If the Heinekin Cup ends should the English/French club players be ineligable for International rugby?

Here's the deal. French and English clubs have a new television deal, with lots of cash. It allows them to separate from the existing tournament when it ends early next year. However, multinational rugby tournaments are governed by the IRB and the nations involved are less than supportive of the clubs moves. If the English/French clubs thumb their collective noses at the IRB one option is to remove the rights of players, playing for those clubs, to be involved in 6 nations and world cup.

The next thing I'm thinking is what would the sides look like. Obviously France and England would be in trouble. So would Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Georgia, Wales, Argentina and South Africa.

It would be the decision of the clubs to leave the HEC and not the players. So your logic for removing qualification makes no sense. And no Union is going to cut their noses off to spite their face.

But hey... well done on a good provocative WUM. Should get plenty of bites.

For that Scenario the unions of both France and England would have likely voted that they did not want the clubs to set up their own league.

The impact would be more than that Cane Lion...how much financial impact would that have on the rest of the international game. France and England are two of the financial powerhouses...could game afford to lose their input?

Or would they still be expected to put their share in...?

We don't like the fact you're taking money away from our clubs and in the process making the 'European' Cup less European so to punish you we'll do the same to the international teams. Makes sense.

why is the Poll question different from the Post title?


As an aside, should New Zealand be removed from RWC for threatening to withdraw? (PS silly question - just like the two raised by the OP)

The European Cup will still be there...maybe a slightly different qualifying process and different name, but it will be there.

The Internatinal Body for the game wouldnt ban France and England...pure and simply its too much of a financial risk.

LondonTiger wrote:why is the Poll question different from the Post title?


As an aside, should New Zealand be removed from RWC for threatening to withdraw? (PS silly question - just like the two raised by the OP)

I was thinking as i was typing and the missus dragged me off to do something constructive. Tried to change it, but the for some reason it remains the same.

Short term loss for long term gain for the unions I was thinking. they decide on the makeup of the major tournaments. A pan England/French league club wouldn't be one of them. My guess is that it would collapse in a year or two without access to international tests. Any clubs that came back would get the games, cud dos and cash.

blackcanelion wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:why is the Poll question different from the Post title?


As an aside, should New Zealand be removed from RWC for threatening to withdraw? (PS silly question - just like the two raised by the OP)

I was thinking as i was typing and the missus dragged me off to do something constructive. Tried to change it, but the for some reason it remains the same.

Short term loss for long term gain for the unions I was thinking. they decide on the makeup of the major tournaments. A pan England/French league club wouldn't be one of them. My guess is that it would collapse in a year or two without access to international tests. Any clubs that came back would get the games, cud dos and cash.

Word is that the Franglo clubs would ring fence that league...!

I know the irony is hilarious, but that is what is suggested.

So the obvious example would be that the RFU select lower ranked non PRL clubs to play in the EUropean cup and England players would be selected from those teams.

I like the idea but obviously it wouldnt ever happen. I think the PRL needs to be restructured and governed by the RFU. That would mean harmony in the Heineken cup for years to come.

It would be good if something similar happened with the LNR but either way I dont think the French really give two hoots about the Hcup.

I asked the question few days back about whether when Swansea and Cardiff pulled out of the Welsh league some years back did the WRU still pick their players for Welsh duty and the answer (kindly provided by Meas as I couldn't remember) was yes they did still select them.

So I very much doubt the prespective Unions wouldn't pick players.

I guess the issue is we are dealing with the IRB. Essentially the RFU's of England, France, NZ, Australia, South Africa, Wales, Ireland, Scotland, Argentina and Italy. Who stands to lose if the Franglo comp goes ahead. Almost everybody outside the two unions whose clubs are involved. You have almost 1/2 the core IRB members peed at the process and more than a couple of others concerned over the implications on them. Many of these nations already have access problems to their players. A short loss of players who will be replaced within the next 4 or so years isn't I suspect a huge price to pay.

blackcanelion wrote:I guess the issue is we are dealing with the IRB. Essentially the RFU's of England, France, NZ, Australia, South Africa, Wales, Ireland, Scotland, Argentina and Italy. Who stands to lose if the Franglo comp goes ahead. Almost everybody outside the two unions whose clubs are involved. You have almost 1/2 the core IRB members peed at the process and more than a couple of others concerned over the implications on them. Many of these nations already have access problems to their players. A short loss of players who will be replaced within the next 4 or so years isn't I suspect a huge price to pay.

There is too much for the RFU to loose by letting the PRL set up a competition that the IRB won't ratify.

The question is does everyone really see there NOT being a European Cup.

There will be. Too much is at stake for both camps. An agreement will be made.

GeordieFalcon wrote:The question is does everyone really see there NOT being a European Cup.

There will be. Too much is at stake for both camps. An agreement will be made.

It is the IRBs wishes that a European Cup continues and that it is governed by the Unions not Clubs.






IRB announcement - Wednesday 18 September 2013

"To clarify the global competition procedure, under IRB Regulations all cross-border club competitions require Union approval in the first instance and, if reached, ultimately the approval of the IRB Council.

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

As long as the respected unions involved agree with the new competition and the legalilty of pulling out of the HC is solid (assuming it is given they've already given notice and the ERC haven't threatened law suits) then the IRB should be powerless.

Can't exactly ban players from the world cup from the host nation.

fa0019 wrote:As long as the respected unions involved agree with the new competition and the legalilty of pulling out of the HC is solid (assuming it is given they've already given notice and the ERC haven't threatened law suits) then the IRB should be powerless.

Can't exactly ban players from the world cup from the host nation.

The unions dont agree though and all clubs have signed up to play in the Hcup until 2015.

Well I assume the unions agreement would be the unions involved in the new competition... not those who don't wish to take part.

I'm not sure on the legality issue of the HC but it seems strange that the ERC haven't come out and said, "this move is illegal, they are signed up until 2015 and therefore they must play one more season after next".

Only a few former board members have said its illegal not the ERC themselves.... more bizarre given the clubs have given notice of their withdrawl from next season.

From the above I would assume they can leave the competition... or at least the english and french clubs believe they can. The ERC's behaviour seems to support this too.

As I said, I'm not sure on it but thats what I gather from the situation.

I think the key is whether the PRL and LNR pull out of the HEC and set up their own league without their unions backing, or with the unions backing. If the RFU and FFR back the new league then there is nothing the IRB can do, as they have already said if hte unions agree to it then it is all fine. However, if the unions don't agree to it, then I think it becomes a bit of an issue, as the Clubs and their empoyees (the players) will be working outside of the unions control, and as such could lead to the player not being eligable to play for the union, and may find that the clubs, being on the outside of the IRB regs, would not technically need to realease them etc etc. It could lead to some real issues, for both clubs and unions, as the players would need to decide whether they want to play for Bath in the Franglo league, or play for Bristol in the RFU Championship and England too.

The only time I can think of any teams doing anything like this was during the 'rebel' years with Swansea and Cardiff, which was during the amature days. Things were a bit different then, the club v union arguement wasn't the reason for the split, it was down to the lack of quality in the welsh league etc.

If the title did come true, at least it would stop comments like this:

http://www.espn.co.uk/france-top-14-2013-14/rugby/story/199021.html

In an ideal world, yes. If they set up a breakaway competition it should be treated as a rugby league like schism.

In the real world, I can't see it happening.

May be a "silly idea"... but dejavu anyone ?

The history of rugby league as a separate form of rugby football goes back to 1895 in Huddersfield, Yorkshire when the Northern Rugby Football Union broke away from the established Rugby Football Union to administer its own separate competition.

quoted from  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rugby_league ...

No9 wrote:May be a "silly idea"... but dejavu anyone ?

The history of rugby league as a separate form of rugby football goes back to 1895 in Huddersfield, Yorkshire when the Northern Rugby Football Union broke away from the established Rugby Football Union to administer its own separate competition.

quoted from  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rugby_league ...

I have said that myself a few times, with the whole Club V Country issues in France and England, and the majority of the top nations in the world running franchises/regions/provinces, it could be a point that will be remembered as when the Professional club game split from the union ran franchise/region/province game.

Notch wrote:In an ideal world, yes. If they set up a breakaway competition it should be treated as a rugby league like schism.

In the real world, I can't see it happening.

Sorry Notch, didnt see your post (how I dont know), but I suppose I was agreeing with you with mine.


...Same for ScarletSpiderman... Hadnt seen you previous posts saying the same, but if the English and French clubs split forming their own "european" comp, and the likes of Leinster decide to join them, then it is the new era of the seperation of Rugby Football... We have Union and then Leaque, wonder what name this will take, and what rule changes will be applied to give it its own identity... maybe scrums will be replaced with form of "shin kicking" competition...

... all the thin end of the wedge imo..

No9 - scrums can go back to the crooked feed and 'hit'  

As a former scrum-half (bet you couldnt guess that from my name)...

"crooked feeds"... NEVER on my watch

Notch wrote:In an ideal world, yes. If they set up a breakaway competition it should be treated as a rugby league like schism.

In the real world, I can't see it happening.

If they set up a breakaway competition after giving due notice under ERC rules it should be treated as rugby league like schism a legitimate decision.

Exiledinborders wrote:

Notch wrote:In an ideal world, yes. If they set up a breakaway competition it should be treated as a rugby league like schism.

In the real world, I can't see it happening.

If they set up a breakaway competition after giving due notice under ERC rules it should be treated as rugby league like schism a legitimate decision.

Only if ratified by their Unions...!

you've got to love some of the Rabo fans on these boards, all along their stance has been "give them nothing, it won't happen"...

- first it was only the English involved, purely out of bitterness that they weren't doing so well in Europe anymore. "Once it becomes clear the French won't support them, they'll come scurrying back with their tails between their legs"

- then when it became clear the French and English were united, it was "oh well the IRB won't sanction the new competition anyway".

- now since the IRB have said they'd probably back it if the Unions did they're hoping the Unions go against their clubs. Can anyone seriously see that happening?!?!

Seems like the whole "give them nothing" tactic has backfired. As far as I see, the Franglos have done everything by the book so far, and it's taken way too long for the Rabo Unions to realise just how serious their discontent was.

I would still give them nothing. Id rather have no tournament than be the one to sign off on the death of NH rugby.

Perhaps you dont realise how serious the PRL's proposals will impact NH international rugby?

GunsGerms wrote:I would still give them nothing. Id rather have no tournament than be the one to sign off on the death of NH rugby.

That's pretty much sums up the level of 'discussion' the Pro12 has been willing to engage in so far.

Cyril wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:I would still give them nothing. Id rather have no tournament than be the one to sign off on the death of NH rugby.

That's pretty much sums up the level of 'discussion' the Pro12 has been willing to engage in so far.

You can discuss the issues as much as you want which is what all parties have been doing but that doesnt mean you have to give in to ridiculous proposals. The balance is already tipped in favour of the English and French clubs. No reason why they should be given an inch more.

The bitterness on here hits a new low.

This Anti-Anglo thing really needs to be stopped.

Scrumpy wrote:The bitterness on here hits a new low.

This Anti-Anglo thing really needs to be stopped.

Nothing to do with being anti-Anglo? What a bizarre comment. Have you considered thinking before posting?

I am very much anti Mark McCafferty and the PRL who are the driving force behind the ridiculous proposals.

A vote on whether English/French club players should be ineligable for International rugby if the HC ends.


and you say I need to think before posting!

 

GunsGerms wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:The bitterness on here hits a new low.

This Anti-Anglo thing really needs to be stopped.

Nothing to do with being anti-Anglo? What a bizarre comment. Have you considered thinking before posting?

I am very much anti Mark McCafferty and the PRL who are the driving force behind the ridiculous proposals.

so, the English. The French of course escape your ire? And no, I'm not quite sure how having a Club/Franchise competition where each team is there on merit would be the "death of NH rugby". Surely you realise that without money from European Comps the Rabo Unions can't survive? Wouldn't that be closer to the "death of NH rugby"?

Scrumpy wrote:A vote on whether English/French club players should be ineligable for International rugby if the HC ends.


and you say I need to think before posting!

 

even more bizarrely the title of the article and the question in the poll are completely different...

we must really have upset the other home unions over the years.

You only noticed now? The OP already explained the reason for that. Basically the proposal for this article is as ridiculous as the PRLs proposal.

The French dont care about the HCup, they are just sniffing around for the best deal. They are already the richest league in the world. Its pretty obvious that without the PRL's greedy proposals the status quo would remain.

People that believe in a "meritocracy" are too stupid to understand the bigger picture.

GunsGerms wrote:

People that believe in a "meritocracy" are too stupid to understand the bigger picture.

People who disagree with you are stupid. What a brilliant argument.

GunsGerms wrote:
People that believe in a "meritocracy" are too stupid to understand the bigger picture.

seriously? people who believe you should play in Europe's premier competition because you deserve to are stupid? OK so we should have Georgia, Spain, and whoever else fancies a go join the 6N right?

Exiledinborders wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

People that believe in a "meritocracy" are too stupid to understand the bigger picture.

People who disagree with you are stupid. What a brilliant argument.

Thanks.

Exiledinborders wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

People that believe in a "meritocracy" are too stupid to understand the bigger picture.

People who disagree with you are stupid. What a brilliant argument.

+1

I don't know who’s more stupid, the paranoid or us for thinking we can discuss rugby with them?  

Scrumpy wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

People that believe in a "meritocracy" are too stupid to understand the bigger picture.

People who disagree with you are stupid. What a brilliant argument.

+1

I don't know who’s more stupid, the paranoid or us for thinking we can discuss rugby with them?  

The reasons why the PRLs proposals are a load of nonsense have been explained over and over again ad nausium on about ten or so different theads. The fact that some people still dont get it isnt really my concern.

The fact that the RFU and the FFR dont support their own clubs tells you all you need to know about the proposals.

GunsGerms wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

People that believe in a "meritocracy" are too stupid to understand the bigger picture.

People who disagree with you are stupid. What a brilliant argument.

+1

I don't know who’s more stupid, the paranoid or us for thinking we can discuss rugby with them?  

The reasons why the PRLs proposals are a load of nonsense have been explained over and over again ad nausium on about ten or so different theads. The fact that some people still dont get it isnt really my concern.

The fact that the RFU and the FFR dont support their own clubs tells you all you need to know about the proposals.

That’s good the RFU are a bunch of idiots when it comes to professional rugby (can't speak for the French), sure they do some good things at grass roots level but at the end of the day they are an outdated organisation that is and will forever be stuck in the amateur era.

Exiledinborders wrote:

Notch wrote:In an ideal world, yes. If they set up a breakaway competition it should be treated as a rugby league like schism.

In the real world, I can't see it happening.

If they set up a breakaway competition after giving due notice under ERC rules it should be treated as rugby league like schism a legitimate decision.

Alright, apologies, let me clarify that because I wasn't clear the first time. If they set up a breakaway competition without the blessing of the RFU, FFR and IRB it should be treated as a rugby league style schism. Ultimately their attitude is we'll do what we like, and screw everyone else. But they still need the approval of the powers that be. If they cave in over this not long until the clubs are calling the shots over the Unions- in other words the tail will be wagging the dog.

It seems like the PRL/LNR have outmaneuvered everyone thus far and the longer it goes on the more drastic the measure needed to bring them to heel may need to be.

The Six Nations will thrive, Northern Hemisphere rugby will thrive, when there is a top-level European competition involving professional rugby teams from a diverse range of countries providing a stepping stone to international level and allowing clubs to have the best chance of keeping their homegrown players at home. Already the big money in France is threatening that, and this deal will compound the havoc those cheque books are wreaking on rugby union. Thats what all of the Unions and the IRB need to be working towards. It does not serve the game to let talent be vacuumed up into a handful of rich clubs.

What I can't understand is how the English fans aren't looking at the way football is in their country as a cautionary tale.

Cant understand it either to be honest. I guess a lot of people in England are blissfully unaware that international football has steadily deteriorated over the last 50 years.

Are Spain and Italy in the lucrative Champions League where they can afford to buy the best players? How are those countries doing lately? Maybe in football it has more to do with grassroots training rather than money.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Are Spain and Italy in the lucrative Champions League where they can afford to buy the best players? How are those countries doing lately? Maybe in football it has more to do with grassroots training rather than money.

The Champions League isn't open to JUST Spain and Italy.  

It's open to 50+ countries.

I'm no soccer aficionado, but maybe it's a good tournament due to the number of diverse countries that participate.

This Franglo nonsense will die on its backside.  It won't affect us in Wales.  It's the strong, successful Irish provinces that I feel sorry for if they're left out in the cold.

Money above rugby?  Nasty business.