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

First topic message reminder :

TJ wrote:What the PRL said.  They were saying how much the RCC was worth and how much each union would get from it.  That implies they had "sold" all the games.

They haven't specifically said how much it will be worth, just that there will be more money than the ERC have negotiated because of what they've managed to negotiate and what the French are expecting to get.  They won't know for certain what it is worth until the French have sold their rights.  The LNR ccertainly wouldn't be on board with the PLR if they had sold rights to their games, and there wouldn't be the money they are alluding to if they had.

Artful_Dodger wrote:Isn't it that the PRL's BT deal means that they cannot participate in a competition run by a company called the ERC.  Thus a name change would be a loop hole?

I wondered that too - that could be a loophole for everyone perhaps?

Artful_Dodger wrote:Isn't it that the PRL's BT deal means that they cannot participate in a competition run by a company called the ERC.  Thus a name change would be a loop hole?

No, the issue that the PRL have agreed that BT have exclusive rights to their games from any future European competition from 2014 onwards for 3 years. ERC sold the HEC and ACC exclusively to Sky for 4 years. The PRL cannot participate in HEC or ACC or any other ERC competition that has been sold exclusively to Sky.

Edit: I think

Seriously it doesn't work like that lads..

Anyone could get out of a contract and just change there name..

The company is a separate entity and the name is immatieal . Imagine a company like a person.

The person is still responsible even if it changes it's name by dipole

HammerofThunor wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:Isn't it that the PRL's BT deal means that they cannot participate in a competition run by a company called the ERC.  Thus a name change would be a loop hole?

No, the issue that the PRL have agreed that BT have exclusive rights to their games from any future European competition from 2014 onwards for 3 years. ERC sold the HEC and ACC exclusively to Sky for 4 years. The PRL cannot participate in HEC or ACC or any other ERC competition that has been sold exclusively to Sky.

You would think it would be possible to arrange something between all parties and both broadcasters though?

BT's deal says nothing about ERC. The problem is BT has the option for PRL TV rights for cross border comp,ERC sold exclusive rights to SKY(the fact that ERC didnt have the PRL rights to sell seems irrelevent to ERC)

HammerofThunor wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:Isn't it that the PRL's BT deal means that they cannot participate in a competition run by a company called the ERC.  Thus a name change would be a loop hole?

No, the issue that the PRL have agreed that BT have exclusive rights to their games from any future European competition from 2014 onwards for 3 years. ERC sold the HEC and ACC exclusively to Sky for 4 years. The PRL cannot participate in HEC or ACC or any other ERC competition that has been sold exclusively to Sky.

Well, PRLcan participate if BT agree to vary the terms, by deferring the start of their Euro contract for a year, perhaps.

mystiroakey wrote:Seriously it doesn't work like that lads..

Anyone could get out of a contract and just change there name..

The company is a separate entity and the name is immatieal . Imagine a company like a person.

The person is still responsible even if it changes it's name by dipole

I can see it wouldn't be that simple.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

TJ wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:So, optimistically, we can see HC + Amlin (20 + 20) next season with Sky, with some kind of governance changes. The season after, new competitions (20 + 20 + ?) with a new entity in control, with BT + others.

Nope - no goverence changes that is quite clear.  Goze adn McCaffrey may want it but its not going to happen - that was quite cler from the 5 union statement.  change the name of the ERC - no problem but the unions will remain in charge.

Well, that seems to be what LNR are offering - governance changes for next season are required (I refer to LNR's press release). If Camou doesn't accept, then it's back to square one (I remain unconvinced that Camou's 4 poodles have any relevance in the negotiations).

The |LNR have been told what the deal is and that is rejoin the HC - and they agreed.  all the talk about goverence changes after a year is attempted face saving by Goze and McCaffrey - its just hot air and bluster.  its quite clear the 5 unions will not accept goverence changes.  so thats that

stub wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:Isn't it that the PRL's BT deal means that they cannot participate in a competition run by a company called the ERC.  Thus a name change would be a loop hole?

No, the issue that the PRL have agreed that BT have exclusive rights to their games from any future European competition from 2014 onwards for 3 years. ERC sold the HEC and ACC exclusively to Sky for 4 years. The PRL cannot participate in HEC or ACC or any other ERC competition that has been sold exclusively to Sky.

You would think it would be possible to arrange something between all parties and both broadcasters though?

The release from the 5 unions said that Sky were still on board, which suggests to me that the previous contract doesn't cover the current proposed competition. So potentially we could have pro12 games on Sky and English games on BT. But can't see any other way of English involvement.

I am sure BT will offer the PRL a solution if thery were adamant on playing in the ERC.

It would probably try and broker a longer AP deal of the back of it or something like that, or/and have first refusal on a European deal if the separate leagues are eventually allowed to broker there own deals

From Sky:

England's clubs have edged back from the brink of exclusion from European competition next season following a dramatic day in a dispute destined to continue for another year.

Premiership Rugby has indicated it may be willing to participate in a tournament run by European Rugby Cup for 2014-15 if an acceptable alternative is in place for 2015-16.

The climbdown comes after the presidents of the French clubs, represented by Ligue Nationale de Rugby, agreed at a meeting at Orly Airport near Paris on Thursday afternoon to commit to the ERC-run format announced by the unions last week.

Beyond 2014-15, however, LNR is seeking the introduction of an alternative competition overseen by a new body that will maximise the commercial interests of its clubs.

Abandoning the breakaway Rugby Champions Cup and accepting the unions' offer for next season will be viewed as a betrayal by Premiership Rugby and LNR's insistence that English clubs are involved will offer little comfort.

PRL has stated repeatedly that it will not work under the authority of ERC, but on Thursday night chief executive Mark McCafferty indicated it was willing to

listen to the French proposal.

"If somebody can outline what that transition would entail, how the issues would be overcome and exactly what the new structure in 2015-16 would be, then we could look at it," McCafferty said.

"If we can see there is a new structure to replace ERC and we have the detail of that, then something might be feasible. At the moment it's all very general and difficult to comment on."

LNR president Paul Goze assured Premiership Rugby that "French clubs can get involved in competitions run by the ERC in 2014-15 on condition that it will be staged with clubs from England."

How much faith can be placed in their loyalty is open to debate, however, as the Top 14 teams, under pressure from their union, have already broken ranks in a volte-face that ensures the Rugby Champions Cup is defunct without a detail having been published.

And the clear absence of communication between Premiership Rugby and LNR - the former knew nothing of the latter's intentions - hardly points to a strong

relationship between the breakaway partners.

Further muddying the waters is Premiership Rugby's TV rights deal with BT Sport and although the terms of this concerning European competition are unknown, it is thought to preclude any involvement with ERC.

One of the most startling days in the saga began when LNR released a statement that puzzled even French speakers.

Clarification from LNR revealed its desire to implement a transitional season so that an alternative European competition could be organised for 2014-15.

"Given the amount of work that has to be done to set up the new format from the 2015-16 season the notion of a period of transition of one year is a valid one," said Goze, who referenced UEFA when discussing what type of body should replace ERC.

Last Thursday the Welsh, Scottish, Irish, French and Italian unions issued a joint statement declaring they stood "side by side" in driving a format

overseen by ERC.

Tellingly, the Rugby Football Union was absent from the meeting in Dublin as a

result of the refusal by the English clubs, who are represented by Premiership Rugby, to recognise ERC.

What format next season's European competition will take is unknown, but with LNR seeking more time to make plans, the saga could continue into 2015.

http://www1.skysports.com/news/12040/9047330/

oh Gawd are we all going to still be on here talking the same nonsense until 2015

HammerofThunor wrote:

stub wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:Isn't it that the PRL's BT deal means that they cannot participate in a competition run by a company called the ERC.  Thus a name change would be a loop hole?

No, the issue that the PRL have agreed that BT have exclusive rights to their games from any future European competition from 2014 onwards for 3 years. ERC sold the HEC and ACC exclusively to Sky for 4 years. The PRL cannot participate in HEC or ACC or any other ERC competition that has been sold exclusively to Sky.

You would think it would be possible to arrange something between all parties and both broadcasters though?

The release from the 5 unions said that Sky were still on board, which suggests to me that the previous contract doesn't cover the current proposed competition. So potentially we could have pro12 games on Sky and English games on BT. But can't see any other way of English involvement.

I agree - that might be the way it has to go - at least for a year.

So still not clear. Is Goze representing the vote when he says they won't play next season without the English or himself?

Is Mcafferty saying they'll consider playing in 2015 if the new body is set up or they'd consider playing in 2014?

NB: yes TJ I know the French are fully on board and no changes in governance will happen.

mystiroakey wrote:oh Gawd are we all going to still be on here talking the same nonsense until 2015

Sounds like it Mysti!  

TJ wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

TJ wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:So, optimistically, we can see HC + Amlin (20 + 20) next season with Sky, with some kind of governance changes. The season after, new competitions (20 + 20 + ?) with a new entity in control, with BT + others.

Nope - no goverence changes that is quite clear.  Goze adn McCaffrey may want it but its not going to happen - that was quite cler from the 5 union statement.  change the name of the ERC - no problem but the unions will remain in charge.

Well, that seems to be what LNR are offering - governance changes for next season are required (I refer to LNR's press release). If Camou doesn't accept, then it's back to square one (I remain unconvinced that Camou's 4 poodles have any relevance in the negotiations).

The |LNR have been told what the deal is and that is rejoin the HC - and they agreed.  all the talk about goverence changes after a year is attempted face saving by Goze and McCaffrey - its just hot air and bluster.  its quite clear the 5 unions will not accept goverence changes.  so thats that

What does the LNR press release say about governance changes?

What response have we seen from Camou?

What response have we seen from the 4 poodle Unions?

So nothing has changed much in 6 months... English clubs are tied up to a deal with BT so technically cannot play in an ERC competition. French clubs are also saying they will not play in a competition without the English clubs. Grand  

The only new thing is that the FFR allegedly promised is a change of governance to the LNR and the other thing they were asking for.
For sake of clarity, the ERC is a commercial entity while french clubs would like to have a sort of union of unions in place (bit like the uefa or shall we say an european IRB). That said they want the partipants (clubs and regions) to be in charge of the tv rights etc while the union would be at the board of such new organisation.

Short term the english clubs have now to find a way to terminate their contract with BT. Long term, who knows...

HammerofThunor wrote:So still not clear. Is Goze representing the vote when he says they won't play next season without the English or himself?

Is Mcafferty saying they'll consider playing in 2015 if the new body is set up or they'd consider playing in 2014?

NB: yes TJ I know the French are fully on board and no changes in governance will happen.

Don't know Hammer TBH. I'd LIKE to think it means that PRL with play next year so long as there is a further evolution the season after.

Hmmnn...SKY are weighing into the debate now  

Both the Sky and Belfast Telegraph articles have the following quote from the French:

"French clubs can get involved in competitions run by the ERC in 2014-15 on condition that it will be staged with clubs from England."

Unless that is an error in the years from both papers or in the original quote, doesn't that mean it's still not certain if the French are playing next year?


Interesting also that there were no representatives from Montpellier or Castres at the LNR meeting and that the Racing Metro president stormed out.  What does this mean for what sort of teams they might send into the competition?

Yes interesting that they're getting involved now Munchkin. I wonder if that means anything? Probably not much in reality!

Yes Tim.

Talk about lost in translation.. I don't know what they said or what they meant. But others are reporting it that there may be saying they will play one year with or without the English but not the next.

Bloody French. Why don't they just speak English...

It won't be just a name change. The clubs will want control of the financial side of things. Which in my opinion means the countries with the most TV's will come to control it. They're mentioning UEFA as a model. This has always been my concern. What's the golden rule? The one with the gold makes the rules.

Where are the teams from smaller nations in the business end of the Champions league? They're not there. Unless there's an oil baron funding them. Is this because they have a poorer footballing tradition? Or they constantly produce poor players? No. It's because the great players they rear and train are playing in countries with more TV's. Why? Because the game is fixed. The big nations consistently get massive financial awards for happening to be in a country with more TV's. Not for producing talent.

So the "big" teams in big countries stay big by always getting more money and using that to buy up all the best players in the world. And they use their power and influence to keep it that way. It's seems very clear to me that this is what PRL and LNR want. They are the bigger nations. They've openly said it now they want to be more like football. And that's how football works. They want Celtalian stars playing for their teams and Celtalian kids wearing their jerseys, and all the money that comes with it.

If meritocracy is what McCafferty wants, then why will he not recognise the erc despite his declared demands being met? He's been offered qualification changes and league based money. Isn't that what they wanted? Is it because the unions may have the greater good of the game in all countries as their central remit? And this gets in the way of his plans?

Yes, of course it is, don't by stupid.

I really hope this talk of UEFA and replacing the erc is just face saving from guys who know they've lost. I really do. But I'm not so sure. They'll keep pushing for my nightmare scenario until they either get it, or it's definitively made clear to them they can't. Then they can either suck it up or leave and play each other with mercenary players outside the irb.

I think we'll still be arguing about all this in a year though lads. Yay.

premiership rugby has indicated it may be willing to participate in a tournament run by ERC for 2014-15.For Mcafferty to make that statement it seems there maybe a get out clause in this very secretive BTcontract,i am forming the impression that there's going to be a huge climb down by PRL and we will see english sides continue in the HC.

stub wrote:Yes interesting that they're getting involved now Munchkin. I wonder if that means anything? Probably not much in reality!

SKY has a specific reason for making that statement. I think it has to mean something stronger than trivial, but I don't exactly know what. I don't doubt they have been working away in the background to all this, but with time running short now perhaps feel it's time to push things a little further publicly.
They didn't pull their punches with either PRL, or LNR, there. Maybe it's a clear message to all those involved? and the way that statement is worded suggests that they're letting them know that they are taking account of all that is said. Legal action?

You have to take into account that Goze is trying to spin this so he doesn't look like a poodle. The reality is Sky will have provisions in any contract that if the erc or some new creation tried to screw them out of   3 of 4 years you can guarantee they will take them to the cleaners. What we don't know is the BT deal. Only the PRL know. Was it for euro competition? Was it for the RCC (which is no more). All the noises suggested they couldn't go back to erc except today where McCafferty is (understandably) more conciliatory. 

I don't think the unions need to give up governance but if they can assuage some of the clubs issues and bring back to a pan-European competition then that benefits everyone. At least we might seethe possibility of everyone sitting down and talking again

Feckless I  agree that it can't be just a name change.that doesn't make any sense.

The rest well, as long as we stick to rigid quotas and all unions earn out of the ERC then it can still work and take the best from footballs model and the best from our union model

What Sky statement? Did I miss something?

Munchkin wrote:

stub wrote:Yes interesting that they're getting involved now Munchkin. I wonder if that means anything? Probably not much in reality!

SKY has a specific reason for making that statement. I think it has to mean something stronger than trivial, but I don't exactly know what. I don't doubt they have been working away in the background to all this, but with time running short now perhaps feel it's time to push things a little further publicly.
They didn't pull their punches with either PRL, or LNR, there. Maybe it's a clear message to all those involved? and the way that statement is worded suggests that they're letting them know that they are taking account of all that is said. Legal action?

No sky just want them back end of story so they want to add to the pressure of getting them back involved.

Feckless Rogue wrote:It won't be just a name change. The clubs will want control of the financial side of things. Which in my opinion means the countries with the most TV's will come to control it. They're mentioning UEFA as a model. This has always been my concern. What's the golden rule? The one with the gold makes the rules.

Where are the teams from smaller nations in the business end of the Champions league? They're not there. Unless there's an oil baron funding them. Is this because they have a poorer footballing tradition? Or they constantly produce poor players? No. It's because the great players they rear and train are playing in countries with more TV's. Why? Because the game is fixed. The big nations consistently get massive financial awards for happening to be in a country with more TV's. Not for producing talent.

So the "big" teams in big countries stay big by always getting more money and using that to buy up all the best players in the world. And they use their power and influence to keep it that way. It's seems very clear to me that this is what PRL and LNR want. They are the bigger nations. They've openly said it now they want to be more like football. And that's how football works. They want Celtalian stars playing for their teams and Celtalian kids wearing their jerseys, and all the money that comes with it.

If meritocracy is what McCafferty wants, then why will he not recognise the erc despite his declared demands being met? He's been offered qualification changes and league based money. Isn't that what they wanted? Is it because the unions may have the greater good of the game in all countries as their central remit? And this gets in the way of his plans?

Yes, of course it is, don't by stupid.

I really hope this talk of UEFA and replacing the erc is just face saving from guys who know they've lost. I really do. But I'm not so sure. They'll keep pushing for my nightmare scenario until they either get it, or it's definitively made clear to them they can't. Then they can either suck it up or leave and play each other with mercenary players outside the irb.

I think we'll still be arguing about all this in a year though lads. Yay.

So the smaller nations, like Georgia, Russia, Spain, Portugal, etc have flourished under ERC?

HammerofThunor wrote:What Sky statement? Did I miss something?

It's just reporting on sky sports rather than a statement from sky in regards to there involvement.

It's just general journalism

mystiroakey wrote:Feckless I  agree that it can't be just a name change.that doesn't make any sense.

The rest well, as long as we stick to rigid quotas and all unions earn out of the ERC then it can still work and take the best from footballs model and the best from our union model

Changing the name from ERC to whatever won't mean they escape legal obligations to any SKY contract. Any Court will take a rather dim view of such action so lacking in integrity.

The 5 unions made it clear governance was a red line. the unions must run the european cup. thats not negotiable. The statements from Goze and McCaffery must be seen in that light. they are not going to get any significant reverence changes. thats as certain as anything is in this mess. the PRL are now desparatly trying to save face - McCaffrey knows he is a busted flush with no credibility

Munchkin wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Feckless I  agree that it can't be just a name change.that doesn't make any sense.

The rest well, as long as we stick to rigid quotas and all unions earn out of the ERC then it can still work and take the best from footballs model and the best from our union model

Changing the name from ERC to whatever won't mean they escape legal obligations to any SKY contract. Any Court will take a rather dim view of such action so lacking in integrity.

I have already explained that you cannot escape your contracts and or obligations by changing your name. It's all about the company number not the name. Courts don't need to take a dim view. Any name change only doesn't make any difference within contract or infact any law.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Feckless Rogue wrote:It won't be just a name change. The clubs will want control of the financial side of things. Which in my opinion means the countries with the most TV's will come to control it. They're mentioning UEFA as a model. This has always been my concern. What's the golden rule? The one with the gold makes the rules.

Where are the teams from smaller nations in the business end of the Champions league? They're not there. Unless there's an oil baron funding them. Is this because they have a poorer footballing tradition? Or they constantly produce poor players? No. It's because the great players they rear and train are playing in countries with more TV's. Why? Because the game is fixed. The big nations consistently get massive financial awards for happening to be in a country with more TV's. Not for producing talent.

So the "big" teams in big countries stay big by always getting more money and using that to buy up all the best players in the world. And they use their power and influence to keep it that way. It's seems very clear to me that this is what PRL and LNR want. They are the bigger nations. They've openly said it now they want to be more like football. And that's how football works. They want Celtalian stars playing for their teams and Celtalian kids wearing their jerseys, and all the money that comes with it.

If meritocracy is what McCafferty wants, then why will he not recognise the erc despite his declared demands being met? He's been offered qualification changes and league based money. Isn't that what they wanted? Is it because the unions may have the greater good of the game in all countries as their central remit? And this gets in the way of his plans?

Yes, of course it is, don't by stupid.

I really hope this talk of UEFA and replacing the erc is just face saving from guys who know they've lost. I really do. But I'm not so sure. They'll keep pushing for my nightmare scenario until they either get it, or it's definitively made clear to them they can't. Then they can either suck it up or leave and play each other with mercenary players outside the irb.

I think we'll still be arguing about all this in a year though lads. Yay.

So the smaller nations, like Georgia, Russia, Spain, Portugal, etc have flourished under ERC?

Just like they have in football.  what was the champions cup now has multiple entrants from the big nations and the minnows have to qualify. Scottish league champiuons do not get an automatic place any more

HammerofThunor wrote:What Sky statement? Did I miss something?

http://www1.skysports.com/news/12040/9047330/

This is the article Hammer,

stub wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:What Sky statement? Did I miss something?

http://www1.skysports.com/news/12040/9047330/

This is the article Hammer,

I had seen that but I don't understand the significance.

TJ wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Feckless Rogue wrote:It won't be just a name change. The clubs will want control of the financial side of things. Which in my opinion means the countries with the most TV's will come to control it. They're mentioning UEFA as a model. This has always been my concern. What's the golden rule? The one with the gold makes the rules.

Where are the teams from smaller nations in the business end of the Champions league? They're not there. Unless there's an oil baron funding them. Is this because they have a poorer footballing tradition? Or they constantly produce poor players? No. It's because the great players they rear and train are playing in countries with more TV's. Why? Because the game is fixed. The big nations consistently get massive financial awards for happening to be in a country with more TV's. Not for producing talent.

So the "big" teams in big countries stay big by always getting more money and using that to buy up all the best players in the world. And they use their power and influence to keep it that way. It's seems very clear to me that this is what PRL and LNR want. They are the bigger nations. They've openly said it now they want to be more like football. And that's how football works. They want Celtalian stars playing for their teams and Celtalian kids wearing their jerseys, and all the money that comes with it.

If meritocracy is what McCafferty wants, then why will he not recognise the erc despite his declared demands being met? He's been offered qualification changes and league based money. Isn't that what they wanted? Is it because the unions may have the greater good of the game in all countries as their central remit? And this gets in the way of his plans?

Yes, of course it is, don't by stupid.

I really hope this talk of UEFA and replacing the erc is just face saving from guys who know they've lost. I really do. But I'm not so sure. They'll keep pushing for my nightmare scenario until they either get it, or it's definitively made clear to them they can't. Then they can either suck it up or leave and play each other with mercenary players outside the irb.

I think we'll still be arguing about all this in a year though lads. Yay.

So the smaller nations, like Georgia, Russia, Spain, Portugal, etc have flourished under ERC?

Just like they have in football.  what was the champions cup now has multiple entrants from the big nations and the minnows have to qualify.  Scottish league champiuons do not get an automatic place any more

Do you think these "minnows" would be happier with a chance to qualify, or just being ignored?

mystiroakey wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Feckless I  agree that it can't be just a name change.that doesn't make any sense.

The rest well, as long as we stick to rigid quotas and all unions earn out of the ERC then it can still work and take the best from footballs model and the best from our union model

Changing the name from ERC to whatever won't mean they escape legal obligations to any SKY contract. Any Court will take a rather dim view of such action so lacking in integrity.

I have already explained that you cannot escape your contracts and or obligations by changing your name. It's all about the company number not the name. Courts don't need to take a dim view. Any name change only doesn't make any difference within contract or infact any law.

I was actually agreeing with you for a change. Whether it's a change in name or legal entity to escape legal obligations to a legally binding contract the Courts will take a dim view. From reading Goze it can be speculated that he may hope for a change in legal entity.

Luckily these minnow nations can still see there top players play in other leagues as well as seeing there local teams given a change in the European cups. The Uefa cup is also a massive deal compared to the amlin

HammerofThunor wrote:

stub wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:What Sky statement? Did I miss something?

http://www1.skysports.com/news/12040/9047330/

This is the article Hammer,

I had seen that but I don't understand the significance.

I think it is because of the timing of the article release that we were speculating that Sky may have been applying some pressure. Pure speculation on our part I know.

Didn't the Belfast Telegraph have a very similar article? Perhaps they're the real force behind it.  

I think that's reading a bit much into it.

Munchkin wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Feckless I  agree that it can't be just a name change.that doesn't make any sense.

The rest well, as long as we stick to rigid quotas and all unions earn out of the ERC then it can still work and take the best from footballs model and the best from our union model

Changing the name from ERC to whatever won't mean they escape legal obligations to any SKY contract. Any Court will take a rather dim view of such action so lacking in integrity.

I have already explained that you cannot escape your contracts and or obligations by changing your name. It's all about the company number not the name. Courts don't need to take a dim view. Any name change only doesn't make any difference within contract or infact any law.

I was actually agreeing with you for a change. Whether it's a change in name or legal entity to escape legal obligations to a legally binding contract the Courts will take a dim view. From reading Goze it can be speculated that he may hope for a change in legal entity.

Well the point is I dont think this name or company change is anything to do with getting out of sky's obligations. I mean it may be but even a legal entity change - although perfectly legal can still get you sued in a civil court..

I think its more about what the future holds(past any specific deals on the table today), that eventually clubs can deal with there own deals and the Unions Union deals with the governance- like UEFA operates. basically excatly what the PRL wants.

And tbh i cannot see any problem with this at all. It will just bring more money to the table- the problem is with france not the PRL.

In football we all play by set quotas(yes immaterial ones) and we will be having a certain wage cap soon(again will probally prove pointless)

But the point is everyone plays under the same laws.

If we do get a uefa of rugby then these quotas and wage caps will have to be across the board. So tbh i have no idea what the LNR is asking for

mystiroakey wrote:Luckily these minnow nations can still see there top players play in other leagues as well as seeing there local teams given a change in the European cups. The Uefa cup is also a massive deal compared to the amlin

How lucky would you feel if England became a 'minnow nation' that couldn't participate in the top European competition?

Munchkin wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Luckily these minnow nations can still see there top players play in other leagues as well as seeing there local teams given a change in the European cups. The Uefa cup is also a massive deal compared to the amlin

How lucky would you feel if England became a 'minnow nation' that couldn't participate in the top European competition?

My team is crystal palace we have never been in europe

I support a minnow team dude

The whole point of real European or global competitions is that everyone can qualify. In rugby things tend to be closed shop. What are real European competition? Then all European teams should have a route to qualification. Otherwise it's just a competition between a small group of European teams.

HammerofThunor wrote:The whole point of real European or global competitions is that everyone can qualify. In rugby things tend to be closed shop. What are real European competition? Then all European teams should have a route to qualification. Otherwise it's just a competition between a small group of European teams.

yep totally agree.

I would be happy to only have a handful of AP teams if other European leagues got spots.

Obviously we do have an issue with quality at the moment- but once you let them in - they will surely get better

mystiroakey wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Feckless I  agree that it can't be just a name change.that doesn't make any sense.

The rest well, as long as we stick to rigid quotas and all unions earn out of the ERC then it can still work and take the best from footballs model and the best from our union model

Changing the name from ERC to whatever won't mean they escape legal obligations to any SKY contract. Any Court will take a rather dim view of such action so lacking in integrity.

I have already explained that you cannot escape your contracts and or obligations by changing your name. It's all about the company number not the name. Courts don't need to take a dim view. Any name change only doesn't make any difference within contract or infact any law.

I was actually agreeing with you for a change. Whether it's a change in name or legal entity to escape legal obligations to a legally binding contract the Courts will take a dim view. From reading Goze it can be speculated that he may hope for a change in legal entity.

Well the point is I dont think this name or company change is anything to do with getting out of sky's obligations. I mean it may be but even a legal entity change - although perfectly legal can still get you sued in a civil court..

I think its more about what the future holds(past any specific deals on the table today), that eventually clubs can deal with there own deals and the Unions Union deals with the governance- like UEFA operates. basically excatly what the PRL wants.

And tbh i cannot see any problem with this at all. It will just bring more money to the table- the problem is with france not the PRL.

In football we all play by set quotas(yes immaterial ones) and we will be having a certain wage cap soon(again will probally prove pointless)

But the point is everyone plays under the same laws.

If we do get a uefa of rugby then these quotas and wage caps will have to be across the board. So tbh i have no idea what the LNR is asking for

I'm fairly certain that PRL were demanding control of governance. What Goze mentioned, I think, is what the LNR were demanding.

When did they demand total governance?

I dont remember that.