PRL.

If the 4 unions thing is true then their behaviour is completely bizarre.

Noopti · 27-09-2013 02:09PM

danthefan wrote: »

If the 4 unions thing is true then their behaviour is completely bizarre.

Possibly explains the increasingly desperate daily updates/threats coming from them though.

rrpc · 27-09-2013 02:11PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Why the IRB?

It was the lawyers who told them not to attend the meeting in the first place supposedly. Also there is no competing entity at the moment, is there?

You really do swallow everything that comes out of these people's mouths as if it was written in stone.

They say it was their lawyers, that could just be a convenient excuse.

But if we're to take it at face value, then it's very worrying if lawyers are advising their clients along these lines. You have to then think of the reasons why this would be prudent or necessary.

I can think of a few, I've drawn attention to them on this thread as have others.

Eponymous · 27-09-2013 02:12PM

If that clause in the BT deal is true, then maybe the Pro 12 should go to BT and say "Hey, we have a competition involving four tier one nations".

Two more than the PRL and LNR have.

gaius c · 27-09-2013 02:26PM

Noopti wrote: »

If that is true (take it with a very large dose of salt as it is just a comment someone put on a news article), then it isn't good for the PRL.

Here is a link to the comment by the way:
http://thescore.thejournal.ie/profile/112811/the-bt-deal-leaked-its-nice-reading-youre-1633273/

I suspect that the 4 tier 1 unions bit is true. The Celtic unions must have some idea of what is in the BT deal and why PRL have tried to hide it. It would certainly explain why the IRFU have been happy to call their bluff.

The English are getting increasingly screechy as I suspect that they thought they could railroad us into giving them what they wanted (like with the Sky 6N deal) after some bluster. The besiegers are themselves running out of food & water.

andrewdcs · 27-09-2013 02:28PM

So..... BT deal was done knowing there would have to be a plan hatched to destroy ERC ltd. as a company, to break out of Sky deal.With millions at stake even the wildest conspiracy theories can look like childs play.

I think that 4 unions needed to form a quality tournament BT sports could sell on is likely true. I think a deal is a certainty, but knowing that the collapse of PRL rugby is the only bad outcome if the 4 celtic league unions and French do a deal, means PRLs position is shockingly bad and their brinksmanship has been exposed.

Mcafferty etc. out, sane negotiation around the table with Union blessings all round.

Premiership Rugby out of Heineken Cup?

Comments