One thing I don't understand..

According to scrum.com the IRB has to approve the new tournament the NLR and PRL is setting up.

The Celtic Unions and Italian rugby union said they will only join a tournament that is sanctioned by the IRB.

Essentially the big difference I see is the French and English wants to have a club run tournament, and the powers that be says it has to be union run.

What is the difference and why is it an issue?

Surely the difference is the irb aren't asking for a union run tournament but for the unions to be happy for a club run tournament to go ahead.

Its not just that - its also about the number of entrants, the division of money and the structure - that and we do not trust the PRL or LNR at all - they have shown themselves to be not worthy of trust by attempting to bounce the Rabo unions.

Basically it is down to control. The unions want to be in charge and they 'own' the pro12 clubs.

The French & English clubs are independant of their Unions and want to run their own affairs.

There's actually bugger all difference really between the 2 competitions. A few more of the pro12 teams will have to qualify for the cup competition or end up in the plate competition. And the revenue is divided by club... not by union.

Really its all about who gets to be Daddy.

And the money. You know tht the PRL will continue to want more and more

JUST a case ofplayers saying we want more money,fromTv,gates whatever.Taken to its logical conclusion.You will have a Test Arena of a 4Ns with the Celtic plus Italy.and England
and France playing themselves endlessly.Overseas Players may keep the clubs afloat but not the test sides.

Did we really need another new thread to discuss the same thing?

It will just end up the same way as the others!

Biltong wrote:According to scrum.com the IRB has to approve the new tournament the NLR and PRL is setting up.

The Celtic Unions and Italian rugby union said they will only join a tournament that is sanctioned by the IRB.

Essentially the big difference I see is the French and English wants to have a club run tournament, and the powers that be says it has to be union run.

What is the difference and why is it an issue?

I'd say the LNR and PRL want the FFR and RFU the give them the same control over the European competition as they do over the domestic competitions. They probably want the others to do the same but it would only really effect Wales as the others are owned by the unions.

There is a lot of hysteria and speculation about complete domination, etc. But we don't know exactly what is being asked. Sounds like they want a three way split between the 3 leagues. The Pro12 unions don't like this as it gives them less control and less money. A third of the votes and a third of the money instead of 8/18 votes and about 52% of the money.

But ultimately the unions would have to sanction any competition and the board will only really have commercial rights, etc that the PRL have now with he Premiership. Any major changes would require sanction by the union. That's assuming the PRL would be happy with the same control over Europe as they do over their domestic game. I find laughable they would ask (or expect) more say over Europe than they do over the league).

Merge it Biltong. Let's got one mega article. It would be a monster. Then instead of banning WUM you could force them to read the whole thing. That will keep them on the straight and narrow.

Yeah... Nathan is right. There is nothing new on here that has not been said a 1000 times on the other 1000 threads.

Suggest you mod yourself Bilt.

HammerofThunor wrote:Merge it Biltong. Let's got one mega article. It would be a monster. Then instead of banning WUM you could force them to read the whole thing. That will keep them on the straight and narrow.

Gives me a headache the very thought  

TJ wrote:And the money. You know tht the PRL will continue to want more and more

I think the LNR and the Unions all want more too to be fair.

TJ wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Merge it Biltong. Let's got one mega article. It would be a monster. Then instead of banning WUM you could force them to read the whole thing. That will keep them on the straight and narrow.

Gives me a headache the very thought   

You'll be first on the list  

 

  

Like Metal Tiger says really I think. PRL and LNR want clubs to be in control whilst the Unions want to be in ultimate control themselves across all 6 nations probably. So this creates a tension that is difficult to reconcile.

Bilrong has a valid question which he wants answered the trouble is people go O/T with their own agenders
The PRL/LNR wanted to negotiate about greviences they had but were told no while in the ERC,so gave notice & want to set up an organisation in which they have a greater say

Gents the merged thread has reached 1000 posts, hence it will be locked.

I opened this one to get my question in and then you can all carry on with your own agenda's.

Just remember to keep it clean.

broadlandboy wrote:Bilrong has a valid question which he wants answered the trouble is people go O/T with their own agenders
The PRL/LNR wanted to negotiate about greviences they had but were told no while in the ERC,so gave notice & want to set up an organisation in which they have a greater say

the PRL never once negotiated in good faith. Shown by the BT deal and the fact the PRL originally proposed 8/8/8 and only went to 6/6/6 to gain the support of the french

Broadlandboy understands its about power. the English dn the french control the ERC between them anyway with 10 of the 18 votes between them.

yes it is about power,the Unions have complete control of the ERC which, IMHO, the PRL/LNR do not think is fit for purpose. The ERC showed good faith in inviting everybody else to talks but the PLR hoping to seperate them from the LNR which back fired a bit

nathan wrote:Did we really need another new thread to discuss the same thing?

It will just end up the same way as the others!

If this one also ends up in mindless jibberjabber about psychopathic businessmen then I'm going to chainsaw my own head off.

TJ wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Bilrong has a valid question which he wants answered the trouble is people go O/T with their own agenders
The PRL/LNR wanted to negotiate about greviences they had but were told no while in the ERC,so gave notice & want to set up an organisation in which they have a greater say

the PRL never once negotiated in good faith. Shown by the BT deal and the fact the PRL originally proposed 8/8/8 and only went to 6/6/6 to gain the support of the french

Broadlandboy understands its about power. the English dn the french control the ERC between them anyway with 10 of the 18 votes between them.

Except clearly the English/French unions and clubs don't align on measures that the PRL or LNR might want. Or they'd have achieved them before now with a combined majority vote.

Casartelli wrote:

nathan wrote:Did we really need another new thread to discuss the same thing?

It will just end up the same way as the others!

If this one also ends up in mindless jibberjabber about psychopathic businessmen then I'm going to chainsaw my own head off.

Ha ha!

It doesn't have to be union run (although if the Celtic sides do get involved our unions will have a say) but it does have to be union sanctioned.

stub wrote:

Casartelli wrote:

nathan wrote:Did we really need another new thread to discuss the same thing?

It will just end up the same way as the others!

If this one also ends up in mindless jibberjabber about psychopathic businessmen then I'm going to chainsaw my own head off.

Ha ha!

You don't need to do that yourself- Bruce Craig can take care of any chainsawing that needs to be done.

Biltong wrote:According to scrum.com the IRB has to approve the new tournament the NLR and PRL is setting up.

The Celtic Unions and Italian rugby union said they will only join a tournament that is sanctioned by the IRB.

Essentially the big difference I see is the French and English wants to have a club run tournament, and the powers that be says it has to be union run.

What is the difference and why is it an issue?

Part of it stems from that the businessman in charge of the Top14 & Premiership have in recent years wanted to try different things to develop the competition, but the union controlled ERC have been unwilling.  They thought they were going to get more proactive leadership when Peter Wheeler was set to be voted the new ERC chairman, but the FFR took the votes off their clubs at the last moment and voted Lux back in. P1ss3d the French clubs off no end and made those wanting change feel a backward step had been taken

Here's a quote from McCafferty at the time, back in 2011:

"We have ambitious clubs and we'll look to see if we can create these things. Europe has got to continue to be ambitious and push the boundaries. Sometimes we get frustrated about the pace of progress. It has come a long way in a few years but I think it can go even further.

"One of the advantages of a recession is that people realise you have to do things differently to generate interest. We're inching towards a scenario where there might be more frequent competitive matches between northern and southern hemisphere clubs, not just friendlies."

The surprise re-election of Jean Pierre Lux as ERC chairman ahead of England's Peter Wheeler has irked the bigger clubs, with McCafferty calling for a third European competition to be introduced to expand the game beyond its traditional heartlands. "We feel there needs to be a stronger form of leadership and governance within ERC. We've got to try and embrace the emerging countries: Russia, Spain, Romania, Georgia etc. The Heineken Cup shouldn't just be limited to six countries."

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2011/nov/11/rugby-union-violent-breakaway-premiership

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Wheeler-hopes-alive/story-12081179-detail/story.html#axzz2g2QIfo3y

My question is: if the new euro comp and qualification makes the pro12 more competitive and the tier 2 euro more competitive, won't this have a detrimental affect on player welfare with international players already being run into the ground as it stands. Would it be an idea for ALL unions to sanction the new comp (which personally I think sounds good) but on the grounds that a nominated squad of say 30 are limited in the number of games they can play?
Or is that just crazy?

Don't all teams have some sort of deal with their unions limiting the amount of games their guys can play? All except the French as the FFR give the LNR nothing.

One thing that I don't understand, or more like 3 things - who ultimately controls the IRFU, WRU and SRU? Are the clubs, meaning grassroots, stakeholders in some way? Could a majority force a vote of no confidence or an EGM upon the blazers if they were unhappy with the direction in which they were leading their Union?

Biltong, simply put a club-run competition (like the one the PRL/LNR have drawn out) will create a super league cup of 26 Toulon's in England in France. And you know that isn't good for rugby. Any teams are welcome to beg to join this league and once entered are only allowed to take home a miniscule amount of the profit, most of it has to go to England and France because they're already rich and want to be richer. These teams will be on the look out for all of the top players in the UK, Ireland and South Africa too.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:One thing that I don't understand, or more like 3 things - who ultimately controls the IRFU, WRU and SRU? Are the clubs, meaning grassroots, stakeholders in some way? Could a majority force a vote of no confidence or an EGM upon the blazers if they were unhappy with the direction in which they were leading their Union?

In Wales yes, the Regions are stakeholders. In Ireland, no. The Provincial teams are goverened for the most part, by the IRFU. I guess they could be stakeholders to a certain extent though. I believe Scotland is a bit of both these, though I'm quite unsure TBH.

Grassroots in Wales is all WRU. They invest in and run the grass roots. Their scouts pick up players to play in U16 Regional acadamies, who then filter in to Wales U16.

Don't all the clubs in Wales vote for the big stuff as well?

Scotland the two teams are directly owned and controlled by the SRU

The question was who controls the SRU. Who are they answerable directly?

HammerofThunor wrote:The question was who controls the SRU. Who are they answerable directly?

the clubs I think - via delagates again I think. i am sure it will be explained on the SRU site but my understanding is clubs vote for representatives / delegates who then vote on the governance issues like election of officers etc. . the CEO is appointed by a committee of the delegate but then has a lot of authority and independence subject to recall I am not certain tho

I'm thinking of a comparison to the vaguely democratic nature of RFU. The individual members of, say, Chipping Sodbury RFC vote in a chairman/president/emperor. He then participates in a vote for the supremo of that clubs Constituent Body, usually a County e.g. Cornwall RFU. They then form the RFU Council and vote on important matters, such as which wine to have with their prawn sandwiches, but also who becomes The President, Chairman and the Board. Leicester have the same RFU voting rights as Chipping Sodbury.

I've probably got something wrong with that, and no doubt I'll be corrected, but those layers build up a lot of inertia - I was wondering if it was the same with other Unions.

TJ wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:The question was who controls the SRU. Who are they answerable directly?

 the clubs I think - via delagates again I think. i am sure it will be explained on the SRU site but my understanding is clubs vote for representatives / delegates who then vote on the governance issues like election of officers etc.  .  the CEO is appointed by a committee of the delegate but then has a lot of authority and independence subject to recall I am not certain tho

Sounds same/similar to have it is in Wales (everywhere?)

The Saint wrote:Biltong, simply put a club-run competition (like the one the PRL/LNR have drawn out) will create a super league cup of 26 Toulon's in England in France. And you know that isn't good for rugby. Any teams are welcome to beg to join this league and once entered are only allowed to take home a miniscule amount of the profit, most of it has to go to England and France because they're already rich and want to be richer. These teams will be on the look out for all of the top players in the UK, Ireland and South Africa too.

The slippery slope argument at its finest, might we worth copying this as an example

Chinese writing.

ChequeredJersey wrote:

The Saint wrote:Biltong, simply put a club-run competition (like the one the PRL/LNR have drawn out) will create a super league cup of 26 Toulon's in England in France. And you know that isn't good for rugby. Any teams are welcome to beg to join this league and once entered are only allowed to take home a miniscule amount of the profit, most of it has to go to England and France because they're already rich and want to be richer. These teams will be on the look out for all of the top players in the UK, Ireland and South Africa too.

The slippery slope argument at its finest, might we worth copying this as an example

Isn't that a straw man argument? If X happens Y would happen (where Y is made up and extreme). Argue Y is bad therefore X is bad. It's been happening from day 1.

Only in this case Y is the obvious corollary of X

Hammer - the only thing I guess we agree on is that its an awful mess and no one wins

Basically it boils down to the distribution of funds being based on Union and not league/clubs. Hence the Rabo nations get significantly more (3 million compared to 800k if you believe the Bath chairman). The PRL and the LNR have tried for years (since 2007 I believe) to force the ERC to maximise the revenue of the HEC and so increase their earnings. The Rabo Unions have voted en masse to stop any changes, preferring instead to offer preferential deals to long term money men Heineken and Sky.

This all came to a head when it looked like the agenda was about to change. An Englishman with strong club connections was on the verge of being appointed only for the FFR to stab the LNR in the back (they don't get along and the FFR seek to limit the power of their clubs) by taking control of the LNR votes and voting back in the incompetent French president the clubs had been so keen to remove.

This has led to the English and French clubs opting out if the ERC as they perceive themselves to be receiving a rather raw financial deal. The ERC are still trying to play hard ball despite the largest proportion of the sponsorship and tv revenue coming from England and France.

TJ wrote: its an awful mess and no one wins

I agree.

I guess where we disagree is that I believe everyone involved is equally to blame for the mess we are now in.

formerly known as Sam wrote:This all came to a head when it looked like the agenda was about to change. An Englishman with strong club connections was on the verge of being appointed only for the FFR to stab the LNR in the back (they don't get along and the FFR seek to limit the power of their clubs) by taking control of the LNR votes and voting back in the incompetent French president the clubs had been so keen to remove.

Welsh and English votes went to Wheeler.
Scottish and Irish to Lux

French were promised to Wheeler, and FIR had agreed to vote with FFR. At the last minute there was a switch of voting.


And we accuse FIFA of shenanigans


Sadly I cannot say what I think of Lux on a public, family friendly forum - but at least I cannot be sued for what I think

formerly known as Sam wrote:

This has led to the English and French clubs opting out if the ERC as they perceive themselves to be receiving a rather raw financial deal. The ERC are still trying to play hard ball despite the largest proportion of the sponsorship and tv revenue coming from England and France.

This is one of the bits of nonsense but at least you admit its "coming from France and England" not "Earned by the English and french clubs"

the product sold is the european cup. without the teams that make it a european cup ie the Rabo teams it has much less value.  You cannot say the French and English clubs should get most of the money as the french and english FANS provide most of it when what they are watching and paying for is a competition of teams from 6 nations.  the French and English get almost half the money, the other 4 unions get much less each.  Its divided on the participation in the bit that makes the money from the tv contract.  ie 6/6/10 teams in the HC.  So actually the unions involved do get fairly equal shares based on the number of teams they have in the money generating bit.  The real anomaly is Scotland gets more than Italy.  Every other union gets a share based on the participation.  Its not the Rabo unions fault the way the RFU divide the money and its illogical that the PRL complain its a smaller share each club for them when they divide it equally between the HC and the Amlin clubs to level the playing field when this is equivalent to the way the HC divides the money to level the playing field.  

Thy could equally well claim Leicester "subsiding" Sale.  But they won't do this as they need to keep the likes of Sale on board.

Or for that matter that Leinster are "subsidising" Sale - or Exeter. Leinster are one of the big draws in the HC along with 3 or 4 other teams

Metal Tiger wrote:Basically it is down to control. The unions want to be in charge and they 'own' the pro12 clubs.

The French & English clubs are independant of their Unions and want to run their own affairs.

Not so. Clearly they'd like to be, but ultimately their unions still have the final say. I'd be interested to know how informed the PRL kept the RFU during their negotiations with BT and their planning of the proposed new tournament.

I wonder at what point we can take a set of, say, 20 or so messages on one of these threads and just block copy and paste for 10 pages and then see if anyone actually notices

I pretty much agree lostinwales. Positions are fairly clear with what we know now. Until there are further developments there is nothing much new to say.

The only thing I would say is I do understand the PRL position better. I still think its wrong in substance and morally but I do understand how its been reached. Hopefully the pro PRL posters understand the position of the rest rather more now as well

TJ wrote:Or for that matter that Leinster are "subsidising" Sale - or Exeter.  Leinster are one of the big draws in the HC along with 3 or 4 other teams

Exe v Leinster wasn't a sell-out at Sandy Park last January - wasn't far off, but Exe v Bath a couple of weeks earlier was a full house.

Just thought I'd throw that in for perspective.