Premiership Rugby out of Heineken Cup?

keps · 01-10-2013 08:01PM

I presume it is the same stone?

él statutorio · 01-10-2013 08:16PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

What the hell can the RFU and FFR do about it? Magic more than 24% out of thin air?

And actually that money is given to PRL under the 2007 accord with the RFU, it's not an inaccuracy, they get every penny.

No, they take their 24% and divide it in a meritocratic manner. Like 4% for every club who qualify for Europe.

rrpc · 01-10-2013 08:51PM

Following on from my post about the possible effect of the two leagues getting more money and the four nations getting less, the following was in TheRugbyPaper.co.uk and is the average number of home qualified players per team over the last three weeks.

irishbucsfan · 01-10-2013 09:12PM

él statutorio wrote: »

No, they take their 24% and divide it in a meritocratic manner. Like 4% for every club who qualify for Europe.

12 English teams play in Europe every year. So that would be 2% each.

rrpc · 01-10-2013 09:15PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

12 English teams play in Europe every year. So that would be 2% each.

You're great for the balanced statistics. 6 Italian teams play in Europe as well.

rrpc · 01-10-2013 09:16PM

I see the execrable Nigel Wray has been flapping his mouth again:

But Wray has hit back at world rugby’s governing body, insisting that what the English and French clubs do is their own business alone and not the IRB’s.

“Mr Gosper of the IRB has said a few things, but I don’t care. He’s not a Saracens shareholder as far I’m aware,” Wray retorted. “He said they won’t sanction our new competition if it only involves the English and French. Okay, we’ll see you in court then, mate!

“The IRB’s stance has to be illegal. It doesn’t take a genius to work out it’s anti-competitive under European Law.

“We could be in engineering or pharmaceuticals, all we want to do is run a business. You can’t have somebody called the IRB saying you can’t take an order from Toulouse, but you can take one from Dublin. Sorry Mr Gosper, but it’s none of your business!”

Is he really that thick?

irishbucsfan · 01-10-2013 09:18PM

33% of French teams could be French and there would be 70 French players starting every week. More than if Irish provinces were 100% IQ.

The RFU have it well under control. The FFR need to step up.

irishbucsfan · 01-10-2013 09:21PM

rrpc wrote: »

I see the execrable Nigel Wray has been flapping his mouth again:

Is he really that thick?

Ah this really took this long to make it on this forum?

He's not thick, he's just a bit of an assh*le. The clubs are very confident in their legal position though and have been all along. If there is no alternative then there won't be much grounds for blocking an alternative.

rrpc · 01-10-2013 09:22PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

33% of French teams could be French and there would be 70 French players starting every week. More than if Irish provinces were 100% IQ.

The RFU have it well under control. The FFR need to step up.

The FFR have French law against them, it has to be at least partially voluntary on the part of the clubs. The holes in French rugby are starting to appear, there are very few French qualified outhalves playing at the top level which is very surprising for a rugby nation of that size.

01-10-2013 09:24PM

rrpc wrote: »

Is he really that thick?

All signs point to the affirmative.

rrpc · 01-10-2013 09:26PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Ah this really took this long to make it on this forum?

He's not thick, he's just a bit of an assh*le. The clubs are very confident in their legal position though and have been all along. If there is no alternative then there won't be much grounds for blocking an alternative.

He is thick, sport is not the same as business. The governing body for sport does not have to endorse every half-baked competition dreamt up by megalomaniacs intent on profiteering.

The ERC can continue without France and England if it so wishes. The IRB can refuse to sanction a breakaway and you've got a Mexican standoff.

keps · 01-10-2013 09:32PM

rrpc wrote: »

He is thick, sport is not the same as business. The governing body for sport does not have to endorse every half-baked competition dreamt up by megalomaniacs intent on profiteering.

The ERC can continue without France and England if it so wishes. The IRB can refuse to sanction a breakaway and you've got a Mexican standoff.

There is a real danger of a breakaway -ala Kerry Packer in which case the IRB would have no power.
The players would be banned from IRB competitions but players from other codes have gone that route before.

dtpc191991 · 01-10-2013 09:35PM

rrpc wrote: »

I see the execrable Nigel Wray has been flapping his mouth again:

Is he really that thick?

Jesus H Christ, you have got be kidding me. I cannot believe some of the drivel that comes out of this man's mouth.

The question i would be asking is do the PRL and LNR have the money to pay for what would be an extremely high profile, messy, long and expensive court case?

Zzippy · 01-10-2013 09:36PM

I for one would love to see the French back down and leave the English clubs high and dry. A year in the wilderness without HEC rugby would put some manners on Wray, McCafferty et al. I really really hope that happens...

Phonehead · 01-10-2013 09:38PM

I'm pretty sure you cannot apply company law to Sport. The business element and competiton/governing bodies are very different so while the business element of the club must follow all tax/accounting and company laws (that apply) European competition laws probably have no governance here.

If the IRB stand strong then the only option that the English Businesses can pursue is creating a breakaway code! can't see that being a success myself.

molloyjh · 01-10-2013 09:41PM

keps wrote: »

There is a real danger of a breakaway -ala Kerry Packer in which case the IRB would have no power.
The players would be banned from IRB competitions but players from other codes have gone that route before.

Who would go with them though? The set ups outside France and England are such that creating new sides for a rival code would be all but impossible in other European countries and there would be no national sides then either. The English and French simply cannot go it alone.

This sort of mouthing off screams of people who are getting desperate and defensive. It's downright childish and embarrassing for the sport to have this kind of crap going on in the press. The sooner these business men who have a hard time making a profit in a popular sport like rugby are put back in their box the better.

keps · 01-10-2013 09:42PM

Phonehead wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you cannot apply company law to Sport. The business element and competiton/governing bodies are very different so while the business element of the club must follow all tax/accounting and company laws (that apply) European competition laws probably have no governance here.

If the English and French clubs opted out of their respective unions- and set up their competition they would have Competition law on their side IMO

It is a tricky situation in France as the Minister for Sport has a say.

molloyjh · 01-10-2013 09:44PM

keps wrote: »

If the English and French clubs opted out of their respective unions- and set up their competition they would have Competition law on their side IMO

Are you sure? What about central contracts and their restrictions? Is that in contravention of employment law? Sport is a different beast and is treated as such by law AFAIK.

rrpc · 01-10-2013 09:47PM

keps wrote: »

If the English and French clubs opted out of their respective unions- and set up their competition they would have Competition law on their side IMO

It is a tricky situation in France as the Minister for Sport has a say.

They can do all that, but they can't call it Rugby Union, they have to get their own refs, everything is gone including insurance etc.

Not all of them are insurmountable, but the costs would really ramp up and sponsors would run a mile, never mind TV.

Phonehead · 01-10-2013 09:49PM

It would probably break most of the English premier clubs going through the courts to try and get a break. I can't see the French clubs looking to break free from their Union because it would be a nightmare and it's not like the French system isn't working for the Clubs.

McCBrian · 01-10-2013 09:53PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

RFU and FFR have also withdrawn from the ERC in writing

Can not let this go.:D

100% Complete and utter hogwash the RFU have not given notice to withdraw from the ERC

rrpc · 01-10-2013 09:57PM

Phonehead wrote: »

It would probably break most of the English premier clubs going through the courts to try and get a break. I can't see the French clubs looking to break free from their Union because it would be a nightmare and it's not like the French system isn't working for the Clubs.

When it comes down to it, the marginal money is too small for the French to break ranks on if push came to shove. At the very most, at a huge stretch it might come to an extra €750k per club. It's more likely to be in the region of €300k each. For a lot of the clubs, that's barely over 1% of their budgets.

McCBrian · 01-10-2013 10:01PM

rrpc wrote: »

They can do all that, but they can't call it Rugby Union, they have to get their own refs, everything is gone including insurance etc.

Not all of them are insurmountable, but the costs would really ramp up and sponsors would run a mile, never mind TV.

Also need to change the ball shape, goalposts etc etc:D

rrpc · 01-10-2013 10:08PM

McCBrian wrote: »

Also need to change the ball shape, goalposts etc etc:D

Oval pitch anyone?

The worst bit would be existing in the wilderness. You've got your ball, you've got your game, but you can only play amongst yourselves.

McCBrian · 01-10-2013 10:09PM

rrpc wrote: »

Following on from my post about the possible effect of the two leagues getting more money and the four nations getting less, the following was in TheRugbyPaper.co.uk and is the average number of home qualified players per team over the last three weeks.

First time I have seen that so, 12/12 Rabo teams have more players qualified to play for their respective national teams than 66% of the AP and 92% T14 sides (rounded them both down from 66.67% & 92.857% as IBF would no doubt have pulled me up on it if I had said 67% & 93% :P) :cool:

irishbucsfan · 01-10-2013 10:10PM

Phonehead wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you cannot apply company law to Sport. The business element and competiton/governing bodies are very different so while the business element of the club must follow all tax/accounting and company laws (that apply) European competition laws probably have no governance here.

If the IRB stand strong then the only option that the English Businesses can pursue is creating a breakaway code! can't see that being a success myself.

There are a good few lawyers involved in PRL at least (not sure about the LNR). And the French club owners certainly probably have connections with strong corporate lawyers. And then look at Quentin Smith.

The IRB would need to make an argument as to why the new competition is unfair from a sporting perspective or harmful to the sport. The very structure of the competition was designed with the potential of the case in mind. The basic line of thinking is that so long as there is no alternative, there is no legal grounds to prevent the new competition from happening. However if there is some alternative, it becomes a tougher case. I'm no lawyer, but I do play with lawyers who would explain it much more thoroughly than that.

But the IRB won't step in unless the FFR and RFU do. Ritchie seems open to the tournament... And who is FFR's Vice President du Professional Rugby... Mr Blanco... Maybe the FFR's stance will come down to the French clubs agreeing to throw some games against Biarritz!! :pac:

01-10-2013 10:11PM

The Rooster wrote: »

Emmet, are you not missing the point that these deals only come into play after England PRL has left the ERC?

So the BT is not with a single member of the ERC. Its with England PRL who won't be in the ERC.

The Sky deal is indeed with the ERC. The entire ERC (i.e. Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Italy) and nothing at all to do with France or England as they've told both the ERC and Sky that they will no longer be part of the ERC when the deal commences.

If this is all true it simply backs up the point that PRL had zero intention of working within the ERC. (A point refuted many many times)

Is it all true though? Have PRL removed themselves from the ERC?

keps · 01-10-2013 10:12PM

My information is that Blanco is against the proposed new competition.

Shelflife · 01-10-2013 10:16PM

The money is split the way it is , because that's the way the participants decided on it years ago. They were all there , they are all grown ups and that's the deal they came up with.

Eng and France wanted more, instead of negotiating in a businesslike manner eng went and pressed the nuclear button. They were sure that France were with them but now it looks unlikely that France will play ball.

Eng thought that the lure of loads of dosh would entice all the greedy celts to their party, but are now looking as if they have backed themselves into a corner big time.

If the contract is anyway similar to the one that was floating around last week eng may well have cost their clubs dear.

The French who were expected to come to the eng party are now waiting to see what the celts will offer. If eng don't have a get out clause in their bt contract they are well and truely screwed.

And I have to say it serves the greedy feckers right.

McCBrian · 01-10-2013 10:19PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

There are a good few lawyers involved in PRL at least (not sure about the LNR). And the French club owners certainly probably Oxymoronesqueness have connections with strong corporate lawyers. And then look at Quentin Smith.

The IRB would need to make an argument as to why the new competition is unfair from a sporting perspective or harmful to the sport. The very structure of the competition was designed with the potential of the case in mind. Which competition? The basic line of thinking is that so long as there is no alternative, there is no legal grounds to prevent the new competition from happening. However if there is some alternative, it becomes a tougher case. You are on very dodgy ground basing your argument on the above I'm no lawyer, but I do play with lawyers who would explain it much more thoroughly than that.
Any French lawyers? as they would not touch it
But the IRB won't step in unless the FFR and RFU do. Ritchie seems open to the tournament... And who is FFR's Vice President du Professional Rugby... Mr Blanco... Maybe the FFR's stance will come down to the French clubs agreeing to throw some games against Biarritz!! :pac:

.

Premiership Rugby out of Heineken Cup?

Comments