New European Rugby cup (or whatever it is called) - Qualification agreed

First topic message reminder :

But didn't the WRU and its regions capitulate and join their English Masters? Have they done a U-turn now? Looks like it.

Unless they want to hype up the Low Value Cup...

broadlandboy wrote:Sin e that is the point ERC sold exclusive rights after the PRL/BT deal making it nigh on impossible for PRL to return. If ERC hadn't sold exclusive rights it would have been easier for PRL to return.

Provide evidence to support your claim that ERC signed the SKY deal after PRL signed their BT deal.
Provide evidence that ERC were aware of any PRL deal prior to ERC signing with SKY, and that PRL were not underhand in signing the BT deal without first informing ERC.
For arguments sake, say ERC were aware of the BT deal prior to their signing the SKY deal, and that PRL signed before they did; what right did they have to do so? All the talk coming from a few of you is that PRL had no real power within ERC HEC, and yet you seem to agree that they had the power, and the right, to sign off a broadcasting deal over the head of those who are allegedly in control of HEC - the Unions.
Did PRL have a legal right to do so?

Munckin the PRL signed a deal that is for a different tourny only.

It has nothing to do with the ERC. They didnt need any power

The ERC however signed a deal based on an ERC happening . Which never was from the PRL's pov, Signing BT or not is irrelevant- they have allways stated they were not involved

Munchkin wrote:...however, none of ERC are privy to the details of that BT deal...

The RFU are still part of the ERC. The Telegraph claims they have seen details of the contract.

HammerofThunor wrote:Where's the hypocrisy? Has anybody said that the current set-up in the English league is great? Pretty sure most people say it needs improving.

I think they need to be in 5 years but I don't think can be right because they must be nearly there now. As would know.

The hypocrisy is coming from those of you finger pointing at the Rabo, or HEC, without first considering the obvious faults within PRL's AP. When others are finger pointing at the HEC, and waffling on about how much better, and fair, this fantasy of an RCC will be, they tend to forget that it is the brainchild of those same people who don't treat each team under their umbrella within AP as equals. That is hypocrisy.
Another point to make on that is PRL, at this stage, can promise the world to all who enter their proposed RCC, but if it were to ever happen, and they were to have the majority control alongside LNR; what is there to prevent them from changing the rules as they go along for their own financial gain, and to the detriment, or exclusion of others?

Can we just park this until there is something new to argue over

Munchkin sorry mate but we are ll happy to have a pop at our leagues and or unions flaws.. There is no hypocrisy

broadlandboy wrote:Sin e that is the point ERC sold exclusive rights after the PRL/BT deal making it nigh on impossible for PRL to return. If ERC hadn't sold exclusive rights it would have been easier for PRL to return.

The Sky deal was approved at Board level with RFU and Peter Wheeler in attendance way before the PRL/BT deal was signed (6 June). It doesn't really matter when the actual deal was signed as it had been approved anyway.

The PRL were well aware of the contents of the Sky deal while the ERC had no clue what was in the BT deal.

Maybe Sky put it to the ERC that if you don't sign now, we're withdrawing our offer?
What would you do in those circumstances - take the deal you know about, or wait and hope (and be at the mercy of the PRL) for the BT deal that you haven't seen.

Munchkin wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Where's the hypocrisy? Has anybody said that the current set-up in the English league is great? Pretty sure most people say it needs improving.

I think they need to be in 5 years but I don't think can be right because they must be nearly there now. As would know.

The hypocrisy is coming from those of you finger pointing at the Rabo, or HEC, without first considering the obvious faults within PRL's AP. When others are finger pointing at the HEC, and waffling on about how much better, and fair, this fantasy of an RCC will be, they tend to forget that it is the brainchild of those same people who don't treat each team under their umbrella within AP as equals. That is hypocrisy.
Another point to make on that is PRL, at this stage, can promise the world to all who enter their proposed RCC, but if it were to ever happen, and they were to have the majority control alongside LNR; what is there to prevent them from changing the rules as they go along for their own financial gain, and to the detriment, or exclusion of others?

But who's not considering the faults of the PRL? Don't think I've ever seen anyone not criticise them or say they're 100%

As for stopping them changing the rules, I don't how about not just having majority rules. You could 75% vote required for some things or even 100% for really key things. It not really hard to come up with solutions. You can even have the unions having to sanction major changes (like the RFU do now for the premiership).

All there is to be said at this stage is that Vernon Pugh must be turning in his grave when he sees what is happening to the Heineken Cup. He would be totally ashamed of the antics of his fellow countrymen.

mystiroakey wrote:Munchkin sorry mate but we are ll happy to have a pop at our leagues and or unions flaws.. There is no hypocrisy

You're not really getting what I'm saying, mystir. I accept that is probably my fault. What I'm saying is that while holding up the virtues of this proposed RCC, and contrasting that against the existing HEC , the fact that those who created it, RCC, in thought at least, are in control of an umbrella organisation, the PRL, of which can be argued doesn't in fact treat all its members equally as full members entitled to full shares, and not for a considerable amount of time. There is also the fact that they can promise the world, and not deliver...

PRL have 2 types of shares(can't remember what they are called) 1 for original members(which have to be sold if not in the premiership for 5 years) & 1 for present participants, I believe that Exeter have bought Leeds' original share so get equal to most/all the rest.
Munch
The PRL/BT deal was announced before the ERC/SKY deal with both saying that they had just signed
It is widely reported (agree that it was by PRL but not refuted by ERC/SKY) PRL sent e-mails to both ERC/SKY stating that PRL teams would not be covered by any ERC/SKY deal before the ERC/SKY deal was announced.
PRL believed they had the right as they had given notice so were no longer covered by the old accord so they could sell their rights to any future comp as there was no accord covering TV rights.
The PRL took legal advice that the EPS agreement with the RFU gives them their Media rights (IRB give all media rights to relevent union however it seems that the wording of the EPS agreement could give them to PRL where the RFU probably meant only Premiership rights)
The RABO Unions are also being hypocritical by wanting PRL to do as they say rather than as they actually do
Sin e Wheeler has stated that he was not present at any meting where the SKY deal was agreed

Sin é wrote:

l'equipe wrote:Worse, if the NRL does not wish to participate in clubs H-Cup, and in the absence of agreement signed in late December for the provision of international team to France, FFR could ask the Ministry of Sports which administers rugby in France, to dissolve the NRL and integrate internal committees of the FFR. Pierre Camou, president of the FFR does not exclude this possibility, as it would have raised Friday during a meeting with the leaders of the French pro league.

http://www.lequipe.fr/Rugby/Actualites/La-lnr-en-mauvaise-posture/419084

i hope Camou tries to do this. will see him put back in his box pretty quickly. as soon as he has to ask the minister of sports for something, the issue is a political one. and politicians make decisions based on what voters think. and there would be a lot of very irritated clubs fans.

munchkin explained to me, and i believe it, that dissolving the LNR is not going to affect the clubs themselves directly, it is just the administrator of the league. so basically would have an impact on the ability of the clubs to run their own tv sales, sponsorship, administer competitions, etc.

Sin é wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Sin e that is the point ERC sold exclusive rights after the PRL/BT deal making it nigh on impossible for PRL to return. If ERC hadn't sold exclusive rights it would have been easier for PRL to return.

The Sky deal was approved at Board level with RFU and Peter Wheeler in attendance way before the PRL/BT deal was signed (6 June). It doesn't really matter when the actual deal was signed as it had been approved anyway.

The PRL were well aware of the contents of the Sky deal while the ERC had no clue what was in the BT deal.

Maybe Sky put it to the ERC that if you don't sign now, we're withdrawing our offer?
What would you do in those circumstances - take the deal you know about, or wait and hope (and be at the mercy of the PRL) for the BT deal that you haven't seen.

Wheeler has said that deal was NOT presented or agreed then or at any later meeting. I imagine something was agreed the. But it wasn't that.

mystiroakey wrote:Munckin the PRL signed a deal that is for a different tourny only.

It has nothing to do with the ERC. They didnt need any power

The ERC however signed a deal based on an ERC happening . Which never was from the PRL's pov, Signing BT or not is irrelevant- they have allways stated they were not involved

However the deal signed needed the participation of others which meant the PRL signed on behalf of these others leaving a "take it or leave it" deal. Not that I believe a binding contract is in place - because how can you have a binding contract for something that is only a possibility?

broadlandboy wrote:
Sin e Wheeler has stated that he was not present at any meting where the SKY deal was agreed

Can I have a link to where he stated that?

Rugby Fan wrote:

Munchkin wrote:...however, none of ERC are privy to the details of that BT deal...

The RFU are still part of the ERC. The Telegraph claims they have seen details of the contract.

I have read that RFU had seen the details, but have also read recently that they haven't. Games being played, methinks. I do believe they have seen the details, but like so much else in this debate there's no solid evidence to support either claim.

TJ wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Munckin the PRL signed a deal that is for a different tourny only.

It has nothing to do with the ERC. They didnt need any power

The ERC however signed a deal based on an ERC happening . Which never was from the PRL's pov, Signing BT or not is irrelevant- they have allways stated they were not involved

However the deal signed needed the participation of others which meant the PRL signed on behalf of these others leaving a "take it or leave it" deal.  Not that I believe a binding contract is in place - because how can you have a binding contract for something that is only a possibility?

I suppose the agreement was for the new cup but within the wording for any England home games within europe

broadlandboy wrote:The Rabo unions want it both ways, they want a union comp but some non-eligible players so that they can stand a chance of winning it. They also see it as a stepping stone to International level rather than a goal in its self.
The Rabo Unions don't want players from smaller Unions unable to run a professional league as this will increase their ability to compete on an international level against them increasing the chance of them losing their place in the IRB rankings

So you know what we want do you ?

As someone else said guessing what other want and getting it wrong makes you seem like a prat best avoided.
What you write is totally distorted to the point of being a complete fantasy

Sin e would you want to deal with someone who forced you to sign a deal for something you had been told you dont have?
Sorry I haven't got the time to look through all the different forums to find the original link for Wheeler

"We also note ERC's reference to its Board Meeting on 6 June 2012. No specific broadcast deal was presented or voted on at this or any subsequent ERC Board meeting. In any case any such deal could not have included matches involving Premiership Rugby clubs."

http://www.espn.co.uk/heineken-cup-2012-13/rugby/story/169756.html

It also says.

"As a result of notice being served, ERC is not entitled after 2014 to sell the broadcast rights of matches involving Premiership Rugby clubs. On 27 July 2012 ERC was reminded of this in writing, and this was copied to Sky"

geoff999rugby wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:The Rabo unions want it both ways, they want a union comp but some non-eligible players so that they can stand a chance of winning it. They also see it as a stepping stone to International level rather than a goal in its self.
The Rabo Unions don't want players from smaller Unions unable to run a professional league as this will increase their ability to compete on an international level against them increasing the chance of them losing their place in the IRB rankings

So you know what we want do you ?

As someone else said guessing what other want and getting it wrong makes you seem like a prat best avoided.
What you write is totally distorted to the point of being a complete fantasy

it is clear that the celtic and italian unions wanted the status quo though. and that the french and english unions didnt. no point imputing motives, but these different desires are the source of the rupture. Combined with the ERC's inability to broker a compromise without certain parties feeling they would rather leave.

mystiroakey wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:It doesn't suck though, its good

and great for fans of smaller nations that cant sustain a league yet get to see there brightest talents playing against the best week in week out

This is where we fundamentally disagree - what you say is good I say is bad.
The scenario you paint is the last thing I want to see and I think you totally misunderstand what supporters of smaller nations want.
They want local teams, with a decent number of local players who they can supporter.
They do not want to be confined to watching those players on TV or going to local games of a poor standard.

We can maintain a league of a high standard provided the clubs don't run the game and that is why we will never agree to what the PRL want

The system in place is not helping the small nations out.

If you could argue that we were then i might listen. All our unions do is fight for money.

NZ last year, this year we have allready had the threats from rabbo nations demanding more WC money if the RCC goes ahead!!

The system in place needs to do more for small nations but the game is growing at least to some extent (not quickly enough) however club control will kill it stone dead.
The professional game will only survive in the big nations - France, England South Africa
It will die in Italy, Australia, Scotland and Argentina (where it is just getting started) and be on life support in Wales, Ireland and NZ

No thanks

Geoff perhaps I could have said "seems to me" or "IMSVHO".IT is my opinion & as someone once said "Opinions are like bumholes, we all have them only some smell sweeter than others"

quinsforever wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:The Rabo unions want it both ways, they want a union comp but some non-eligible players so that they can stand a chance of winning it. They also see it as a stepping stone to International level rather than a goal in its self.
The Rabo Unions don't want players from smaller Unions unable to run a professional league as this will increase their ability to compete on an international level against them increasing the chance of them losing their place in the IRB rankings

So you know what we want do you ?

As someone else said guessing what other want and getting it wrong makes you seem like a prat best avoided.
What you write is totally distorted to the point of being a complete fantasy

it is clear that the celtic and italian unions wanted the status quo though. and that the french and english unions didnt. no point imputing motives, but these different desires are the source of the rupture. Combined with the ERC's inability to broker a compromise without certain parties feeling they would rather leave.

Not true

Prepared to change qualification, format, splitting of income and I suggest TV provider.
The show stopper is control and TV is only an issue because one country has tied themselves into a deal the other countries were not a party too

broadlandboy wrote:Geoff perhaps I could have said "seems to me" or "IMSVHO".IT is my opinion & as someone once said "Opinions are like bumholes, we all have them only some smell sweeter than others"

Fair enough but the fact we see it as a stepping stone is a myth and the sentence

'The Rabo Unions don't want players from smaller Unions unable to run a professional league as this will increase their ability to compete on an international level against them increasing the chance of them losing their place in the IRB rankings'

is nonsense

quinsforever wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:The Rabo unions want it both ways, they want a union comp but some non-eligible players so that they can stand a chance of winning it. They also see it as a stepping stone to International level rather than a goal in its self.
The Rabo Unions don't want players from smaller Unions unable to run a professional league as this will increase their ability to compete on an international level against them increasing the chance of them losing their place in the IRB rankings

So you know what we want do you ?

As someone else said guessing what other want and getting it wrong makes you seem like a prat best avoided.
What you write is totally distorted to the point of being a complete fantasy

it is clear that the celtic and italian unions wanted the status quo though. and that the french and english unions didnt. no point imputing motives, but these different desires are the source of the rupture. Combined with the ERC's inability to broker a compromise without certain parties feeling they would rather leave.

Nonsense - the rabo unions were perfectly prepared to seek altenatives so long as they did not disadvantage them unduely. We can see this from the public positions now where the rabo unions gave thePRL almost everything they calimed they were concerned about and the PRL still will not move in any meaningful way

How is what PRL did selling their rights any different to allowing the French & Italians to sell theirs?

For got to say Thanks Hammer for those Quotes

And how exactly would club (by that I mean participating teams rather actual 'clubs') control damage the game?

broadlandboy wrote:How is what PRL did selling their rights any different to allowing the French & Italians to sell theirs?

Because the PRLK sold the rights to something that did not exist and that required other s to agree to for it to exist. Nor did the PRL discuss this with anyone including their supposed allies the RFU and the LNR

 

broadlandboy wrote:For got to say Thanks Hammer for those Quotes

broadlandboy wrote:How is what PRL did selling their rights any different to allowing the French & Italians to sell theirs?

Fine along as the other 5 Nations can sell the European Cup rights to another TV provider.

As I understand it that would contravene the PRL/BY contract

HammerofThunor wrote:And how exactly would club (by that I mean participating teams rather actual 'clubs') control damage the game?

Because what the PRL wanted was for thier clubs to be able to take decisions without reference to anyone other than themselves, for the PRL to control the tournament, for the PRL to be able to force thu changes, for the unions to be sidelined.

from Times (london)

Premiership tempted by taste of Currie after aversion to latest European recipe
Alex Lowe Last updated at 12:01AM, November 23 2013

Premiership Rugby has held talks with the South African Rugby Union (SARU) over the possibility of creating a new tournament for next season that could involve English top-flight clubs and teams from the Currie Cup.

It is very much a contingency plan at present because the English clubs’ priority is still to deliver a new pan-European Rugby Champions Cup (RCC). Mark McCafferty, the Premiership Rugby chief executive, maintains his organisation’s alliance with the French clubs and Welsh regions is still strong.

However, there is at present no legally binding agreement between the three parties and the nightmare scenario for Premiership Rugby is that the clubs in Wales and France end up falling into line with their unions, which have committed to an alternative 20-club European competition.

That would leave the English isolated and with three options: to fall in line themselves and go back on two years of hard rhetoric that they would never be part of any competition run by European Rugby Cup Ltd; to take the financial hit and not form any new competition; or to look elsewhere.

The “elsewhere” option is South Africa, where there is already considerable appetite to break away from the existing tie-up with Australia and New Zealand to explore options in Europe. One source told The Times: “South Africa is seriously interested in a European alternative to Super Rugby”.

The advantage for South Africa would include fewer matches for more money, less travel, and it would allow them to introduce a sixth franchise.

South Africa’s Super Rugby teams would not be in a position to join a new competition until the 2015-16 season, after the present Sanzar contract expires. However, for next season they could make available provincial Currie Cup teams such as Western Province, Blue Bulls and the Sharks.
The English and South African seasons would need to be brought into line because the Currie Cup final is in late October and the season re-starts in February, but early indications from SARU were that it would be willing to make a competition happen.

Of Premiership Rugby’s other options, McCafferty insisted that English clubs would not be involved in any competition run by ERC, the present Heineken Cup organiser. It appears they would rather be in no international tournament for a season.

There is no sense of panic at Premiership Rugby because the BT Sport television deal has swollen its coffers and it will gain additional revenue next season from a fourth autumn international. Premiership Rugby may well never have to consider those three scenarios, but they are exploring contingencies because there is as much uncertainty as ever over the future of Europe.

Pierre Camou, the president of the French union (FFR), is confident he can persuade the Top 14 clubs to withdraw their support for the RCC. He has offered financial incentives and warned the clubs that a new agreement on player release and broadcast rights will not be possible unless they do.

The Welsh union is also engaged in negotiations over a participation agreement, but it has so far failed to persuade the regions to turn their backs on the RCC because the announcement of the new union-led competition was short on detail.

There was no mention of a television deal or which teams would participate. The question remains how valuable the union-led competition would be to broadcasters and sponsors without the English clubs.

It is on that basis that McCafferty believes the French and Welsh clubs could have a legal case if their unions stopped them from joining the RCC, which he says would be more lucrative. The Welsh regions are not minded to test it in court.


The bolded bit is interesting.

(PS, The English teams should wins a bit of silverwear up against Currie Cup teams !

Geoff you say nonsense but to me the Celt unions/supporters want to restrict non union eligabilty players so restricting the chance of players from smaller unions the chance to play professionally

geoff999rugby wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:The Rabo unions want it both ways, they want a union comp but some non-eligible players so that they can stand a chance of winning it. They also see it as a stepping stone to International level rather than a goal in its self.
The Rabo Unions don't want players from smaller Unions unable to run a professional league as this will increase their ability to compete on an international level against them increasing the chance of them losing their place in the IRB rankings

So you know what we want do you ?

As someone else said guessing what other want and getting it wrong makes you seem like a prat best avoided.
What you write is totally distorted to the point of being a complete fantasy

it is clear that the celtic and italian unions wanted the status quo though. and that the french and english unions didnt. no point imputing motives, but these different desires are the source of the rupture. Combined with the ERC's inability to broker a compromise without certain parties feeling they would rather leave.

Not true

Prepared to change qualification, format, splitting of income and I suggest TV provider.
The show stopper is control and TV is only an issue because one country has tied themselves into a deal the other countries were not a party too

i am talking about before last week geoff. cause last week appears to be a bit late. i am talking about the wants and actions before the french clubs (who did it first) signalled their intention to withdraw, and before anyone had signed any tv contracts. back when this should have been solved within the existing organisation.

TJ wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:And how exactly would club (by that I mean participating teams rather actual 'clubs') control damage the game?

Because what the PRL wanted was for thier clubs to be able to take decisions without reference to anyone other than themselves, for the PRL to control the tournament, for the PRL to be able to force thu changes, for the unions to be sidelined.

Back that up. I sorry but that is nothing but speculation. And completely ridiculous speculation at that. Does anybody have anything actually substantial (I'd go for realistic)

this debate is going nowhere. i leave it to you all until we get some actual news. g'luck scotland and ireland this weekend chaps!

Not a chance of meaningful SA involvement. Complete pie in the sky. The IRB simply would not sanction it under pressure from NZ and Aus.

its just more fantasy from McCaffrey

so long as meaningful french representation is in the european cup then it would have decent value - after all we all know english fans love to watch top teams play erupoean rugby and its not the english clubs games that they watch always

Sin e those talks with SARU should scare the bejesus out of ARU/NZRFU as well as the Celtic unions

broadlandboy wrote:How is what PRL did selling their rights any different to allowing the French & Italians to sell theirs?

It would all depend on the demands of whoever is buying the rights. They are willing to pay more if they get exclusive rights. Effectively Sky go after the rights to the English speaking countries and don't have too much interest in French or Italian speaking countries.

It of course further complicates the issue as England is only part of one country (the UK).

HammerofThunor wrote:

TJ wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:And how exactly would club (by that I mean participating teams rather actual 'clubs') control damage the game?

Because what the PRL wanted was for thier clubs to be able to take decisions without reference to anyone other than themselves, for the PRL to control the tournament, for the PRL to be able to force thu changes, for the unions to be sidelined.

Back that up. I sorry but that is nothing but speculation. And completely ridiculous speculation at that. Does anybody have anything actually substantial (I'd go for realistic)

Its completely obvious to anyone who looks at this objectivly. thats why no compromise was offered by the PRL They wanted to run the whole thing. control 33% of the vote adn control the entire TV deal you control the competition. No one could do anything the PRLdid not want

TJ depends how fed up SARU are of subsidising the ARU/NZRFU.
England & SA would bring similar money to a tournement so would get out what they put in & I could see that being very atractive to the French clubs.
England,SA & France seem to be the only countries who could support a pro top level club league

broadlandboy wrote:Sin e those talks with SARU should scare the bejesus out of ARU/NZRFU as well as the Celtic unions

No international rugby would scare the bejasus out of the Saffers even more.

They have been there and done that.

TJ wrote:Its completely obvious to anyone who looks at this objectivly.  thats why no compromise was offered by the PRL They wanted to run the whole thing.  control 33% of the vote adn control the entire TV deal you control the competition.  No one could do anything the PRLdid not want

How do you 'control' a TV deal? Once it's signed it's signed. Nobody controls it. And have would the PRL control anything anymore than any other third? And why would he unions be stupid enough not to give the Awesomo Cup board defined framework they can make changes within and require union sanction for anything else.

I ask because this is what the PRL have for the league. Or do you think the PRL wanted more control over a European cup than they did over their own league?

broadlandboy wrote:TJ depends how fed up SARU are of subsidising the ARU/NZRFU.
England & SA would bring similar money to a tournement so would get out what they put in & I could see that being very atractive to the French clubs.
England,SA & France seem to be the only countries who could support a pro top level club league

They have to get it by Lapasset and Camou first  

Sin e depends whether they take a short or long view. How long could ARU/NZRFU last without SA money?

HammerofThunor wrote:

TJ wrote:Its completely obvious to anyone who looks at this objectivly.  thats why no compromise was offered by the PRL They wanted to run the whole thing.  control 33% of the vote adn control the entire TV deal you control the competition.  No one could do anything the PRLdid not want

How do you 'control' a TV deal? Once it's signed it's signed. Nobody controls it. And have would the PRL control anything anymore than any other third? And why would he unions be stupid enough not to give the Awesomo Cup board defined framework they can make changes within and require union sanction for anything else.

I ask because this is what the PRL have for the league. Or do you think the PRL wanted more control over a European cup than they did over their own league?

You control a tv deal by not telling the rest of the participants what is in it. You control a competition by controlling the purse strings.

The PRL refused to negotiate with the unions it was offered as a take it or leave it package. Yes tthe PRL wanted complete control in practice.

Just saying but if the English/French & SA decided to leave the IRB & set up an alternative who would fund the IRB? Not saying that they would or are even looking at but just a Question