Heineken Cup talks "have now ended"

[ratsapprentice]

I don't understand how any of you can think that you know what the outcome will be, it's too highly convoluted at this stage.

 

[Amiga500]

So they block it and there is no European rugby...yeah right.

As an alternative to eventual collapse of the national game and the SANZAR unions? Of course they will. All day long.

Open your f**king eyes man and see what the cascade could be from the PRL/LNR getting autonomy.

Why would the FFR do that? What have the FFR to gain by making offers like that? If they really really wanted to save the HEC they would have made those offers a year ago.

Wake up. Please. Apply a wee bit of brain power to this before mindlessly repeating the crap you've been fed by PRL.

- McCafferty was in negotiation with BT before they gave notice to quit the HEC. You don't start and turn around negotiations over such significant matters in the space of a few weeks.
- McCafferty registered various items associated with their "rugby champions" competition long before declaring an end to ERC negotiations [trade names, domain names etc].

The HEC was "unsaveable" via non-nuclear options from the moment McCafferty and BT first hatched the plot for (a) PRL to get total autonomy from the RFU and (b) BT to put one over on Sky.


The reasons given for the dispute, distribution of monies & qualification, are just excuses to hide the real reason. Paul Goze alluded to this when saying there was no point going back to discussions as the (legally binding) BT and Sky contracts are mutually exclusive.

 

[Amiga500]

If the Top 14 clubs defy their National Union then ALL the players who are involved, from all nations in the the rebel competition can kiss goodbye to their international careers, and with in, any chance of playing in RWC2015.

They cannot defy their national union under French law.

They would first have to get French law changed, or defeat it via the courts, before they could act contrary to the law laid down by the union.


French law is different from English law or anywhere else (of relevance) in this regard.

 

[McTallshort]

Tune in to sanity FM

Do you honestly believe the French and English unions are going to force the players to switch clubs just to save the ERC?

What you are saying is such complete rubbish I can scarecly believe someone wrote it. So when the HEC starts up next year that all the England internationals at Tigers are just going to up sticks and move to where? Nottingham? On about 10% wages they currently on.

 

[Amiga500]

Explain why would a company C (the PRL) be bound by a contract signed by company A (Sky) and B (ERC).

Because PRL don't have access to any rights for international club competitions. The RFU retain them.

The RFU has a legally binding agreement with PRL that those rights will be retained by the RFU through to 2015 or 2016.

The RFU delegated its rights to ERC.


A previous RFU chairman stated this a few weeks ago.

 

[Amiga500]

Do you honestly believe the French and English unions are going to force the players to switch clubs just to save the ERC?

The French don't have to. Like I said (and you keep not getting), they are protected under French law in a way the RFU are not.


The RFU are now in somewhat of a pickle of their own making. However, given the PRL is not commercially strong enough to stand on its own (with most clubs losing money), they only have to play the long game. Commercial pressures will force the clubs back under it's umbrella sooner or later.

Whether that is soon enough for RWC2015 is a different matter.

What you are saying is such complete rubbish I can scarecly believe someone wrote it.

Please go educate yourself on some of these matters before posting.

It is becoming annoying dealing with the same thing repeatedly.

So when the HEC starts up next year that all the England internationals at Tigers are just going to up sticks and move to where? Nottingham? On about 10% wages they currently on.

The English teams were not in the HEC in 1995 or 1999. It survived then.

 

[profitius]

What's the hell "as a part of" means, answer: nothing. Explain why would a company C (the PRL) be bound by a contract signed by company A (Sky) and B (ERC).
ERC Ltd is a private company, its dealing and decisions are not binding for any other business entity but themselves. PRL and LNR have given official notice in June 2012, therefore the contract was properly signed in full knowledge of their non participation. It does not break any law, the HC may continue without PRL and LNR involvement, period.


You obviously know nothing about European law in general and articles 81 and 82 EC in particular, the FIA ruling awas very interersting indeed as it practically prohibits an association from being both a regulator and commercial exploiter of a sport.

The following rules represent a higher likelihood of problems concerning compliance with Articles 81 EC and/or 82 EC, although some of them could be justified under certain conditions under Article 81(3) EC:

• Rules protecting sports associations from competition;
• Rules excluding legal challenges of decisions by sports associations before national courts if the denial of access to ordinary courts facilitates anti-competitive agreements or conduct;
• Rules concerning nationality clauses for sport clubs/teams;
• Rules regulating the transfer of athletes between clubs (except transfer windows); and
• Rules regulating professions ancillary to sport (e.g., football players' agents)

At the end of the day the IRB cannot stop it from happening. What they can do and will do is say to everyone involved in it they're suspended from rugby union. So no world cup for you, you and you, find your own match officials etc etc. Also French law supports governing bodies probably to prevent sports being taken over like this. Many French stadiums are publically owned too etc.


Remember the clubs have all signed up to IRB regulations.

 

[Amiga500]

I don't understand how any of you can think that you know what the outcome will be, it's too highly convoluted at this stage.

I think we can all agree - the outcome probably won't be good.

 

[erwanseb]

Remember the clubs have all signed up to IRB regulations.

True enough but European law takes precedence over IRB regulations.

The IRB regulation 13 is in absolute full breach of the law.
"REGULATION 13
13.2 No Rugby Body, Club or Person or any combination thereof may negotiate or enter into or benefit from any contract for the grant of any Broadcasting Rights in respect of any Match or Matches except with the express written consent of the Union within whose territorial jurisdiction such Match is or Matches are to be played, such consent to be in the
absolute discretion of the Union"


National and/or international sports associations are normally the bodies that adopt sporting rules, which sport clubs/teams and athletes need to adhere to. Sporting rules adopted by national or international sports associations may constitute agreements or decisions by undertakings or associations of undertakings within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC. Such sporting rules, like any other decisions or agreements, are prohibited if they have as their object or effect the restriction or distortion of competition within the common market and affect trade between Member States

Article 82 EC prohibits any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the common market or in a substantial part of it in so far as it may affect trade between Member States. For the purposes of applying this provision, the relevant market must be determined. As mentioned earlier, sports associations usually have practical monopolies in a given sport and may thus normally be considered dominant in the market of the organisation of sport events under Article 82 EC. Even where a sporting association is not active on a given market, it may be considered to hold a dominant position if it operates on that market through its members (e.g., sport clubs/teams).

 

[smartcooky]

At the end of the day the IRB cannot stop it from happening. What they can do and will do is say to everyone involved in it they're suspended from rugby union. So no world cup for you, you and you, find your own match officials etc etc. Also French law supports governing bodies probably to prevent sports being taken over like this. Many French stadiums are publically owned too etc.


Remember the clubs have all signed up to IRB regulations.

This is absolutely key, and its what erwanseb and Tallshort just cannot seem to get their heads around. They can bleat all they like about European Laws, Bosman and Kolpak rulings and all the other irrelevant BS that has no bearing whatsoever on what is happening here

The FACT is that the Clubs are signed up, through a sort of "chain of command" via PRL, the RFU to iRB regulations. When PRL signs an agreement with the RFU (and they have) they are tacitly signing with the iRB (after all, what is the iRB if it is not a collective, of which the RFU is a part.

They MUST comply with those regulations, and if they breach them, there WILL be consequences.

Any day now, PRL will fold, because they are currently out in the cold, isolated and on their own.

French Top 14 clubs will not be participating in any Anglo-French competition; that concept is now a dead duck. Instead, they will remain with ERC and will participate in next season's Heineken Cup because the FFR (with the full weight of French Law) will tell them that it is what they WILL be doing.

 

[smartcooky]

True enough but European law takes precedence over IRB regulations.

The IRB regulation 13 is in absolute full breach of the law.
"REGULATION 13
13.2 No Rugby Body, Club or Person or any combination thereof may negotiate or enter into or benefit from any contract for the grant of any Broadcasting Rights in respect of any Match or Matches except with the express written consent of the Union within whose territorial jurisdiction such Match is or Matches are to be played, such consent to be in the
absolute discretion of the Union"


National and/or international sports associations are normally the bodies that adopt sporting rules, which sport clubs/teams and athletes need to adhere to. Sporting rules adopted by national or international sports associations may constitute agreements or decisions by undertakings or associations of undertakings within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC. Such sporting rules, like any other decisions or agreements, are prohibited if they have as their object or effect the restriction or distortion of competition within the common market and affect trade between Member States

Article 82 EC prohibits any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the common market or in a substantial part of it in so far as it may affect trade between Member States. For the purposes of applying this provision, the relevant market must be determined. As mentioned earlier, sports associations usually have practical monopolies in a given sport and may thus normally be considered dominant in the market of the organisation of sport events under Article 82 EC. Even where a sporting association is not active on a given market, it may be considered to hold a dominant position if it operates on that market through its members (e.g., sport clubs/teams).

European Law does NOT take precedence over iRB regulations, because the "i" in iRB stands for "International". The European Court can no more dictate iRB policy than they can dictate the the foreign policy of the US state Department.

Your Articles don't apply because the iRB are not trying to dominate the market with Regulation 13. They are not trying to make any money out of the ERC or the HEC. That Regulation is in place to prevent Rugby Bodies, Organisations and Persons from breaching the European Law in your quoted Article.

You have it the wrong way around... and you accuse ME of not understanding European Law!!.


BTW, if you still think The Hague can override iRB regulations, then how come they haven't taken the iRB to task over Regulation 8 as a restraint of trade?

 

[ratsapprentice]

European law does take precedence in Europe...

 

[McTallshort]

I don't understand how any of you can think that you know what the outcome will be, it's too highly convoluted at this stage.

You are right rats but its passing the time while I wait for my wifes contractions to get more regular

 

[Peat]

I don't understand how any of you can think that you know what the outcome will be, it's too highly convoluted at this stage.

This really, ain't a lot more to be said than this for the time being....

... except for the fact the cars are a long way from the cliff, and people tend not to go over cliffs. Then again, not sure this is really a cliff.

 

[Amiga500]

You are right rats but its passing the time while I wait for my wifes contractions to get more regular

Oh.

You might be talking through yer arse with regards the HEC, but congratulations and good luck with that!

 

[erwanseb]

European Law does NOT take precedence over iRB regulations, because the "i" in iRB stands for "International". The European Court can no more dictate iRB policy than they can dictate the the foreign policy of the US state Department.

Your Articles don't apply because the iRB are not trying to dominate the market with Regulation 13. They are not trying to make any money out of the ERC or the HEC. That Regulation is in place to prevent Rugby Bodies, Organisations and Persons from breaching the European Law in your quoted Article.

You have it the wrong way around... and you accuse ME of not understanding European Law!!.


BTW, if you still think The Hague can override iRB regulations, then how come they haven't taken the iRB to task over Regulation 8 as a restraint of trade?

I noticed to change your post and you do obviously know nothing about European law if you think IRB regulations take precedence.
I also notice that you are totally confused between the various European bodies as La hague has nothing to do in the process. It is the trade comission and the european court of justice (court of first instance) based in Luxembourg which are likely to get involved, neither the ICC based in La hague nor the European Court of Human Rights based in Strasbourg.

If the IRB tries to stop the new cup from happening, it is going to be a breach of the law.

The clubs must follow IRB regulations (rules, equity, doping control...) as long as these regulations are not meant to stop the event from happening in the first place

And BTW, a lot of unlawful behaviors keep going in multiple areas until somebody has the guts to challenge them, the fact that they have been unchallenged so far does not mean they are lawful (ex Bossman).

And yes the European Court can ask the IRB to withdraw their regulations extremely easily but the process is costly and time consuming, whether this story will go to court is anybody's guess.

 

[ratsapprentice]

http://www.espn.co.uk/heineken-cup-2013-14/rugby/story/199737.html

Looks like the CC will be going ahead then, considering that the IRB (via Gosper) have already said that they will, in all likelihood, support a competition that has the support of the Unions.

 

[Peat]

http://www.espn.co.uk/heineken-cup-2013-14/rugby/story/199737.html

Looks like the CC will be going ahead then, considering that the IRB (via Gosper) have already said that they will, in all likelihood, support a competition that has the support of the Unions.

Woulda thought this line was in direct contradiction of that...

"However, any new tournament requires IRB ratification while the teams playing in the competition also need to have permission from their relevant Unions. The French Rugby Federation has already said they will not support the new competition and the Scottish Rugby Union, Wales Rugby Union, Federazione Italiana Rugby and Irish Rugby Football Union have all said they will only allow their respective teams to take part in the competition if the IRB approve it."

 

[Amiga500]

http://www.espn.co.uk/heineken-cup-2013-14/rugby/story/199737.html

Looks like the CC will be going ahead then, considering that the IRB (via Gosper) have already said that they will, in all likelihood, support a competition that has the support of the Unions.

eh? Should have gone to specsavers rats!!! :lol:

"Scottish Rugby wishes to clarify that its clubs will not be participating in future tournaments which do not have the full approval of the International Rugby Board [IRB] or the relevant national Rugby Unions.

"Scottish Rugby and its clubs remain fully committed to the development of a pan European Rugby Competition and we welcome the recent comments made by the IRB Chairman, who confirmed that a pan European tournament remains the goal of the IRB. We are confident this can be achieved

"Scottish Rugby remains committed to working with our colleagues across Europe and encourages all parties to fully engage in meaningful negotiations. We hope that negotiations can be concluded quickly."

"The Welsh Rugby Union wishes to clarify that it will not sanction any of its clubs or Regions participating in future tournaments which do not have the full approval of the IRB and the WRU.

"The WRU wants an agreement to be achieved and reiterates its determination to negotiate a new format for the European Cup with all of the stakeholders. The WRU's focus is to work collaboratively with our colleagues across Europe, encouraging all parties to conclude our negotiations as quickly as possible."

Don't read what the stupid journalists are saying - read what the quotes say!

 

[Amiga500]

A thought on http://whiffofcordite.com/ just sparked me.

The unions would have absolutely no trouble making up for the money shortfall if the HEC does have to be parked up for a few years.

The solution - very simple - make the 6 nations home & away.

Good luck competing with that McCafferty.