Why the disdain for the Pro12?

First topic message reminder :

Chaps - I know its a bit controversial but try to keep it civil please

Some posters on here show great disdain for the Po12 disparaging it on dubious grounds.  Often without actually watching any / many games

Its a very competitive league with the top teams losing more than the AP and the bottom teams winning more.  Despite no relegation teams fight hard all season.  Many great competative games with some great rivalries building up and regular derby games.

For example rotation of players.  Exeter made 10 changes from the team played in their last league game for the team that played Glasgow in the HC.  I really do not see this supposed "resting" of players in the Pro 12 is any different to the rotation of AP squads.

Pro 12 teams do at least as well ( considered as a league) as do the top 14 or AP in the HC

Quality of games is high as entertainment and arguably better on average that the AP and certainly better than the top14 although the AP has improved greatly over the last couple of seasons with less attritional negative gameplans in evidence ( although I do only watch the games I think will be good)

I enjoy watching top 14 and AP games


Why do some posters make such disparaging comments?  I am genuinely interested in this.  Is it jealousy?  Is it fear?  

Please keep it civil chaps.  Ta

Edit - the top 4 teams in the Pro12 are separated by 6 points, in the AP its 18.  Bottom 4 teams in the Pro 12 separated by 10 points AP 15

Edit again - more try bonus points in the Ap. less losing bonus points - again pointing to a more competative league

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

What have they got so far with regards to a European competition? Anything?

We'll know within the fortnight. The point is.....if the competition is not to their liking, they won't play in it. If it is, they will. Therefore they play in whatever competition they want to. As they should be able to.

Who would PRL take to court, and on what grounds?

It's all hypothetical. I would imagine if the PRL negotiated a nice £200m deal with a tv company for a cross border comp, but the IRB and RFU stopped them playing, they'd take the IRB and / or the RFU to court under grounds for restraint of trade. As I keep on saying, it's hypothetical, as at this point, their futures are not the chopping block so they don't need to be forced into a tournament they don't want to be playing, or being stopped from playing in a  tournment they desperately want to play in.

The potential court case we should be looking at is with the RRW.

They wouldn't stop them playing. They just wouldn't give them their endorsement, supply refs and most importantly, insurance.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

What have they got so far with regards to a European competition? Anything?

We'll know within the fortnight. The point is.....if the competition is not to their liking, they won't play in it. If it is, they will. Therefore they play in whatever competition they want to. As they should be able to.

Who would PRL take to court, and on what grounds?

It's all hypothetical. I would imagine if the PRL negotiated a nice £200m deal with a tv company for a cross border comp, but the IRB and RFU stopped them playing, they'd take the IRB and / or the RFU to court under grounds for restraint of trade. As I keep on saying, it's hypothetical, as at this point, their futures are not the chopping block so they don't need to be forced into a tournament they don't want to be playing, or being stopped from playing in a  tournment they desperately want to play in.

The potential court case we should be looking at is with the RRW.

In other words they haven't got anything.

The Unions/IRB wouldn't be stopping them playing. The PRL could play in their competition. It just wouldn't wouldn't be Rugby Union. No restraint of trade.

The RRW might have more of a case against WRU, might, but that would involve a very lengthy, and costly, battle. I'm not sure, but that might mean no competition for them until any court case is concluded.

when kerry packer's lot broke away and set up their own league, it was still cricket.

same would be true of rugby. now it wouldn't be IRB governed if it was unsanctioned, but it would still be the same game. there is no copyright enforceable on a game.

anyway, no-one's even talking about setting up an unsanctioned tournament. they are talking about doing whatever it takes to get it sanctioned.

quinsforever wrote:

anyway, no-one's even talking about setting up an unsanctioned tournament. they are talking about doing whatever it takes to get it sanctioned.

Absolutely ^

This is key

quinsforever wrote:when kerry packer's lot broke away and set up their own league, it was still cricket.

same would be true of rugby. now it wouldn't be IRB governed if it was unsanctioned, but it would still be the same game. there is no copyright enforceable on a game.

anyway, no-one's even talking about setting up an unsanctioned tournament. they are talking about doing whatever it takes to get it sanctioned.

It would be rugby, or if they had joined with LNR they could have called it Frugby. With the regions - Wugby. With both - Fwugby.  It still wouldn't be Rugby Union though.

Wugby - awesome. sounds like it was invented by some english toffs!

quinsforever wrote:Wugby - awesome. sounds like it was invented by some english toffs!

True. Might be difficult selling Wugby as a real man's sport   

Apologies guys, been doing at bit of that work thing   
 
Anyway,  sorry, it’s hard to keep up when the goalposts keep changing
 
“think the Scarlets have played away to connacht in the November test window 8 times out of the last 10 seasons”
 
"Every season we play Connacht in a test window"
 
"Aaaalways the same. Dice loaded against the team producing the most internationals." – Thought that was the Ospreys most of the time   
 

Chunky Norwich wrote:[I've already told him. If  anybody wants to disprove something they should be the ones to put the facts on the table.

EDIT: screw it, I'll do it . Here we go. 8 out of 10 seasons is it? Aaaalways the same. Dice loaded against the team producing the most internationals.

2013/14 – November (a) AIs - YEP
2012/13 -  February (h) Six nations - YEP
2011/12 – March (a) Six Nations - YEP
2010/11 – February (h) Six Nations YEP
2009/10 – October 30 (week before AIs) - NO, statement was in a test window
2008/09 - NO
2007/08 - NO
2006/07 - NO
2005/6 – Feb (a) Six Nations - YEP
2004/5 - Feb (a) Six Nations - YEP
2003/4 – Oct 24th (a) - NO, statement was in a test window

 
So 6 times in 11 seasons
 
Got to    , more of that blydi work lark and I've got pull in all my info for the TV Guide. Good luck to all the Regions in their European games this weekend, I fancy 3 wins with the 'T'Ospreys definitely coming unstuck out in the RDS

quinsforever wrote:Wugby - awesome. sounds like it was invented by some english toffs!

...which it would be

In terms of restraint of trade, given there is the 'Packer' option, i.e. game outwith IRB control, does that not go a long way to answering which way a restraint of trade challenge might go. i.e. there is no restraint of trade as there is an alternate option. Moreover say it did end up in court, couldn't it be argued that a finding in favour of PRL/RRW, may result in the death of Irish and Scottish rugby - and the creation of its very own restraint of trade? When you add the two together, not sure whether a court finds in favour of restraint of trade, when it result in exactly the same outcome for the defendent, as the action seeks to compensate for.

PenfroPete wrote:Apologies guys, been doing at bit of that work thing   
 
Anyway,  sorry, it’s hard to keep up when the goalposts keep changing
 
“think the Scarlets have played away to connacht in the November test window 8 times out of the last 10 seasons”
 
"Every season we play Connacht in a test window"
 
"Aaaalways the same. Dice loaded against the team producing the most internationals." – Thought that was the Ospreys most of the time   
 

Chunky Norwich wrote:[I've already told him. If  anybody wants to disprove something they should be the ones to put the facts on the table.

EDIT: screw it, I'll do it . Here we go. 8 out of 10 seasons is it? Aaaalways the same. Dice loaded against the team producing the most internationals.

2013/14 – November (a) AIs - YEP
2012/13 -  February (h) Six nations - YEP
2011/12 – March (a) Six Nations - YEP
2010/11 – February (h) Six Nations YEP
2009/10 – October 30 (week before AIs) - NO, statement was in a test window
2008/09 - NO
2007/08 - NO
2006/07 - NO
2005/6 – Feb (a) Six Nations - YEP
2004/5 - Feb (a) Six Nations - YEP
2003/4 – Oct 24th (a) - NO, statement was in a test window

 
So 6 times in 11 seasons
 
Got to    , more of that blydi work lark and I've got pull in all my info for the TV Guide. Good luck to all the Regions in their European games this weekend, I fancy 3 wins with the 'T'Ospreys definitely coming unstuck out in the RDS

I think those who want to actually see my point will.

Anyone remember what happened with Limerick City F.C. and the FAI. Basically, what happened was Limerick City arranged a fund raising friendly with Barcelona, but the FAI wouldn't give them permission to play it. The FAI offered several reasons for not giving permission, like grounds too small, but I think that it all fell back on the FAI having an agreement with some promotor which gave him exclusivity to arranging highprofile friendlys in Ireland.

Think Limerick took them to court over loss of earnings, can't remember what the outcome was (it could well still be in the court system), but its two years ago now.

Here is an account of it. Worth reading. Note:

http://www.limerickleader.ie/sport/limerick-fc-cancel-barca-clash-after-spanish-giants-run-out-of-time-1-2192147

Sin é wrote:Anyone remember what happened with Limerick City F.C. and the FAI. Basically, what happened was Limerick City arranged a fund raising friendly with Barcelona, but the FAI wouldn't give them permission to play it..

Sounds like the Ospreys and Tonga midweek friendly

WRU: "You MUST generate more of your own income"
Ospreys: "Ok boss, we've done that and arranged a money-spinning midweek fixture against a touring test side"
WRU: "We're not allowing you to play it. We're citing, er, player fatigue"
Ospreys : "Player fatigue? But it would be an Ospreys 2nds and 3rd side"
WRU: "No means no"

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Sin é wrote:Anyone remember what happened with Limerick City F.C. and the FAI. Basically, what happened was Limerick City arranged a fund raising friendly with Barcelona, but the FAI wouldn't give them permission to play it..

Sounds like the Ospreys and Tonga midweek friendly

WRU: "You MUST generate more of your own income"
Ospreys: "Ok boss, we've done that and arranged a money-spinning midweek fixture against a touring test side"
WRU: "We're not allowing you to play it. We're citing, er, player fatigue"
Ospreys : "Player fatigue? But it would be an Ospreys 2nds and 3rd side"
WRU: "No means no"

Well, it seems the FAI were well within their rights to do so, as I can't find any newspaper that says that Limerick FC should be compensated for loss of income.

Pity, would have been nice to have had Barcelona playing in Thomond Park!

Chunky Norwich wrote:

PenfroPete wrote:Apologies guys, been doing at bit of that work thing   
 
Anyway,  sorry, it’s hard to keep up when the goalposts keep changing
 
“think the Scarlets have played away to connacht in the November test window 8 times out of the last 10 seasons”
 
"Every season we play Connacht in a test window"
 
"Aaaalways the same. Dice loaded against the team producing the most internationals." – Thought that was the Ospreys most of the time   
 

Chunky Norwich wrote:[I've already told him. If  anybody wants to disprove something they should be the ones to put the facts on the table.

EDIT: screw it, I'll do it . Here we go. 8 out of 10 seasons is it? Aaaalways the same. Dice loaded against the team producing the most internationals.

2013/14 – November (a) AIs - YEP
2012/13 -  February (h) Six nations - YEP
2011/12 – March (a) Six Nations - YEP
2010/11 – February (h) Six Nations YEP
2009/10 – October 30 (week before AIs) - NO, statement was in a test window
2008/09 - NO
2007/08 - NO
2006/07 - NO
2005/6 – Feb (a) Six Nations - YEP
2004/5 - Feb (a) Six Nations - YEP
2003/4 – Oct 24th (a) - NO, statement was in a test window

 
So 6 times in 11 seasons
 
Got to    , more of that blydi work lark and I've got pull in all my info for the TV Guide. Good luck to all the Regions in their European games this weekend, I fancy 3 wins with the 'T'Ospreys definitely coming unstuck out in the RDS

I think those who want to actually see my point will.

I think Penfold has totally DISPROVED your point.

All leagues have to play some games in the International windows.
Previously you complained that local derbies in International windows was a joke.
Now As I showed only 1 of the 20 local derbies in this years Pro12 was fixtured during the International windows.

When you consider the International windows take up roughly 11 weeks, HC takes up roughly 6 weeks, play offs 5 weeks
you are only left with 17 weeks. Therefore every leagues will have at least 5 games in International windows and often more.

For Ulster for example 9 of their non Inter Provincial matches are outside of International windows and 7 are inside.
That is what you get with a crowded fixture list.

geoff999rugby wrote:

I think Penfold has totally DISPROVED your point.

All leagues have to play some games in the International windows.
Previously you complained that local derbies in International windows was a joke.
Now As I showed only 1 of the 20 local derbies in this years Pro12 was fixtured during the International windows.

When you consider the International windows take up roughly 11 weeks, HC takes up roughly 6 weeks, play offs 5 weeks
you are only left with 17 weeks. Therefore every leagues will have at least 5 games in International windows and often more.

For Ulster for example 9 of their non Inter Provincial matches are outside of International windows and 7 are inside.
That is what you get with a crowded fixture list.

I botched it up by stating it was away games. He and you know exactly what I mean. It's just semantics that are enabling your get out clause.

The point is, games are scheduled to balance the league up. The sides with less internationals always play sides with more internationals when there are international macthes going on.

You believe your conspiracy theories if you want.
Personally I am with David Aaronovitch when it comes to Conspiracy theories
99% are nonsense - what you are claiming fits that category

Other than the Boxing Day derbies, which should remain, the fixtures are very rigid and should be more at random like in soccer. The same teams tend to play the same opposition at the same time of the season. This is not a "theory". Just look at the fixture list.

I was asked to show why I disliked the league and I put forward this point. Dismiss it as a nutjob theory if you will, but I am only answering the question.

Totalflanker wrote:In terms of restraint of trade, given there is the 'Packer' option, i.e. game outwith IRB control, does that not go a long way to answering which way a restraint of trade challenge might go. i.e. there is no restraint of trade as there is an alternate option. Moreover say it did end up in court, couldn't it be argued that a finding in favour of PRL/RRW, may result in the death of Irish and Scottish rugby - and the creation of its very own restraint of trade? When you add the two together, not sure whether a court finds in favour of restraint of trade, when it result in exactly the same outcome for the defendent, as the action seeks to compensate for.

not in court, no. only on the internet

Why not?

because PRL/RRW and IRFU/SRU are nothing to do with each other.

no court can compel people to remain in a commercial relationship that is artificially subsidising one party (allegedly keeping "irish and scottish rugby" alive as you claim).

the only people who could be sued for damages (actual) would in theory be the WRU if they entered weak sides into the Rabo which then was commercially damaged as a result. but even that is a stretch.

But that is not what is happening here. If it gets that far there will be 'no compelling' will instead be if you want to leave then go, but just not under the auspices of rugby union. As such if RRW/PRL go to court it will ultimately be against the IRB, as it is their ruling that says union approval is needed. If IRB go to court would imagine they will evidence that finding in favour of restraint in this instance amounts to restrain of trade for others in markeplace. Therefore go and set up their own competition.

Chunky Norwich wrote:
“think the Scarlets have played away to connacht in the November test window 8 times out of the last 10 seasons”
 

So it ends up that it's once in the history of the league. But it was this year. Hmmm.

You should really check facts BEFORE you post.

Look mate. I feel your pain on the regions and the mess in Welsh Rugby. I have been to PYS and the people there are great and friendly rugby folks.

I just don't think joining the Premiership in England will help. In fact I think it will hurt Welsh Rugby massively.

It also does pi$$ on your mates who you have played against for the last 14 seasons. So it will only stir up bad feeling. The Championship clubs (and some of the lower Prem ones too) in England will be unhappy, and Welsh rugby will be all out of friends.

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:
“think the Scarlets have played away to connacht in the November test window 8 times out of the last 10 seasons”
 

So it ends up that it's once in the history of the league. But it was this year. Hmmm.

You should really check facts BEFORE you post.

Look mate. I feel your pain on the regions and the mess in Welsh Rugby. I have been to PYS and the people there are great and friendly rugby folks.

I just don't think joining the Premiership in England will help. In fact I think it will hurt Welsh Rugby massively.

It also does pi$$ on your mates who you have played against for the last 14 seasons. So it will only stir up bad feeling. The Championship clubs (and some of the lower Prem ones too) in England will be unhappy, and Welsh rugby will be all out of friends.

Jen, I think you already know this, I'll put you straight anyway, the Regions joining the AW is the back up position, it is NOT what they want.
Sin e, your post at 2.00 has one glaring error, when playing for their Regions their insurance is covered by the Regions, NOT THE WRU, that only applies in countries where the union owns the club, eg Ireland

wayne wrote:
Jen, I think you already know this, I'll put you straight anyway, the Regions joining the AW is the back up position, it is NOT what they want.  

I know it. But yerman Chunky is wetting himself at the prospect and seems to believe it is a possibility.

Or more likely he is winding us all up for the crack.   

I have to say im coming round to the British and Irish League/Cup thinking. Would I miss the French? yes, but then if you ask me what is best for rugby in Europe I would suggest a competition that didn't involve them might act as a balance in terms of money/power.

Now im not getting into governance or any of that nonsense. Im just making the point and as I have stated I believe any such competition should be open to tender for coverage and let them bid against eachother.

wayne wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:
“think the Scarlets have played away to connacht in the November test window 8 times out of the last 10 seasons”
 

So it ends up that it's once in the history of the league. But it was this year. Hmmm.

You should really check facts BEFORE you post.

Look mate. I feel your pain on the regions and the mess in Welsh Rugby. I have been to PYS and the people there are great and friendly rugby folks.

I just don't think joining the Premiership in England will help. In fact I think it will hurt Welsh Rugby massively.

It also does pi$$ on your mates who you have played against for the last 14 seasons. So it will only stir up bad feeling. The Championship clubs (and some of the lower Prem ones too) in England will be unhappy, and Welsh rugby will be all out of friends.

Jen, I think you already know this, I'll put you straight anyway, the Regions joining the AW is the back up position, it is NOT what they want.
Sin e, your post at 2.00 has one glaring error, when playing for their Regions their insurance is covered by the Regions, NOT THE WRU, that only applies in countries where the union owns the club, eg Ireland    

Nothing got to do with who pays for the insurance - its more that it will be very difficult to get it without the approval of the governing body of the sport of Rugby Union (who set the health & safety standards as such for rugby).

Sin é wrote:

wayne wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:
“think the Scarlets have played away to connacht in the November test window 8 times out of the last 10 seasons”
 

So it ends up that it's once in the history of the league. But it was this year. Hmmm.

You should really check facts BEFORE you post.

Look mate. I feel your pain on the regions and the mess in Welsh Rugby. I have been to PYS and the people there are great and friendly rugby folks.

I just don't think joining the Premiership in England will help. In fact I think it will hurt Welsh Rugby massively.

It also does pi$$ on your mates who you have played against for the last 14 seasons. So it will only stir up bad feeling. The Championship clubs (and some of the lower Prem ones too) in England will be unhappy, and Welsh rugby will be all out of friends.

Jen, I think you already know this, I'll put you straight anyway, the Regions joining the AW is the back up position, it is NOT what they want.
Sin e, your post at 2.00 has one glaring error, when playing for their Regions their insurance is covered by the Regions, NOT THE WRU, that only applies in countries where the union owns the club, eg Ireland    

Nothing got to do with who pays for the insurance - its more that it will be very difficult to get it without the approval of the governing body of the sport of Rugby Union (who set the health & safety standards as such for rugby).

Sorry, IMO that is a load of rubbish, the players within Wales are under an umbrella of the Players Union and they would ensure they are adequately insured, and any reputable Insurance Company would cover them.

Standulstermen wrote:I have to say im coming round to the British and Irish League/Cup thinking. Would I miss the French? yes, but then if you ask me what is best for rugby in Europe I would suggest a competition that didn't involve them might act as a balance in terms of money/power.

Now im not getting into governance or any of that nonsense. Im just making the point and as I have stated I believe any such competition should be open to tender for coverage and let them bid against eachother.

Not against it in principle.

Very difficult to square the circle between the (soviet style communist) Irish and Scottish setups.

The Prl (Wild west Hardline Capitalist let the market decide) English setup.

And the In betweenie (falling desperately between 2 stools) Welsh set up.

That and the ability to trust the PRL in a position of control.

I am coming to see the situation a bit like the reformation.....

Erc (Catholic church) get a bit too comfortable and have allegations of corruption levelled at them.

PRL/LNR (Luther and Calvin) try to set up a new religion.. (Eh.. sorry Rugby Championship)

Erc dig in and tell them they are all going to hell if they leave the one true church (HC)

We need a counter reformation sooner than we got it in the middle ages. i.e clean up the Erc and make it more transparent. (Get rid of plenary indulgences etc.)

Before the split becomes too great and we can't put humpty together again. (Just to mix metaphors)

quinsforever wrote:when kerry packer's lot broke away and set up their own league, it was still cricket.

same would be true of rugby. now it wouldn't be IRB governed if it was unsanctioned, but it would still be the same game. there is no copyright enforceable on a game.

anyway, no-one's even talking about setting up an unsanctioned tournament. they are talking about doing whatever it takes to get it sanctioned.

When league & union split they remained the same game for 50 years... then bit by bit they changed until league became the dreadful game it is today.

Honestly dont have that big an issue with breaking away from the ERC/IRB... sometimes the tree of liberty needs to be refreshed with the blood of tyrants from time to time.

EDIT: Personally I would prefer a compromise to be achieved but there are just too many self invested interests on bogh sides of the debate to move easily forward... but it is good to shake the tree now and then.

Metal Tiger wrote:

quinsforever wrote:when kerry packer's lot broke away and set up their own league, it was still cricket.

same would be true of rugby. now it wouldn't be IRB governed if it was unsanctioned, but it would still be the same game. there is no copyright enforceable on a game.

anyway, no-one's even talking about setting up an unsanctioned tournament. they are talking about doing whatever it takes to get it sanctioned.

When league & union split they remained the same game for 50 years... then bit by bit they changed until league became the dreadful game it is today.

Honestly dont have that big an issue with breaking away from the ERC/IRB... sometimes the tree of liberty needs to be refreshed with the blood of tyrants from time to time.

How many of the players do you think will go with the clubs, if it means the end to their international careers? OR do you figure there will be a new international setup that will follow on from the new game?

back then it was about being paid vs not being paid.

now everyone gets paid, it's just about what cake they eat and who gets how much.

but they all still want to sit at the same table for dinner, if you follow my meaning.

the only league that could conceivably break away (financially) from the international game is top14, but ironically that is the one with the least power relative to its regulator. so i dont think anyone is going to risk a break with irb (erc is irrelevant and yesterdays news by the way) if it means not playing international rugby. no-one, even the rrw, is talking about playing in unsanctioned tournaments. they are however threatening all means necessary to get the tournament they want to play in sanctioned. means the players wont have to make the choice that the Packer cricket crowd did.

Wow can't remember a thread going this far off piste apart from when the 6N WC are on.

Totalflanker wrote:

Metal Tiger wrote:

quinsforever wrote:when kerry packer's lot broke away and set up their own league, it was still cricket.

same would be true of rugby. now it wouldn't be IRB governed if it was unsanctioned, but it would still be the same game. there is no copyright enforceable on a game.

anyway, no-one's even talking about setting up an unsanctioned tournament. they are talking about doing whatever it takes to get it sanctioned.

When league & union split they remained the same game for 50 years... then bit by bit they changed until league became the dreadful game it is today.

Honestly dont have that big an issue with breaking away from the ERC/IRB... sometimes the tree of liberty needs to be refreshed with the blood of tyrants from time to time.

How many of the players do you think will go with the clubs, if it means the end to their international careers? OR do you figure there will be a new international setup that will follow on from the new game?

I guess it depends on who is paying the bills....

The Welsh, French & English clubs pay the wages so given the ability to raise their own funds & negogiate TV deals etc. would most likely be self sustaining and be able to offer lucrative deals to ghe players.

The Scots, Irish & Italians would remain tied to their unions.

Ultimately this is what the whole damned arguement is about. Power & money.

Chunky Norwich wrote:Other than the Boxing Day derbies, which should remain, the fixtures are very rigid and should be more at random like in soccer. The same teams tend to play the same opposition at the same time of the season. This is not a "theory". Just look at the fixture list.

I was asked to show why I disliked the league and I put forward this point. Dismiss it as a nutjob theory if you will, but I am only answering the question.

As opposed to the 'rigid fixture list' I thought your point was that it was unfair on teams such as the Scarlets having to play teams such as Connacht, who generally lose less players to international sides, during international windows. Did you not say it was a conspiracy to balance the league a bit more?

The Scarlets beat Connacht last November. Genuine question - with all respect to Connacht, would you rather they have played Munster or Ulster that weekend?

Munster vs Cardiff
Felix Jones; Andrew Conway, Casey Laulala, Ivan Dineen, Johne Murphy; JJ Hanrahan, Cathal Sheridan; (1-8): James Cronin, Damien Varley, BJ Botha; Dave Foley, Billy Holland; Dave O'Callaghan, Sean Dougall, CJ Stander.

Replacements: Mike Sherry, Dave Kilcoyne, Stephen Archer, Donncha O'Callaghan, James Coughlan, Duncan Williams, Johnny Holland, Denis Hurley

Ulster vs Edinburgh
C Gilroy; A Trimble, D Cave, L Marshall, M Allen; J McKinney, P Marshall; (1-8): C Black, R Herring, J Afoa, L Stevenson, I Henderson, R Diack (c), S Doyle, R Wilson.

Replacements (16-23): N Annett, T Court, R Lutton, D Tuohy, M McComish, D Shanahan, P Nelson, R Andrew.

justified sinner wrote:Wow can't remember a thread going this far off piste apart from when the 6N WC are on.

Yeah... it started off well enough and then certain posters started with the PRL v ERC crap and it all went down hill from there. Plenty of us jumped off piste so it appears to be an open thread now.

Notch is usually lurking around here, maybe as a Mod he can merge the threads.

quinsforever wrote:when kerry packer's lot broke away and set up their own league, it was still cricket.

same would be true of rugby. now it wouldn't be IRB governed if it was unsanctioned, but it would still be the same game. there is no copyright enforceable on a game.

anyway, no-one's even talking about setting up an unsanctioned tournament. they are talking about doing whatever it takes to get it sanctioned.

and none of the players played international cricket again. aus were very weakened by this for a long time

There is no possibility of restrain of trade. it simply does not fit the bill. the PRL can play in any comp they want. the RFU can then sanction them under its rules. this could include deselecting all players and refs and removing all RFU support from the clubs. No possible case. Anyone who suggest otherwise does not understand

[quote="Jenifer McLadyboy"][quote="Chunky Norwich"]
[i]“think the Scarlets have played away to connacht in the November test window 8 times out of the last 10 seasons”[/i]
 [/quote]

So it ends up that it's once in the history of the league. But it was this year. Hmmm.

You should really check facts BEFORE you post.

Look mate. I feel your pain on the regions and the mess in Welsh Rugby. I have been to PYS and the people there are great and friendly rugby folks.

I just don't think joining the Premiership in England will help. In fact I think it will hurt Welsh Rugby massively.

It also does pi$$ on your mates who you have played against for the last 14 seasons. So it will only stir up bad feeling. The Championship clubs (and some of the lower Prem ones too) in England will be unhappy, and Welsh rugby will be all out of friends.[/quote]


Great post and I'm Welsh

since this threads wandered so far of topic and wandered into euro cup etc debate shall we let it die / join the main thread?

TJ wrote:

quinsforever wrote:when kerry packer's lot broke away and set up their own league, it was still cricket.

same would be true of rugby. now it wouldn't be IRB governed if it was unsanctioned, but it would still be the same game. there is no copyright enforceable on a game.

anyway, no-one's even talking about setting up an unsanctioned tournament. they are talking about doing whatever it takes to get it sanctioned.

and none of the players played international cricket again.  aus were very weakened by this for a long time

actually they did play international cricket again. the australians involved didnt even have to spend any time on the sidelines once packer's league folded. they went straight back onto the Aus national cricket team. was an interesting episode that showed that it is ultimately the players who have the power, and not the governing bodies. fans and players all want to play for their national team, so no-one at the top had the cojones to ban the players once the Packer "Superseries" merged back with regular cricket.

pretty sure it would be the same in wales. they dont have the strength in depth of players, nor would fans tolerate it, if star players got banned from the national team beyond the period when they were playing in a different code. would be like SBW switching codes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Series_Cricket

TJ wrote:since this threads wandered so far of topic and wandered into euro cup etc debate shall we let it die / join the main thread?

the euro thread has just been closed by bilt, so this one could replace it if you wanted to suggest that? maybe with slight title tweak?

quinsforever wrote:because PRL/RRW and IRFU/SRU are nothing to do with each other.

no court can compel people to remain in a commercial relationship that is artificially subsidising one party (allegedly keeping "irish and scottish rugby" alive as you claim).

.

You need to read EU competition law before making such a statement

Metal Tiger wrote:

sometimes the tree of liberty needs to be refreshed with the blood of tyrants from time to time.

EDIT: Personally I would prefer a compromise to be achieved but there are just too many self invested interests on bogh sides of the debate to move easily forward... but it is good to shake the tree now and then.

 
As the great Danny Wilson song 'said'
 
If you want the fruit to fall
You have to give the tree a shake
But if you shake the tree too hard,
The bough is gonna break

I think there is difference here in that the amount of money on offer from Packer was way above what players were getting from domestic cricket at the time, in rugby except for the top level players maybe not such a large difference unless they go the France - also in the Packer there was a large enough movement of influential players across the board not just one nation to scare the governing bodies into backing down.
In the current case whilst a few players getting towards the end of their careers might move to a non-sanctioned competition it would be unlikely that many of the rest would especially in a year before a Rugby World Cup. The new competition would also have to find officials who would also have to give up their international careers.
In terms of the Welsh fans, the WRU offiiciall line would probably be "look at these boys who chose to chase the English pound rather than the red jersey, they're the one's who've let Wales down, that's why we aren't doing so well."
Anyway given the Welsh internationals are a day out for a lot of people who aren't hard-core rugby fans and that the TV money would still come in, the WRU could hold out for quite a long time.
Finally as I've said in other posts, never underestimate the Celtic trend to cut off your nose to spite your face, even if it hurts themselves but gives them a moral victory over the English.

PenfroPete wrote:

Metal Tiger wrote:

sometimes the tree of liberty needs to be refreshed with the blood of tyrants from time to time.

EDIT: Personally I would prefer a compromise to be achieved but there are just too many self invested interests on bogh sides of the debate to move easily forward... but it is good to shake the tree now and then.

 
As the great Danny Wilson song 'said'
 
If you want the fruit to fall
You have to give the tree a shake
But if you shake the tree too hard,
The bough is gonna break

Continuing the jolly songster/arboreal theme: http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/billie+holiday/strange+fruit_20017859.html

geoff999rugby wrote:

quinsforever wrote:because PRL/RRW and IRFU/SRU are nothing to do with each other.

no court can compel people to remain in a commercial relationship that is artificially subsidising one party (allegedly keeping "irish and scottish rugby" alive as you claim).

.

You need to read EU competition law before making such a statement

nope. this is why no-one is talking about suing PRL from walking away, legitimately, from HC and ERC. no court can force a for-profit entity into a commercial relationship they legitimately dont want any part of. nothing to do with EU law.

pretty basic stuff Geoff.

Irish Londoner wrote:I think there is difference here in that the amount of money on offer from Packer was way above what players were getting from domestic cricket at the time, in rugby except for the top level players maybe not such a large difference unless they go the France - also in the Packer there was a large enough movement of influential players across the board not just one nation to scare the governing bodies into backing down.
In the current case whilst a few players getting towards the end of their careers might move to a non-sanctioned competition it would be unlikely that many of the rest would especially in a year before a Rugby World Cup. The new competition would also have to find officials who would also have to give up their international careers.
In terms of the Welsh fans, the WRU offiiciall line would probably be "look at these boys who chose to chase the English pound rather than the red jersey, they're the one's who've let Wales down, that's why we aren't doing so well."
Anyway given the Welsh internationals are a day out for a lot of people who aren't hard-core rugby fans and that the TV money would still come in, the WRU could hold out for quite a long time.
Finally as I've said in other posts, never underestimate the Celtic trend to cut off your nose to spite your face, even if it hurts themselves but gives them a moral victory over the English.

all very fair points.

particularly the money. as it's the same for the players, more or less, there is no way there is going to be an unsanctioned tournament.

but that doesnt mean the rrw wont use every means at their disposal to get RCC or AW league (or whatever they are actually after) sanctioned.

quinsforever wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

quinsforever wrote:because PRL/RRW and IRFU/SRU are nothing to do with each other.

no court can compel people to remain in a commercial relationship that is artificially subsidising one party (allegedly keeping "irish and scottish rugby" alive as you claim).

.

You need to read EU competition law before making such a statement

nope. this is why no-one is talking about suing PRL from walking away, legitimately, from HC and ERC. no court can force a for-profit entity into a commercial relationship they legitimately dont want any part of. nothing to do with EU law.

pretty basic stuff Geoff.

The RRW would be sued if they joined a new Anglo-Welsh league.
Without the RRW there is no Anglo-Welsh league

All covered by EU requirements

geoff999rugby wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

quinsforever wrote:because PRL/RRW and IRFU/SRU are nothing to do with each other.

no court can compel people to remain in a commercial relationship that is artificially subsidising one party (allegedly keeping "irish and scottish rugby" alive as you claim).

.

You need to read EU competition law before making such a statement

nope. this is why no-one is talking about suing PRL from walking away, legitimately, from HC and ERC. no court can force a for-profit entity into a commercial relationship they legitimately dont want any part of. nothing to do with EU law.

pretty basic stuff Geoff.

The RRW would be sued if they joined a new Anglo-Welsh league.
Without the RRW there is no Anglo-Welsh league

All covered by EU requirements

nope. WRU would be sued. WRU put themselves at the centre of the rabo relationship and controls and disburses all competition monies. not RRW.

and even if someone tried to sue RRW, they still can't force them to continue to participate in Rabo. do you see the difference?