Northern Hemishpere Rugby 2013
- Thread starter Bardon
- Start date
- Status
the plastic paddy
John Solomon (38)
Gwlad have gone mental so it must be good for Welsh rugby and our funny little pro 12 league which I happen to be very proud of in spite of all the ignorant abuse.
Bardon
Peter Fenwicke (45)
Warburton has been copping flak from all sides for signing his central contract.
First from disgruntled "fans" on social media:
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/25907690
Then from explayers about the dangerous precedent it sets.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/25906764
Seems a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't.
First from disgruntled "fans" on social media:
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/25907690
Then from explayers about the dangerous precedent it sets.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/25906764
Seems a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't.
the plastic paddy
John Solomon (38)
All sides, including The English and Welsh franchises have been invited to a meeting at Heathrow airport tomorrow. Fingers crossed the sensible elements in PRL seize the initiative from the wankers especially those connected to the hideous Saracens.
Bardon
Peter Fenwicke (45)
If I were at that meeting I'd table a motion to grant Sarries permission to apply for a spot in Super Rugby where they could play in the SA conference. It would give them what they ultimately want while allowing the rest of the NH clubs to go back to being sensible.
The only problem would be that the SH teams would never forgive us as Sarries would be demanding they all change to suit them at the very first meeting.
The only problem would be that the SH teams would never forgive us as Sarries would be demanding they all change to suit them at the very first meeting.
the plastic paddy
John Solomon (38)
Quite a few reliable sources saying the English and Welsh franchises are going to press the nuclear button after next weekend and set up a 16 team Anglo welsh league against the wishes of the WRU and by extension the IRB. Whether the bollockless twats at the RFU will play the game who can tell. It will probably be heading to court. Thank you very much PRL for potentially destroying the game as we know it, fucking langers!!
the plastic paddy
John Solomon (38)
I would add that this move is extremely serious for Southern Hemisphere nations. If these arseholes take hold of the game, there will be a switch to summer rugby quicker than you can say Nigel and the IRB will not be able to do anything about it. It is time to start chucking threats of boycotts of England's Hosting of the IRB RWC about to try and get the RFU to grow a pair.
Bardon
Peter Fenwicke (45)
When I read that WRU chief Roger Lewis was talking about how the Regions were open to having more centrally contracted players, without anyone from the Regions alongside him I thought this is going to bite you in the ass.
www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/26025904
and it has:
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/26043278
Roger Davies, the backer of the Ospreys, has denied this and has also said that the regions didn't receive a payment of £800,000 they were due from this seasons HEC. Apparently the decision to delay the payment was taken at a recent meeting but the WRU decided it would be a good idea to not give the regions a heads up.
This type of thing really is amateur hour. Even though I want the Unions to come out on top, for the good of the game, this kind of behaviour from the WRU is just childish. Get a fucking grip and either start actively negotiating with the regions is a meaningful way or grow a pair and set up your own teams.
It's further evidence that only part of the game of Rugby actually went professional in 1995. In the almost 20 years since then the unions and various administrators of our game have shown themselves to be distinctly stuck in the amateur era.
This times it's the WRU but you can point a finger at just about any "home"union for this.
There's the SRU who completely messed up professionalism and seem happy to watch the two regions and the national team limp from one disappointment to the next. They seem to be hoping for some miracle event that will make everything all right. They need to act now as it's just not sustainable to have only 2 professional teams, who play in front of near empty stadia. The same teams are bringing in more and more foreign players and somehow they expect these teams to produce a team of stars for the national team.
There's the RFU who are so scared of the clubs that their silence through this whole debacle has been deafening. If the English clubs get their way on this issue the RFU can look forward to a future of being as irrelevant as their soccer counterparts in the FA. At least the FA have a cup to keep them busy between internationals.
Our own IRFU aren't blameless either. They've gotten a lot right. Professionalism and central contracts have been largely good for us. Munster and Leinster have grown immensely and been very successful, Ulster are coming good after years of under-performing, even Connacht are emerging as a team in their own right rather than a dumping ground for guys who didn't make it at the other provinces.
We've even managed to produce some decent props and the sight of No. 17 or 18 trotting on for Ireland no longer fills us with dread.
Still there's so much more they could do. We're sitting pretty at the moment with fingers crossed that everything works out for the best. But the IRFU should be telling the WRU to sort themselves out and get talking to the regions. We should be sharing ideas with the other Pro12 unions so that all teams can benefit and create a better competition.
They should be working on broadening the support for the provinces. Munster is the best supported club team in the world and Leinster's support has had huge growth in recent years. But they need to start thinking globally. One thing that's clear from larger sports is that the teams who ultimately succeed are those who have a large global supporters network. In the not too distant future we'll see something similar to soccer where clubs will be scrambling to build their support in Asia. I say get in now ahead of the rush.
When I look at the various unions around the world messing things up I get the same feeling you get when you see someone doing something very badly and you just think "give it to me, I'll do a better job myself".
www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/26025904
and it has:
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/26043278
Roger Davies, the backer of the Ospreys, has denied this and has also said that the regions didn't receive a payment of £800,000 they were due from this seasons HEC. Apparently the decision to delay the payment was taken at a recent meeting but the WRU decided it would be a good idea to not give the regions a heads up.
This type of thing really is amateur hour. Even though I want the Unions to come out on top, for the good of the game, this kind of behaviour from the WRU is just childish. Get a fucking grip and either start actively negotiating with the regions is a meaningful way or grow a pair and set up your own teams.
It's further evidence that only part of the game of Rugby actually went professional in 1995. In the almost 20 years since then the unions and various administrators of our game have shown themselves to be distinctly stuck in the amateur era.
This times it's the WRU but you can point a finger at just about any "home"union for this.
There's the SRU who completely messed up professionalism and seem happy to watch the two regions and the national team limp from one disappointment to the next. They seem to be hoping for some miracle event that will make everything all right. They need to act now as it's just not sustainable to have only 2 professional teams, who play in front of near empty stadia. The same teams are bringing in more and more foreign players and somehow they expect these teams to produce a team of stars for the national team.
There's the RFU who are so scared of the clubs that their silence through this whole debacle has been deafening. If the English clubs get their way on this issue the RFU can look forward to a future of being as irrelevant as their soccer counterparts in the FA. At least the FA have a cup to keep them busy between internationals.
Our own IRFU aren't blameless either. They've gotten a lot right. Professionalism and central contracts have been largely good for us. Munster and Leinster have grown immensely and been very successful, Ulster are coming good after years of under-performing, even Connacht are emerging as a team in their own right rather than a dumping ground for guys who didn't make it at the other provinces.
We've even managed to produce some decent props and the sight of No. 17 or 18 trotting on for Ireland no longer fills us with dread.
Still there's so much more they could do. We're sitting pretty at the moment with fingers crossed that everything works out for the best. But the IRFU should be telling the WRU to sort themselves out and get talking to the regions. We should be sharing ideas with the other Pro12 unions so that all teams can benefit and create a better competition.
They should be working on broadening the support for the provinces. Munster is the best supported club team in the world and Leinster's support has had huge growth in recent years. But they need to start thinking globally. One thing that's clear from larger sports is that the teams who ultimately succeed are those who have a large global supporters network. In the not too distant future we'll see something similar to soccer where clubs will be scrambling to build their support in Asia. I say get in now ahead of the rush.
When I look at the various unions around the world messing things up I get the same feeling you get when you see someone doing something very badly and you just think "give it to me, I'll do a better job myself".
the plastic paddy
John Solomon (38)
As I said on the six nations thread, I thought i would post some proper legal stuff from Munsterfans.com
Rugby Law
Monday, December 2, 2013
HEC, PRL & Competition Law.
Who would have thought competition law would be of such interest to rugby players?
One of the features of the ongoing travails of European rugby has been intense reference to competition law (often under the title of "restraint of trade") by those involved in the discussions.
Various chairmen of the clubs in Premiership Rugby Limited (PRL), the company which runs the Aviva Premiership in England, have been waving the stick of competition law since the Fédération Francaise du Rugby (FFR), the IRB and various other unions have made it clear that the proposed breakaway tournament that PRL wish to set up, the originally-named Rugby Champions Cup, is viewed distinctly less favourably than the European Rugby Cup's (ERC) Heineken European Cup (HEC). The FFR has been reported all along as having turned its face against this newcomer, and the current position would seem to be that the French clubs have fallen into line (although in a dispute which feels as if it is approaching the length as well as complexity of the Thirty Years War, it remains to be seen how definite this is).
This positon led to club chairmen such as Nigel Wray of Saracens coming out with the comment "See you in Court, mate" to the IRB and unions he needed to persuade - which Metternich-like masterpiece of diplomacy suggests he may be somewhat confused about the operative word in the phrase "charm offensive".
There is an irony in this, of course. Sports is indeed subject to competition law (one can see a good background guide HERE); and PRL found that out when subjected to investigation by the Office of Fair Trading in the UK, and, more recently (with the RFU), when the rules about primacy of tenure in grounds as a qualification for promotion into the AP were challenged, successfully, by London Welsh via the RFU's own disciplinary systems.
The jurisprudence of the European Courts, referred to in that London Welsh decision, is clear that each incidence will be looked at on a case-by-case basis, with a recognition that, while they are subject to competition law, considerable margin of appreciation afforded to governing bodies like the unions who are looking at the benefit of the sport as a whole, as one can see in the MOTOE case about the organisation of Greek motorcycling. So, in Meca Medina, a case of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), where two athletes tried to have anti-doping rules struck down as affecting competition, the ECJ stressed that, while governing bodies are subject to competition law, purely sporting rules are not, and each case will be dealt with individually. So, it is hard to be definitive in advance about whether decisions where there is a mixed element of purely sporting organisation and the commercial side of sport will be anti-competitive, still less be so confident as to, in effect, dare the French state to back up its legislation whereby sporting bodies are bound by law by the decisions of their governing bodies.
The further irony is this: PRL has apparently contractually committed all its members to play in a new tournament which will be broadcast by BT, and to have no truck with an ERC-run competition (recently confirmed by Simon Cohen, CEO of the European and English giants, Leicester). It is an economic actor, in (by its own admission in the London Welsh decision) a dominant position in the English market - and it is restraining competition about which clubs can play what across Europe as a result of that committment. It is not a governing body, and attracts no margin of appreciation for its actions. And the recent reports from the Commission about the cartelisation of football are not what one might term sympathetic to the club side of the club-v-country arguments. Certainly, one doubts the Top14 would have relished attention being drawn to the acquisition habits of some of its clubs by being sucked into a case of this kind just as it is in the throes of negotiating a new broadcast deal of its own. This is all the more so when litigation of this kind (involving assessment of what the relevant market is, the nature and shape of the market, and all sorts of other detailed examinations and documentation such as keep the lever-arch-file and banker's box business so buoyant) is of a length and complexity as could swallow half a playing career to resolve.
Even more pointedly, the European Commission, when examining the sale of broadcasting rights in the UEFA Champions League decision, laid down basic ground rules for the sale of exclusive broadcasting rights by an organising body to a broadcaster. These would include an open tender process - and a duration of no more than three years. BT Sport's deal with PRL to broadcast the Aviva Premiership - the foundation stone of the whole dispute, and the bread-and-butter of PRL clubs - is for four years.
On which note, one looks at the announcement (in Spanish) of some €14.5m in fines for selling exclusive broadcast rights in Spanish for four, as opposed to three, years - HERE - as well as the recent Commission announcement into the basic concept of selling exclusive territorial broadcast rights (as dealt with in THIS excellent blogpost from Blackstone Chambers), looks at that aspect of the BT Sports deal, and at the very least check wonder as to the footing of those at one stage so eager to litigate.
And it is at this point one is reminded why lawyers so rarely use phrases like "see you in Court" outside of the pages of fiction, and instead spend so much of their careers trying to settle cases outside of Court instead. Before telling someone you'll see them in Court, it it is always best to be entirely sure there's no way they could be happy to see you there, too.
From UAFC
Rugby Law
Monday, December 2, 2013
HEC, PRL & Competition Law.
Who would have thought competition law would be of such interest to rugby players?
One of the features of the ongoing travails of European rugby has been intense reference to competition law (often under the title of "restraint of trade") by those involved in the discussions.
Various chairmen of the clubs in Premiership Rugby Limited (PRL), the company which runs the Aviva Premiership in England, have been waving the stick of competition law since the Fédération Francaise du Rugby (FFR), the IRB and various other unions have made it clear that the proposed breakaway tournament that PRL wish to set up, the originally-named Rugby Champions Cup, is viewed distinctly less favourably than the European Rugby Cup's (ERC) Heineken European Cup (HEC). The FFR has been reported all along as having turned its face against this newcomer, and the current position would seem to be that the French clubs have fallen into line (although in a dispute which feels as if it is approaching the length as well as complexity of the Thirty Years War, it remains to be seen how definite this is).
This positon led to club chairmen such as Nigel Wray of Saracens coming out with the comment "See you in Court, mate" to the IRB and unions he needed to persuade - which Metternich-like masterpiece of diplomacy suggests he may be somewhat confused about the operative word in the phrase "charm offensive".
There is an irony in this, of course. Sports is indeed subject to competition law (one can see a good background guide HERE); and PRL found that out when subjected to investigation by the Office of Fair Trading in the UK, and, more recently (with the RFU), when the rules about primacy of tenure in grounds as a qualification for promotion into the AP were challenged, successfully, by London Welsh via the RFU's own disciplinary systems.
The jurisprudence of the European Courts, referred to in that London Welsh decision, is clear that each incidence will be looked at on a case-by-case basis, with a recognition that, while they are subject to competition law, considerable margin of appreciation afforded to governing bodies like the unions who are looking at the benefit of the sport as a whole, as one can see in the MOTOE case about the organisation of Greek motorcycling. So, in Meca Medina, a case of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), where two athletes tried to have anti-doping rules struck down as affecting competition, the ECJ stressed that, while governing bodies are subject to competition law, purely sporting rules are not, and each case will be dealt with individually. So, it is hard to be definitive in advance about whether decisions where there is a mixed element of purely sporting organisation and the commercial side of sport will be anti-competitive, still less be so confident as to, in effect, dare the French state to back up its legislation whereby sporting bodies are bound by law by the decisions of their governing bodies.
The further irony is this: PRL has apparently contractually committed all its members to play in a new tournament which will be broadcast by BT, and to have no truck with an ERC-run competition (recently confirmed by Simon Cohen, CEO of the European and English giants, Leicester). It is an economic actor, in (by its own admission in the London Welsh decision) a dominant position in the English market - and it is restraining competition about which clubs can play what across Europe as a result of that committment. It is not a governing body, and attracts no margin of appreciation for its actions. And the recent reports from the Commission about the cartelisation of football are not what one might term sympathetic to the club side of the club-v-country arguments. Certainly, one doubts the Top14 would have relished attention being drawn to the acquisition habits of some of its clubs by being sucked into a case of this kind just as it is in the throes of negotiating a new broadcast deal of its own. This is all the more so when litigation of this kind (involving assessment of what the relevant market is, the nature and shape of the market, and all sorts of other detailed examinations and documentation such as keep the lever-arch-file and banker's box business so buoyant) is of a length and complexity as could swallow half a playing career to resolve.
Even more pointedly, the European Commission, when examining the sale of broadcasting rights in the UEFA Champions League decision, laid down basic ground rules for the sale of exclusive broadcasting rights by an organising body to a broadcaster. These would include an open tender process - and a duration of no more than three years. BT Sport's deal with PRL to broadcast the Aviva Premiership - the foundation stone of the whole dispute, and the bread-and-butter of PRL clubs - is for four years.
On which note, one looks at the announcement (in Spanish) of some €14.5m in fines for selling exclusive broadcast rights in Spanish for four, as opposed to three, years - HERE - as well as the recent Commission announcement into the basic concept of selling exclusive territorial broadcast rights (as dealt with in THIS excellent blogpost from Blackstone Chambers), looks at that aspect of the BT Sports deal, and at the very least check wonder as to the footing of those at one stage so eager to litigate.
And it is at this point one is reminded why lawyers so rarely use phrases like "see you in Court" outside of the pages of fiction, and instead spend so much of their careers trying to settle cases outside of Court instead. Before telling someone you'll see them in Court, it it is always best to be entirely sure there's no way they could be happy to see you there, too.
From UAFC
the plastic paddy
John Solomon (38)
This was originally posted by The Doc,
This gets complicated but there are a few factors;
1) The Directors in holding back the payments is not a sign of the ERC folding. But if there is any doubt about the company as an on-going concern they have to preserve assets or else face personal liability for reckless trading
2) The winding up of the company means creditors get preferential treatment followed by equity holders. In essence this means that any liabilities the company has have to be paid first (including for example tax, leases / rent agreements, suppliers, salaries etc). Only after that can excess assets be paid out. Which could mean a long wait for pay outs (I've seen a couple of years)
3) This could be delayed even further. If Sky were to come in and claim damages for breach of contract, then the extent of liabilities would only be known after that was settled.
4) If (hypothetically) Sky were awarded damages in excess of available assets - obviously there would be no pay out - there is an interesting scenario where Sky move from claiming from the company to looking at whether any of the Directors acted in bad faith and then looking to include those Directors in the proceedings personally. This could put Wheeler in a difficult position as he (from what is known publically) was on the board of ERC and at the same time acting in a way that harmed the ERC. He also was privy to the Sky negotitaitons while also privy to the PRL / BT talks. He would have to show the two were seperated and he was at all tiems acting in the best interest of the ERC to avoid personal exposure - that could be tough
5) More interestingly - as Wheeler was PRL's nominee he could also be named as a shadow director which would mean PRL would be exposed as being in effect a Director. This wouldn't remove Wheeler's personal exposure as the courts recognise a seperation between the individual and the body appointing the individual and both have to act properly.
6) If Sky were to go down this route, once they initiate court proceedings they would be entitled to full discovery on PRL files relating to the BT negotiations i.e. PRL would have to open up their files to Sky
I think PRL and RRW took a very risky and ill thought out strategy which they must have assumed would win early. PRL should, if they wanted to avoid the above mess, have resigned from the ERC as soon as the Board of ERC decided to sign the Sky deal - it would put them in a much sounder place right now.
It also leaves RRW in a nasty position - they are likely to see nothing for a long while and must cause them a lot of financial stress added to which is that any proposed Anglo / Welsh league will not be approved immediately (if at all) and therefore they will face even further reduction in income. They could end up broke before any of this even gets to court - in fact they have a risk of trying to continue to trade under UK law where the on-going ability to trade must be under doubt. I suspect - unless they get capital injections (not bank loans) - they will need to do the same thing as ERC i.e. preserve assets. UK law is similar to here and they would face personal liability of they trade recklessly. PRL not as bad but you got to think some of the clubs will face similar pressures.
The irony of this is that ERC actions were sparked by RRW announcing they wouldn't participate in the HEC next year - that caused the requirement to suspend - talk about ill-conceived
This gets complicated but there are a few factors;
1) The Directors in holding back the payments is not a sign of the ERC folding. But if there is any doubt about the company as an on-going concern they have to preserve assets or else face personal liability for reckless trading
2) The winding up of the company means creditors get preferential treatment followed by equity holders. In essence this means that any liabilities the company has have to be paid first (including for example tax, leases / rent agreements, suppliers, salaries etc). Only after that can excess assets be paid out. Which could mean a long wait for pay outs (I've seen a couple of years)
3) This could be delayed even further. If Sky were to come in and claim damages for breach of contract, then the extent of liabilities would only be known after that was settled.
4) If (hypothetically) Sky were awarded damages in excess of available assets - obviously there would be no pay out - there is an interesting scenario where Sky move from claiming from the company to looking at whether any of the Directors acted in bad faith and then looking to include those Directors in the proceedings personally. This could put Wheeler in a difficult position as he (from what is known publically) was on the board of ERC and at the same time acting in a way that harmed the ERC. He also was privy to the Sky negotitaitons while also privy to the PRL / BT talks. He would have to show the two were seperated and he was at all tiems acting in the best interest of the ERC to avoid personal exposure - that could be tough
5) More interestingly - as Wheeler was PRL's nominee he could also be named as a shadow director which would mean PRL would be exposed as being in effect a Director. This wouldn't remove Wheeler's personal exposure as the courts recognise a seperation between the individual and the body appointing the individual and both have to act properly.
6) If Sky were to go down this route, once they initiate court proceedings they would be entitled to full discovery on PRL files relating to the BT negotiations i.e. PRL would have to open up their files to Sky
I think PRL and RRW took a very risky and ill thought out strategy which they must have assumed would win early. PRL should, if they wanted to avoid the above mess, have resigned from the ERC as soon as the Board of ERC decided to sign the Sky deal - it would put them in a much sounder place right now.
It also leaves RRW in a nasty position - they are likely to see nothing for a long while and must cause them a lot of financial stress added to which is that any proposed Anglo / Welsh league will not be approved immediately (if at all) and therefore they will face even further reduction in income. They could end up broke before any of this even gets to court - in fact they have a risk of trying to continue to trade under UK law where the on-going ability to trade must be under doubt. I suspect - unless they get capital injections (not bank loans) - they will need to do the same thing as ERC i.e. preserve assets. UK law is similar to here and they would face personal liability of they trade recklessly. PRL not as bad but you got to think some of the clubs will face similar pressures.
The irony of this is that ERC actions were sparked by RRW announcing they wouldn't participate in the HEC next year - that caused the requirement to suspend - talk about ill-conceived
the plastic paddy
John Solomon (38)
Apost by Thomond 78 which clearly demonstrates that the WRU has put plenty of money into the Regions
So, last ten years.
£7.5m to the five regions on start-up in 2003-4 - http://www.wru.co.uk/downloads/WRU-AR-2003-04.pdf
£6.9m to the four remaining for player services in 2004-5 - http://www.wru.co.uk/downloads/WRU-AR-2004-05.pdf
£7m for the same in 2005-6 - http://www.wru.co.uk/downloads/WRU-AR-2005-06.pdf
£6.3m for them in 2007 - http://www.wru.co.uk/downloads/2007-...ual-Report.pdf (It's a lot less clear, in these. It's an allocation to the regions of £11m, but it's not clear does this include competition income transferred. Since the competition income was £4.7m, I've assumed that was in the £11m, and stripped it out).
£6.4m in 2008-9 - http://www.wru.co.uk/downloads/WRU-P...ual-Report.pdf
£6m/year for the five years of the PA 2009-14 - £30m. Actually, given it's steadily gone up , nearer £32, but let's take it as £30m. Note, btw, I am counting only the payments to the regions for player release and NOT the broadcast/competition funds transferred. I also have a limit of the number of accounts I'm willing to read.
They borrowed £1.5 million from the WRU. And defaulted. HERE. There was clawback, apparently, so we'll pass over that.
£2.5m to the Scarlets in 2006 - HERE.
Think we're north of £40m over 10 years there, what say?
So, last ten years.
£7.5m to the five regions on start-up in 2003-4 - http://www.wru.co.uk/downloads/WRU-AR-2003-04.pdf
£6.9m to the four remaining for player services in 2004-5 - http://www.wru.co.uk/downloads/WRU-AR-2004-05.pdf
£7m for the same in 2005-6 - http://www.wru.co.uk/downloads/WRU-AR-2005-06.pdf
£6.3m for them in 2007 - http://www.wru.co.uk/downloads/2007-...ual-Report.pdf (It's a lot less clear, in these. It's an allocation to the regions of £11m, but it's not clear does this include competition income transferred. Since the competition income was £4.7m, I've assumed that was in the £11m, and stripped it out).
£6.4m in 2008-9 - http://www.wru.co.uk/downloads/WRU-P...ual-Report.pdf
£6m/year for the five years of the PA 2009-14 - £30m. Actually, given it's steadily gone up , nearer £32, but let's take it as £30m. Note, btw, I am counting only the payments to the regions for player release and NOT the broadcast/competition funds transferred. I also have a limit of the number of accounts I'm willing to read.
They borrowed £1.5 million from the WRU. And defaulted. HERE. There was clawback, apparently, so we'll pass over that.
£2.5m to the Scarlets in 2006 - HERE.
Think we're north of £40m over 10 years there, what say?
GunnerDownUnder
Jim Clark (26)
Italians out of Pro12 from next year.
JSRF10
Dick Tooth (41)
If you translate Treviso's press release it actually just says that they will play in whatever comp the FIR want them to play in next year, no new news there. A few weeks ago they had apparently said they'd play in the Pro 12 whether the FIR supported them or not.
the plastic paddy
John Solomon (38)
Rumours are that it is stupidly down to 20 teams but the unions retain control with the PRL idiots having some commercial input, god help us given 2/3 of them are in the red. BT get England Autumn internationals and have ceded to Sky to run the Heineken cup. Have BT shafted PRL in favour of the RFU? Now that would be funny. Welsh regions are fucked by everybody, much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Not too bad for Ireland although the future of Connacht would have to have a question mark about it at this stage. Hope something can be worked out for the Westies. Pro 12 will be a better league with qualification all important. As long as the unions have kept control it is good for the game. Hope the Welsh can reach some sort of cease fire. Good for the SH because hopefully a wage war between The English league and the French has been averted. Fingers crossed.
Bardon
Peter Fenwicke (45)
It looks like in the next few months disaster will be averted and we'll have the Pro12 and the successor to the HEC all nailed down. But at what cost?
Will the WRU and the Regions bury the hatchet and finally start working together for the good of Welsh Rugby at all levels?
Will the other Pro12 teams ever really trust the Welsh Regions again?
Will the RFU find that after the RWC that it was a watershed moment and their power over the English game will be forever diminished?
Will the Scottish get rid of that loon Dobson (who still believes that winning the grand slam next year and following it up by winning the RWC are realistic targets) and realise that Scottish rugby is in serious trouble unless they act soon and decisively?
Will the French clubs be the cause of their own demise by causing less wealthy clubs to either go bust or be uncompetitive in the Top14?
Will the Italians let Zebre have more time than they gave the now defunct Aironi before declaring them a failure?
On a separate subject will Foley be the automatic replacement for Penney at Munster?
Will the WRU and the Regions bury the hatchet and finally start working together for the good of Welsh Rugby at all levels?
Will the other Pro12 teams ever really trust the Welsh Regions again?
Will the RFU find that after the RWC that it was a watershed moment and their power over the English game will be forever diminished?
Will the Scottish get rid of that loon Dobson (who still believes that winning the grand slam next year and following it up by winning the RWC are realistic targets) and realise that Scottish rugby is in serious trouble unless they act soon and decisively?
Will the French clubs be the cause of their own demise by causing less wealthy clubs to either go bust or be uncompetitive in the Top14?
Will the Italians let Zebre have more time than they gave the now defunct Aironi before declaring them a failure?
On a separate subject will Foley be the automatic replacement for Penney at Munster?
Bardon
Peter Fenwicke (45)
I don't mind the number of teams in the future HEC, or whatever it will be named, being reduced to 20. What I do object to is if, as laid out previously, the English and French leagues will have 7 qualifies each for at least the first few years.
There's a big drop off in the quality of English clubs outside the top 4/5, there's a similar drop off in the commitment to European competition from the French sides.
I think it would be much better to have 6 from each league then 1 spot each for the winners of the equivalent of the HEC and the Challenge Cup. The extra spot would go to the winners league if they'd already qualified.
There's a big drop off in the quality of English clubs outside the top 4/5, there's a similar drop off in the commitment to European competition from the French sides.
I think it would be much better to have 6 from each league then 1 spot each for the winners of the equivalent of the HEC and the Challenge Cup. The extra spot would go to the winners league if they'd already qualified.
JSRF10
Dick Tooth (41)
To be honest 6 English sides is 4 too much IMO, they have been poor for a long time and the competition and seem to place to much of the blame on everyone but themselves. If we were going to reduce numbers I'd have gone for 16, top 6 Rabo and top 5 in France and England with 1 place guaranteed per country for the first 3 seasons for the Rabo.
What I'm reading about this new ERC is that they'll base it in Switzerland, with the exact same board make up but the competition teams nominating their representatives to the commercial board ie exactly the same as the ERC. All because the English tried to get involved in a willy waving contest, they've actually hampered themselves if anything because the ERC mrk II boards will enable the unions to outvote them as before.
From an purely Irish perspective I think we won't see much change Munster, Leinster and Ulster will still be regularly challenging Toulon, Toulouse and Clermont and the English teams will be an after thought. In any future negotiations the IRFU need to get viewing figures per team, and the success of teams included in the funds distributed. We regularly top the viewing figures and we win a lot, if more goes into the Pro 12 pot then our partners can't complain.
What I'm reading about this new ERC is that they'll base it in Switzerland, with the exact same board make up but the competition teams nominating their representatives to the commercial board ie exactly the same as the ERC. All because the English tried to get involved in a willy waving contest, they've actually hampered themselves if anything because the ERC mrk II boards will enable the unions to outvote them as before.
From an purely Irish perspective I think we won't see much change Munster, Leinster and Ulster will still be regularly challenging Toulon, Toulouse and Clermont and the English teams will be an after thought. In any future negotiations the IRFU need to get viewing figures per team, and the success of teams included in the funds distributed. We regularly top the viewing figures and we win a lot, if more goes into the Pro 12 pot then our partners can't complain.
Highlander35
Andrew Slack (58)
Yay, Glasgow. We still get to compete. As long as we finish above gunners. Sorry gunner down under. 
Sent from my LG-P713 using Tapatalk
Sent from my LG-P713 using Tapatalk
GunnerDownUnder
Jim Clark (26)
Yay, Glasgow. We still get to compete. As long as we finish above gunners. Sorry gunner down under.
Sent from my LG-P713 using Tapatalk
You have to be a fairly shocking team to finish below us!
Hopefully Caledonia make a comeback and I can support my old team!
Highlander35
Andrew Slack (58)
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Or lack thereof.
- Status