English clubs "grand standing" and cannot leave Heineken Cup until 2015 according to ex RFU Chairman.

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/24074931

The current two European competitions, the Heineken Cup and Amlin Challenge Cup, involve teams from England, France, Ireland, Italy, Scotland, Wales, Portugal and Romania.
However, the English and French argue their qualification criteria are much tougher and put them at a disadvantage in the competitions.
They served notice to quit the tournament in 2012, however, Thomas does not believe their proposed alternative can get off the ground.
"It's grandstanding," he said.
"The ERC (European Rugby Cup) agreement was signed, and it was signed subsequently to an agreement that the RFU and PRL [Premier Rugby Ltd] and each individual club entered into and that was in 2007.
"One of the terms of the agreement was that the Premiership clubs would remain playing in Europe until the end of that agreement with the RFU.
"The RFU have got to stand up and be counted, it's not a popularity competition being at the RFU."
RFU chief executive Ian Ritchie has since released a statement stating that his organisation is "supportive of the Premiership clubs seeking greater meritocracy," while stressing that rugby should "continue to thrive and grow" and urging "compromise on both sides".
Thomas also expects the French Rugby Federation and International Rugby Board to block any move to form a new tournament.
"The clubs in England require the consent of their union, the teams in France require the consent of their union," he said.
"Pierre Camou is probably one of the strongest presidents in world rugby - he is a tough guy.
"Also, because it's a cross border they require the consent of the IRB and they have a French chairman in Bernard Lapasset.
"There is no way that those two Frenchmen are going to give consent for this to occur."

Well they said they would be given a place in fact. Quite nice of them given both Welsh clubs joined after agreeing that places for Europe couldn't be gained through the English system.

Since then the Welsh clubs qualify like any other and the last time I looked Swansea had competed in Europe through qualification gained from competing in the English league.

Notch wrote:

Metal Tiger wrote:Eventually the penny will drop that this is about 3 leagues and not 6 nations. The Celts chose to join up in one league so live with your choice. Its not the Franglos fault you cant support your own domestic competitions, although it appears you thimk we should pay for it. You're the one that needs your head checking psl.

Isn't the reverse equally true? You get the biggest slice of the cake and it's not our fault you've decided to split it 12 ways instead of 10 or 8 or 4. You appear to believe that the nations that live within their means should pay for it... You see if you could actually pay for your own league then a lot more of your clubs would be in the black. I would think the reason your holding a gun to everyone elses head has a lot to do with your league not being self-sustaining enough.

I'm sure the nation thats contributed six winners out of eighteen and consistently sends the largest numbers of traveling fans to away games has put in a hell of lot more than it's taken out over the years to European rugby. I would be pretty certain we've increased the value of European rugby as a whole and put a lot of money into the coffers of English/French clubs over the years. It would be funny if people like you weren't on the verge of destroying rugby in Europe. You honestly believe the world revolves around your system...

Notch, no offence mate but are you smoking something? you seem to be implying that the finances of the celts are all fine and dandy, splendid infact which lets be honest.... Is a pile poopie!

Lets all repeat it again, The cup is not about the unions. IT'S ABOUT THE CLUBS (provinces/regions to keep everyone happy)!

nathan wrote:Lets all repeat it again, The cup is not about the unions. IT'S ABOUT THE CLUBS (provinces/regions to keep everyone happy)!

The European cup is organised and run with the Unions, this is what many of us want to continue including the IRB.

nathan wrote:

Notch wrote:

Metal Tiger wrote:Eventually the penny will drop that this is about 3 leagues and not 6 nations. The Celts chose to join up in one league so live with your choice. Its not the Franglos fault you cant support your own domestic competitions, although it appears you thimk we should pay for it. You're the one that needs your head checking psl.

Isn't the reverse equally true? You get the biggest slice of the cake and it's not our fault you've decided to split it 12 ways instead of 10 or 8 or 4. You appear to believe that the nations that live within their means should pay for it... You see if you could actually pay for your own league then a lot more of your clubs would be in the black. I would think the reason your holding a gun to everyone elses head has a lot to do with your league not being self-sustaining enough.

I'm sure the nation thats contributed six winners out of eighteen and consistently sends the largest numbers of traveling fans to away games has put in a hell of lot more than it's taken out over the years to European rugby. I would be pretty certain we've increased the value of European rugby as a whole and put a lot of money into the coffers of English/French clubs over the years. It would be funny if people like you weren't on the verge of destroying rugby in Europe. You honestly believe the world revolves around your system...

Notch, no offence mate but are you smoking something? you seem to be implying that the finances of the celts are all fine and dandy, splendid infact which lets be honest.... Is a pile poopie!

Lets all repeat it again, The cup is not about the unions. IT'S ABOUT THE CLUBS (provinces/regions to keep everyone happy)!

You show me where in any documents it says that, and I'll show you how and why the ERC was established in the first place: by unions, for unions!

nathan wrote:

Notch wrote:

Metal Tiger wrote:Eventually the penny will drop that this is about 3 leagues and not 6 nations. The Celts chose to join up in one league so live with your choice. Its not the Franglos fault you cant support your own domestic competitions, although it appears you thimk we should pay for it. You're the one that needs your head checking psl.

Isn't the reverse equally true? You get the biggest slice of the cake and it's not our fault you've decided to split it 12 ways instead of 10 or 8 or 4. You appear to believe that the nations that live within their means should pay for it... You see if you could actually pay for your own league then a lot more of your clubs would be in the black. I would think the reason your holding a gun to everyone elses head has a lot to do with your league not being self-sustaining enough.

I'm sure the nation thats contributed six winners out of eighteen and consistently sends the largest numbers of traveling fans to away games has put in a hell of lot more than it's taken out over the years to European rugby. I would be pretty certain we've increased the value of European rugby as a whole and put a lot of money into the coffers of English/French clubs over the years. It would be funny if people like you weren't on the verge of destroying rugby in Europe. You honestly believe the world revolves around your system...

Notch, no offence mate but are you smoking something? you seem to be implying that the finances of the celts are all fine and dandy, splendid infact which lets be honest.... Is a pile poopie!

Lets all repeat it again, The cup is not about the unions. IT'S ABOUT THE CLUBS (provinces/regions to keep everyone happy)!

The cup is not about the unions its about the clubs/provinces/regions you say....

The very simple fact that you are failing to grasp here is that unlike the English and French clubs, the provinces, Scottish and Italian clubs are represented by their Unions not bodies like the PRL.  You can repeat (and try and get everyone else to repeat) that its about the clubs, which it may well be in England and France but you are simply wrong to try and imply the same rule to the Rabo teams.

AD wrote:You show me where in any documents it says that, and I'll show you how and why "

let me just query that

Should that not be "You show me where in any documents it says that, and I'll show you how and why the ERC was established in the first place: by unions, for unions! to enable European club competition"?

Seems to me that this squalid dispute (especially here on v2) is all about pr!ck size.

nathan wrote:Lets all repeat it again, The cup is not about the unions. IT'S ABOUT THE CLUBS (provinces/regions to keep everyone happy)!

The finances of the provinces are on as good a footing as most English clubs. Munster and Connacht are on a similar footing to lower level sides and Ulster and Leinster are in very good health. That could all change with this European Cup crisis. Certainly the Irish provinces have helped grow the European Cup into a valuable commercial entity.

As for the bolded part, shouting the english viewpoint isn't going to change the fact that the Unions and the Clubs need to come to an accord. Provinces aren't clubs nathan. They are centrally owned branches of the Unions. If you even still want a European competition that has to be accepted. The PRL run the professional club game in England, the IRFU run the equivalent sides in Ireland and they are two of the parties that need to get around a table and agree on a way forward- and the IRFU has more on it's plate than club competitions and that will inform it's negotiating position. The impact of this on the international game is the big concern- once we have a situation where the already evident trend of losing players overseas is hastened by a failure to find compromise on the European Cup issue that affects the development of rugby across Europe and it affects international rugby.

It's not abut the clubs in isolation. It never was and it never will be.

Artful_Dodger wrote:
The very simple fact that you are failing to grasp here is that unlike the English and French clubs, the provinces, Scottish and Italian clubs are represented by their Unions not bodies like the PRL.  You can repeat (and try and get everyone else to repeat) that its about the clubs, which it may well be in England and France but you are simply wrong to try and imply the same rule to the Rabo teams.

A compelling argument that the two ways* of running top level 'domestic' rugby and producing 'qualifying' teams for a tournament are not compatible.

Hence some changes are required.

*Actually more than two ways as the Pro12 'domestic' sides are not organised in the same way even within the same league.

Notch wrote:

nathan wrote:Lets all repeat it again, The cup is not about the unions. IT'S ABOUT THE CLUBS (provinces/regions to keep everyone happy)!

The finances of the provinces are on as good a footing as most English clubs. Munster and Connacht are on a similar footing to lower level sides and Ulster and Leinster are in very good health. That could all change with this European Cup crisis. Certainly the Irish provinces have helped grow the European Cup into a valuable commercial entity.

As for the bolded part, shouting the english viewpoint isn't going to change the fact that the Unions and the Clubs need to come to an accord. Provinces aren't clubs nathan. They are centrally owned branches of the Unions. If you even still want a European competition that has to be accepted. The PRL run the professional club game in England, the IRFU run the equivalent sides in Ireland and they are two of the parties that need to get around a table and agree on a way forward- and the IRFU has more on it's plate than club competitions and that will inform it's negotiating position. The impact of this on the international game is the big concern- once we have a situation where the already evident trend of losing players overseas is hastened by a failure to find compromise on the European Cup issue that affects the development of rugby across Europe and it affects international rugby.

It's not abut the clubs in isolation. It never was and it never will be.

Regional Rugby Wales reported a loss of £3.8m between all four of the regions as of year ending 2012. Projections show that in the financial year ending in 2013, the gap will disappear, with a projected surplus of £0.5m.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

butterfingers wrote:You show me where in any documents it says that, and I'll show you how and why "

let me just query that

Should that not be "You show me where in any documents it says that, and I'll show you how and why the ERC was established in the first place: by unions, for unions! to enable European club competition"?

Seems to me that this squalid dispute (especially here on v2) is all about pr!ck size.

You appear to have quoted something butterfingers said with the abbreviation of my name Portnoy.  I'm not quite sure how you've managed to do that but I think you might want to correct it.

edit: Fixed that for you.
LB

Cyril wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:
The very simple fact that you are failing to grasp here is that unlike the English and French clubs, the provinces, Scottish and Italian clubs are represented by their Unions not bodies like the PRL.  You can repeat (and try and get everyone else to repeat) that its about the clubs, which it may well be in England and France but you are simply wrong to try and imply the same rule to the Rabo teams.

A compelling argument that the two ways* of running top level 'domestic' rugby and producing 'qualifying' teams for a tournament are not compatible.

They have been compatible up until now and to keep reiterating the same argument if they are not compatible then why not change your own setup instead of having the sheer arrogance to try and change the setup of several other nations.

Artful_Dodger wrote:

Cyril wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:
The very simple fact that you are failing to grasp here is that unlike the English and French clubs, the provinces, Scottish and Italian clubs are represented by their Unions not bodies like the PRL.  You can repeat (and try and get everyone else to repeat) that its about the clubs, which it may well be in England and France but you are simply wrong to try and imply the same rule to the Rabo teams.

A compelling argument that the two ways* of running top level 'domestic' rugby and producing 'qualifying' teams for a tournament are not compatible.

They have been compatible up until now and to keep reiterating the same argument if they are not compatible then why not change your own setup instead of having the sheer arrogance to try and change the setup of several other nations.

Not really. A tournament has been possible but it still doesn't make sense that different leagues have different qualifying rules.

Maybe England and France are better off without the Pro12 (and maybe the Pro12 is better off too)?

Looking forward to some serious changes!

Cyril wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:

Cyril wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:
The very simple fact that you are failing to grasp here is that unlike the English and French clubs, the provinces, Scottish and Italian clubs are represented by their Unions not bodies like the PRL.  You can repeat (and try and get everyone else to repeat) that its about the clubs, which it may well be in England and France but you are simply wrong to try and imply the same rule to the Rabo teams.

A compelling argument that the two ways* of running top level 'domestic' rugby and producing 'qualifying' teams for a tournament are not compatible.

They have been compatible up until now and to keep reiterating the same argument if they are not compatible then why not change your own setup instead of having the sheer arrogance to try and change the setup of several other nations.

Not really. A tournament has been possible but it still doesn't make sense that different leagues have different qualifying rules.

Nobody is making the PRL have different qualifying rules from the Rabo, that is the PRL's decision.

Artful_Dodger wrote:

Cyril wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:

Cyril wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:
The very simple fact that you are failing to grasp here is that unlike the English and French clubs, the provinces, Scottish and Italian clubs are represented by their Unions not bodies like the PRL.  You can repeat (and try and get everyone else to repeat) that its about the clubs, which it may well be in England and France but you are simply wrong to try and imply the same rule to the Rabo teams.

A compelling argument that the two ways* of running top level 'domestic' rugby and producing 'qualifying' teams for a tournament are not compatible.

They have been compatible up until now and to keep reiterating the same argument if they are not compatible then why not change your own setup instead of having the sheer arrogance to try and change the setup of several other nations.

Not really. A tournament has been possible but it still doesn't make sense that different leagues have different qualifying rules.

Nobody is making the PRL have different qualifying rules from the Rabo, that is the PRL's decision.

Neither way is right or wrong. They're just both different. Having regions/provinces/clubs/whatever taking part in the same competition has always been an anomaly.

Artful_Dodger wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

butterfingers wrote:You show me where in any documents it says that, and I'll show you how and why "

let me just query that

Should that not be "You show me where in any documents it says that, and I'll show you how and why the ERC was established in the first place: by unions, for unions! to enable European club competition"?

Seems to me that this squalid dispute (especially here on v2) is all about pr!ck size.

You appear to have quoted something butterfingers said with the abbreviation of my name Portnoy.  I'm not quite sure how you've managed to do that but I think you might want to correct it.

Apologies, Artful Dodger. But this whole debate is reading like the closing sentences of Animal Farm.

And that is a great book.

However I'm still wondering how Orwell would have concluded a second (or third) sequel.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

butterfingers wrote:You show me where in any documents it says that, and I'll show you how and why "

let me just query that

Should that not be "You show me where in any documents it says that, and I'll show you how and why the ERC was established in the first place: by unions, for unions! to enable European club competition"?

Seems to me that this squalid dispute (especially here on v2) is all about pr!ck size.

You appear to have quoted something butterfingers said with the abbreviation of my name Portnoy.  I'm not quite sure how you've managed to do that but I think you might want to correct it.

Apologies, Artful Dodger. But this whole debate is reading like the closing sentences of Animal Farm.

And that is a great book.

However I'm still wondering how Orwell would have concluded a second (or third) sequel.

'Four unions good two leagues bad' - I picked up on that a few days ago. (with sadness)

I know, liw. The reference was in no way unintentional.

Toadfish wrote:

Notch wrote:

Metal Tiger wrote:Eventually the penny will drop that this is about 3 leagues and not 6 nations. The Celts chose to join up in one league so live with your choice. Its not the Franglos fault you cant support your own domestic competitions, although it appears you thimk we should pay for it. You're the one that needs your head checking psl.

Isn't the reverse equally true? You get the biggest slice of the cake and it's not our fault you've decided to split it 12 ways instead of 10 or 8 or 4. You appear to believe that the nations that live within their means should pay for it... You see if you could actually pay for your own league then a lot more of your clubs would be in the black. I would think the reason your holding a gun to everyone elses head has a lot to do with your league not being self-sustaining enough.

I'm sure the nation thats contributed six winners out of eighteen and consistently sends the largest numbers of traveling fans to away games has put in a hell of lot more than it's taken out over the years to European rugby. I would be pretty certain we've increased the value of European rugby as a whole and put a lot of money into the coffers of English/French clubs over the years. It would be funny if people like you weren't on the verge of destroying rugby in Europe. You honestly believe the world revolves around your system...

I think you are misunderstanding the situation but to use your analogy, we are not fighting over the old cake.  It's gone stale and hard and not very palatable.  We've gone out and sourced a new giant cake and as we got it, without any help from you, we want to make sure we eat most of it.  There will however be as much cake left for you as you are used to.

couldnt agree more. i have been reading some of the posts from september 2012 on this topic (remember - when many said the PRL was evil, and that the celtic and italian unions should hold firm and it would all blow over) and it is embarrassingly obvious why the english get accused of being arrogant....because they appear to be using those particularly unattractive facilities REASON and LOGIC. and talk about things like contracts, rights, negotiating positions, profits, rather than employing emotive appeals and insults. how cold and arrogant those english are.

why is all this happening? because it can. End of. Contracts expire, and if participants cant get the deals they want within the terms of an existing contract which has remained largely unchanged (in spite of the world changing), then if they have a strong enough hand to force change through either inside or outside of that contracts expiration, they would be IRRATIONAL and ILLOGICAL not to do so. shareholders of clubs should not (and would be held fiduciarily irresponsible if they did), consider anyones but their own interests. Clubs owned by unions do not have similar constraints. the end result will be determined, in this professional era, by who brings the most money to the table, as this is what will enable the game to continue to grow. Maintaining status quo is anaethema to growth.

PRL/LNR are nailed on winners in this negotiation. any other outcome is fantasy. they will allow Heineken Cup to lapse and reshape the new European comeptition for better rather than preserving the Celtic (and Union) advantage in the status quo.

Unfortunately, that is just the way the world works and any emotional appeals to fairness etc are sadly not relevant.

The entire HEC was weighted and paid to the advantage of the pro12 unions. An unfair advantage that the PRL & LNR will no longer accept... but of course the English are all evil because we want a level playing field. How very arrogant of us.

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:

Toadfish wrote:

Notch wrote:

Metal Tiger wrote:Eventually the penny will drop that this is about 3 leagues and not 6 nations. The Celts chose to join up in one league so live with your choice. Its not the Franglos fault you cant support your own domestic competitions, although it appears you thimk we should pay for it. You're the one that needs your head checking psl.

Isn't the reverse equally true? You get the biggest slice of the cake and it's not our fault you've decided to split it 12 ways instead of 10 or 8 or 4. You appear to believe that the nations that live within their means should pay for it... You see if you could actually pay for your own league then a lot more of your clubs would be in the black. I would think the reason your holding a gun to everyone elses head has a lot to do with your league not being self-sustaining enough.

I'm sure the nation thats contributed six winners out of eighteen and consistently sends the largest numbers of traveling fans to away games has put in a hell of lot more than it's taken out over the years to European rugby. I would be pretty certain we've increased the value of European rugby as a whole and put a lot of money into the coffers of English/French clubs over the years. It would be funny if people like you weren't on the verge of destroying rugby in Europe. You honestly believe the world revolves around your system...

I think you are misunderstanding the situation but to use your analogy, we are not fighting over the old cake.  It's gone stale and hard and not very palatable.  We've gone out and sourced a new giant cake and as we got it, without any help from you, we want to make sure we eat most of it.  There will however be as much cake left for you as you are used to.

couldnt agree more. i have been reading some of the posts from september 2012 on this topic (remember - when many said the PRL was evil, and that the celtic and italian unions should hold firm and it would all blow over) and it is embarrassingly obvious why the english get accused of being arrogant....because they appear to be using those particularly unattractive facilities REASON and LOGIC. and talk about things like contracts, rights, negotiating positions, profits, rather than employing emotive appeals and insults. how cold and arrogant those english are.

why is all this happening? because it can. End of. Contracts expire, and if participants cant get the deals they want within the terms of an existing contract which has remained largely unchanged (in spite of the world changing), then if they have a strong enough hand to force change through either inside or outside of that contracts expiration, they would be IRRATIONAL and ILLOGICAL not to do so. shareholders of clubs should not (and would be held fiduciarily irresponsible if they did), consider anyones but their own interests. Clubs owned by unions do not have similar constraints. the end result will be determined, in this professional era, by who brings the most money to the table, as this is what will enable the game to continue to grow. Maintaining status quo is anaethema to growth.

PRL/LNR are nailed on winners in this negotiation. any other outcome is fantasy. they will allow Heineken Cup to lapse and reshape the new European comeptition for better rather than preserving the Celtic (and Union) advantage in the status quo.

Unfortunately, that is just the way the world works and any emotional appeals to fairness etc are sadly not relevant.

No it's because their demands are self serving and unequal.

maestegmafia wrote:

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:

Toadfish wrote:

Notch wrote:

Metal Tiger wrote:Eventually the penny will drop that this is about 3 leagues and not 6 nations. The Celts chose to join up in one league so live with your choice. Its not the Franglos fault you cant support your own domestic competitions, although it appears you thimk we should pay for it. You're the one that needs your head checking psl.

Isn't the reverse equally true? You get the biggest slice of the cake and it's not our fault you've decided to split it 12 ways instead of 10 or 8 or 4. You appear to believe that the nations that live within their means should pay for it... You see if you could actually pay for your own league then a lot more of your clubs would be in the black. I would think the reason your holding a gun to everyone elses head has a lot to do with your league not being self-sustaining enough.

I'm sure the nation thats contributed six winners out of eighteen and consistently sends the largest numbers of traveling fans to away games has put in a hell of lot more than it's taken out over the years to European rugby. I would be pretty certain we've increased the value of European rugby as a whole and put a lot of money into the coffers of English/French clubs over the years. It would be funny if people like you weren't on the verge of destroying rugby in Europe. You honestly believe the world revolves around your system...

I think you are misunderstanding the situation but to use your analogy, we are not fighting over the old cake.  It's gone stale and hard and not very palatable.  We've gone out and sourced a new giant cake and as we got it, without any help from you, we want to make sure we eat most of it.  There will however be as much cake left for you as you are used to.

couldnt agree more. i have been reading some of the posts from september 2012 on this topic (remember - when many said the PRL was evil, and that the celtic and italian unions should hold firm and it would all blow over) and it is embarrassingly obvious why the english get accused of being arrogant....because they appear to be using those particularly unattractive facilities REASON and LOGIC. and talk about things like contracts, rights, negotiating positions, profits, rather than employing emotive appeals and insults. how cold and arrogant those english are.

why is all this happening? because it can. End of. Contracts expire, and if participants cant get the deals they want within the terms of an existing contract which has remained largely unchanged (in spite of the world changing), then if they have a strong enough hand to force change through either inside or outside of that contracts expiration, they would be IRRATIONAL and ILLOGICAL not to do so. shareholders of clubs should not (and would be held fiduciarily irresponsible if they did), consider anyones but their own interests. Clubs owned by unions do not have similar constraints. the end result will be determined, in this professional era, by who brings the most money to the table, as this is what will enable the game to continue to grow. Maintaining status quo is anaethema to growth.

PRL/LNR are nailed on winners in this negotiation. any other outcome is fantasy. they will allow Heineken Cup to lapse and reshape the new European comeptition for better rather than preserving the Celtic (and Union) advantage in the status quo.

Unfortunately, that is just the way the world works and any emotional appeals to fairness etc are sadly not relevant.

No it's because their demands are self serving and unequal.

in the eyes of the Celts, yes. but in the eyes of the others what the celts have now is unequal.

nathan wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

itsallabouttheincentives wrote:

Toadfish wrote:

Notch wrote:

Metal Tiger wrote:Eventually the penny will drop that this is about 3 leagues and not 6 nations. The Celts chose to join up in one league so live with your choice. Its not the Franglos fault you cant support your own domestic competitions, although it appears you thimk we should pay for it. You're the one that needs your head checking psl.

Isn't the reverse equally true? You get the biggest slice of the cake and it's not our fault you've decided to split it 12 ways instead of 10 or 8 or 4. You appear to believe that the nations that live within their means should pay for it... You see if you could actually pay for your own league then a lot more of your clubs would be in the black. I would think the reason your holding a gun to everyone elses head has a lot to do with your league not being self-sustaining enough.

I'm sure the nation thats contributed six winners out of eighteen and consistently sends the largest numbers of traveling fans to away games has put in a hell of lot more than it's taken out over the years to European rugby. I would be pretty certain we've increased the value of European rugby as a whole and put a lot of money into the coffers of English/French clubs over the years. It would be funny if people like you weren't on the verge of destroying rugby in Europe. You honestly believe the world revolves around your system...

I think you are misunderstanding the situation but to use your analogy, we are not fighting over the old cake.  It's gone stale and hard and not very palatable.  We've gone out and sourced a new giant cake and as we got it, without any help from you, we want to make sure we eat most of it.  There will however be as much cake left for you as you are used to.

couldnt agree more. i have been reading some of the posts from september 2012 on this topic (remember - when many said the PRL was evil, and that the celtic and italian unions should hold firm and it would all blow over) and it is embarrassingly obvious why the english get accused of being arrogant....because they appear to be using those particularly unattractive facilities REASON and LOGIC. and talk about things like contracts, rights, negotiating positions, profits, rather than employing emotive appeals and insults. how cold and arrogant those english are.

why is all this happening? because it can. End of. Contracts expire, and if participants cant get the deals they want within the terms of an existing contract which has remained largely unchanged (in spite of the world changing), then if they have a strong enough hand to force change through either inside or outside of that contracts expiration, they would be IRRATIONAL and ILLOGICAL not to do so. shareholders of clubs should not (and would be held fiduciarily irresponsible if they did), consider anyones but their own interests. Clubs owned by unions do not have similar constraints. the end result will be determined, in this professional era, by who brings the most money to the table, as this is what will enable the game to continue to grow. Maintaining status quo is anaethema to growth.

PRL/LNR are nailed on winners in this negotiation. any other outcome is fantasy. they will allow Heineken Cup to lapse and reshape the new European comeptition for better rather than preserving the Celtic (and Union) advantage in the status quo.

Unfortunately, that is just the way the world works and any emotional appeals to fairness etc are sadly not relevant.

No it's because their demands are self serving and unequal.

in the eyes of the Celts, yes. but in the eyes of the others what the celts have now is unequal.

I still struggle to honestly believe posters like yourself are serious in your opinions rather than just posting out of some pathetic unwavering support that prevents you from backing down or seeing either what is happening or the potential ramifications.

I hope this week that the RFU and FFR state their opinions public ally on whether they do or do not support the PRL and LNR.

It would be great to see the unions take a side public ally now. The IRB clearly stated theirs.

The ERC and their members are trying to resolve this matter time for the unions to stop sitting on the fence.

IRB have said the want a European competition but would probably sanction a Franglo comp if the unions agreed

HammerofThunor wrote:IRB have said the want a European competition but would probably sanction a Franglo comp if the unions agreed

You misunderstand that.

The statement reads "We naturally support our Unions in their attempts to grow a thriving, genuinely cross-European competition."

The PRL's two wishes are for a larger percentage of profit and club control.

The IRB want union control not club control.

Yes, they want a European competition. Everyone does. But they also said that they would in all likelihood sanction a Franglo competition. They reiterated that they prefer a Euro comp.

And how the hell does your quote suggest they want union control?

Also on the RFU, they won't say anything yet. Why would they? It would just push them into a corner they don't need to be. But I expect they would say the same as the IRB. We want a cross border comp but won't block a Franglo if that's what is on offer

HT are you struggling to read...?

The statement reads "We naturally support our Unions in their attempts to grow a thriving, genuinely cross-European competition."

So how come the only proposal from The ERC was a single competition of 32 teams from the Aviva/Top 14/Rabo leagues?

maestegmafia wrote:HT are you struggling to read...?

The statement reads "We naturally support our Unions in their attempts to grow a thriving, genuinely cross-European competition."

 I know you reach sometimes but that's even pushing it for you. The only way the clubs would be given control is by the unions. That's never going to change.