End in sight to Euro Mess?

First topic message reminder :

Reports in the Times today that agreement may be close for pan-European competitions for the next 8 seasons including Pro12/AP/T14 teams. (cannot link due to paywall).

It seems that in the last few weeks Ian Ritchie has been hosting a series of private meetings with all relevant parties to try and thrash out a deal. Interestingly PRLs representative in these meetings has been Bruce Craig - Mark McCafferty being sidelined?
Any way it seems that compromises have been reached on qualification methods, division of finances and management of the new competition. It would seem ERC are out, but the clubs will only have a say in the new competition not the full control they demanded. It even suggests we may see BT and SKY operate as joint broadcasters!!

Supposedly this new competition is almost agreed by all the relevant stakeholders (primarily the 6 Unions but also PRL/LNR). It may all be journalistic bluster - but I see no reason why a NewsCorp paper should be peddling this line if they did not believe it. After all until very recently their stories have always been heaping the utmost scorn on PRL/RFU.


So if a deal is struck that gives us a true set of pan-European competitions I can only be really pleased. I do hope that the story is true about the private meetings - as there has been far too much public posturing from people that only serves to antagonise. A public argument is much harder to heal than a private one.

So if true I guess congrats to Ian Ritchie who has kept RFU out of the limelight. Accused of sticking his head in the sands, it would suggest that he has actually been doing something useful away from the glare of the press and internet.

I need a shower now, cannot believe I just said something decent about the RFU.

maestegmafia wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:The £152 is a considerable investment even for a a company valued by the market at £27,568.23m ( ) The marginal cost of broadband/TV to the consumer is incredibly small as the network is at virtually everyone's doorstep.

BSB Gross mkt value £13,904.37m and BT want a chunk of its subscriber value.

I don't think the £152m is the right figure now. That was for a new PRL run euro competition that's not happening anymore. The BT figure will be less. I can't see BT being very happy about the outcome in all this. They aren't getting what McCafferty sold them.

It just seems so important to you that somehow the PRL should get less money - should lose out in some way. Some kind of irrational hatred going on. The way they were originally talking about the money they were planning to split it- so if somehow it goes belly up there will be less money for everyone.

Bizarre

Try thinking about what you write before you type. Then your post might make some sense...! Are you a dyslexic?

Maybe you should also read the post you are replying to a few times, to make sure you understand what other people are talking about too...!

Maes, why dont you do yourself, and everyone else a favour, and avoid the HC threads.

your behaviour in relation to english posters is bordering on sociopathic. and is damaging the forum.

maestegmafia wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:The £152 is a considerable investment even for a a company valued by the market at £27,568.23m ( The marginal cost of broadband/TV to the consumer is incredibly small as the network is at virtually everyone's doorstep.

BSB Gross mkt value £13,904.37m and BT want a chunk of its subscriber value.

I don't think the £152m is the right figure now. That was for a new PRL run euro competition that's not happening anymore. The BT figure will be less. I can't see BT being very happy about the outcome in all this. They aren't getting what McCafferty sold them.

awesome. 5 sentences. all invented, invective, and totally speculative to malign bt/prl/the evil sassenachs.

maestegmafia wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:The £152 is a considerable investment even for a a company valued by the market at £27,568.23m ( http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/BT/A:LN ) The marginal cost of broadband/TV to the consumer is incredibly small as the network is at virtually everyone's doorstep.

BSB Gross mkt value £13,904.37m and BT want a chunk of its subscriber value.

I don't think the £152m is the right figure now. That was for a new PRL run euro competition that's not happening anymore. The BT figure will be less. I can't see BT being very happy about the outcome in all this. They aren't getting what McCafferty sold them.

It just seems so important to you that somehow the PRL should get less money - should lose out in some way. Some kind of irrational hatred going on. The way they were originally talking about the money they were planning to split it- so if somehow it goes belly up there will be less money for everyone.

Bizarre

Try thinking about what you write before you type. Then your post might make some sense...! Are you a dyslexic?

Maybe you should also read the post you are replying to a few times, to make sure you understand what other people are talking about too...!

I do think about what I write. That is why I like to attack arguments and imply someone has said something stupid rather than go all out and bad mouth a poster, because to do so is usually a sure indicator that your arguments are weak.

maestegmafia wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:The £152 is a considerable investment even for a a company valued by the market at £27,568.23m ( http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/BT/A:LN ) The marginal cost of broadband/TV to the consumer is incredibly small as the network is at virtually everyone's doorstep.

BSB Gross mkt value £13,904.37m and BT want a chunk of its subscriber value.

I don't think the £152m is the right figure now. That was for a new PRL run euro competition that's not happening anymore. The BT figure will be less. I can't see BT being very happy about the outcome in all this. They aren't getting what McCafferty sold them.

It just seems so important to you that somehow the PRL should get less money - should lose out in some way. Some kind of irrational hatred going on. The way they were originally talking about the money they were planning to split it- so if somehow it goes belly up there will be less money for everyone.

Bizarre

Try thinking about what you write before you type. Then your post might make some sense...! Are you a dyslexic?

Maybe you should also read the post you are replying to a few times, to make sure you understand what other people are talking about too...!

Maes, using learning difficulties to mock someone is a new low even for you. The likelihood is that quite a number of posters on here have some form of dyslexia, such is the prevalence in the population, so it's likely that you've offended a large number of people with that. Poor form.

Griff wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:The £152 is a considerable investment even for a a company valued by the market at £27,568.23m ( http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/BT/A:LN ) The marginal cost of broadband/TV to the consumer is incredibly small as the network is at virtually everyone's doorstep.

BSB Gross mkt value £13,904.37m and BT want a chunk of its subscriber value.

I don't think the £152m is the right figure now. That was for a new PRL run euro competition that's not happening anymore. The BT figure will be less. I can't see BT being very happy about the outcome in all this. They aren't getting what McCafferty sold them.

It just seems so important to you that somehow the PRL should get less money - should lose out in some way. Some kind of irrational hatred going on. The way they were originally talking about the money they were planning to split it- so if somehow it goes belly up there will be less money for everyone.

Bizarre

Try thinking about what you write before you type. Then your post might make some sense...! Are you a dyslexic?

Maybe you should also read the post you are replying to a few times, to make sure you understand what other people are talking about too...!

Maes, using learning difficulties to mock someone is a new low even for you. The likelihood is that quite a number of posters on here have some form of dyslexia, such is the prevalence in the population, so it's likely that you've offended a large number of people with that. Poor form.

Griff I am dyslexic myself, was actually showing the guy some sympathy. Don't be curtailed into believing the tripe written by this nasty group of posters who try to defame those that prove their arguments as failed.

Doesn't give you the right to mock others based on a learning difficulty, just because you don't like what they've written. His post makes perfect sense to me, nothing wrong with the spelling or grammar errors, so no signs of dyslexia as such. Therefore, I doubt you're trying to give the guy sympathy - how do you even know he has it? Sounds like a cover up for another Maes blunder to me.

Maes (and others),
I love your passion as much as I like a debate.

But personal sleights are a bit too much.

HoT and LT have both left the board because they apparently felt that an undrawn line had been crossed.

Think on.
I know I have.

maestegmafia wrote:

Griff wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:The £152 is a considerable investment even for a a company valued by the market at £27,568.23m ( http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/BT/A:LN ) The marginal cost of broadband/TV to the consumer is incredibly small as the network is at virtually everyone's doorstep.

BSB Gross mkt value £13,904.37m and BT want a chunk of its subscriber value.

I don't think the £152m is the right figure now. That was for a new PRL run euro competition that's not happening anymore. The BT figure will be less. I can't see BT being very happy about the outcome in all this. They aren't getting what McCafferty sold them.

It just seems so important to you that somehow the PRL should get less money - should lose out in some way. Some kind of irrational hatred going on. The way they were originally talking about the money they were planning to split it- so if somehow it goes belly up there will be less money for everyone.

Bizarre

Try thinking about what you write before you type. Then your post might make some sense...! Are you a dyslexic?

Maybe you should also read the post you are replying to a few times, to make sure you understand what other people are talking about too...!

Maes, using learning difficulties to mock someone is a new low even for you. The likelihood is that quite a number of posters on here have some form of dyslexia, such is the prevalence in the population, so it's likely that you've offended a large number of people with that. Poor form.

Griff I am dyslexic myself, was actually showing the guy some sympathy. Don't be curtailed into believing the tripe written by this nasty group of posters who try to defame those that prove their arguments as failed.

Never heard such nonsense. It doesn't take a lot to work out the truth here. Griff your right. Maes your a disgrace.

But Maes puts good points from his view stridently and correctly as he sees it. There's nowt wrong with that.

It's the hurtful personalisation of people with opposing, equal and opposite views that causes rancour and the collapse of meaningful debate.

VietGwentRevisited wrote:Reports in the Times  today that agreement may be close for pan-European competitions for the next 8 seasons including Pro12/AP/T14 teams. (cannot link due to paywall).

It seems that in the last few weeks Ian Ritchie has been hosting a series of private meetings with all relevant parties to try and thrash out a deal. Interestingly PRLs representative in these meetings has been Bruce Craig - Mark McCafferty being sidelined?
Any way it seems that compromises have been reached on qualification methods, division of finances and management of the new competition. It would seem ERC are out, but the clubs will only have a say in the new competition not the full control they demanded. It even suggests we may see BT and SKY operate as joint broadcasters!!

Supposedly this new competition is almost agreed by all the relevant stakeholders (primarily the 6 Unions but also PRL/LNR). It may all be journalistic bluster - but I see no reason why a NewsCorp paper should be peddling this line if they did not believe it. After all until very recently their stories have always been heaping the utmost scorn on PRL/RFU.


So if a deal is struck that gives us a true set of pan-European competitions I can only be really pleased. I do hope that the story is true about the private meetings - as there has been far too much public posturing from people that only serves to antagonise. A public argument is much harder to heal than a private one.

So if true I guess congrats to Ian Ritchie who has kept RFU out of the limelight. Accused of sticking his head in the sands, it would suggest that he has actually been doing something useful away from the glare of the press and internet.

I need a shower now, cannot believe I just said something decent about the RFU.

sounds good!!

"Griff I am dyslexic myself, was actually showing the guy some sympathy."




Well you must be if you thought that the original comment made was sympathetic!!


(I am also dyslexic)

In a lot of ways this is the best thread in a long time in these boards - I haven't seen the article in the Times nor have I seen it elsewhere on the net - lets get back to debate not personalised mudslinging - taking an opposite view point to someone is fine but its sidetracking an important issue for rugby in the NH on this board.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Maes (and others),
I love your passion as much as I like a debate.

But personal sleights are a bit too much.

HoT and LT have both left the board because they apparently felt that an undrawn line had been crossed.

Think on.
I know I have.

It's disappointing that people are leaving because of the offensive comments from one poster.

It would be nice to find out how this is going to create a fully pan european tourney though and how they are going to deal with allocations not just now but in the future.

If they just come back with set figures(allocation numbers for each of the top 3 european leagues) we haven't moved forward at all.

But its nice that the handbags may have stopped being thrown about at the least

Griff and Portnoy - I would just like to applaud you both for your measured and calm rebuttal of some of the negative stuff that has been posted here. To chip in myself I would agree that it is absolutely right that posters have opposing views but it is not right that any poster uses such views to perpetuate any sort of anti-anyone/any nation agenda and of course attacking any sort of disability is just not on. I just can't understand the hatred sometimes and I find it quite depressing.

Moving on to the thread topic - well this seems like great news doesn't it? Is it being reported elsewhere yet? I hope that whatever comes out means that we end of with stable high quality European rugby for many years to come.

Vietgwentrevisited I just hope you are right. I want a conclusion to this mess. I am sure there will still be disagreement on any new deal but at least it means there could be some agreement too.

I don't feel subjected despite all the pointless vitriol, assumptions, accusations and false opinions extolled on me on this thread.

I have noticed that the posters, mostly above, always try to victimise people they disagree with. Accusing them of being things they are not...!

maestegmafia, just apologise and try to behave in future then you'll do just fine.

You've caused at least two posters to leave the forum in the last week with your comments.

maestegmafia - I too find your style of debate annoying and your resorting to personal attacks unpleasant. As for victimising people - that is what you do all the time. You claim to be the victim whilst attacking people not their ideas or posts.

As for flouncers - let them flounce poor dears Jeepers this forum is far better than many for robust debate

Back to the rugby ... I've not seen this news released anywhere else yet - any links that I don't have to subscribe to?

He can still link it surely

doesn't just part of it come up!

By the way. I am not disputing the op. But its best if we take it with a pinch of salt.

Unless google has had problems with the times recently(which i know it hasn't because you can search for other stuff that the times has recently written about) it would be virtually impossible for this article not to come up on a google search under news with keywords

mystiroakey wrote:By the way. I am not disputing the op. But its best if we take it with a pinch of salt.

Unless google has had problems with the times recently(which i know it hasn't because you can search for other stuff that the times has recently written about) it would be virtually impossible for this article not to come up on a google search under news with keywords

the following article touches on the rumours saying;

However, the RFU CEO Ian Ritchie is busily endeavouring to broker a deal between all parties concerned, with the help of the mediator, Graeme Mew, appointed by ERC for mediation talks scheduled for October 23rd.

Source: Irish Times

yeah i read that one as well, (irish times) from the 9th.

But it is completely contradicting.

So if I follow this correctly the evil ERC, comprised of union and club representatives, will be disbanded and replaced with a new organization, that will be noble and good, to be comprised of: union and club representatives, which is what the ERC already is, but we will call it something new and then the clubs will be happy??? Of course if it'll have a completely new name. Will they paint the office a new colour and wear fake moustaches too? Wow these clubs are tough negotiators!

Why didn't someone suggest this a year ago? I'd have painted the office myself for them.

Intotouch wrote:So if I follow this correctly the evil ERC, comprised of union and club representatives, will be disbanded and replaced with a new organization, that will be noble and good, to be comprised of: union and club representatives, which is what the ERC already is, but we will call it something new and then the clubs will be happy???  Of course if it'll have a completely new name. Will they paint the office a new colour and wear fake moustaches too? Wow these clubs are tough negotiators!

Why didn't someone suggest this a year ago? I'd have painted the office myself for them.

have a guess at the one person who would not be in the new organisation?

I'll give you a clue, he has no connection to either clubs or unions.

another clue: he's french.

no room for LUXuries in a new world order where everyone might actually be able to get along...fingers crossed.

quinsforever wrote:no room for LUXuries in a new world order where everyone might actually be able to get along...fingers crossed.

what happened to the quote?

it was from the independent on tuesday, not the times yday... 

quinsforever wrote:it was from the independent on tuesday, not the times yday... 

lol, oki doki!

Lux wasnt going to stay at the ERC anyway

found the thursday interview with Ian Ritchie...

While there was no evidence of white smoke emerging from Rome last night after a second round of negotiations over the future of the Heineken Cup, the RFU indicated that it sympathised with the English clubs in their demand for an overhaul of the competition’s structure.
Ian Ritchie, the chief executive at Twickenham, stopped short of backing the clubs’ controversial TV deal with BT Vision, reiterating that the union’s approval for it had not been given or sought. However, he agreed with Premier Rugby Limited’s (PRL) assertion that there should be greater meritocracy in terms of qualification for the tournament, and that every team from the six participating countries should earn their place rather than be guaranteed it.
Ritchie said that questions about the legalities of PRL’s position should be “parked” and all efforts focused instead on reaching a settlement, however long it took.
“We want to try and help bring that agreement together, recognising that it is very important to have a good, highly competitive, meritocratic competition that exists across Europe,” Ritchie said. “I think we certainly support a view — most people do — that some change in the competition would be a good idea. How far it goes, what the nature of it is, is the discussion that has to be had.
“It is in the interest of everybody to have a strong and vibrant European club competition. Those are the objectives we share with PRL and most of the other stakeholders as well. I always start from a presumption there is an agreement that should be reached. Inevitably it will involve some compromise on all sides.
“The whole issue of what happens with various TV deals should be secondary to having a group of people sitting around a table saying, ‘How are we going to sort this out?’ ”
Ritchie accepted that this may not prove possible but hoped a legal fight could be avoided. “You can obviate the situation about legal action if you reach agreement,” he said.

and here's the one from yesterday...

"European union dream still alive and kicking

The last rites are being read over the body politic of European Rugby Cup Limited (ERC). While negotiations continue to ensure that the concept lives on, it seems that nothing can save the Heineken Cup in its present form.
Unless there is a volte-face of astronomical proportions, the nineteenth edition of a tournament that is the envy of the world — loved by players, adored by fans and lapped up by broadcasters — will be the final one. In fact, the only people unhappy are the English and French clubs. That they have grievances is not disputed. It is the gunboat ­diplomacy that has irked so many.
It is fathomable that the Heineken Cup will be replaced perhaps by the Heineken Cup Mark 2 and not simply by an Anglo-French Rugby Champions Cup that will generate scant interest. That is provided the RFU and French union are even prepared to give their blessing. It is the Celtic mix that brings ­added value and richness.
Despite all the posturing, The Times understands that progress is being made behind the scenes, with numerous meetings and telephone calls
between all parties, the unions, club and league representatives and broadcasters, ­taking place.
Ian Ritchie, the RFU chief executive, is central to much of the negotiations, as he needs to be given the delicate ­nature of the union’s relationship with Premiership Rugby (PRL). Bruce Craig, the PRL deputy chairman, is said to be leading for the clubs.
The feeling is that it will not take much to break the log jam and that compromise is in the air with talk of an eight to ten-year deal.
One source suggested that agreement over revenue distribution was not far off. The other two outstanding ­issues are governance and broadcasting.
It is thought that the clubs accept that they cannot alone run their own
competition and that unions will have to have a significant role to play in that governance. The clubs could hold the commercial reins.
Broadcasting remains the unknown quantity. Could, for instance, BT Sport and Sky Sports be persuaded to work together?
All that is for the future. This year’s Heineken Cup starts tonight in the
raucous surrounds of Ravenhill when ­Ulster face Leicester. It ends in May with the final in Cardiff.

Well if he said all that(have you got links quins?) then Ritchie has spoken the most sense out of anyone so far on this topic!

Its all about a fair comp and all teams need to qualify to get in a pan european comp.

The TV deal is off course secondary . However I would like it to go to BT as wont to see sky's monopoly take a hit!

whocares wrote:Lux wasnt going to stay at the ERC anyway

still, am amazed someone managed to muzzle him the last few weeks. he was like a rotweiler with a microphone prior to that.

  

maybe they promised him a nice payoff in the event of ERC disbanding, and maybe some role at the IRB carrying Lapasset's bag?

yes have links but cant post as i am a newbie.

the articles are quoted in full...there was a bit more in the second one with predictions for this year's winner, amusing, but prob not for this thread...

off course you can quote links..

and even if you can't you can still post the address (non linkable!!)

 

seriously they wont let me post http addresses for first seven days

thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/rugbyunion/article3892057.ece

need to put the usual bits in front of the web address

anyway, the site has a paywall so you wont be able to read it in full unless you have a subscription

thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/rugbyunion/article3562455.ece

Casartelli wrote: 

talking to myself again

ok ta.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/rugbyunion/article3562455.ece

you can read a bit though. so it at least validates it all!

quinsforever wrote:

Casartelli wrote: 

talking to myself again

Your secret is safe with me.

Besides, it's keeping the thread ticking over until someone else pitches in with some new stuff.

I actually have a funny feeling that Carst wasn't joking and he actually believed we are one and the same.

What a bat crazed paracat loon!!

Paracat??

LOL.

have to get all my posts in today before 3.40, as after that it's..

go QUINS! and hello beer.

Paracat is a south london term that describes a paranoid scatty dude(basically acts like a scared cat)

2.bp.blogspot.com/-2WK2LzOsTz0/TfH016IbBSI/AAAAAAAAADw/2xj7OkFC6D0/s200/paracat.jpg

put the httpbits in front...

mystiroakey wrote:Paracat is a south london term that describes a paranoid scatty dude(basically acts like a scared cat)

Thanks mysti - that conjures a strong image!