PRO12 has new Managing Director and he isn't Irish :D :yahoo:

First topic message reminder :

Welcome Martin Anayi, you are going to have your hands full.

Read more at http://www.pro12rugby.com/news/17587.php#kJPQdWr0F2UKZ8DF.99

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Ok how did the WRU screw the regions on tv money?

They were holding it back, paying it in dribs and drabs, using it to finance the stadium debt. They were just being @rsey as hell with it.

So the your saying there was no payment schedule agreed between the two?

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Ok how did the WRU screw the regions on tv money?

They were holding it back, paying it in dribs and drabs, using it to finance the stadium debt. They were just being @rsey as hell with it.

So the your saying there was no payment schedule agreed between the two?

No, he is saying the WRU refused to release the agreed funds in order to force the regions to sign up to a RSA that offered them the same terms as in 2009. He is saying it quite clearly, in language only an idiot would misunderstand.

Stone Motif wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Ok how did the WRU screw the regions on tv money?

They were holding it back, paying it in dribs and drabs, using it to finance the stadium debt. They were just being @rsey as hell with it.

So the your saying there was no payment schedule agreed between the two?

No, he is saying the WRU refused to release the agreed funds in order to force the regions to sign up to a RSA that offered them the same terms as in 2009. He is saying it quite clearly, in language only an idiot would misunderstand.

No actually he isn't being quite clear with it and if you have to resort to name calling your argument can't hold too much weight can it and if it was so clear why did you have to clarify it?

Is this the ERC funds that the ERC withheld from all Unions? Is this the £165k that each of the Regions would have received from ERC, via WRU? The £165k to each Region that the WRU offered to loan each Region, interest free, until the ERC issue was resolved and the monies released.

marty2086 wrote:

Stone Motif wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Ok how did the WRU screw the regions on tv money?

They were holding it back, paying it in dribs and drabs, using it to finance the stadium debt. They were just being @rsey as hell with it.

So the your saying there was no payment schedule agreed between the two?

No, he is saying the WRU refused to release the agreed funds in order to force the regions to sign up to a RSA that offered them the same terms as in 2009. He is saying it quite clearly, in language only an idiot would misunderstand.

No actually he isn't being quite clear with it and if you have to resort to name calling your argument can't hold too much weight can it and if it was so clear why did you have to clarify it?

As I said only an idiot would misunderstand

Was it the ERC funds, Stone?

Stone Motif wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Stone Motif wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Ok how did the WRU screw the regions on tv money?

They were holding it back, paying it in dribs and drabs, using it to finance the stadium debt. They were just being @rsey as hell with it.

So the your saying there was no payment schedule agreed between the two?

No, he is saying the WRU refused to release the agreed funds in order to force the regions to sign up to a RSA that offered them the same terms as in 2009. He is saying it quite clearly, in language only an idiot would misunderstand.

No actually he isn't being quite clear with it and if you have to resort to name calling your argument can't hold too much weight can it and if it was so clear why did you have to clarify it?

As I said only an idiot would misunderstand

Ok listen up, I don't have any crayons or pictures to simplify this for you

At no point did I say I misunderstood, I asked if RRW had agreed to a payment schedule. Us grown ups who are used to dealing with contracts, agreements and business deals know that it is usually standard practise to have terms of payment or a schedule as to when payments will be received. Why did I ask this? Because if they had and WRU failed to adhere to the terms they would have been in breach of contract but as RRW did not claim any breach of contract then it means they did not see fit to have this included and in business that called a man sausage up.

On a side note I can't seem to find any report of WRU withholding payments only the ERC on the basis of legal advice due to the HC debacle, which the regions were a part of.

Also who stepped in to help out the regions? The WRU, those dastardly evil geniuses giving the regions money to make them fail

The only grievance RRW had with money was the deals they signed up to did not offer them enough which is always good business, signing a contract then complaining about it after you've signed it.

Munchkin wrote:Is this the ERC funds that the ERC withheld from all Unions? Is this the £165k that each of the Regions would have received from ERC, via WRU? The £165k to each Region that the WRU offered to loan each Region, interest free, until the ERC issue was resolved and the monies released.

It was ALL TV monies. Also, it is worth noting, that the £165k interest free loans were offered as there was NO European monies at the time as a competition did not exist.

Well the ERC competition monies are the only ones I'm aware of, and it's already been pointed out to LD that his claim wasn't based in fact. Pointed out by myself and, I think, Phil. If it's the ERC monies then the claim of WRU withholding funds is a nonsense. On the contrary, the WRU actually offered a bail out to the Regions!

marty2086 wrote:At no point did I say I misunderstood, I asked if RRW had agreed to a payment schedule. Us grown ups who are used to dealing with contracts, agreements and business deals know that it is usually standard practise to have terms of payment or a schedule as to when payments will be received. Why did I ask this? Because if they had and WRU failed to adhere to the terms they would have been in breach of contract but as RRW did not claim any breach of contract then it means they did not see fit to have this included and in business that called a man sausage up

There was/is an agreement, but the WRU were finding loopholes and were paying it as they saw fit.

marty2086 wrote:Also who stepped in to help out the regions? The WRU, those dastardly evil geniuses giving the regions money to make them fail

Again, acting clever thinking you know something, when actually you know feck all. Yes the WRU the knights in shining armour came along to help out. You do realise it was because of the WRU that the regions were in that position to start with, don't you ?

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Is this the ERC funds that the ERC withheld from all Unions? Is this the £165k that each of the Regions would have received from ERC, via WRU? The £165k to each Region that the WRU offered to loan each Region, interest free, until the ERC issue was resolved and the monies released.

It was ALL TV monies. Also, it is worth noting, that the £165k interest free loans were offered as there was NO European monies at the time as a competition did not exist.

Want to try again LD?

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/european-rugby-chiefs-again-withhold-6728024

Maybe a bit of fact checking before speaking with such certainty

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Is this the ERC funds that the ERC withheld from all Unions? Is this the £165k that each of the Regions would have received from ERC, via WRU? The £165k to each Region that the WRU offered to loan each Region, interest free, until the ERC issue was resolved and the monies released.

It was ALL TV monies. Also, it is worth noting, that the £165k interest free loans were offered as there was NO European monies at the time as a competition did not exist.

When did the WRU withhold TV revenue?

Yes, I know why the WRU loan was offered. I said as much. Still odd that the WRU, who according to some wanted to close the Regions down, bailed out the Regions with a loan.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:At no point did I say I misunderstood, I asked if RRW had agreed to a payment schedule. Us grown ups who are used to dealing with contracts, agreements and business deals know that it is usually standard practise to have terms of payment or a schedule as to when payments will be received. Why did I ask this? Because if they had and WRU failed to adhere to the terms they would have been in breach of contract but as RRW did not claim any breach of contract then it means they did not see fit to have this included and in business that called a man sausage up

There was/is an agreement, but the WRU were finding loopholes and were paying it as they saw fit.

marty2086 wrote:Also who stepped in to help out the regions? The WRU, those dastardly evil geniuses giving the regions money to make them fail

Again, acting clever thinking you know something, when actually you know feck all. Yes the WRU the knights in shining armour came along to help out. You do realise it was because of the WRU that the regions were in that position to start with, don't you ?

You mean because the regions jumped in with the English and French over the ERC/ERCC dispute?

If Im not mistaken are the regions not now making less from that deal?

And were you not claiming the WRU and Lewis were trying to shut the regions down? If so did he not go screw up his plan by stopping them failing?

Munchkin wrote:Well the ERC competition monies are the only ones I'm aware of, and it's already been pointed out to LD that his claim wasn't based in fact. Pointed out by myself and, I think, Phil. If it's the ERC monies then the claim of WRU withholding funds is a nonsense. On the contrary, the WRU actually offered a bail out to the Regions!

I think you will find that it is a fact that the WRU were holding money owed to the regions back.

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Well the ERC competition monies are the only ones I'm aware of, and it's already been pointed out to LD that his claim wasn't based in fact. Pointed out by myself and, I think, Phil. If it's the ERC monies then the claim of WRU withholding funds is a nonsense. On the contrary, the WRU actually offered a bail out to the Regions!

I think you will find that it is a fact that the WRU were holding money owed to the regions back.

Well you won't have a problem posting these facts then. Post them, LD. You must have them.

P.s the WRU were not withholding the ERC monies.

LD, where is the evidence that WRU were withholding broadcasting revenue? Is there any?

Munchkin, I lived through the war between the regions and the WRU, I know what I witnessed and what was said, but ALAS you seem to know more than me, so why don't you post your own facts.

This forum is getting more and more tedious by the day, people demanding evidence, demanding links, FFS why don't people get a life.

I am not debating this anymore, it's obvious that the Irish members on here have made their own version of events up, so I will let them run with it.

LordDowlais wrote:Munchkin, I lived through the war between the regions and the WRU, I know what I witnessed and what was said, but ALAS you seem to know more than me, so why don't you post your own facts.

This forum is getting more and more tedious by the day, people demanding evidence, demanding links, FFS why don't people get a life.

I am not debating this anymore, it's obvious that the Irish members on here have made their own version of events up, so I will let them run with it.

We all lived through it. It wasn't that long ago....

I do know more than you* That's evident in my knowledge of the facts, compared to your unsubstantiated accusations, based on nothing more than your imagination.

You make claims you can't support, LD.

* I should clarify. I'm sure you do know much more about Welsh rugby, in general. I do know what isn't true, based on the facts that I do know, and the facts that I do know suggest that your claims are false.

LordDowlais wrote:Munchkin, I lived through the war between the regions and the WRU, I know what I witnessed and what was said, but ALAS you seem to know more than me, so why don't you post your own facts.

This forum is getting more and more tedious by the day, people demanding evidence, demanding links, FFS why don't people get a life.

I am not debating this anymore, it's obvious that the Irish members on here have made their own version of events up, so I will let them run with it.

LD you claim one thing yet proof is presented of you being wrong yet you insist your right, your either a cowpat merchant or you have bought into the RRW story of a bogeyman.

Heres my overall conclusion, while there may be those in the WRU wanting to keep power away from the regions for the benefit of the organisation at the cost of Welsh rugby, those in charge of the regions are clearly making a mess of running them properly, agreeing to deals that don't meet their needs and then complaining its a playground approach to business

Just to clear things up, the WRU weren't withholding TV money they were withholding ERC money.

gcBlues wrote:Just to clear things up, the WRU weren't withholding TV money they were withholding ERC money.

No they weren't, the ERC withheld the money the WRU gave out loans to cover the withheld money

https://www.606v2.com/t60323-welcome-to-the-new-aviva-pro-12-season-your-help-needed

Munchkin wrote:

It isn't my rule. You don't know how debate works. The first rule in any debate is that those who make the positive claim provide the evidence (see under 'Burden of Proof'). By evidence I mean facts.

So what about actually addressing the points I made, and provide evidence of Ireland interfering with the Provinces teams selections, beyond that which is reasonable. You could try comparing Ireland/Provinces with Wales/Regions. Wales, the team that has four AI's

Why have you added 'beyond that which is reasonable'? Isn't it a polite rule of debate to actually follow the context rather than to make up a straw man to try to disprove the actual debate?

I didn't mention 'reasonable'. I just noted that they interfered which, according to the coach of one of their subsidiaries, they do.

Maybe you could actually keep to the context of the discussion in future.

Stone Motif wrote:

Er, yes you did.

Ouch. Pwned.

Munchkin wrote:

They played their part in that uncertainty, and more so in the uncertainty over the PRO12.

No, they didn't. The cessation of ERC was down to the French and English clubs, not RRW.

RRW are not signatories to the Celtic Accord.

The WRU tried to force RRW to sign an agreement for which their income would have been unknown. That would have been reckless, if not against their fiduciary duty.

You've got it wholly wrong. Man up to that fact.

Munchkin wrote:

They didn't need to be involved in the Euro negotiations. Comment removed* Why can't you understand that? They could, and they did, help influence the negotiations by their actions. They played their part in the uncertainty over the Euro (Siding with PRL. Threatening to walk out of PRO12, etc.). That is all I have claimed.

It's easy to see why a few of you are so caught up in nonsense conspiracy theories. You make it up as you drift along....

* I removed a comment as it was both unnecessary and false.

P.s the same 'prize ****' that offered the Regions a loan to help ensure they didn't fold? The WRU had their part to play in all this. I'm not denying that.

Wrong again: there was no uncertainty about Europe once the French and English gave notice. All that happened after that was the Irish blazers and Lewis dragging out a slow death as they were outplayed by the club owners.

Lewis had to offer a loan to ensure no action against the WRU.

You really don't have events in Wales as well understood as you think you do, sorry.

marty2086 wrote:

That's total, the same number as POC with 10 league games each and 6 in the ERCC its not hard to look these up yourself s you've asked others to do on here

Exactly: total. The context is league games.

Try again, Champ.

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
A said play more than a number of the front line players in Robshaw and Youngs case its a similar amount in some cases they play more than some Irish players and in some case less hence why I said similar

Can I have that in English? It doesn't make sense.

Was your point particular to Robshaw or not?

Its not that difficult to decipher

The original post was general the second was a bit more specific but you either know this and are trying to be difficult or are just thick

Without any nod to punctuation, your posts are nigh on impossible to accurately decipher. Please try to write properly.

Munchkin wrote:

Somewhere amongst my comments is one that states that I wasn't really wanting to get into the rights and wrongs of it. My point about them complaining was that they were as much a part of what they were complaining about as anyone else. Right or wrong.

There were times that I thought the same as you. That the WRU wanted to close down the Regions. If the WRU could have afforded to close down the Regions they probably would have, but I don't believe they could. Why would they give the loan to the Regions if they wanted them shut down? The WRU could also have been held liable, by PRO12, if they failed to enter teams in the PRO12. So as much as the Regions hand was being forced by time, so to the WRU.

In answer to your question, 'what would you have done?', I would fight tooth and nail for my business. Whether you agree with it or not, the Regions could have opted to continue on with the remaining 5 years of the PA. It's my opinion that they tried to take advantage of the fallout in Europe, and I strongly suspect that PRL were behind that. That is purely my opinion though.

In the end, the Regions didn't really get a good deal with the WRU, or with the new Euro competition.

They were not a part of what they were complaining about as - and this is the bit you don't get - they were unable to control any of it as they were not shareholders. Their Directorship of ERC was a gift from the WRU, one they gave up because of the obvious conflict of interest. They were not able, because of Lewis, to affect change so they were not 'part of it'.

If you'd actually viewed the Press Conference on You Tube then you would see that there was a real attempt by the Union (well, Lewis) to shut down RRW teams. He failed. Why did he give them the loan? Because of the ERC witholding of income.

As for teams entering the Pro12 - you've completely ignored the information in the thread about Lewis promising to go to tender on January 1st for Pro12 teams to play the following September. Why do you ignore the evidence that disproves your opinion?

RRW could NOT have opted to carry on the remaining 5 year term as the payment method included therein was not certain. It would have more than likely broken their fiduciary duty.

In the end, RRW got rid of Lewis, got rid of Pickering, got a nice sum off BT Sport to see them through Lewis' time and now we're about to enter a new time with a new CEO and, more than likely, a tweaked new agreement. It was the best deal possible.

Sin é wrote:

How are the regions in such a position that someone shut their business down?
Oh, thats right, they are failing as business ventures and they expect the WRU to bail them out!

Utter moronic drivel.

They WERE in such a position because they are not signatories (wisely) of the Celtic Accord, nor were they ERC shareholders.

Now they are EPRC shareholders so cannot be shut down.

That second sentence is pure drivel, fair play.

marty2086 wrote:
So are you saying the Regions are successful business ventures?

They've just survived a period where they financially underpinned the WRU, whilst the WRU tried to shut them down.

They could be worse. They could owe their Union millions and then renegotiate to pay it off over a significantly longer term. You know, like Munster. Or they could get the State to provide them with an upgraded stadium for free, like the team in Northern Ireland.

etc.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:So are you saying the Regions are successful business ventures?

I think they could be if they were allowed. The WRU in the past have kept sticking their noses into things, like stopping Ospreys playing a match against Samoa, and keeping all the TV money the regions earn to themselves and not paying a decent rate to take away players for team Wales.

Hopefully this has now changed.

Factually untrue.

marty2086 wrote:
The agreements between the two parties are negotiated not enforced and RRW are part of all agreements so agreeing to something then complaining about it is a moronic thing to do

Negotiation suggests an equal hand on both sides. That was not the case until EPCR happened.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
The agreements between the two parties are negotiated not enforced and RRW are part of all agreements so agreeing to something then complaining about it is a moronic thing to do

Negotiation suggests an equal hand on both sides. That was not the case until EPCR happened.

So RRW signed things with a gun to their head?

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

That's total, the same number as POC with 10 league games each and 6 in the ERCC its not hard to look these up yourself s you've asked others to do on here

Exactly: total. The context is league games.

Try again, Champ.

I don't need to they both played 10 games in the league but keep trying to make out otherwise

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Marty, I cannot do this with you. you are counter arguing against something that actually happened. It is almost the same as you trying to tell me that yesterday never happened. Look, have a look online about the war between the regions and the WRU, that will tell you everything you need to know.

Ok how did the WRU screw the regions on tv money?

By giving away at least 30% of it.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Ok how did the WRU screw the regions on tv money?

They were holding it back, paying it in dribs and drabs, using it to finance the stadium debt. They were just being @rsey as hell with it.

No, they were not.

marty2086 wrote:

gcBlues wrote:Just to clear things up, the WRU weren't withholding TV money they were withholding ERC money.

No they weren't, the ERC withheld the money the WRU gave out loans to cover the withheld money

The WRU did not withhold the money as it was not theirs to withhold. They just past it through their accounts to bump up their turnover. It was never their money.

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
The agreements between the two parties are negotiated not enforced and RRW are part of all agreements so agreeing to something then complaining about it is a moronic thing to do

Negotiation suggests an equal hand on both sides. That was not the case until EPCR happened.

So RRW signed things with a gun to their head?

In 2009, yes. They were completely outplayed by Lewis. Thankfully, 5 years later, they turned the tables.

marty2086 wrote:

I don't need to they both played 10 games in the league but keep trying to make out otherwise

Who? POC and Robshaw, or POC and AWJ?

Oh, and I see my old friend Feehan has recently been spouting disingenuous and inaccurate nonsense about how the Top14 is financed.

What a clueless chap.

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

It isn't my rule. You don't know how debate works. The first rule in any debate is that those who make the positive claim provide the evidence (see under 'Burden of Proof'). By evidence I mean facts.

So what about actually addressing the points I made, and provide evidence of Ireland interfering with the Provinces teams selections, beyond that which is reasonable. You could try comparing Ireland/Provinces with Wales/Regions. Wales, the team that has four AI's

Why have you added 'beyond that which is reasonable'? Isn't it a polite rule of debate to actually follow the context rather than to make up a straw man to try to disprove the actual debate?

I didn't mention 'reasonable'. I just noted that they interfered which, according to the coach of one of their subsidiaries, they do.

Maybe you could actually keep to the context of the discussion in future.

If you had read my replies, you would know the context of my use of 'reasonable'. I did say that 'all Unions interfere with selection'. So yes, it would be polite to continue the discussion within context. There is no strawman.

No you didn't mention reasonable. I did, and the reason I did was because I had already pointed out that all Unions interfere. Meaning that all Unions select club players for training and playing internationals. I did state this earlier.

Rather than me needing to keep within the context, maybe you should actually read my replies, or at least refresh your memory.....

PhilBB wrote:Oh, and I see my old friend Feehan has recently been spouting disingenuous and inaccurate nonsense about how the Top14 is financed.

What a clueless chap.

Really? So how is the Top14 financed then?

Munchkin wrote:

If you had read my replies, you would know the context of my use of 'reasonable'. I did say that 'all Unions interfere with selection'. So yes, it would be polite to continue the discussion within context. There is no strawman.

No you didn't mention reasonable. I did, and the reason I did was because I had already pointed out that all Unions interfere. Meaning that all Unions select club players for training and playing internationals. I did state this earlier.

Rather than me needing to keep within the context, maybe you should actually read my replies, or at least refresh your memory.....

Yes, I know how this worked. I wrote 'they interfere', you reply 'no they don't interfere unreasonably'. You see, your response doesn't negate my point. Your straw man was the 'reasonable' addition.

You've even contradicted yourself in that very post on that very point but the bit in bold is comedy, zero self awareness, Gold.

PhilBB wrote:

Stone Motif wrote:

Er, yes you did.

Ouch. Pwned.

Again, you have jumped in without thinking. Try and read that conversation before replying. Do a bit of homework, instead of trying cheap shots that backfire on you.

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:Oh, and I see my old friend Feehan has recently been spouting disingenuous and inaccurate nonsense about how the Top14 is financed.

What a clueless chap.

Really? So how is the Top14 financed then?

Each budget is presented up front and has to be met. The projected income is made up of all of the normal sporting business activities.

You can see it retrospectively, if you like, as the T14 publish the auditor's report (DNACG) on their website.

The notion that Mourad chucks millions per year at his team, or that Toulouse's near €30m budget is because of the wealth of an individual, or that Clermont have a sugar daddy individual, is pure ignorance.

Plus, of course, the T14 has an actual decent TV deal. Imagine that.

Munchkin wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Stone Motif wrote:

Er, yes you did.

Ouch. Pwned.

Again, you have jumped in without thinking. Try and read that conversation before replying. Do a bit of homework, instead of trying cheap shots that backfire on you.

Oh, irony. He pulled you up and proved it. Clearly. Everybody else can see it so this act of trying to convince yourself it doesn't exist does you no favours.

Just Man Up to it.

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

They played their part in that uncertainty, and more so in the uncertainty over the PRO12.

No, they didn't. The cessation of ERC was down to the French and English clubs, not RRW.

RRW are not signatories to the Celtic Accord.

The WRU tried to force RRW to sign an agreement for which their income would have been unknown. That would have been reckless, if not against their fiduciary duty.

You've got it wholly wrong. Man up to that fact.

Is your comprehension levels so low you can't grasp what has been plainly said?

Yes, they did add to the uncertainty. It was RRW that were threatening to walk out of PRO12. They didn't need to be signatories of PRO12, or ERC, to be in a position to add to that uncertainty. It is you that is creating strawman arguments. Try reading through a conversation before replying.

Munchkin wrote:
Yes, they did add to the uncertainty. It was RRW that were threatening to walk out of PRO12. They didn't need to be signatories of PRO12, or ERC, to be in a position to add to that uncertainty. It is you that is creating strawman arguments. Try reading through a conversation before replying.

Erm, the 'threat' to walk out of the Pro12 was simply to secure their future because of the actions of Lewis. That was secondary to the primary actions of Lewis.

You're confusing the symptom with the cause.

In fact, try understanding something about what was happening in Wales at the time. It was Lewis causing the uncertainty because of his refusal to renegotiate. That was the CAUSE.

Get your horse before your cart, mate.

Where's Chunky? On Holiday?