Premiership Rugby out of Heineken Cup?

irishbucsfan · 01-10-2013 01:23PM

rrpc wrote: »

What's your point? Do you know for a fact that they were required to give their agreement before the deal was binding? Do you know for a fact that they hadn't already given their agreement to negotiate and sign a new contract?

We don't know much of anything, we are speculating based on some very limited quotes and reports.

Here are two:

The substance of both of these quotes could be correct.

No I'm definitely not saying they were required. I'm not saying ERC did anything illegal etc. I'd assume they're perfectly OK in what they're doing because they're all sharp guys.

I'm talking about Emmet's assertion that 12 members signed the deal with Sky. Which is absolutely not what happened.

What happened was the English and French clubs gave their notice in writing that they were leaving the ERC. The committee decided to continue negotiating, whether or not Wheeler or Bouscatel voted in favour of this or even voted on it, we don't know. The English and French wrote to Sky and told them that they were pulling out, leaving Sky under no uncertain terms. And the ERC went ahead and signed it. If they promised Sky that English or French clubs would be a part of the deal, well then that's noone's fault but their own. Similarly if BT were promised anything other than RFU-owned rights.

01-10-2013 01:37PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No I'm definitely not saying they were required. I'm not saying ERC did anything illegal etc. I'd assume they're perfectly OK in what they're doing because they're all sharp guys.

I'm talking about Emmet's assertion that 12 members signed the deal with Sky. Which is absolutely not what happened.

What happened was the English and French clubs gave their notice in writing that they were leaving the ERC. The committee decided to continue negotiating, whether or not Wheeler or Bouscatel voted in favour of this or even voted on it, we don't know. The English and French wrote to Sky and told them that they were pulling out, leaving Sky under no uncertain terms. And the ERC went ahead and signed it. If they promised Sky that English or French clubs would be a part of the deal, well then that's noone's fault but their own. Similarly if BT were promised anything other than RFU-owned rights.

The assertion was that the ERC (which represents 12 members of the ERC and not just a sole member) has signed a deal with Sky.

Deleted User wrote: »

there's a really annoying "most likely outcome" in this article.

As far as I can tell, the BT deal is a deal signed by 1 representative of 12 of the ERC. (Contractually obliging the PRL teams only)

Whereas the Sky deal is a deal signed by the ERC (12/12)

Yet a more likely outcome is to terminate a contract signed by the latter in favour of one which has been contended to hamstring just that single representative?

And the question still remains

dregin · 01-10-2013 01:40PM

Just gonna leave this here...

BVfePzmIMAAKIQQ.jpg:large

ThisRegard · 01-10-2013 01:43PM

Winters wrote: »

I'd say the meeting of Quentin Smith and Greame Mew is like David Brent meeting Michael Scott.

That actually happened. The resulting conversations were somewhat less confusing than this thread.

LuckyLloyd · 01-10-2013 01:44PM

Clearlier wrote: »

It basically says that the IRB will under no circumstances consider approving the creation of the new competition proposed by the PRL and supported by Goze. The governance of the game should remain with the unions.

It also says that PRL are talking to the mediator and that the ERC are happy to adjust revenues (which IMO is all that this is about) so that the English and French clubs get 25% and the rest share the other 50%. There are two comments. The first accuses Goze of wanting to kill the European cup so he can create a Top 16 thus guaranteeing his clubs (Perpignan) continued participation and the second say that the first is paranoid and that it's all about money but it's a bad idea to give the clubs more money because they'll just give it to the players.

So it's over? Back to the ERC table, agree a couple of changes and on we go? BT deal dead and Prem clubs lose out?

irishbucsfan · 01-10-2013 01:46PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The assertion was that the ERC (which represents 12 members of the ERC and not just a sole member) has signed a deal with Sky.

And the question still remains

You are trying to paint the picture that they had permission from Bouscatel or Wheeler specifically. The term '12/12' is extremely misleading, how do you know it was unanimous?

You are trying to make it sound like someone is going back on something they've agreed to do. When the RFU, FFR, LNR and PRL all followed the guidelines on leaving the ERC exactly, so how can they be held accountable for dealings the ERC has after they leave?

channelsurfer2 · 01-10-2013 01:47PM

danthefan wrote: »

http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/article/2013/10/01/rugby-la-coupe-d-europe-bis-ne-verra-pas-le-jour_3487656_3242.html

I don't really speak French, but I believe this says the PRL/French competition is dead in the water?

used google translate and yes it says that(not sure if allowed to use any of google translate on here so wont).
says the IRB is prepared to make compromises but wont budge on any tournament organised by the clubs in refusing recognition.

most of it is nothing that that has not already been said before. the last bit is about the english giving notice etc so not sure it adds anything new.

molloyjh · 01-10-2013 01:48PM

dregin wrote: »

Just gonna leave this here...

Where did you get this?

molloyjh · 01-10-2013 01:50PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You are trying to paint the picture that they had permission from Bouscatel or Wheeler specifically. The term '12/12' is extremely misleading, how do you know it was unanimous?

You are trying to make it sound like someone is going back on something they've agreed to do. When the RFU, FFR, LNR and PRL all followed the guidelines on leaving the ERC exactly, so how can they be held accountable for dealings the ERC has after they leave?

I think he's trying to say that it is binding to the 12, not that it was agreed by the 12. Compared to the BT deal which is binding to 1 of the 12.

Either way the general point seems to me to be that if it was unanimous decision then surely we should be going with what 7+ of the 12 want rather than what 1 of the 12 want?

danthefan · 01-10-2013 01:54PM

So the evil Celtic countries who run the ERC and can do whatever they like distributed more than half the money to France and England? Surely not?

01-10-2013 01:55PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You are trying to paint the picture that they had permission from Bouscatel or Wheeler specifically. The term '12/12' is extremely misleading, how do you know it was unanimous?

You are trying to make it sound like someone is going back on something they've agreed to do. When the RFU, FFR, LNR and PRL all followed the guidelines on leaving the ERC exactly, so how can they be held accountable for dealings the ERC has after they leave?

I'm not trying to make it sound like anything.

the BT deal is with a single member of the ERC.

The Sky deal is with the entire ERC.

irishbucsfan · 01-10-2013 01:56PM

molloyjh wrote: »

I think he's trying to say that it is binding to the 12, not that it was agreed by the 12. Compared to the BT deal which is binding to 1 of the 12.

Either way the general point seems to me to be that if it was unanimous decision then surely we should be going with what 7+ of the 12 want rather than what 1 of the 12 want?

The Celtic Unions have absolutely no control over rights in England or France, the RFU and the FFR have pulled out. So what on earth would the ERC be doing signing a binding agreement that promises rights to clubs they know are pulling out of the competitoin? And why would Sky sign it if they've been informed in writing of their intention to leave? I can't see them being bound to it, ERC Ltd. would be bound to it.

01-10-2013 01:58PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The Celtic Unions have absolutely no control over rights in England or France, the RFU and the FFR have pulled out. So what on earth would the ERC be doing signing a binding agreement that promises rights to clubs they know are pulling out of the competition? And why would Sky sign it if they've been informed in writing of their intention to leave? I can't see them being bound to it, ERC Ltd. would be bound to it.

boom.

danthefan · 01-10-2013 01:58PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The Celtic Unions have absolutely no control over rights in England or France, the RFU and the FFR have pulled out. So what on earth would the ERC be doing signing a binding agreement that promises rights to clubs they know are pulling out of the competitoin? And why would Sky sign it if they've been informed in writing of their intention to leave? I can't see them being bound to it, ERC Ltd. would be bound to it.

The BT deal is for home and away games - the PRL clearly feel they have the right to deal for the TV rights in Ireland for example.

LuckyLloyd · 01-10-2013 02:01PM

channelsurfer2 wrote: »

used google translate and yes it says that(not sure if allowed to use any of google translate on here so wont).
says the IRB is prepared to make compromises but wont budge on any tournament organised by the clubs in refusing recognition.

most of it is nothing that that has not already been said before. the last bit is about the english giving notice etc so not sure it adds anything new.

That is surely a substantial addition, as it means an Anglo / French tournament is not an option?

bilston · 01-10-2013 02:02PM

dregin wrote: »

Just gonna leave this here...

Right so if I have worked this out properly this is basically saying that the breakdown per club/province/district/region/franchise is as follows

SRU - €2.45m per district
FIR - €2.3m per franchise
PRL - €1.8m per club
LNR - €1.73m per club
IRFU - €1.65m per province
WRU - €1.63m per region

If anyone should be pissed off it's us!

rrpc · 01-10-2013 02:04PM

molloyjh wrote: »

Where did you get this?

It's from the launch of the ERC Cups today I think.

Interesting table
Union/League|Amount|%age
France/LNR|12.1m|27.9%
England/PRL|10.8m|24.9%
Ireland|6.6m|15.2%
Wales|4.9m|11.3%
Scotland|4.9m|11.3%
Italy|4.1m|9.4%
Total|43.9m|100%

channelsurfer2 · 01-10-2013 02:05PM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

That is surely a substantial addition, as it means an Anglo / French tournament is not an option?

I thought that was already in the papers so thats why i said nothing additional?

heres something new(ish).(well newish in that its in the rugby paper) but elaborates further on PRL threat to the IRB to take them to court if they refuse to sanction the new cup/tournament.

http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/domestic-club-rugby-union/european-cup/11236/nigel-wray-warns-the-irb-a-euro-cup-veto-would-end-in-court/

this part also despite the denials... "a Welsh source told The Rugby Paper following last week’s disclosure that two of the four Welsh regions had declared an interest in joining the new tournament."

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience · 01-10-2013 02:05PM

bilston wrote: »

Right so if I have worked this out properly this is basically saying that the breakdown per club/province/district/region/franchise is as follows

SRU - €2.45m per district
FIR - €2.3m per franchise
PRL - €1.8m per club
LNR - €1.73m per club
IRFU - €1.65m per province
WRU - €1.63m per region

If anyone should be pissed off it's us!

So basically this whole fairness aspect of the argument is bull!?

danthefan · 01-10-2013 02:07PM

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

So basically this whole fairness aspect of the argument is bull!?

Nah, PRL/France keeping an extra €28m (or something) for themselves while the rest of us get next to nothing is apparently fair.

irishbucsfan · 01-10-2013 02:08PM

Deleted User wrote: »

boom.

So, 8/8 representatives then. Given 4 of the "12/12" you claim had signed the contract aren't involved in it.

irishbucsfan · 01-10-2013 02:10PM

This is exactly the figures we already knew, post meritocracy payments. It's all been discussed before and is patently unfair as has also been pointed out before. Or can this thread go around in another circle?

rrpc · 01-10-2013 02:13PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The Celtic Unions have absolutely no control over rights in England or France, the RFU and the FFR have pulled out. So what on earth would the ERC be doing signing a binding agreement that promises rights to clubs they know are pulling out of the competitoin? And why would Sky sign it if they've been informed in writing of their intention to leave? I can't see them being bound to it, ERC Ltd. would be bound to it.

And who are the members of ERC Ltd? (and I mean members in the companies acts meaning of the word).

The only way I can see PRL getting off the hook on this is if they had resigned from the ERC before either deal was done. Which they clearly have not done.

Shelflife · 01-10-2013 02:13PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Or can this thread go around in another circle?

Im nearly sure that IBF had only 100 posts before this thread started

irishbucsfan · 01-10-2013 02:14PM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

That is surely a substantial addition, as it means an Anglo / French tournament is not an option?

To be clear, there is no reason why the Anglo/French competition is not an option under these terms. The Anglo/French demands are thoroughly misrepresented on that issue to the extent that people believe Mark McCaffery and Paul Goze expect to be name King and Queen of European rugby and handed scepters and tiaras.

irishbucsfan · 01-10-2013 02:15PM

rrpc wrote: »

And who are the members of ERC Ltd? (and I mean members in the companies acts meaning of the word).

The only way I can see PRL getting off the hook on this is if they had resigned from the ERC before either deal was done. Which they clearly have not done.

The served notice before the contract was signed. So did the FFR. They also served notice to Sky in writing before the contract was signed.

01-10-2013 02:18PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

So, 8/8 representatives then. Given 4 of the "12/12" you claim had signed the contract aren't involved in it.

They'd want to raise some serious issues considering they're named as committee members currently.

rrpc wrote: »

And who are the members of ERC Ltd? (and I mean members in the companies acts meaning of the word).

The only way I can see PRL getting off the hook on this is if they had resigned from the ERC before either deal was done. Which they clearly have not done.

this

rrpc · 01-10-2013 02:18PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The served notice before the contract was signed. So did the FFR. They also served notice to Sky in writing before the contract was signed.

No. They served notice that they would not be taking part in ERC competition after this current season ended.

They did not resign from the ERC, this is clear since they were still attending board meeting into 2013, something they would not be entitled to do if they had resigned from the board.

.ak · 01-10-2013 02:19PM

dregin wrote: »

Just gonna leave this here...

Who uses black/navy/dark blue/slightly less dark blue on a pie chart?!

rrpc · 01-10-2013 02:36PM

.ak wrote: »

Who uses black/navy/dark blue/slightly less dark blue on a pie chart?!

Have you never seen Microsoft Themes?

Premiership Rugby out of Heineken Cup?

Comments