RCC statement response to unions

so the format (qualification) and 1/3 per league seems to be agreed by both sides, and governance doesnt seem too far apart. its clear from the RCC statement (to me at least) that the major remaining stumbling block is the TV rights. bolded below, RCC wants commercial/rights control, in other words they insist on the BT deal.

"Premiership Rugby and Ligue Nationale de Rugby have this evening released a press release stating that all parties have reached agreement on the European club competition formats and the principles of financial distribution of the Rugby Champions Cup.
The release states: "These [agreements] are on the basis of the platform proposed by the English and French clubs and which correspond with the principles which guided the formation of the Rugby Champions Cup.
"In order to finalise an agreement, the solution proposed for the governance of the new competitions and confirmed by the clubs is that the Rugby Champions Cup would be under the overall regulatory responsibility of the unions of six nations."
The wordy statement implies that English, French and Welsh clubs have come to an agreement over the new tournament, as these are the parties currently in agreement over breaking away from the European Cup Rugby setup eg the Heineken and Amlin Challenge Cups.
The PRL and LNR statement continues: "Under this solution, the unions of six nations will be responsible for: compliance with IRB regulations, appointment of the match officials, disciplinary processes, anti-doping and integrity."
The press release goes on to declare that the three European leagues will run the "management and promotion of the competitions, sale of all commercial rights and financial distributions."
Politically the statement also makes note of the desire to retain a pan-European competition that maintains the work done by the ERC by saying: "This solution meets the respective needs of the parties and is an integral part of the overall proposals, alongside competition qualification and format and share of financial distributions."
Crucially, however, the statement ended by saying "the new Rugby Champions Cup organisation will look to finalise an agreement which respects the balance between all parties in European rugby."
What can be drawn from this last sentence is of course the lack of agreement between all six nations currently competing in the Heineken Cup.
The statement comes in the wake of the ERC's own statement, released on Thursday, which outlined that progress had been made to restructure the current tournament for future seasons.
Representatives from the English, Welsh, Irish, Scottish, French and Italian unions attended the ERC meetings in Dublin.
Thus, it would appear an impasse between the RCC and the ERC remains as firm as ever."

http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/european/2013/1025/482742-french-english-reveal-rugby-champions-cup-plans/

".... run the "management and promotion of the competitions, sale of all commercial rights and financial distributions."

I think the above remains to be agreed upon by all parties:

"Crucially, however, the statement ended by saying "the new Rugby Champions Cup organisation will look to finalise an agreement which respects the balance between all parties in European rugby."
What can be drawn from this last sentence is of course the lack of agreement between all six nations currently competing in the Heineken Cup.
The statement comes in the wake of the ERC's own statement, released on Thursday, which outlined that progress had been made to restructure the current tournament for future seasons.
Representatives from the English, Welsh, Irish, Scottish, French and Italian unions attended the ERC meetings in Dublin.
Thus, it would appear an impasse between the RCC and the ERC remains as firm as ever."



Depends on how each determines what balance means. Voting rights will be a sticking point.
Not there yet, but would have been surprised if complete agreement on all aspects of whatever European competition would have been reached so quickly, but hopefully within the next couple of weeks.

quinsforever wrote:so the format (qualification) and 1/3 per league seems to be agreed by both sides, and governance doesnt seem too far apart. its clear from the RCC statement (to me at least) that the major remaining stumbling block is the TV rights. bolded below, RCC wants commercial/rights control, in other words they insist on the BT deal.

"Premiership Rugby and Ligue Nationale de Rugby have this evening released a press release stating that all parties have reached agreement on the European club competition formats and the principles of financial distribution of the Rugby Champions Cup.
The release states: "These [agreements] are on the basis of the platform proposed by the English and French clubs and which correspond with the principles which guided the formation of the Rugby Champions Cup.
"In order to finalise an agreement, the solution proposed for the governance of the new competitions and confirmed by the clubs is that the Rugby Champions Cup would be under the overall regulatory responsibility of the unions of six nations."
The wordy statement implies that English, French and Welsh clubs have come to an agreement over the new tournament, as these are the parties currently in agreement over breaking away from the European Cup Rugby setup eg the Heineken and Amlin Challenge Cups.
The PRL and LNR statement continues: "Under this solution, the unions of six nations will be responsible for: compliance with IRB regulations, appointment of the match officials, disciplinary processes, anti-doping and integrity."
The press release goes on to declare that the three European leagues will run the "management and promotion of the competitions, sale of all commercial rights and financial distributions."
Politically the statement also makes note of the desire to retain a pan-European competition that maintains the work done by the ERC by saying: "This solution meets the respective needs of the parties and is an integral part of the overall proposals, alongside competition qualification and format and share of financial distributions."
Crucially, however, the statement ended by saying "the new Rugby Champions Cup organisation will look to finalise an agreement which respects the balance between all parties in European rugby."
What can be drawn from this last sentence is of course the lack of agreement between all six nations currently competing in the Heineken Cup.
The statement comes in the wake of the ERC's own statement, released on Thursday, which outlined that progress had been made to restructure the current tournament for future seasons.
Representatives from the English, Welsh, Irish, Scottish, French and Italian unions attended the ERC meetings in Dublin.
Thus, it would appear an impasse between the RCC and the ERC remains as firm as ever."

http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/european/2013/1025/482742-french-english-reveal-rugby-champions-cup-plans/

That sentence (underlined) seems to suggest that the RCC could be governed by "all parties in European rugby" Does this suggest that unions will be included. It seems a bit at odds with the part that says it will be run by the 3 leagues... Maybe I'm reading it wrong.

i think they want to make a clear differentiation between the leagues running the commercial side (and going with BT) and overall representation and involvement of everyone (leagues/clubs/unions) at some level. i might be reading that wrong too though.

Well, hopefully that means that there is quite a lot of room for negotiations... These statements are so difficult to interpret - which may not be accidental!

stub wrote:

That sentence (underlined) seems to suggest that the RCC could be governed by "all parties in European rugby" Does this suggest that unions will be included. It seems a bit at odds with the part that says it will be run by the 3 leagues... Maybe I'm reading it wrong.

This question was posed to one of the PRL spokesmen on BBC news. Can't remember which one, but he acknowledged that Unions would have to be included as Scotland, and Ireland, are all Union teams. How this pans out in voting rights is anyone's guess. The PRL complained that the clubs were under represented as far as votes are concerned within the HEC. Well a vote allocated to each team means that IRFU, AND SFU, are massively outnumbered by clubs, including the RRW from within their own league.

Has anybody stated how the money will be split between tiers?

In my view every team should get the same regardless of which tier they are in. Otherwise the rich clubs that can afford the biggest names and buy success will only get richer and increase the divide between tiers.

The prl have talked a lot about fairness and equality, they need to address the big disparities between clubs financial ability to compete. Otherwise the tournament simply will become a competition between the same 6-8 clubs every year.

Prl and lnr give same to all teams whichever competition they are in. Not the case for Ireland (Connacht gets less as it is classed as development, even when it's in the HC) or Italy (big diff HC vs amlin teams.

quinsforever wrote:Prl and lnr give same to all teams whichever competition they are in. Not the case for Ireland (Connacht gets less as it is classed as development, even when it's in the HC) or Italy (big diff HC vs amlin teams.

Quins, I was at our game against the Newport Dragons last night, and met up with a Dragons supporter I met at the Judgement Day (Scarlets v Dragons Ospreys v Blues) matches and was talking about what went on this week and we came to the same conclusion, would we (Regions) receive the extra money from the WRU coming from this NO.

quinsforever wrote:Prl and lnr give same to all teams whichever competition they are in. Not the case for Ireland (Connacht gets less as it is classed as development, even when it's in the HC) or Italy (big diff HC vs amlin teams.

More fantasy stuff from you, quins. Was the AP HEC monies distributed equally amongst the 12 teams?

quinsforever wrote:Prl and lnr give same to all teams whichever competition they are in. Not the case for Ireland (Connacht gets less as it is classed as development, even when it's in the HC) or Italy (big diff HC vs amlin teams.

Not the case anymore. THey are treated differently, but in a good way in that Connacht doesn't have all the restrictions that the others have with regard to the number of non Irish qualified players. And the qualified has gone up a notch or two with Craig Clarke, the bloke who captained the Chiefs for back-to-back Super Rugby titles.

They went 500K over budget last season and the IRFU picked up the tab no problem (and said it wasn't an issue).

Munchkin wrote:

quinsforever wrote:Prl and lnr give same to all teams whichever competition they are in. Not the case for Ireland (Connacht gets less as it is classed as development, even when it's in the HC) or Italy (big diff HC vs amlin teams.

More fantasy stuff from you, quins. Was the AP HEC monies distributed equally amongst the 12 teams?

Yes it was. So have fun following the yellow brick road.

Hubert Davenport wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

quinsforever wrote:Prl and lnr give same to all teams whichever competition they are in. Not the case for Ireland (Connacht gets less as it is classed as development, even when it's in the HC) or Italy (big diff HC vs amlin teams.

More fantasy stuff from you, quins. Was the AP HEC monies distributed equally amongst the 12 teams?

Yes it was. So have fun following the yellow brick road.

You obviously haven't a clue, but thanks for your input Dorothy

Munchkin wrote:

quinsforever wrote:Prl and lnr give same to all teams whichever competition they are in. Not the case for Ireland (Connacht gets less as it is classed as development, even when it's in the HC) or Italy (big diff HC vs amlin teams.

More fantasy stuff from you, quins. Was the AP HEC monies distributed equally amongst the 12 teams?

yes.

Munchkin wrote:Voting rights will be a sticking point.
Not there yet, but would have been surprised if complete agreement on all aspects of whatever European competition would have been reached so quickly, but hopefully within the next couple of weeks.

It's an interesting point here on how to balance the voting rights so no one side can dominate the proceedings. This was part of the original grievance from the PRL & LNR.

For a moment let's just forget that the process was originally started by the PRL & LNR... this is a marriage of convenience as our agendas have temporarily aligned... the French being the French may decide they didn't like the cheese at the buffet and fall out with everyone again. We have to look at the voting rights as split between union and club.

So the Welsh, English and French clubs (possibly the Italians too.... not sure how their system works but for this discussion I will say yes) would need to get some sort of representation, whereas I would say that the Irish & Scots do not. Their clubs are completely union controlled/owned/run etc.

So..... as a starting point for discussion only... it would look something like this....

RFU = 1 vote
WRU = 1 vote
IRU = 1 vote
SRU = 1 vote
FFR = 1 vote
FIR = 1 vote

PRL = 2 votes
RRW = 1 votes
LNR = 2 votes
Italians = 1 votes

Chair = 1 vote (only as a tiebreaker)

Both "Camps" get 6 votes
Club votes based on less than six teams = 1 vote and more than six teams = 2 votes.
Chairs voting power is only in effect during a deadlock.

This effectively gives the AP/RFU and the Top14/FFR a quarter of the votes each which the remaining 50% going to the Pro12.

re votes

good post. its clearly an important issue to resolve if we are to have any euro club rugby next season.

i suspect prl/lnr and not going to accept less than 50% of the board level votes between them.

that would not be a controlling majority for big decisions which depending on the corporate charter could required anything between 2/3 and 75% of votes (up to them how they set it up).

but it would allow prl/lnr to claim they have created a club-run competition, even if the unions have the clear ability to veto any major changes.

Because a specific Union runs a stable of clubs/Regions/Provinces does not therefore mean that those clubs/regions/provinces do not exist or that they have no rights.

If RFU are at any table, giving English rugby 3 votes, then I say IRFU shouldn't be at the table with only 1. Neither indeed do I see why PRL should have 2

One vote per organisation body...not two.

RFU = 1 vote
WRU = 1 vote
IRFU = 1 vote
SRU = 1 vote
FFR = 1 vote
FIR = 1 vote

PRL = 1 vote
RRW = 1 vote
LNR = 1 vote
Italians = 1 vote
IRFU Provinces = 1 vote
SRU clubs = 1 vote

This weird notion continues now into vote sharing that some regions of Europe are more important than others (the 2 votes for one distinct rugby body proposal) and that somehow just because the RRW is involved in the Pro12 that they therefore somehow represent the wishes of Irish or Scottish sides with their 1 vote

They don't represent me or my Provinces.

So, in the real fair world there would be:

8 votes for Pro12
2 votes for AP
2 votes for Top14

Given Pro12 is an amalgam of four Nations, playing in one League, that's absolutely fair to the other self contained national Leagues of England and France.  So that's 2 votes each for them and 2 votes each for the rest of us.

Perfect.

quinsforever wrote:re votes

good post. its clearly an important issue to resolve if we are to have any euro club rugby next season.

i suspect prl/lnr and not going to accept less than 50% of the board level votes between them.

that would not be a controlling majority for big decisions which depending on the corporate charter could required anything between 2/3 and 75% of votes (up to them how they set it up).

but it would allow prl/lnr to claim they have created a club-run competition, even if the unions have the clear ability to veto any major changes.

Back to the Franglo Competition so...?

SecretFly wrote:Because a specific Union runs a stable of clubs/Regions/Provinces does not therefore mean that those clubs/regions/provinces do not exist or that they have no rights.

If RFU are at any table, giving English rugby 3 votes, then I say IRFU shouldn't be at the table with only 1.  Neither indeed do I see why PRL should have 2

One vote per organisation body...not two.

RFU = 1 vote
WRU = 1 vote
IRFU = 1 vote
SRU = 1 vote
FFR = 1 vote
FIR = 1 vote

PRL = 1 vote
RRW = 1 vote
LNR = 1 vote
Italians = 1 vote
IRFU Provinces = 1 vote
SRU clubs = 1 vote

This weird notion continues now into vote sharing that some regions of Europe are more important than others (the 2 votes for one distinct rugby body proposal) and that somehow just because the RRW is involved in the Pro12 that they therefore somehow represent the wishes of Irish or Scottish sides with their 1 vote

They don't represent me or my Provinces.

So, in the real fair world there would be:

8 votes for Pro12
2 votes for AP
2 votes for Top14

Given Pro12 is an amalgam of four Nations, playing in one League, that's absolutely fair to the other self contained national Leagues of England and France.  So that's 2 votes each for them and 2 votes each for the rest of us.

Perfect.

LOL. Nice WUM SF. well if this would be your initial negotiating point, then, prl/lnr get 50% each and promise not to screw everyone over too badly.

so compromise at...51% for prl/lnr, 49% for the unions? job done.

It's a mad world. A guy says it should be one vote each and he's accused of having a 'larf'??

Why would you shy away from my voting structure, quins?
Union power dissolved. Club/regional/provincial power achieving equal status


6 votes each to club/regional and Union; and nobody can buy anyone else out OR sell anyone else short.
Or in other words a "trust" Guarantee - given that none of us can trust each other without a contract proving it


The bright new world called for by PRL.

SecretFly wrote:It's a mad world.  A guy says it should be one vote each and he's accused of having a 'larf'??

Why would you shy away from my voting structure, quins?
Union power dissolved.  Club/regional/provincial power achieving equal status


6 votes each to club/regional and Union; and nobody can buy anyone else out OR sell anyone else short.
 Or in other words a "trust" Guarantee - given that none of us can trust each other without a contract proving it


The bright new world called for by PRL.

prl/lnr would agree with you SF...one vote each....per club. in this club competition. unions can share out their votes within 6N organising company however they wish.

so prl 6
lnr 6
and lets give rabo12 the extra one and make it rabo12 8 votes. to be allocated however they decide.

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote:It's a mad world.  A guy says it should be one vote each and he's accused of having a 'larf'??

Why would you shy away from my voting structure, quins?
Union power dissolved.  Club/regional/provincial power achieving equal status


6 votes each to club/regional and Union; and nobody can buy anyone else out OR sell anyone else short.
 Or in other words a "trust" Guarantee - given that none of us can trust each other without a contract proving it


The bright new world called for by PRL.

prl/lnr would agree with you SF...one vote each....per club. in this club competition. unions can share out their votes within 6N organising company however they wish.

so prl 6
lnr 6
and lets give rabo12 the extra one and make it rabo12 8 votes. to be allocated however they decide.

Only the Rabo have RRW which wouldn't really balance things out. So 6 PRL+6LNR+2? RRW. Possible 14 against a possible 6.

Per club?

That's 12, 12 and 14

38 votes in total?  

That level of votes might require a Parliamentary system but PRL/LNR have enough money between them to take over the world (according to some analyists here!!); so that should be okay too.

Secret,nice try but you have argued many a time that the provinces are the IRFU so in effect you are proposing that the IRFU have 2 votes

SecretFly wrote:Per club?

That's 12, 12 and 14

38 votes in total?  

That level of votes might require a Parliamentary system but PRL/LNR have enough money between them to take over the world (according to some analyists here!!); so that should be okay too.

sure. if you want. lets bump the rabo up to 14 for poops and giggles and that equates proportionally to prl 6, lnr 7, rabo 7.

no parliamentary system required. at the table you would have:

prl
lnr
and whoever the rabo12 assigned their votes to.

broadlandboy wrote:Secret,nice try but you have argued many a time that the provinces are the IRFU so in effect you are proposing that the IRFU have 2 votes

When I see IRFU with One vote broadband, and RFU/PRL with Three! (two of them coming from PRL for some bizarre reason!!!) and even Two votes for the Italians...then I get to thinking, I want two votes now.

You know how it goes, don't you. The PRL certainly did when they declared they wanted a bigger slice of the pie because they got to thinking they were being screwed?  

Well, that's the motivation and the moral of my tale too:  "If you think you might be getting screwed ... then just add a vote or two with a glass of water and the headache eases."